name & shame - have I done wrong?

[redrosette]

Okay so I used a local hairdresser who was very rude and I'd never use again. I mentioned on facebook and twitter that I'd had a bad experience and that I'd PM the name to any of my friends who wanted it.

So I sent the name to several people via PM. It wasn't public at any time, however said hairdresser has now contacted me threatening legal action for slander!

I didn't put anything publicly, only through PM to who I thought were friends, so I thought that wouldn't be illegal, its called PRIVATE message for a reason, right? Plus, my comments & experiences were 100% genuine.

This woman threatens legal action to everyone I'm told, and sends lawyers letters to everyone but nothing further happens, she seems to like causing trouble, however I'd hate to have to fork out for lawyers letters back and forth.

Thoughts welcome.

LadyOfTheManor, that's simply not what the law says about libel.

It is not up to the person who has been libeled to prove that the allegation is false. The onus is on the person who committed the libel to either prove that a) it was true, or b) it was fair comment - ie, an opinion that is based on fact and not done out of malice, or c) they had privilege to make the comment (eg, an MP can't be sued for slander for what he/she says in the house).

In the OP's case it's likely that a "fair comment" defence would prevail but it does depend hugely on the circumstances and what was actually alleged.

Snorbs - does that mean that MPs can call each other anything they like in the House and get away with it?? I am !

Yep Snorbs that is wot I was taught a long time ago. Harming someone's business is a pretty serious matter, and on the web you are publishing to a third party.

But libel is hugely expensive so I doubt you have much to worry about.

If someone gives you a rubbish haircut of course you can tell your friends you're unhappy but recordable transmissions are tricky and it really depends what was said.

Fair comment is a defence in this case but the likelihood of it coming to court is so remote it's a moot point. Don't panic people!

IME people who threaten solicitors (and it's usually the same people time and time again) know they are on the back foot and they have no other resource because they are usually in the wrong. I wouldn't give it another thought - she's scared and is trying to make you feel the same.

Huh, is this thread saying that you can't even say that you had a crap hairdo by XX at XX hair salon without being sued?

Surely you are able to give comment, negative or positive without the threat of being sued.

BTW OP - YANBU - where the hell has freedom of speech gone?

There is a perfect defence to slander and that is the truth. If what you said was true, she was rude to you; you wouldn't go there again; you thought the service was poor etc, you can shout it from the rooftops and there's bugger all she can do.

I sat on the jury in a big libel case. The judge explained to us that it wasn't about whether the story in question was true or not, rather that it was whether it was presented 'in such a way as to make the reader think less of the subject of the story'. So I guess that whether the hairdresser has a case or not, depends on whether you set out to damage her reputation.

And to whoever asked about MPs, I was taught that there is something called 'Parliamentary Privilege', which means that MPs can pretty much say what they like about whom they like and get away with it as long as it is said in a debate in the House. I believe that this is how the John Hemming got away with naming the footballer in the super injunction row. parliamentary privilege

Libel only comes into action if the allegation is published to a third party.

stupidgreatgrinonmyface - is that so? Wow! I really thought truth was an absolute defence against libel. So does Wiki : "Justification (for defamation)

A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true. If the defence fails, a court may treat any material produced by the defence to substantiate it, and any ensuing media coverage, as factors aggravating the libel and increasing the damages. A statement quoting another person cannot be justified merely by proving that the other person had also made the statement: the substance of the allegation must be proved. The defence fails if the statement concerns spent convictions."

lashings - at that particular trial it would depend on what defence the respondent was relying on. If they had gone for a justification defence, the jury would have had to decide whether it had been proved they were telling the truth. But if they'd gone for a fair comment defence, they would have been asked to consider the sort of thing stupidgreatgrinonmyface had to consider.

Thanks longtall, that makes sense.

I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue (not that freedom of speech is any sort of enshrined right) more that the owner of this hairdressing salon has been unimpressed with an internet campaign aimed at losing her business.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't very good reasons to share, in conversation with your friends, the knowledge that you were unimpressed with a haircut and that's anecdotal evidence of the type you'd routinely discuss. To bung all this on the internet in a manner that does not offer any right of reply is a different matter altogether and, if you read TripAdvisor reviews, you'll see that the owners/proprietors of establishments that attract negative reviews now have the chance to rebut this type of comment.

The OP suggests that all this Twittering and Facebooking was done privately but it cannot have been that discreet if the hairdresser herself has discovered what's being said.

You have to be super careful about what you say if this might affect other people's businesses. I know that I've been asked to provide objective critique of photography services from time to time and once, very carefully, suggested that based on the portfolio work available to view I felt that the work I'd been asked to comment upon was not quite up to expected professional standards. I then received what I can only describe as a hysterical response from the photographer in question but I was able to stand my ground because of how careful I had been with my review.

In this case, it all comes across as a desire to cause trouble, pure and simple and if someone did that to me, I'd be less than forgiving too. So yes, I think YABU in thinking you can write what you like all over the internet and assume that the subject of your condemnation will simply accept your interpretation of events.