Originally Posted by
gaybucks_chip
Lee,
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Truth is an affirmative defense to defamation, and defamation suits are nearly impossible to win, because the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant said something false AND that the defendant *knew* or should have known that the statement was false when it was stated, This action will ultimately fail on those tests, whether or not Naked Rhino is shaving, because John never made any statement to that effect, and what he did say was (presumably) a truthful statement.
Even if it turns out that there was a software error or something that caused the discrepancy, it's highly doubtful that John's statement would be actionable, because he (presumably) did not make the statement knowing that it was false.
If I publicly say "So-and-so is a child molester who has personally abused 10 kids" and I know or should have known that statement is false, then the statement is defamatory. If I say "I contacted the police because I've seen so-and-so with a dozen children and some of the behaviors I've seen concerned me that there might be child abuse going on", I've not said anything defamatory and the statement is not actionable.
John was extremely professional in the the way he handled the matter. He never said anything remotely actionable. He simply said that TMM found a discrepancy, that they'd tried to resolve it with NR, and that NR told him to "fuck off" and that they'd terminated the NATS license until the discrepancy could be resolved.
NATS makes clear in its terms of service that it will monitor sales and if it finds irregularities, it will terminate the license for use of NATS. If I were an affiliate, this would give me more confidence in the NATS program because I'd know there's an independent third party out there doing its best to keep the sponsor from shaving me, and I'm sure that's why John made the report.
If you look at this on the face of it, it's clear that it's a blatant publicity move on the part of NR. They really didn't have any other choice; they waited more than 5 days after John made his statement to respond at all, and that did far, far more damage to their credibility than anything John said.
The stupid thing is, EVEN IF THEY WERE GUILTY OF SHAVING, if they'd simply addressed the issue immediately, said "We've talked to NATS, discovered an error in the way our rebills were being reported, and have taken immediate steps to resolve this and will be properly compensating affiliates from now on", the damage would have been minimal. But they didn't. Even when they did post a response, 5 days after the fact, they had no answers to offer, only a vague statement that they'd "be looking into the situation."
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who was totally innocent would be burning the midnight oil to go through all the records, get statements from CCBill and NATS officials explaining what happened, and issue a joint statement -- and in a hell of a lot less than 5 days, even if they were responding from the remote regions of the African congo.
For that matter, anyone who was totally innocent probably wouldn't have blown John off in the first place, and NR's response didnt' deny that had happened.
I have no idea if NR shaved or not. But I don't think NATS post was inappropriate, and, from my vantage point, a $5 million defamation action where there's absolutely nothing actionable is nothing more than a desperate publicity stunt to try and salvage credibilty.
Bookmarks