RCF Related? "Controversial Statements" Contribute to Clarkson's Official Firing
#16
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
To be clear:
What is a Defamatory Statement
A defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade. Statements that are merely offensive are not defamatory (e.g., a statement that Bill smells badly would not be sufficient (and would likely be an opinion anyway)). Courts generally examine the full context of a statement's publication when making this determination.
In rare cases, a plaintiff can be “libel-proof”, meaning he or she has a reputation so tarnished that it couldn’t be brought any lower, even by the publication of false statements of fact. In most jurisdictions, as a matter of law, a dead person has no legally-protected reputation and cannot be defamed.
Defamatory statements that disparage a company's goods or services are called trade libel. Trade libel protects property rights, not reputations. While you can't damage a company’s "reputation," you can damage the company by disparaging its goods or services.
Because a statement must be false to be defamatory, a statement of opinion cannot form the basis of a defamation claim because it cannot be proven true or false. For example, the statement that Bill is a short-tempered jerk, is clearly a statement of opinion because it cannot be proven to be true or false. Again, courts will look at the context of the statement as well as its substance to determine whether it is opinion or a factual assertion. Adding the words "in my opinion" generally will not be sufficient to transform a factual statement to a protected opinion. For example, there is no legal difference between the following two statements, both of which could be defamatory if false:
A defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade. Statements that are merely offensive are not defamatory (e.g., a statement that Bill smells badly would not be sufficient (and would likely be an opinion anyway)). Courts generally examine the full context of a statement's publication when making this determination.
In rare cases, a plaintiff can be “libel-proof”, meaning he or she has a reputation so tarnished that it couldn’t be brought any lower, even by the publication of false statements of fact. In most jurisdictions, as a matter of law, a dead person has no legally-protected reputation and cannot be defamed.
Defamatory statements that disparage a company's goods or services are called trade libel. Trade libel protects property rights, not reputations. While you can't damage a company’s "reputation," you can damage the company by disparaging its goods or services.
Because a statement must be false to be defamatory, a statement of opinion cannot form the basis of a defamation claim because it cannot be proven true or false. For example, the statement that Bill is a short-tempered jerk, is clearly a statement of opinion because it cannot be proven to be true or false. Again, courts will look at the context of the statement as well as its substance to determine whether it is opinion or a factual assertion. Adding the words "in my opinion" generally will not be sufficient to transform a factual statement to a protected opinion. For example, there is no legal difference between the following two statements, both of which could be defamatory if false:
"I'm sure", "I believe" & "I can't believe" are not grounds for an intellectual debate. That's the point you miss and causes so much dissention in these threads.
#17
Yes...I would not underestimate a response from Lexus--not because of a negative review on any car in particular, but because it was an intentional misrepresentation of product's capability--even given the lunacy of TG.
If I were heading up marketing at Lexus, I would have had my attorneys all over it--my perspective.
If I were heading up marketing at Lexus, I would have had my attorneys all over it--my perspective.
#19
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aventura, Florida
Posts: 2,148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#20
Driver
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry thats a ridiculous conspiracy theory of yours. As much as you hate the TG RCF review it by no means contributed to Jeremy's subsequent firing from the show. I really think you need to take your aluminum foil hat off. Jeremy did plenty of stupid stuff to get to this point and I will sorely miss the format of Top Gear, but hating the RCF is not one of those factors.
"Doooood Lexus' legal department must TOTALLY have a pending lawsuit, let me speculate completely unfounded with no information or proof that Lexus is troubled as I am about a fat useless British TV personality's opinion of the car I bought"
"Doooood Lexus' legal department must TOTALLY have a pending lawsuit, let me speculate completely unfounded with no information or proof that Lexus is troubled as I am about a fat useless British TV personality's opinion of the car I bought"
Last edited by DaveGS4; 03-26-15 at 10:08 AM. Reason: keep the personal commentary out of your posts
#21
Lexus Test Driver
That's what I said. I cannot believe this is a serious thread.
Last time I checked he gave his opinion on a vehicle. He was driving it and said what he felt. Agree or not, it is his OPINION of the car. You cannot sue everyone who doesn't like your product. Not to mention the fact that the car has been slammed by just about everyone for it's weight. So he wasn't that far out of line. Not to mention the fact that he still says the LFA is the best car he's ever driven.
Me thinks you might be wasting money trying to sue someone who loves one of your cars but doesn't like another. Good luck.
What matters is how YOU like the car. Not Jeremy Clarkson.
Last time I checked he gave his opinion on a vehicle. He was driving it and said what he felt. Agree or not, it is his OPINION of the car. You cannot sue everyone who doesn't like your product. Not to mention the fact that the car has been slammed by just about everyone for it's weight. So he wasn't that far out of line. Not to mention the fact that he still says the LFA is the best car he's ever driven.
Me thinks you might be wasting money trying to sue someone who loves one of your cars but doesn't like another. Good luck.
What matters is how YOU like the car. Not Jeremy Clarkson.
#22
I can't believe I just read this thread...there goes 5 minutes I'll never get back. Seriously man, do you just make posts because your bored?? Either that are you're a grand master at trolling....posts like this remind me of NASIOC Forums.
#23
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
His "review" is strewn with plenty of false statements about the RCF, and that is a matter of interpretation in a court of law. And yes, I do get involved with such things in my role. Do you?
This thread is not meant to be a deep dive into adjudication, the role of opinion, fact, etc.
I could care less what he thinks about the bloody car. He crossed the line...my point...in a lot of ways that culminated in his termination.
Defamation is the COMMUNICATION OF A FALSE STATEMENT that harms the reputation of an individual person, BUSINESS, PRODUCT, group, government, religion, or nation as well as other various kinds of defamation that retaliate against groundless criticism.
And, I want to maintain civility. So please do not attempt to tell me how to express myself.
After all, there are plenty of other threads in which you, and many of the others, can continue express YOUR opinions--which are apparently perfect and beyond reproach...really?
This thread is not meant to be a deep dive into adjudication, the role of opinion, fact, etc.
I could care less what he thinks about the bloody car. He crossed the line...my point...in a lot of ways that culminated in his termination.
Defamation is the COMMUNICATION OF A FALSE STATEMENT that harms the reputation of an individual person, BUSINESS, PRODUCT, group, government, religion, or nation as well as other various kinds of defamation that retaliate against groundless criticism.
And, I want to maintain civility. So please do not attempt to tell me how to express myself.
After all, there are plenty of other threads in which you, and many of the others, can continue express YOUR opinions--which are apparently perfect and beyond reproach...really?
I do try to have a conversation with you but you make it more than hard. As I've asked you previously, lets stick to facts. Do you know the definition of defamation?
To be clear:
Despite all reasonable responses to the contrary; I'm sure you're going to continue down this line of thinking. And will do so without referencing any point in the review that rises to the level of backing up your statement.
"I'm sure", "I believe" & "I can't believe" are not grounds for an intellectual debate. That's the point you miss and causes so much dissention in these threads.
To be clear:
Despite all reasonable responses to the contrary; I'm sure you're going to continue down this line of thinking. And will do so without referencing any point in the review that rises to the level of backing up your statement.
"I'm sure", "I believe" & "I can't believe" are not grounds for an intellectual debate. That's the point you miss and causes so much dissention in these threads.
#24
Forum Administrator
iTrader: (2)
I don't see this thread headed anywhere positive... Lets move on to other topics.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
05RollaXRS
LC Model (2018-present)
10
03-19-18 10:09 PM