A law office that I have worked with. I won't say which one. And yes. Influence from a surrounding country is very much a part of how this particular law is perceived. Cambodia is a civil law country, derived from French law. But how they interpret the meaning of the language has a very regional bias.daeum_tnaot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:56 amWhat is your source for this? I have never heard anything like this. Perhaps you are importing this concept from another country's law?monomial wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:22 amBe careful. Truth alone is not a defence as it is in the West. It not only has to be true, but there also has to be a compelling reason for telling someone. In the OP's case, even if what he said was true, he needs to be able to explain why it was in the common interest for the parents to be told that information about the school.General Mackevili wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:34 am The best defense against defamation is the truth. If you accused the school of lying, that might be a big issue. If you simply said 'I didn't steal shit,' that would be fine. They had also better have evidence that you did steal something, else they are in a bad situation as well if they are telling people you stole things.
As others have said, the cards are already stacked against you, being a foreigner.
So you need to be prepared to prove not only that what you said about the school was true, but also what harm would have befallen those you told if had you not spoken up. Protecting your own reputation is not a sufficient reason to say something. Defamation cases are the approved way to protect your reputation, and that is what the school is doing.
- Posts: 12430
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:17 pm
- Reputation: 3248
- Location: Atlantis
saw this quote in a book i am readingxandreu wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:50 pm
It would never be a good idea to write anything potentially defamatory on a public forum where you are easily identifiable, such as Facebook. CEO offers a limited amount of anonymity but even then I wouldn't be surprised if legal action was threatened against the website if they allowed a potentially defamatory post to remain on the site without deleting it.
"What the internet and its cult of anonymity do is provide a blanket sort of immunity for anybody who wants to say anything about anyone else, and it would be difficult in this sense to think of a more morally deformed exploitation of the concept of free speech"
Richard Bernstein in the new york times