Home » Blogs (Page 2)
Category Archives: Blogs
The internet works in a strange way. Each time your reply to an online comment, you are fuelling its popularity. This is because you are introducing new material on the same topic.
The search engines, and in particular Google give priority to ‘live’ issues which means that each time a comment is being added to a thread, it helps the thread to climb up the search engines’ ladder, which ironically is exactly the opposite of the result that you would want to achieve.
Furthermore, (and this is from my experience as a soldier) Read More On Internet Defamation Lawyer‘s blog
If at the moment the battlefield where you fight for your good reputation is based online and those on the other side, appear to have a reasonably good understanding of the battleground and of the basic tools and ammunitions which are required to cause you maximum damage, you might want to seriously consider moving the battlefield elsewhere where it will be harder for your reputational enemies to fight back.
The most knowledgeable legal experts in their field, the SAVVIEST internet marketing specialists, and some of the MOST INNOVATIVE detective minds the country has ever seen, have come together to fight for your reputation and to defend your INTEGRITY.
See how we can REMOVE FROM THE INTERNET approximately 80% of the false material which we attend to, without the need to resort to taking actual legal action.
By: Yair Cohen
Some internet posts are very old, perhaps they were first published on the internet 10-15 years ago. So why should you be bothered with the presence of historic postings on the internet, postings which you are told no one is likely to see anyway?
The answer is simple. Internet content is being recycled all the time.
People who run websites, the sole purpose of which is to display advertising, are very often too lazy to create their own original new content. So instead, they find old content on the internet and then use it to drive traffic to their own websites.
As their website becomes content rich, it attracts more traffic, which means that the historic postings about you or your business now start to be viewed by more and more web users and this in turn, increases the prominence of the negative historic posts.
SO WHAT if you could have your own full report which reveals all current and historic internet postings about you or about your company, going back up to 35 years and showing you everything which has ever been written in the past and everything that is currently published on the internet?
I know you would probably want one of these reports yourself because this information is like GOLD DUST and people in business can easily identify GOLD when they see it.
So we have developed the Under the Radar™ Reputation Report, to give you detailed research information on internet posts which are up to 35 years old! The Report is even divided into different geographic areas to allow you to see what results people find about you from different locations in the country!
Here is where you can discover more and order your own, personal Under the Radar™ Reputation Report.
There is a big difference between traditional defamation law solicitors and the modern online defamation lawyers. Defamation law and online defamation law are arguably two very distinct areas of law.
This is why, with all the best intentions, old fashioned defamation advice in relation to online defamation can sometimes backfire, in the sense that even if the case is won at court, the defamation still remains online and can even increase in volume.
Internet law and online defamation law are not subjects which are taught at law schools. They can only be mastered by constant usage and by plenty of practical experience.
Read More on Choosing An Online Defamation Solicitor
It is very difficult to describe the moment where you first realise that your business reputation is being tarnished all over the internet. This unforgettable moment normally follows by many sleepless nights, tiredness, frustration and of course money problems.
You see, some of your employees are likely to possess impressive amounts of knowledge about you, your business, your practices, your procedures, your errors, mistakes and regrets, as well as about your true feelings about things that matter to your customers.
You get hit left, right and centre and with very little opportunity to defend yourself.
In the meantime, the online defamation attacks are starting to increase. Links are being shared between people and more defamatory material is now being…. Read more on Online Defamation
How To Destroy A Reputation In 5 Minutes. Don’t Repeat At Home!!!
Everyone has got their own soft spot. Depending on your profession, being called by a particular name in public, could cause you a lot of damage and harm your career. For a doctor, being commonly described as ‘negligent’, for a solicitor, being described as ‘incompetent’, for a builder, being described as ‘a cowboy’ or for a teacher, being described as ‘stupid’, would be regarded by any of these people as a personal attack on their reputation and integrity.
But not all insults are as harmful as the insult suffered by a top civil servant who worked as a social worker for the Children’s Service at a District Council in the North of the country. Having specialised for many years in children with learning difficulties….Read more on Internet Defamation By Tagging
The Director, who was well vested in the technical side of the internet, decided to take revenge by posting negative comments and reviews about his former employer on various websites and forums. The comments explicitly suggested that the company was fraud and that it was simply taking its customers’ money and never intended to deliver any work. Shortly after this Director left the company, its UK operation had almost died out. The telephone stopped ringing and current customers started to leave the company with various excuses.
Read Full Story on Online Defamation
By: Yair Cohen
Giggsgate: privacy law is on the cards after legal fiasco
• In the media glare: Ryan Giggs with wife Stacey Cooke
Scottish experts have warned gagging orders are ineffective following the naming of Ryan Giggs and former banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the House of Commons.
Critics believe the UK government is to blame for not reacting quickly enough to the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law in October 2000. Prime Minister David Cameron has expressed concerns about privacy laws being developed in courts rather than in Parliament.
However, Dr Gillian Black, lecturer in law and privacy specialist at Edinburgh University, said successive governments had “ducked the issue” and must now introduce new laws as a matter of urgency.
“It is incumbent on Parliament to do so,” she said. “The media is very unhappy about the courts doing this (writing privacy laws], but they are only doing so because Parliament has ducked the issue.
“The article eight right to privacy (in the European Convention on Human Rights] has been here since October 2000, so Parliament has had long enough to go away and think about these things.”
However, she believes governments have long viewed more stringent privacy laws as a vote loser, with the press and public putting a high value on freedom of speech. Dr Black said: “They’ve not simply missed it. It’s a well accepted fact in the academic world of privacy that the government has not been willing to legislate because it’s not going to be popular.”
She said enshrining privacy laws in legislation would go some way to encouraging people to respect it.
“One concern is that the courts make this up as they go along,” she said. “What we need is a statutory right to privacy – a privacy bill.
“The government would not have to do much more than set down what judges have already done, but it would clear up what the media can and can’t do.
“The one thing they can address is the remedy. Super-injunctions are a failed remedy.”
Super-injunctions have become highly controversial as a court order that not only bans the media from publishing information, but also from revealing that the order even exists.
Former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin obtained one to try to hide details of an alleged affair with a colleague, although the order had to be altered after a peer revealed details in the House of Lords.
BBC journalist Andrew Marr also obtained a super-injunction to try to hide an affair with a colleague – he later abandoned it and admitted he was “embarrassed”. Since the UK became compliant with the ECHR, judges have had to balance the two competing rights within it of freedom of speech and privacy – such as when Mr Justice Eady ruled in favour of Manchester United footballer Giggs’ right to privacy – over Imogen Thomas’ desire to name him when speaking publicly about their alleged affair.
However, Frank Johnstone, convener of the privacy committee of the Law Society of Scotland, said it is not judges’ privacy laws that have been the problem, but the way they have tried to enforce them.
“I don’t take the view that the law on privacy has been broken,” he said. “The law was interpreted by a judge and he granted a remedy – the super-injunction. The remedy has proven to be ineffective, that does not mean the law was wrong.
“Rights are important but rather meaningless if you cannot translate it in effective remedy.”
He suggested tighter security might be imposed around the court proceedings, limiting the chance of the information getting out.
“What would be interesting to know is how did it get out in the first place, someone must have breached it initially, and it is that person that made it an ineffective remedy,” he added.
However, Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, warned free speech must be enshrined in any new legislation.
“My concern would be in cases where there’s genuine, or substantial, public interest that (freedom of speech) should not be over-ridden.
“Freedom of expression is very important. It’s not an automatic trump card over everything else, but neither should it be set aside.”
Yair Cohen, a leading internet lawyer, said people should be given stronger powers to challenge inaccurate or defamatory stories before publication, as an alternative to super-injunctions.
However, he also warned that celebrities who cheat on their wives, husbands or partners, may have to accept the blame for hurting them if their antics later appear in the press.
Mr Cohen said: “The families of, let’s say a footballer, who is guilty of indiscretions might have to bear the consequences of this change in the same way that families of criminals have to live with the consequences of an unlawful act by one of their members.
“And the family member who committed the indiscretion will have to take some responsibility for his actions, including the effect of his actions on members of his family.”
He added: “Any change in the law of privacy should cement this principle but should also give an opportunity to aggrieved parties to challenge any publication in advance in the event that the information which is about to be printed is incorrect or defamatory.”
Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy yesterday opened the first ever e-G8 forum in Paris. The event brings together leading figures from the technology industry to discuss the impact of the internet.
News Corp chief executive Rupert Murdoch and BBC director general Mark Thompson were due to speak at the event.