A few more points from me; 1. HC is a private Aust company. We operate out of a 40sqm office in Perth. We are a free forum so our only source of revenue is via advertising on the site. Our legal fees at present defending ourselves and members is approx. $250k pa. We never roll over and hand over personal details of members unless forced to by a court order. This is contrary to another well known stock market forum in Aust. 2. Despite the legal expenses we still make a profit (albeit quite small) for our shareholders. If members were considering helping us finance our legal battles it would be cleaner if donations were sent directly to our lawyers trust fund. This way nobody can claim HC pinched their donation and the lawyers will keep track of every cent spent. HC uses Herbert Smith Freehills lawyers. 3. The defamation rules in Aust are based on laws written in the 1800's. As such, all publishers (of which HC is one) are just as liable for publishing a defamatory post as the person who posted it. This was probably fair 200 years ago when newspapers could check all content before it was sent to the printing press. With the advent of the Internet and live discussion forums like HC we are unable to check posts before being displayed to the public at large. HC gets approx 6000 posts a day and its impossible to read all of these before allowing them to be displayed. Furthermore, seconds count in the stock market, and delaying posts before somebody reads them would ruin the forum. And no there is no software which can determine if a post is defamatory. The defamaton rules have simply not kept up with technology. 4. Members need to know in Aust companies with more than 10 employees cannot sue for defamation. So long as you don't mention the directors personally you are quite safe from defamation litigation. The problem is most of the small caps on the ASX have less than 10 employees and thus can shoot down anybody who says anything which even smells defamatory. 5. HC is aware of over a dozen members currently being sued for defamation by various companies. The nurse from Queensland is not alone. 6. The majority of the supposedly defamatory posts are very "soft". If they ever got in front of a judge it is likely most would be dismissed. The problem is they never get that far because the members and HC are outgunned by these companies with unlimited access to their shareholders funds. If a slush fund was created to really fight these companies, and the HC members won, it may create a precedent in Aust which other judges will use to govern future frivolous claims. 7. Thank god for Michael West from SMH.
