'So sue me' taunt to agents over 'defamatory' web articles

[bilateralrope]

Link

Peter Gregory
February 9, 2008

CONSUMER advocate Neil Jenman has called on two South Yarra real estate agents to sue him for defamation after they launched legal action to stop internet access to two of his articles.

Paul Castran, managing director of the firm Castran Gilbert, and the company's sales director Mark Forytarz say they have been defamed by allegations of improper or illegal behaviour.

The allegations are contained in two articles from Mr Jenman's website, which could be seen when the agents' names were entered on internet search engine Google.

A Supreme Court statement of claim lodged in December said they sought action by Google to remove access to the articles, but it was not done.

The claim said the first article depicted Mr Forytarz as an unscrupulous and unethical real estate agent.

It said the article suggested he bullied and badgered a severely brain damaged man into selling his house to earn commission — for himself and his agency — of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"(Mr) Forytarz has been gravely injured in his reputation and feelings, and has suffered distress, embarrassment and humiliation, and has thereby suffered and will continue to suffer loss and damage," the document said.

The claim said the second article suggested Mr Castran repeatedly, deliberately and knowingly flouted the law by employing others to act as dummy bidders, and was guilty of a crime.

It said he was also gravely injured in his reputation, and suffered damage through distress, embarrassment and humiliation.

Outside court yesterday, Mr Jenman said he was bemused that he was not sued. "Why wouldn't they attack the person who is making the comments about them?" he said.

"My (comment) is: 'Here's my chest. Come on, take a shot at me.' "

Yesterday in court, Justin Quill, for the two men, said they were respected real estate agents whose names, when "Googled", produced very offensive material from the stories.

He said the items were defamatory, without doubt.

Matthew Stirling, for the company, said Google Inc, not Google Australia, operated the search engine.

He said Google Australia did not have access to the data, and could not remove what was said to be the offending material.

Mr Stirling said the plaintiffs had indicated legal action might not be necessary if the articles were removed.

Justice Stephen Kaye adjourned the hearing to March 7. He also made orders adding Google's international arm to the court action.

Does anyone know why they would of tried to get Google to delist the website instead of going after either the author or the web host ?

[That NOS Guy]

Does anyone know why they would of tried to get Google to delist the website instead of going after either the author or the web host ?

Could it be the allegations are ture and they don't want it in the public record?

[Jawawithagun]

Sounds to me like they consider it easier and cheaper to take down the messenger than having someone looking closer into the affair.

[General Zod]

Sounds to me like they consider it easier and cheaper to take down the messenger than having someone looking closer into the affair.

Considering Google's net worth, they'd have to be utterly retarded to have thought that.