2Clix has withdrawn from a legal case against the founder broadband discussion forum Whirlpool. But it is not necessarily all is well that ends well. The legal question still hangs over Australian public forums as to who takes the legal responsibility for publically posted comments. This grey area still exists in the Australian laws.

Ever since news of 2Clix's legal action against Whirlpool founder Simon Wright first broke, the general opinion has been that it was, at best, a massive miscalculation. 2Clix's suit, which sought to have two threads discussing the effectiveness of its products removed from the site, instead resulted in global publicity of those threads. Those threads still currently dominate the top five search results for '2Clix' on Google, hardly a good outcome if you're seeking to minimise bad publicity. 

Companies that engage in such legal action against negative discussions need to also think about the flip side of the coin. If they can demand that negative comments should be taken down, then what if all of the positive comments go with them.

Bookmark to:

A furore has erupted over the latest internet censorship attempt. I brought the issue to the attention of Adrian Lukas because she spends most of her time educating people about communication. This case was certainly not about letting people discuss things.

Software company 2Clix is suing Whirlpool forum founder, Simon Wright for allowing two threads on his forum that criticize their software. Now the situation would be laughable were it not that Whirlpool, sometimes affectionately referred to as "Whingepool" amongst those who visit and post to the site, is run on a non-profit, voluntary basis.

2Clix develops low-end business accounting software fulfilling similar roles to more widely known products such as Quickbooks and MYOB. They are seeking damages of $150,000 plus costs for "Injurous Falsehood" and a demand to remove two threads "2Clix or Not 2Clix?" and "Anyone used 2Clix?" from the Whirlpool forums website.

The company in its statement of claim that it has suffered "irreparable damage to its trade and business" from the existing two threads.

2Clix's case is that because the people criticizing and complaining about their software, can not be identified as certifiable users, and maybe malicious competitors, that Simon Wright should take the threads down. Now what 2Clix and their legal advisors have not taken into account, is that some of these people might be genuinely by aggrieved customers.

Their heavy handed legal tactic looks set to blow up in their face. This is not the intended outcome they were seeking. Word spread fast amongst online communities, with 2Clix taking on the role of villan. Many people are pledging to support Simon with financial assistance should the case go to court.

Legal experts have made comment on the case and suggest that 2Clix's case is very shaky, as evidenced in the article, "Will the Whirlpool case wash?".

A win for 2Clix would set disastrous precedent for publishers and online communities, with no online critcizims of anyone or anything being permissible. End of discussion.

Bookmark to: