The Big Bear’s hate club certainly have a different perspective on defamation:
If they are so right, why are they bothered by Crocko who is so wrong – they would be indifferent or just laugh it off if there was nothing to it…
There is nothing to it. No matter how we react – and notice that we did ignore it for months until events yesterday rendered that impossible – there has never been anything to it. By this bizarrely twisted illogic, people only react to true accusations, against which stands the entire history of written and case law dealing with defamation, slander, and libel. Here is just one recent example disproving the hate club’s logic, in this case, from Australia.
Malicious comments on social media can have costly consequences. This was demonstrated in Cables v Winchester  VSC 392. Ms Cables, the owner of multiple McDonald’s franchises, sued Mr Winchester for a series of defamatory comments he posted on the “Everything Albury Wodonga” Facebook page (“the Facebook Page”).
The Court’s Findings
The court found that the posts were defamatory. The Court found that the defamatory posts were published to at least 9,477 people who followed the Facebook page. The Court also noted that as a publicly accessible page, other people who did not ‘follow’ the page or like the page may have seen the publications, and additionally the “grapevine” effect meant it was likely that the publications would have spread further still. The “grapevine” effect has been described as the realistic recognition by the law that, by the ordinary function of human nature, the dissemination of defamatory material is rarely confined to those to whom the matter is immediately published.
There was direct evidence of damage to Ms Cables’ mental health and wellbeing as well as her professional reputation within the Albury community. The publications even raised the attention of the McDonald’s Head Office in Sydney, who summoned Ms Cables to an urgent meeting. She was told that head office were investigating the allegations made in the publications and that if they were true, she would be required to sell her franchises.
Ms Cables was awarded damages of $200,000. The Court considered aggravated damages to be appropriate because Mr Winchester published the words solely to injure Ms Cables’ reputation, refused to apologise and did not participate in the trial. What’s more, Mr Winchester encouraged scores of comments which denigrated Ms Cables to be published.
Now, you might reasonably ask, what does Australia have to do with anything? Well, YouTube videos are broadcast there, along with nearly everywhere else, which means that the choice of venue is extremely broad. Unauthorized also has many Australian customers, as it happens. Notice, in particular, that last line about “encouraging scores of comments” and how it relates to ALL of the people who are involved in Unauthorized, which is most certainly not, contrary to the defamatory assertions of Mr. Crocko, a scam of any kind.
Every view and every comment on his videos is just that much more ammunition against the individual in question.