Sky Blues Trust Guardian link (21 Viewers)

[GaryPendrysEyes]

1. The Guardian article is still up, and has been shared, retweeted and linked 1000's of times, including on here and even in Les Reid's piece. It has been published to the world, and it doesn't matter if it's a link or content btw

2. Given that, Sisu can only effectively go after the primary source,The Gaurdian. In fact no one ever goes for secondary sources.

3. Clearly it was a threat via a lawyer to a targeted group, who, in my opinion, is viewed by Sisu as hostile and having influence. The aim was to stifle criticism and to clip their wings in the future

4. I would have hoped most, all would oppose threats of legal action by the club against fans, would support the provision of information to fans including the Guardian piece by a respected author, and would support freedom of speech.
Sadly some seem to have backed themselves into a pro-Sisu corner so much that they have lost any common sense or ethical boundaries.

 

---

[Nick]

2. Given that, Sisu can only effectively go after the primary source,The Gaurdian. In fact no one ever goes for secondary sources.

So nobody goes after people who tweet things?

I am not being pro sisu, but IF the article was inaccurate and the trust have copied and pasted it and sent it out they have republished it. It is the same as if I was to send an email out to all members on here stating incorrect facts. I would be picked up on it.....

Maybe some are so anti sisu they can't see what might have been done wrong. Was it a bit harsh? I think so.

 

[lordsummerisle]

So nobody goes after people who tweet things?

I am not being pro sisu, but IF the article was inaccurate and the trust have copied and pasted it and sent it out they have republished it. It is the same as if I was to send an email out to all members on here stating incorrect facts. I would be picked up on it.....

Maybe some are so anti sisu they can't see what might have been done wrong. Was it a bit harsh? I think so.

Have you ever had threats of legal action against you from anybody due to postings on here Nick?

 

[oldskyblue58]

What the Trust actually said about the JR can be found here

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/statement-sky-blue-trust-following-6355424

and what they said about the Golden share and CVA can be found here

http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/component/content/article/289-trust-press-release-01082013

and

http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...cle/290-sky-blue-trust-press-release-02082013

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

So nobody goes after people who tweet things?

I am not being pro sisu, but IF the article was inaccurate and the trust have copied and pasted it and sent it out they have republished it. It is the same as if I was to send an email out to all members on here stating incorrect facts. I would be picked up on it.....

Maybe some are so anti sisu they can't see what might have been done wrong. Was it a bit harsh? I think so.

Nobody goes after people who just retweet or quote a primary source. It may be legally possible but it doesn't happen, and ain't gonna happen when that primary source is a national newspaper.
The primary source is still up there and being shared, by led Reid today in fact. Do you think Les Reid or the telegraph will get a letter?
If the guardian felt it was inaccurate or at risk they would have removed, modified it or Sisu could have brought an injunction. The guardian take the risk, the rest most of who know nothing of Sisu's threat just share it for information.

 

[jesus-wept]

In my opinion it is just sisu/otium flexing their muscle and observing what people will or won't do about it. They are on about taking on the Guardian well lets see whether they do and where it gets them,who knows what is up the sleeves of either.

 

[Nick]

Have you ever had threats of legal action against you from anybody due to postings on here Nick?

I must admit, never as formal as a legal letter no....

 

[torchomatic]

Whether people like it or not. This is true. Both the Trust (though to a lesser degree) and the KCiC campaign were really unprofessional a lot of the time, so neither should be too surprised if SISU aren't exactly flexible with either organisation.

What are you talking about? I said the Trust in the past burnt bridges with the club and hopefully now things have changed at the Trust there can at least be some sort of communication rather than just sucking up to ACL / Haskell.

At the end of the day if the Trust have republished incorrect information then they are in the wrong, aren't they? The same as I / the user would be if it was copied and pasted on here by a user. I have said that the legal letter was over the top and more than likely a scare tactic rather than anything that would actually ever happen.

 

[torchomatic]

Not true. Lord McAlpine?

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/libel-chilling-retweeting.html

You can get sued for libel for pointing to libellous material elsewhere; or for repeating libellous material posted by others. That’s a problem when it comes to sharing and commenting on news stories.

Nobody goes after people who just retweet or quote a primary source. It may be legally possible but it doesn't happen, and ain't gonna happen when that primary source is a national newspaper.
The primary source is still up there and being shared, by led Reid today in fact. Do you think Les Reid or the telegraph will get a letter?
If the guardian felt it was inaccurate or at risk they would have removed, modified it or Sisu could have brought an injunction. The guardian take the risk, the rest most of who know nothing of Sisu's threat just share it for information.

 

[James Smith]

Not true. Lord McAlpine?

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/libel-chilling-retweeting.html

You can get sued for libel for pointing to libellous material elsewhere; or for repeating libellous material posted by others. That’s a problem when it comes to sharing and commenting on news stories.

Isn't a re-tweet a repeat of the original tweet not a link to it?

 

[Sky Blues]

Nick, regarding your post of 5 hours ago (I'm not going to repeat it) and regardless of whatever else you may have seen, the lawyer's letter specifically and singularly identifies the link as the issue, nothing else.

Fair play to the Coventry Telegraph for providing a link to the Guardian article - now we wait to see if they get a lawyer's letter...

 

[Matty_CCFC]

If I had recieved this letter I would have been worried, not a direct threat but the wording leaves no doubts, the avarage man on the street cannot fight these people.

 

[Nick]

If I had recieved this letter I would have been worried, not a direct threat but the wording leaves no doubts, the avarage man on the street cannot fight these people.

I agree, it has been done to leave that little niggle I guess.

 

[CaptainMorgan]

How strange that the hyperlink has now been taken out. Surely Les hasn't had a call from Tim?

 

[Sky Blues]

How strange that the hyperlink has now been taken out. Surely Les hasn't had a call from Tim?

Wow, that was quick. It was there 20 minutes ago!

 

[oldskyblue58]

Might have another effect Nick. It might mean less emotive statements from the Trust that deal with verifiable facts that challenge what is said. If that challenges all sides so be it I think it should. But it seems to me the only side giving interviews are Otium & Sisu, and that means they will logically be more likely to be challenged. That might mean an illusion of bias but if the CCC and ACL stay quiet that may not actually be accurate to conclude.

Off the cuff statements are a weakness. Only way the Trust can reasonably challenge and at same time improve its image is to be seen as dealing in the facts (proveable ones). Tit for tat arguments with any of the parties tends to cut off communication. That does not mean that the Trust has to agree with or indeed disagree with everything say the club or its owners does or indeed CCC or ACL. The problem will be if whoever is being challenged simply doesnt like it but offers no proveable facts to rebutt, then everyone should ask why would that be

 

[chickentikkamasala]

Wow, that was quick. It was there 20 minutes ago!

It now links to 200% not the Guardian article :thinking about:

 

[Nick]

Might have another effect Nick. It might mean less emotive statements from the Trust that deal with verifiable facts that challenge what is said. If that challenges all sides so be it I think it should. But it seems to me the only side giving interviews are Otium & Sisu, and that means they will logically be more likely to be challenged. That might mean an illusion of bias but if the CCC and ACL stay quiet that may not actually be accurate to conclude.

Off the cuff statements are a weakness. Only way the Trust can reasonably challenge and at same time improve its image is to be seen as dealing in the facts (proveable ones). Tit for tat arguments with any of the parties tends to cut off communication. That does not mean that the Trust has to agree with or indeed disagree with everything say the club or its owners does or indeed CCC or ACL. The problem will be if whoever is being challenged simply doesnt like it but offers no facts to rebutt, then everyone should ask why would that be

That's sort of what I meant but put better. It will make the trust think before doing things which sometimes might be a good thing, but on others it might be restrictive.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Might have another effect Nick. It might mean less emotive statements from the Trust that deal with verifiable facts that challenge what is said. If that challenges all sides so be it I think it should. But it seems to me the only side giving interviews are Otium & Sisu, and that means they will logically be more likely to be challenged. That might mean an illusion of bias but if the CCC and ACL stay quiet that may not actually be accurate to conclude.

Off the cuff statements are a weakness. Only way the Trust can reasonably challenge and at same time improve its image is to be seen as dealing in the facts (proveable ones). Tit for tat arguments with any of the parties tends to cut off communication. That does not mean that the Trust has to agree with or indeed disagree with everything say the club or its owners does or indeed CCC or ACL. The problem will be if whoever is being challenged simply doesnt like it but offers no facts to rebutt, then everyone should ask why would that be

Totally agree with you OSB.

Something I often bang on about on here, there is enough verifiable bad stuff that people can write and say about Sisu/Otium, over-egging it with made up statements or "facts" with dubious provenance dilutes the message.

If you don't give them the ammo, they can't shoot you.

 

[torchomatic]

Surely makes no difference you are "repeating" the original message.

Isn't a re-tweet a repeat of the original tweet not a link to it?

 

[Sky Blues]

Surely makes no difference you are "repeating" the original message.

As I understand it, the law around whether links constitute re-publication is not settled.

I haven't looked if there is precedent set in court regarding Twitter, but I would imagine that if someone wrote something libellous and you retweeted it then you would be repeating it and opening yourself up to challenge. That defendants in the McAlpine incident settled and paid damages to the peer suggests a claimant would have every chance of success.

Whether a claimant would have the same result if the tweet was just a link without defamatory comment is more doubtful I suspect - but don't take my word for it, I'm not a lawyer!

 

[Bill Glazier]

Does Private Eye know about our case? They'd have the guts to take this on.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

And our owners how professional have they been? A multi million pound company compared to a common/working mans trust.

Whether people like it or not. This is true. Both the Trust (though to a lesser degree) and the KCiC campaign were really unprofessional a lot of the time, so neither should be too surprised if SISU aren't exactly flexible with either organisation.

 

[Nick]

And our owners how professional have they been? A multi million pound company compared to a common/working mans trust.

I don't think they have been drawing pictures of Trust members as muppets have they?

 

[torchomatic]

While I get your point and agree with you the Trust and KCiC should have kept things professional. I commented at the time how silly they looked.

And our owners how professional have they been? A multi million pound company compared to a common/working mans trust.

 

[James Smith]

Surely makes no difference you are "repeating" the original message.

Yes except is just a hyperlink actually repeating the defamatory statement or not? A retweet arguably is but I'm not sure that the law has yet decided whether just a link to the material counts as the same as republishing the material.

 

[torchomatic]

Well, if you "point" or "reference" the original material then I would say yes.

Yes except is just a hyperlink actually repeating the defamatory statement or not? A retweet arguably is but I'm not sure that the law has yet decided whether just a link to the material counts as the same as republishing the material.

 

[Monners]

Does Private Eye know about our case? They'd have the guts to take this on.

Was wondering this myself, and was prompted to suggest it on another thread as a possibility

 

[James Smith]

Well, if you "point" or "reference" the original material then I would say yes.

But would the same be true if it were a reference in the back of a book or suggested further reading. Or in a newspaper column it said see tweet number 522 from celebrity X made last night? Could really do with a media lawyer to answer that one if there is case law, but I'm not sure there is any legal precedent set yet.

 

[Hobo]

I don't think they have been drawing pictures of Trust members as muppets have they?

SISU have treated the whole fan base like muppets though.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

There is no way on God's earth anyone is going to get prosecuted for simply sharing/retweeting/replicating an article published in the Guardian - an article that is still there and being freely shared right now by anyone who wants to click a share or tweet button. If it was changed to make different allegations that's publishing something new and different, a different matter.

I see the Telegraph/Les Reid took that down the Guardian link, just shows how much influence Sisu now have over them and how they lack any impartiality or balance. You would have hoped journalists would have some regard for freedom of speech-- not this lot, despite the pious words.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed already, but SISU's issue with the piece in the Guardian appears to be that it is "unbalanced".

Now, putting to one side the debate about whether that is true or not, I was not aware that it was possible to take action on these grounds.

I had thought that a libel had to be untrue.

If action can be taken because a given article is unbalanced, could Ed Milliband not have the Daily Mail in court every day?

 

[James Smith]

SISU have treated the whole fan base like muppets though.

I would like to be Zoot if we can choose our Muppet. (he plays Saxophone in Electric Mayhem)

 

[Sky Blues]

Well, if you "point" or "reference" the original material then I would say yes.

See my post, number 135, in this thread.

 

[torchomatic]

Interesting. However, didn't ISOHunt get shut down despite only allowing users to search for links to content rather than hosting the content themselves? A very grey and dangerous area to dally in.

See my post, number 135, in this thread.