SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Keyword: In Private...that's no libellous
Reminder about Libel etc (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Keyword: In Private...that's no libellous
I think that you'll find that if it's in writing (or print as in e-mail), and it's not factually correct, even in a private message that is made public, and insult is caused or taken, in law that's libel.
ajsccfc
Well-Known Member
Ignoring the odd use of the word corrupt, it can't be said enough that 'opinion' is no actual defence or justification for being able to say anything you want. See also: 'banter'.
Skyblueloyal
Active Member
Just a gentle reminder, could you think before you post personal insults, accusations and everything else against other members, organisations and individuals.
People DO read these forums so can see what you put and it possibly could come back to haunt you with legal action so just to save any hassle could you think before you post or if you see something a bit borderline could you report it so we can deal with it?
Thanks
If anyone from Sisu is reading this then I have more money than you. FACT !
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
If its private and not published then its not libel. If its a private message made public, it would be whoever made it public liable not the author.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Nick told me in private if I continue to support Andy Thorn he will ban me from the site, burn down my garden shed and steal my Easter Eggs.
So if I keep this to myself he is ok but if I send it to the guardian he is screwed?
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
Haha if you sent it to the guardian you would be screwed, not him... That Nick is a cad though....:0)
Nick
Administrator
That goes for all of you, sleep with your eyes open!!!
James Smith
Well-Known Member
What's yes Libel, Australian for Price Tag.
elephanttears
New Member
Nick, you removed my post saying "was it ok if i called Tim Fisher a homos*****", i was actually implying he was a homosapien
Not so - It's still the writer that's libellous. The person that revealed the libellous material will probably get called something else!!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
They can say their opinion, not accusations and personal remarks without being able to prove them
Not quite: http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
Seems like a lot of what people say comes under "fair comment"
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Nick, you removed my post saying "was it ok if i called Tim Fisher a homos*****", i was actually implying he was a homosapien
I refute this unfounded allegation.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Be careful about what you think comes under fair comment as the Sunday Times and Julie Burchill found out in comments it made about the actor Steven Berkof.
http://mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.fr/2007/01/berkoff-v-burchill.html
FootyLawBlog
New Member
Yes: quite a few people have been sued for defamation over things posted on the internet; and not just the people posting the libelous messages, but also the operator of the message board/web site and the internet company owning or hosting the server the site is based on.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Internet is not a law-free zone.
For the most high profile recent example take a look at McApline v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) where the High Court ruled that a Tweet stating simply: "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*" was defamatory.
FootyLawBlog
New Member
This is wrong (as are the preceding two messages).
If it is private and not published it isn't a message. A person is entitled to his own thoughts and can put what he wants in writing - so long as he doesn't show or sent it to anybody. But as soon as he does send it to another person, then it is published.
If the message is defamatory the person who sent it can be sued even though the message only went to one person (but how does the person defamed know about the existence of such a defamatory statement in such circumstances?)
If the person who received the defamatory message then sent it to other people, he too is guilty of defamation through dissemination.
If a newspaper prints something defamatory, it was quite common for those defamed to sue not only the newspaper, but also the journalist and editor, the printers, the wholesalers and even newsagents. The people lower down the dissemination chain would have indemnity clauses written into the contracts with those higher up so that, if necessary, they could settle the claim and receive a refund from the publishers. Lawyers tend not to do this now - presumably because of the developing defence of innocent dissemination - and also because it could be seen as abusive; it doesn't deal with the real injustice nor guarantee a printed retraction or apology.
Big Ben said that it is libel if "insult is caused or taken". Defamation has nothing to do with insult (a criminal matter covered by the Public Order Act and in the domain of the police rather than a civil matter pursued by the insulted).
Defamation is the publication of an untrue statement about a person that tends to:
- expose the person to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
- cause the person to be shunned or avoided;
- lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; or
- disparage the person in his/her business, trade, office or profession.
Going back to the single message - if the government was thinking of extending the West Coast Mainline franchise, and I sent a message to the Transport Secretary with some juicy but false information about Richard Branson, and the Transport Secretary blocked the extension, then I have defamed Branson. Nobody else need see the message other than the one person I sent it to.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Thanks for all the work you do do on here-much appreciated
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
like a photo of our owner ?
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
I assume all the shouty nopm brigade will be boycotting this match...
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Stupid fucking phone made me post on wrong thread.. doh
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Tbh...it's snide so perhaps avoid posting it anywhere else either - whether you are NOPM or not. For the record I shall not go...but to be fair, even if no CCFC fans went - it's still a bumper pay-day for SISU unfortunately.
yes you can say scunthorpe but dont mention the c**t
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I know this is like 5 months late, but I never go in this thread.
I refuse to accept that a poster on a message board and the Sunday Times are equivalent. And if the law sees them as such then the law is an ass. From what I've seen, most sensible judges agree.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Actually there have been changes to the law recently and websites like this one are now slightly better protected.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I think I am right if you know something is correct and is fact you will not face libel on here
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You may have to go to court to prove you are right and / or the other side prove you are wrong but generally if you're telling the truth there's not a lot anyone can do other than try and bully you into a retraction (see SISU and the Guardian).
Nick
Administrator
You need to be able to prove you are right
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes in hypothetical situation if a person had heard it from the horses mouth as oppose to their cousin. They would be on safe grounds. If the horse didn't want it out there it should not have turned into the famous Mr Ed?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes that's what I thought.
