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?
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.
From memory, the test of whether something is libellous in English law essentially boils down to whether it would lower someone's (person or company) standing in the eyes of others. Truth is a defence and would need to be proved by the defendant if a case came to court.
Hey TurkeyTrot I sincerely hope you put that Guardian link back up, soon. This sort of crap is just the thin end of the wedge...
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsoHuntWikipedia said:The court found that IsoHunt had not presented any satisfactory evidence to counter these claims, and at its core it was merely an "evolutionary modification" of Napster and Grokster, two P2P systems that had previously been held liable for inducing copyright infringement.[10]
From memory, the test of whether something is libellous in English law essentially boils down to whether it would lower someone's (person or company) standing in the eyes of others. Truth is a defence and would need to be proved by the defendant if a case came to court.
Exactly, in the past the Trust has burnt it's bridges with the club with some of their actions but hopefully now things have changed they can be built again.The trust were effectively in with ACL / Haskell when he was here.
People also keep saying "it was just a link", it wasn't just a link the article was totally republished.
Yes, I think the lawyers letter was a bit OTT but it isn't as bad or threatening as some make out, especially compared to the threats some fans have given Fisher. (This is not me sticking up for anybody)
Hopefully now it is a new set of people at the trust (or changed) things will be sorted.
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.
wikipedia said:Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was a House of Lords case in English defamation law concerning qualified privilege for publication of defamatorystatements in the public interest.
The case provided the Reynolds defence, which can be raised where it is clear that the journalist had a duty to publish an allegation even if it turns out to be wrong. In adjudicating on an attempted Reynolds defence a court will investigate the conduct of the journalist and the content of the publication. The subsequent case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe[SUP][1][/SUP] affirmed the defence, which has been successfully raised in several defamation proceedings
That's copyright law, entirely different.
Surely, this is a defence: The Reynolds Defence
Apparently the law is changing with the Defamation Act in January, but that offers a Public Interest defence, and surely any judge would accept that the SBT published it in good faith for the benefit of their audience? After all, it's fair for a layman to assume The Guardian has checked it's sources.
I believe the Reynold's Defence is primarily aimed at protecting investigative journalism. The issue with libel defences is that the person accused of publishing the libellous words would have to prove the defence in court - and that carries the risk of incurring a large legal bill that many would be defendants probably can't afford - so they tactically retreat when challenged.
On the flip side, I think one reason why people generally don't threaten to sue more often is that it can backfire and bring more publicity to the publication that is the subject of the complaint.
In my opinion, the beautiful irony of the Sisu/Sky Blue Trust incident is that it has drawn far more attention to the Guardian article than a small link on the trust website would have done.
From memory, the test of whether something is libellous in English law essentially boils down to whether it would lower someone's (person or company) standing in the eyes of others. Truth is a defence and would need to be proved by the defendant if a case came to court.
It couldn't possibly lower sisu's standing in the eyes of the majority of CCFC fans. You cannot get lower than the
bottom of the barrel.
Very true, they do need some decent PR.
Think it's gone a bit to far for that.
As they say s..t sticks.
So true. SISUE have well stuck to our club .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?