Bozza, we need specifics!

[Tesco in Disguise]

bozza, i appreciate that you do not want to draw attention to the post that caused the legal concern, but i am worried. i, like most people i hope, use nsc as a forum through which i can behave in a way that's simply not tolerated in polite society. but i certainly don't want to be responsible for its demise, or even suspension.

so what constitutes libel? as i understand, it needs to be defamatory. so, "bobby zamora is god" although untre, unfounded and unverifiable, cannot be so-classified.

where does opinion come in? is there a difference between "i think o.j. was guilty" and "o.j. was guilty". what if you had anything approaching evidence to back up any claim?

and what about people who can't defend themselves? surely i can say "jesus was a homosexual". or do i risk getting you into hot water with tutu and his friends?

apologies, bozza, but the last thing i want for you is trouble, so i'm sure we'd all appreciate a signposting in terms of what is and is not acceptable. the maxim "if you think it might be, don't post it" will simply lead to the death of nsc.

your loyal subject,

TiD

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Lokki 7 has called me racist in the past. I am going to sue him for his Porsche and vast selection of hair gel.

 

[Titanic]

If in doubt... leave it out.

 

[Lokki 7]

You may say that TiD, but all I can think is please bore off. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

You may say that TiD, but all I can think is please bore off. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

lokki, i simply don't want to live in a world where claiming i have pictures of you with animals could cause bozza any harm.

 

[Gwylan]

so what constitutes libel? as i understand, it needs to be defamatory. so, "bobby zamora is god" although untre, unfounded and unverifiable, cannot be so-classified.

where does opinion come in? is there a difference between "i think o.j. was guilty" and "o.j. was guilty". what if you had anything approaching evidence to back up any claim?

and what about people who can't defend themselves? surely i can say "jesus was a homosexual". or do i risk getting you into hot water with tutu and his friends?

apologies, bozza, but the last thing i want for you is trouble, so i'm sure we'd all appreciate a signposting in terms of what is and is not acceptable. the maxim "if you think it might be, don't post it" will simply lead to the death of nsc.

your loyal subject,

TiD

Point 1 is correct but bear in mind context. Calling the secretary of Pride homosexual and calling the secretary of "Ulster against sodomy" homosexual are two completely different matters

Point 2 is a bad example cos OJ was found guilty. But the general point is saying that "I think something...." is no defence (unless you have good grounds for thinking so, grounds that can be backed up in court)

You're fine on Point 3 - no-one dead can be libelled

That's a quick crash course - there are more other points to do with privilege and qualified privilege but they're not relevant here.

 

[Lokki 7]

lokki, i simply don't want to live in a world where claiming i have pictures of you with animals could cause bozza any harm.

The only real winners here are the animals.

 

[El Presidente]

The (over) simple definition is as follows

1: Have you written something false about a person/organisation?
If the answer is yes
2: Has that person suffered as a result in terms of their reputation/standing/business position?
If the answer is yes then there is a potential libel.

 

[Gwylan]

The (over) simple definition is as follows

1: Have you written something false about a person/organisation?
If the answer is yes
2: Has that person suffered as a result in terms of their reputation/standing/business position?
If the answer is yes then there is a potential libel.

To modify 1, if you post something true about a person and can't back it up, then it's the same as posting something false

 

[Skint Gull]

OK, so regularly on here for example, many people claim that Donatello's restaurant (amongst others) is crap, and people should avoid at all costs. If the owner of the restaurant comes on here and throws his toys out of the pram is this likely to cause the problem yesterday?

I would consider the above example as freedom of speech but is there more to it?

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

The (over) simple definition is as follows

1: Have you written something false about a person/organisation?
If the answer is yes
2: Has that person suffered as a result in terms of their reputation/standing/business position?
If the answer is yes then there is a potential libel.

right, so you can qualify anything with the prefix 'i think...' because that would not be asserting a falsehood. which also seems to make sense or you would be legislating on thoughtcrimes.

 

[Juan Albion]

i, like most people i hope, use nsc as a forum through which i can behave in a way that's simply not tolerated in polite society.

Maybe that's the problem? Too many people doing that? Some are bound to take it too far.

What's the problem with a little politeness?









(Stands well back).

 

[Stat Brother]

I'm totally amazing Bozza has to put up with this sh*t on an almost weekly basis.

We should all be grateful he's prepared to stick with it, as I would have told us lot 'to go do one', years ago.

Cheers Bozza.

 

[El Presidente]

OK, so regularly on here for example, many people claim that Donatello's restaurant (amongst others) is crap, and people should avoid at all costs. If the owner of the restaurant comes on here and throws his toys out of the pram is this likely to cause the problem yesterday?

I would consider the above example as freedom of speech but is there more to it?

If you have a poor meal at Donatello's then you are free to say so. It is perfectly acceptable to state your opinion on the meal. If you made the comment without eating there, with the intention of deprivning Donatello's of business, then there is a potential libel, dependent on finding lawyers willing to take on the case etc.

 

[Wozza]

OK, so regularly on here for example, many people claim that Donatello's restaurant (amongst others) is crap

That's just an opinion.

Would be different if, for example, you accused Donatello food of giving you cancer.

They could lose business/reputation from that, so you would need to prove it.

 

[beorhthelm]

the law is very loose, but then it also requires people to have a thin skin.

personally, considering the nature of this board, if someone complained of libel i delete the offending post (which removes most Bozza's liability), ban the poster and ban the one complaining. im not sure ive ever seen anything said here that wouldnt be said in a pub/public place, often insults being traded between parties who dont actually know each other, so how could anyone take a comment seriously, or how could it impact on their reputation?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Whaddabout Germany's comments about now going on to beat 'a big team'? Utterly outroogeous!

 

[Tooting Gull]

To modify 1, if you post something true about a person and can't back it up, then it's the same as posting something false

It's not the same, as they would presumably be far less willing to go to court over it - but from Bozza's perspective, it would still be a good enough reason to remove it after a complaint, as he hasn't got the time or inclination to spend hours establishing its truth or otherwise.

The other thing I would say about El Pres's point one is that most libels on here, I suspect (and by the letter of the law there are loads, it's just not worth it for the potential victims to chase up) are repeated libels, stuff people have read on here, or heard/read elsewhere. So they themselves don't really know if it's true or not.

I think the best way to understand libel is to look at the defences, so even if you are being derogatory, it is still okay in these circumstances.

1) 'It's true' - as stated above, not always as straightforward as that, ie Bozza doesn't know that, and it won't stop people threatening him.

2) Absolute privilege - could be court proceedings

3) Qualified privilege - could be journalist reporting on council meeting

4) Good faith/reasonable belief of truth

5) Opinion (eg: Glenn Murray is a lazy t**sser, and wants to return north)

6) Fair comment - I would say some of the questioning of the Falmer financing, pre-Bllom's blank cheque, were fair comment.

7) Innocent dissemination - could apply to a lot of the rumour stuff on NSC

8) Claimant's reputation is already so bad, they can't be defamed. (Leon Knight?)

9) People hearing the libel don't believe it, or don't care (again, familiar territory on NSC)



This linked article has quite a good precis, with examples. Also the bit at the bottom that internet 'libel' on a board like NSC is more like slander because of the nature of the 'conversation'.

http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

How about posting that Doug Loft is crap? Or any other professional footballer for that matter who, while possibly not world class, is clearly not crap and almost certainly a far better player than the poster.

I'm guessing that this is libelous? But I also assume that the libelee is pretty unlikely to do anything about it.

But presumably he could? And might?

 

[Tooting Gull]

the law is very loose, but then it also requires people to have a thin skin.

personally, considering the nature of this board, if someone complained of libel i delete the offending post (which removes most Bozza's liability), ban the poster and ban the one complaining. im not sure ive ever seen anything said here that wouldnt be said in a pub/public place, often insults being traded between parties who dont actually know each other, so how could anyone take a comment seriously, or how could it impact on their reputation?

Exactly. That has already been recognised in law ('internet boards are like pub conversations') and the nature of the board is a factor. If it is the Financial Times board, then saying someone is a crook is more harmful than on here, UNLESS it is one of the Albion directors or staff, because then it could harm them with an important group of people, ie the club's fans.