Guidance on libel on NSC

[Triggaaar]

A thread has just been removed from NSC, which I guess is due to concern over possibly libelous content.

Separately on NSC I was pulled up on something possibly libelous the other day.

Could we have some guidelines on what we are and aren't allowed to say?

 

[Titanic]

A thread has just been removed from NSC, which I guess is due to concern over possibly libelous content.

Separately on NSC I was pulled up on something possibly libelous the other day.

Could we have some guidelines on what we are and aren't allowed to say?

A good starting point I use is to only say something about someone that I would say to their face and be willing to discuss with them.

 

[maltaseagull]

A thread has just been removed from NSC, which I guess is due to concern over possibly libelous content.

Separately on NSC I was pulled up on something possibly libelous the other day.

Could we have some guidelines on what we are and aren't allowed to say?

If it can be proven to be true, it's probably ok. Otherwise best not to repeat?

 

[Triggaaar]

A good starting point I use is to only say something about someone that I would say to their face and be willing to discuss.

But that's not NSC Titanic, and I don't really think Bozza would want the place to be like that. If we were all just perfectly polite about everyone and everything this would be a very different forum.

 

[Triggaaar]

If it can be proven to be true, it's probably ok. Otherwise best not to repeat?

We can call each other ***** though, right? You can call me a **** and you may even get a large number of witnesses to testify on your behalf, but in court a medical doctor would probably disagree. Ok, maybe not, I'm probably a bad example, but you know what I mean.

 

[maltaseagull]

We can call each other ***** though, right? You can call me a **** and you may even get a large number of witnesses to testify on your behalf, but in court a medical doctor would probably disagree. Ok, maybe not, I'm probably a bad example, but you know what I mean.

One for the legal experts I guess

 

[BensGrandad]

I was always under the impression that what you say to or about any body must be able to be proved as correct. ie if I said you was ugly provided I can prove it it is ok if not it is libel.

 

[Titanic]

I was always under the impression that what you say to or about any body must be able to be proved as correct. ie if I said you was ugly provided I can prove it it is ok if not it is libel.

It is not illegal to be ugly... and it is a matter of opinion not fact anyway.

 

[BensGrandad]

It is interesting to note that in the book Broken Dreams by Tom Bower, which is an expose, available on Amazon, of football corruption a number of high profile managers were named for taking back handers in transfers and nobody sued the author not even the one who is still alive.

 

[BensGrandad]

It is not illegal to be ugly... and it is a matter of opinion not fact anyway.

That was just an example should we change that to a thief or con man

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I was always under the impression that what you say to or about any body must be able to be proved as correct. ie if I said you was ugly provided I can prove it it is ok if not it is libel.

Seems fair, as that would be a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. However, if you were to say that somebody is both ugly and has been shagging somebody else's wife, without any factual basis for the latter part of that claim, then you would be in trouble.

It seems fairly simple to me.

 

[Triggaaar]

However, if you were to say that somebody is both ugly and has been shagging somebody else's wife, without any factual basis for the latter part of that claim, then you would be in trouble.

It seems fairly simple to me.

I think even if you have factual basis for the latter, NSC would rather you didn't post it.

 

[Stat Brother]

The only time I'm conscious about libel, on here, is when writing about palace's American owners.

I now only state the facts with regard to their ownership of the 76'ers, and hope NSC can join the dots, instead of doing that as well.

 

[BensGrandad]

Just a point of interest would that be the law under which the likes of Sir Cliff are able to sue for wrongful arrest when tbey hsve been named in the press. One would assume he sued the police for wrongful arrest and the BBC and media for libel.

 

[crasher]

Broadly the definition of defamation (libel in writing, slander in speech) is saying anything about someone which is likely to 'lower them in the estimation of right-thinking people'.

There are various defences against such a charge. One - it's provably true. Two - it's a fair opinion and not about a matter of fact. Three, you can't libel the dead.

So if I said Adolf Hitler was a racist, it's both provably true and he's dead. If I said the leader of the KKK is a racist, it's demonstrably true. If I said, for example, Ant and Dec are racists it would be untrue and libellous.

On opinions, you're entitled to express an opinion about the quality or worth of what people do or say provided that you don't suggest a reason this for this which is defamatory. So I'm entitled to say that I think Famous Footballer is an over-rated player who is being carried by his team-mates. But it's libellous if I add that the reason for his poor performance is that he's taking drugs every night.

So in summary - you are likely libelling someone if you make an allegation about them which says they are acting illegally or highly unethically but you cannot prove it.

Also remember that just because someone has been charged with an offence by the CPS, or is on trial for it, that doens't make it true unless and until they're convicted. Do not speculate about continuing criminal proceedings.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I think even if you have factual basis for the latter, NSC would rather you didn't post it.

My perspective on this specific point is twofold:

1) it's extremely rare for a poster to post the "facts" they are aware of, and their unimpeachabl source(s). Instead, they post simply the assertion that, say, X is shagging around. No evidence, no source, just an assertion that is entirely unverifiable by others not in possession of the same "facts".

2) there are three likely defendants in a potential libel case: the original poster of the allegation, anyone who repeats it (by, for example, using the "reply" functionality), and NSC itself (Bozza) as publisher.

Given these things, it's not surprising that some threads get removed, imo.

There's nothing stopping any poster posting the same things on their Facebook account, or setting up their own website to publish the information if they think the benefit of the public knowing their opinion about someone else's sex life outweighs the risk of litigation.

 

[SeagullDubai]

Broadly the definition of defamation (libel in writing, slander in speech) is saying anything about someone which is likely to 'lower them in the estimation of right-thinking people'.

There are various defences against such a charge. One - it's provably true. Two - it's a fair opinion and not about a matter of fact. Three, you can't libel the dead.

So if I said Adolf Hitler was a racist, it's both provably true and he's dead. If I said the leader of the KKK is a racist, it's demonstrably true. If I said, for example, Ant and Dec are racists it would be untrue and libellous.

On opinions, you're entitled to express an opinion about the quality or worth of what people do or say provided that you don't suggest a reason this for this which is defamatory. So I'm entitled to say that I think Famous Footballer is an over-rated player who is being carried by his team-mates. But it's libellous if I add that the reason for his poor performance is that he's taking drugs every night.

So in summary - you are likely libelling someone if you make an allegation about them which says they are acting illegally or highly unethically but you cannot prove it.

Also remember that just because someone has been charged with an offence by the CPS, or is on trial for it, that doens't make it true unless and until they're convicted. Do not speculate about continuing criminal proceedings.

So if (Heaven Forbid) I refer to football agents as blood sucking leeches, it would not be Libel?

 

[crasher]

So if (Heaven Forbid) I refer to football agents as blood sucking leeches, it would not be Libel?

No it wouldn't. But if you said Agent X was corrupt and broke the tax laws it would be. (unless you could prove it).

 

[Nixonator]

Dear oh dear

 

[beorhthelm]

libel is not strictly concerned about whether something is factually true or not. it concerns whether you damage their reputation with a resonable person.
you can express an opinion, even make stuff up, its all a bit subjective. if you profess to know something about someone with authority and that would cause harm to their reputaion that would be libel. if you relay heresay, have an opinion or say something people dont believe, its probably not.

put it this way, if libel was based on simple truth/non truth most the tabloids would be 10 pages long including the sport section.