Guidance on libel on NSC

[studio150]

Worth re-reading this thread from earlier in the year.

I would suggest looking at the issue of opinion and the fact that it may not be the free get out of jail card that some posters think

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?349309-A-reminder-that-you-are-responsible-for-what-you-post-on-NSC-and-tweet&highlight=libel

 

[LamieRobertson]

Just being nosey but what was the thread title?

 

[Shatner's Bassoon]

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

A statement that someone is ugly is capable of being defamatory (thought it would need more than the mere statement of opinion, and it would be very rare that it actually is defamatory). See Berkoff v Burchill, which is an amusing case, and which contains the best description of a body I've ever heard.

 

[NooBHA]

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.

Even if a statement is ''potentially'' true it could still be found to be libellous by a Judge hearing the case. Although it would be difficult to prove this

That is only the case if the statement is made with malice intentions that could potentially affect someone's career or ability to earn. It would be down to the Judge hearing the case as to whether there was intent to cause distress and affect their ability to earn by virtue another person's ''malicious'' intentions.

 

[Questions]

Remember you can't get in trouble for just thinking something. So if I think the average Palace fan is a caravan dwelling, arsonist I should be ok. Of course I wouldn't actually write that anywhere.

 

[marlowe]

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.

But if they were ugly wouldn't the likelihood that the other person's wife had let them shag her be pretty remote, so on that basis alone can be assumed to be a lie and therefore libelous.

 

[sir albion]

Don't mention...
Gays
Race
Religion
Weight
Appearance
Foul language
Immigrants
Hooton is gash
Big tits
Big cock
Nice ars*e
Hygiene

And you'll be fine

 

[middletoenail]

I just try to use common sense, that usually fares well imo.

Sent from my SM-G9350 using Tapatalk

 

[Arkwright]

Would it be libel to say "Crystal Palace are sh#t" as it is unfair on sh#t to make that comparison.

 

[GT49er]

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.

If the police make a wrongful arrest, there can indeed be repercussions. But if the BBC (or any other media outlet) reports that X has been arrested and questioned/charged over xyz offences, that is a true fact - X has been arrested. Speculation about his guilt or otherwise could land them in trouble, but reporting the fact that the arrest has taken place is just a statement of the truth.

 

[Triggaaar]

1) it's extremely rare for a poster to post the "facts" they are aware of, and their unimpeachabl source(s).

Well I guess most source are impeachable. And I imagine most allegations are far removed from the original source. I would say that within our local, there will be some examples where the source is not so remote.

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".

Yep, understood.

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.

Indeed, perfectly understandable. I think many of us don't really know the law though, and I thought it would be handy to clarify things.

One good example is David Beckham and allegations about his life in the past. Allegations I won't repeat now, but allegations that have been made so widely that many of us would be mistaken for thinking it's ok to make them, because there's never been a legal case about it. So many broadcasters feel it's fine to repeat those allegations, but what we're saying here is that we're not really allowed to.

 

[Triggaaar]

Would it be libel to say "Crystal Palace are sh#t"

That's fine, because it's been proven to be true.

 

[DavePage]

Don't mention...
Gays
Race
Religion
Weight
Appearance
Foul language
Immigrants
Hooton is gash
Big tits
Big cock
Nice ars*e
Hygiene

And you'll be fine

Is the 100m dash designed only for those that can run straight?
Is Lords making light of it’s dress code?
Our geese are always getting the brunt of bad mouthing Canadians, just because they can’t afford to go South in the winter?
In culinary terms Owl is nasty compared with a nice juicy Chicken breast, but when it comes the loud mouth Cockerel, meh, give me a cute little donkey any day.
As for anyone dissing our team, I wash my hands of you.

That’ll cost ya

 

[looney]

Although libel can be vague and people dont know where the lines are drawn for example quips that are in effect professional misconduct I would think posters on here are more likely to fall foul of the malicious communications act. " Jamsieing" for example or other forms of harassment.

 

[Gwylan]

Even if a statement is ''potentially'' true it could still be found to be libellous by a Judge hearing the case. Although it would be difficult to prove this

Truth is an absolute defence to libel: if it's true - and provably true - then the plaintiff is going to lose; malice doesn't come into it.

What you're referring to is a famous case in the US (Noonan v Staples) where an ancient law (pertaining only to Massachusetts) said that a true statement could be libellous if prompted by malice. Although Noonan won the case, it was overturned on appeal, because the statement was found not to be malicious. This does leave the possibility that this defence can be used in the future ... but it only seems to apply in Mass. and there's some doubt whether the Supreme Court would hold it.

It was a case that caused some ructions in the legal/journalism world but it has no application in English law.

But do remember that although truth is an absolute defence, it's the defendant who has to prove something is substantially true.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Don't mention...
Gays
Race
Religion
Weight
Appearance
Foul language
Immigrants
Hooton is gash
Big tits
Big cock
Nice ars*e
Hygiene

And you'll be fine

Can I add Tom Jones to that?

 

[AmexRuislip]

So Bellotti is still a **** though?

 

[The Albion Roar]

So Bellotti is still a **** though?

He's dead, so he can't sue. And no-one is allowed to sue on his behalf.

 

[marlowe]

I assume this thread was started in relation to the previous Mike Holland thread which seems to have disappeared and been replaced by a new one. Before that thread was removed and before this issue arose I was struck by the headline on the Argus website in relation to the case and thought it was flying close to the wind with it's tabloid sensationalist choice of words. I've just checked and the headline is still there and it reads, "Killer property tycoon jailed". I think that headline is a bit strong. Yes, he was found guilty of manslaughter by negligence and yes he deserves to go to prison but does that make him a killer? There are circumstances where somebody can kill someone directly and accidentally by their own hand and they are guilty of manslaughter and by their direct actions are also killers but the Holland case certainly wasn't one of them. He wasn't even in the same country when the accident happened. Mr Clark's death wasn't caused by Holland's direct actions but rather by Holland's failure to act. So in those circumstances should he be branded a killer?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I assume this thread was started in relation to the previous Mike Holland thread which seems to have disappeared and been replaced by a new one. Before that thread was removed and before this issue arose I was struck by the headline on the Argus website in relation to the case and thought it was flying close to the wind with it's tabloid sensationalist choice of words. I've just checked and the headline is still there and it reads, "Killer property tycoon jailed". I think that headline is a bit strong. Yes, he was found guilty of manslaughter by negligence and yes he deserves to go to prison but does that make him a killer? There are circumstances where somebody can kill someone directly and accidentally by their own hand and they are guilty of manslaughter and by their direct actions are also killers but the Holland case certainly wasn't one of them. He wasn't even in the same country when the accident happened. Mr Clark's death wasn't caused by Holland's direct actions but rather by Holland's failure to act. So in those circumstances should he be branded a killer?

A manslaughter conviction surely makes you a killer by its very definition ?