What's going on?

[Dunc]

How could she possibly say that without knowing if any or all of it is true?

I would say without asking her that there are precedents in terms of libel on messageboards and simply giving potentially false information about a situation isn't likely to end up in court on a libel charge.

 

[Ox Fox]

Here's an "idiots" guide to libel:

There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken.

In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!

For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be.

Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed.

Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the BBC, so to say he wilfully doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect on his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged.

It is not for the judge or jury (at the outset) to decide how damaged he is - they just have to confirm that such accusations are false and damaging. Then the judge and/or jury decide on monetary damages.



These damages are weighed up using a number of methods.

How widespread was the news released? If it was plastered all over the UK's biggest newspaper, then it would be more damaging than if the story ran on page 13 of the Grimthorpe Herald or on a rarely visited website.

However, if specific key people had seen the allegations then that can be different. Let us say you emailed the top 200 managers and governors at the BBC about Mr Dyke never paying his TV licence.

That could be seriously defamatory. It could easily affect Mr Dyke's earnings (one way of measuring damage is to see if earnings are lost as a result) and/or mean that future employment could be difficult.

And it's not just the person making the allegations who can fall foul of the libel laws.

If your offending article about Mr Dyke was published in Magazine X, you could be sued. Magazine X can be sued. The people who drove Magazine X from their depot to the newsstands can be sued (the distributors). The retailers can also be sued. (see note)

Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn't mean it is true. Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation.

For example, say you wrote an email to the top 200 managers and governors of the BBC about Mr Dyke never paying his licence. That email is leaked to Magazine X who print it without making sure it is true.

Although the mail's already been sent and read by all, by repeating the allegation they too are committing the same libel. 'Repetition is no defence' say lawyers. Because it isn't.

There are of course many grey areas. A magazine lost a famous case against a TV company because, although specific allegations made by the magazine were true they implied that the people from the TV company were deliberately misleading the public.

The allegation that was defamatory was not that certain facts were omitted by the TV people, but that they had deliberately set out to mislead. That was the defamatory part that lost the magazine people the case and their magazine.

To protect oneself is fairly easy. Don't make anything up. Check sources. Check again.

If something has been in the public domain for some time and no action has been taken then that means it becomes much harder for anyone to claim defamation.

If Mr Smith turns round in court and says, 'but two years ago this was published in Magazine Y and you didn't protest then, only when I put it in Magazine X,' it is a strong line of defence.



You can't defame nicknames when people don't know who they are.

So, if you spread the same Dyke TV licence allegations but called him Big Beardo McFluffy, he can't sue, even if he knows you are referring to him - unless other people know him by the same nickname.

On the internet the rules are exactly the same. There are no special internet defences. The only advantage is that web sites tend to have a smaller number of users, (so less people see it hence it's less defamatory so it's rarely worth the bother of going to court) and allegations can be removed promptly on protest from a defamed party.

On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material.



There is also a defence of 'fair comment' which is somewhat vague but is basically there to stop someone being sued for saying they don't like Marks & Spencer or McDonalds or Piers Morgan.

You are allowed to say that - even if you were a famous star or a very persuasive writer and it could damage them financially. That's the law.

However libel does not extend to the dead. Nor is being abusive libelous.

So I can say "Keith Moon was a smackhead lower of the highest order" and it's no problem. In fact I could say "every human who ever existed was a smack dealing, gun running, uncle ****er."

This is completely okay. That's UK libel!

Note: After John Major sued Scallywag and New Statesman in 1989 he also sued all their distributors at the time. Many stopped distributing 'political' magazines like Scallywag and NS for fear of future law suits after this. Most of those small distributors now work in pornography. There are around 100 of them, none who work in politics. The potential re-opening of the Major case in the light of Edwina Curie's revelations have come too late to bring them back to the fold though.

from: http://www.urban75.com/Action/libel.html

 

[webmaster]

Just been contacted by someone from LCFC...

But they haven't yet told me the specific post they object to, so things are staying as they are until that happens.

 

[EMC Fox]

because she is a woman and were always right :icon_lol:

 

[Joe_Fox]

As I understand it my responsibility would be to remove libelous content as soon as I'm made aware of it. As far as I know nothing in this thread is libelous.



Be interested to know what you mean by 'board providers'.

A bit like B&Q really webbo.

 

[bocadillo]

Thracian on vital football....

A remarkable saga has been ongoing on Leicester City websites this morning relating to the allegation that redundancy notices have been served on three of the club's important administrative servants.

A post originally placed by the respected Fox Fanzine contributor 'Bob Hazell' and later replicated on Talking Balls and Foxestalk claimed that a new assistant to Tim Davies had conducted a cost-cutting exercise.

The name 'Bob Hazell' has now been removed from Thracian's report.

 

[Chuck T Masala]

Just been contacted by someone from LCFC...

But they haven't yet told me the specific post they object to, so things are staying as they are until that happens.

Bravo.

 

[Steven]

Just been contacted by someone from LCFC...

But they haven't yet told me the specific post they object to, so things are staying as they are until that happens.

By email ? , and if so would you care to publish it. :icon_razz :icon_wink

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

sorry.......we are always right :icon_roll :icon_bigg

 

[Dunc]

Here's an "idiots" guide to libel:

from: http://www.urban75.com/Action/libel.html

So the g/f was right then as far as I can see as we've not defamed the lady in question by name.

Plus we are on a website and no one cares

 

[Chuck T Masala]

sorry.......we are always right :icon_roll :icon_bigg

Ooooh, oooh, oooh, I am flipping cross now! :icon_wink

 

[BOB HAZELL]

The name 'Bob Hazell' has now been removed from Thracian's report.

Coz I told him I've got OJ's lawyer on my team......

 

[Joe_Fox]

Coz I told him I've got OJ's lawyer on my team......

:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

 

[Chuck T Masala]

Here's an "idiots" guide to libel:

Feck it I understood that.:icon_cry:

 

[Dunc]

Coz I told him I've got OJ's lawyer on my team......

Well if the glove fits....... :icon_roll

 

[bocadillo]

As I understand it my responsibility would be to remove libelous content as soon as I'm made aware of it. As far as I know nothing in this thread is libelous.

In the first instance that would probably be so, but that wouldn't make you completely safe. But then as you have personally posted some thing which somebody else asked you to delete, you don't seem to be too bothered about that - all credit to you, sincerely!!

Be interested to know what you mean by 'board providers'.

Ah! I forgot that this is your own board. In that case, I meant the hosters - which is probably you as well.

eerrmm...

 

[webmaster]

I have now removed the 'Bruin' quote at the request of LCFC. Maybe I should have asked for proof that the person making the request was who they claimed to be.

Feel free to continuing discussing the subjct in this thread, as long as you don't repeat any specific allegations.

 

[Boy Genius]

Feckin hell, its all kicked off.

WTF is our club doing. Contacting web sites to tell what we can and cannot post? Do they only expect us to talk only about the good nicey things. I think its all bollux. I can understand the libel side of things, but FFS go into any pub and listen to some of the crap people talk in there. Why can they just not come clean and say this person has gone but these two have not gone, this is the correct story. That would shut us all up as we would know the truth then and have nothing to discuss.
FFS they are only making a couple of people redundant, every business does it.

If they are looking at Libel, well they should look at health and safety, I could point out several things in the stadium where things are not as they should be........tossers

 

[BOB HAZELL]

I have now removed the 'Bruin' quote at the request of LCFC. Maybe I should have asked for proof that the person making the request was who they claimed to be.

Feel free to continuing discussing the subjct in this thread, as long as you don't repeat any specific allegations.

I've not said anything that's upset/alarmed them then either, Webbo......??

 

[webmaster]

Feckin hell, its all kicked off.

WTF is our club doing. Contacting web sites to tell what we can and cannot post? Do they only expect us to talk only about the good nicey things. I think its all bollux. I can understand the libel side of things, but FFS go into any pub and listen to some of the crap people talk in there. Why can they just not come clean and say this person has gone but these two have not gone, this is the correct story. That would shut us all up as we would know the truth then and have nothing to discuss.
FFS they are only making a couple of people redundant, every business does it.

If they are looking at Libel, well they should look at health and safety, I could point out several things in the stadium where things are not as they should be........tossers

I think I should have asked for more details about the exact nature of the libelous bit, rather than just deleting the whole post. It wouldn't surprise me if the libelous bit was right towards the end and the rest of it was accurate.