Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71
  1. #11

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by BensGrandad View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    The lady has foolishly attempted to join the conversation with a wild and dangerous opinion of her own. What half-baked drivel! See how the men look at her with utter contempt.

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #12
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      44,471


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by edna krabappel View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #13
      Members Stat Brother's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      West west west Sussex
      Posts
      56,404


      0 Not allowed!
      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.
      “Melancholy is incompatible with bicycling.” James E Starrs
      Rarely serious, frequently taken seriously.
      "The Venerable Bede is full of shit".
    • #14
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Haywards Heath
      Posts
      72,324


      0 Not allowed!
      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.
    • #15
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Sussex
      Posts
      2,771


      2 Not allowed!
      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.
      Not this again.
    • #16
      Members Goldstone1976's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      Location
      East Anglia
      Posts
      11,208


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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.
      2A. K2-18b
    • #17

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by crasher View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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?
    • #18
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Sussex
      Posts
      2,771


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by SeagullDubai View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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).
      Not this again.
    • #19
      Members Nixonator's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2016
      Location
      Shoreham Beach
      Posts
      6,504


      0 Not allowed!
      Dear oh dear
    • #20
      A. Virgo, Football Genius
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Posts
      28,270


      0 Not allowed!
      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.
      The English know how to make the best of things. Their so-called muddling through is simply skill at dealing with the inevitable.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •