Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71
  1. #31
    Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Goldstone
    Posts
    44,148


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldstone1976 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    Thank you Chris, you're a legend.

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #32
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      44,148


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Arkwright View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Would it be libel to say "Crystal Palace are sh#t"
      That's fine, because it's been proven to be true.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #33
      Members DavePage's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2010
      Location
      Woodstock Ontario, ex-Southwick
      Posts
      2,390


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by sir albion View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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
    • #34
      Banned looney's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Posts
      15,759


      0 Not allowed!
      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.
    • #35
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Uffern
      Posts
      25,449


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by NooBHA View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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.
      Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio
    • #36
      The oldest known computer
      Join Date
      Aug 2003
      Location
      Ash Green - Surrey / Hampshire Borders
      Posts
      6,184


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by sir albion View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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?
    • #37
      Longing for retirement. AmexRuislip's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2014
      Posts
      23,549


      0 Not allowed!
      So Bellotti is still a **** though?
    • #38

      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by AmexRuislip View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      So Bellotti is still a **** though?
      He's dead, so he can't sue. And no-one is allowed to sue on his behalf.
      The Albion Roar

      Join Ady & Al for your mildly intelligent fix of Albion-related punditry every Saturday at 12pm on Radio Reverb 97.2FM, online at www.radioreverb.com or on DAB. Listen to the podcast via AudioBoom - https://audioboom.com/channel/albion-roar
    • #39
      Members
      Join Date
      Dec 2015
      Posts
      2,660


      1 Not allowed!
      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?
    • #40
      Members Herr Tubthumper's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      The Fatherland
      Posts
      48,536


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by marlowe View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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 ?
      "I will design a town in the image of your face. Round the wrinkles of your eyes my footsteps you can trace. We could promenade down infra-nasel depression. The streets of your hands will never feel a recession."

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
  •