Libel/Slander - Guidelines

[Uncle Spielberg]

Chaps

I have had my Coppell - man of honour and integrity thread removed, why ?.

I just repeated Steggle's comments.

If I say - I think Coppell is a tosser - this is not slander as it is my opinion and if you can prove a statement is your opinion that is not slander.

Are NSC getting a little twitchy ?.

Guidelines please guys.

 

[jonnyboylennon]

Its been published - its libel.

 

[The Large One]

...and slander is defamation of character through the spoken word.

 

[Wozza]

Your comments have been moved to another thread, I think.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I know a bit about the libel/slander rules.

If you make a statement about your opinion of someone like " I think Coppell is a tosser " - it is impossible to claim libel/slander as it is my opinion of that person.

If I said someone was robbing their business or sleeping with someone's wife that is slander/libel and I'd have to be pretty damn sure of my facts.

 

[Bozza]

There's some merging being done - may have been done in that.

Also, I'm not convinced that all problems are behind us - it could be that some threads are still just vanishing completely.

 

[Shizuoka Dolphin]

A likely story.

 

[Lady Bracknell]

You can think Coppell is a tosser. You can say that you think Coppell is a tosser. You can write a 10,000 word dissertation in which you discuss - using examples and footnotes - why you think Coppell is a tosser and still not find yourself defending a libel action. But probably you don't need to start yet another thread on that topic. Which is why, when looking for your post, I find that your comments have been merged into the main "Coppell" thread that was stuck at the top of the board.

 

[Brixtaan]

You can think Coppell is a tosser. You can say that you think Coppell is a tosser. You can write a 10,000 word dissertation in which you discuss - using examples and footnotes - why you think Coppell is a tosser and still not find yourself defending a libel action. But probably you don't need to start yet another thread on that topic. Which is why, when looking for your post, I find that your comments have been merged into the main "Coppell" thread that was stuck at the top of the board.

...which is the sensible answer that most suspected in the first place.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Roz

Are you sure ?.

I think that is there was no potential slander / libel comments chatrooms like this would cease to exist !. Its all part of the fun.

I thibk some guidelines are needed as my " Mr Coppell is a tosser " is very tame indeed compare to some of the other things said.

All the best.

GG

 

[Albion Rob]

Even if what you say is opinion, if Coppell could prove your comments were motivated by malice (ie. he leaves and manages Reading, which annoys you), then he would have you by the short and curlies my friend.

 

[Tooting Gull]

A full explanation of libel and the defences to it would take pages, and would be very boring - but here's a brief resume.

For something to be defamatory, it must tend to do one of the following:

a) expose him/her to hatred and ridicule
b) cause him to be shunned or avoided
c) lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people
d) disparage him in his business, trade or profession.

You might think that is virtually everything on NSC, but it is more complicated than that. 'Fair comment' is one of the commonest defences, ie if you said 'Steve Coppell's tactics are appalling' you'd get away with it, but if you accused him of stealing the club Christmas money, that is a factual libel. You can also be done for repeating someone else's libel, doesn't cover you.

To win a libel case, you'd have to prove one of the above, and also 'identification' (ie it is clear who the libel is about - saying 'all coppers are bent' would be a difficult libel to win, as it refers to thousands and doesn't single any one out).

And you also need proof of publication, normally the easiest.

Some of Bozza's warnings are actually nothing to do with libel whatsoever, but more about 'contempt of court', where you have to be very careful what you say about anyone arrested, being questioned, or during their trial, in case it prejudices the trial. The most high-profile recent case of this was the Bowyer/Woodgate trial, which collapsed after the Sunday Mirror printed stuff by the family of the victim before the jury had returned a verdict.


In general on NSC, you get away with a lot more because in the big picture no-one reads it. The only people bothered enough to take action against this site would be a user, perhaps a player, a club official, someone from the local paper...for anyone not connected with Brighton, this site would be irrelevant.

 

[Bozza]

my " Mr Coppell is a tosser " is very tame indeed compare to some of the other things said.

GG

Which is why, as Roz said, they are still on the board...

 

[trueblue]

As a rule of thumb, I believe you are entitled to express an opinion on a matter of fact.

So, you are perfectly entitled to say what your opinion is about SC leaving.

There have been other comments however - about physios wives and so on which are based purely in rumour and which could therefore cross the line if someone felt they wanted to sue.