Thetownend.com

I haven't read much on the Sheff Weds fans issue but my quite perusing suggests they were merely unable to remain anonymous, is that correct?

If so, as someone who never really understood forums when he first registered 4 years ago on thisis as himself and not a random user name, am  allowed to continue making statements of opinion that may be seen to allege greed, untrustworthiness etc?

I have no issues with anyone knowing  who I am when I am saying it.  I might change my user name to my full name if it helps.

On another track, they've clearly had a word with the Adver as well as the comments section after news stories has been changed to registered only and they;ve had a censorship spree on the forum as well.

God knows. I have the same questions as I didn't desguise who I was either.  I know the club knows who I am and have my mobile number, so they wouldn't need to go legal to track me down. However

If I say, "Mr X is a very nice person", and he takes exception to it, can the go down the legal route as I portrayed it as a statement of fact even though every man and his dog knows internet forums are 99% BS?

If I say, "in my opinion Mr X is a very nice person, though I have no facts to back it up", and he takes exception to it, can the go down the legal route even though I have made it clear it is an opinion and as I have no standing in the community it is unreasonable to think I have cause defamation of Character?

If I say "the fat controller is a wanker" can someone who think that they are the fat controller sue for libel? Obviously the fat controller is a fictional character that runs the Sodor railway in Thomas the Tank Engine.

I suspect I may have to email Ian Hislop to find out.

Going by the number of libel cases he loses I'm not sure he's the right person to ask!

I swear blind one of my posts was removed last week. why i dont know but it says something when somebody whos just chuntering on on a forum has to be politicly correct in everything they say on the basis of not offending somebody.the world has gone too far down this avenue and its pathetic to say the least. i thought freedom of speech was a cornerstone of modern society.

    The ability to stifle free speech amongst the rich and powerful has always been a cornerstone of our society....Robert Maxwell did it for years.   Bob Holt used to work for Robert Maxwell.

I think this may have been posted on here before, but an interesting story from Coventry

http://coventrycity.rivals.net/default.asp?sid=885&p=2&stid=8366804

Out of curiosity, if anyone knows, if you are taken to court for slander, i thought it was the case that in order to prove any comments made were false, they have to produce documentation or evidence that shows what is said is bullshit?

I know it would be different for personal attacks as this would surely no proof as it is just straight out defamation. However, if a business were attacked surely the goal posts move slightly?

I mean the Banks don't contest peoples requests for refunds of money because they have to show proof as to why they charge these fees and should a newspaper slate a celebrity, if a celebrity takes the newspaper to court for defamation, they have to prove the paper was lying by showing the allegations made to be false.

Does this website not get given the same treatment, state what you want until any third party can prove otherwise?

What i'm getting at is, could this kinda mean current libel issues are a bluff? I mean, if someone were to openly state the board were stealing money (which i'm using as an example and am in no way implying something like this has happened) can they prove that they haven't and therefore win in court or is this not required? :?

Speaking of slander etc, on a similar vein some of the things that have been said about the Trust and certain members of the Trust Board have been somewhat close to the wind.

Diamon Mike always used that shot accross the bows of anyone who he didn't like listening to when I worked for him ... that is not laible it is the truth and using the threat of court action was a boastful common occurance

Indeed. Thoughts involving the words 'fire with fire' might rear their head sooner rather than later one may hope.

I'm speaking with a friend today, who is a solicitor, although not in the right field, to find out what he makes of where we legally stand, regarding comments we make as either individuals or as a forum.

Having a quick gander at the idiots guide to law type stuff, it would seem we would have to harm the person's standing for something to be libellous, so their must be a grey area here.  It seems you can be more cuntish to prisoners for example without as much need to prove it as their standing is already low.

Burden of proof is on the defendant though, so if you make a claim that does cause defamation of character, you have to be able to prove it.

Should you be sued, and lose, the damages would be relevant to the audience who could have read it.  Given this is a non public forum, and the likely audience is small and generally people with whom the claimant might not have good standing anyway, it's quite possible it would be jack shit.

I would suggest you'd be hard pressed to sue anyone making a claim on TUMDFC site for example as it's by invitation only.

BTW, calling Mike a crook is not allowed, referring to past truths must be done very specifically so as not to insinuate they are still up to it.

You can freely abuse whoever you like if you use a nickname that people wouldn't generally associate with them.

So:

"Fuckwit Cuntfeaturesis ruining our club" maye well be allowed as nobodt specifially would know who it referred to and thus no defamation of character can have occured.

ps, Slander is spoken word and is much harder to get into court and win because you'd have to pretty much stand up in a Conference and make the claim.

I've just thought of something else - how can anyone prove what was typed in a post anyway?  Regulat TEFers will know what follows in quotes was NOT what I actually typed in - "the source close the Board have found the source of the libel was a source not from TEF but another source".  fB may well have found us a way out!

Because the site owner etc can all be taken to court as well.

Libel/slander cases are 99% about bullying rather than the actual truth of what was said/published/alleged. Push comes to shove, it's down to do you have the time/money/energy to defend a libel/slander case or is it easier for you to fold? Which is why Maxwell loved using libel cases as a bullying tactic so much.

However, you also have to consider whether the person threatening to sue you has the time/money/energy to pursue you as it can be a costly enterprise (in both financial and time/energy terms) for both sides. Whereas making vague noises about suing someone or even getting your solicitor to send out an initial "Oi, shut it" letter is comparatively cheap. Hence the threat of libel is used far more often as a bullying tactic than the actual use of it, because unless you have large resources (financial, human and legal) to throw at it, pursuing a libel action is as draining as defending one. Again Maxwell did have those resources and so he was in a position to make the threat and mean it. Smaller litigants often are not.

So often it amounts to a game of chicken between the prospective litigant and the putative defendant. Best course of action is do not make claims that you cannot demonstrate are true or fair comment. Which, to be fair, is a pretty sensible guideline anyway - no-one should be bandying around allegations that they cannot back up as a simple matter of fairness.

So, it is a matter of fair comment to say that you believe that an individual is unpleasant. It is a matter of fact to say that you believe that an individual who, say, was disqualified from being a director for a period of time, has in the past engaged in dodgy business practices (as he was found to have done so by a court to such an extent that the court deemed that individual unfit to run a business for a given period). It is libellous if you claim that such an individual is or "must be" (for example) stealing money or engaging in other criminal or disreputable practices, without solid evidence to substantiate such a claim.

The key to whether someone has a case under libel/slander laws is all about unjust damage to a person or corporation's reputation - ie the claim/allegation made must be untrue and must cause damage to that person's reputation. That is why it would be nigh on impossible for, say, Ian Huntley to bring a libel action because pretty much no matter what allegation was made against him, it would be highly unlikely to harm his reputation more than it already is. Whereas accusing a convicted shoplifter of being a paedophile would clearly cause substantial additional harm to his reputation, blemished though it may be. Although it is highly likely that in such a case, the fact that the shoplifter had already damaged his own reputation (by shoplifting) would make such a libel (and hence any damages awarded) less severe than it would be against the Archbishop of Canterbury (for example).

The point is that those who sue do so to frighten the one's who are sued. ie. If say I were a melbury rovers director & I wanted to gag some fans who were getting close to the real truth about my dishonest dealings, I would start threatening all & sundry with legal action & giving out banning orders. the mere threat will work in 99% of cases as most people can't afford to contest the action, can't put in the time, really don't need the hassle etc.
When these type of cases are bought, they are not always won. Just ask Peter Rowe who was sued by some one we all know, but successfully defended himself. (Think I got that right).  
Another point is that one of the most known & dishonest persons we have ever had in this country Robert Maxwell, habitually used the courts or the threst of , on a regular basis to hide HIS fraud.
In fact getting back to this fictitious football club, said fictitious character has possibly lost as many court cases as he has had companies liquidated.

But if the site was advertised as 80% bullshit and part of the zany appeal of such a place was random word switching, how could anyone prove intent?

Oh damn great minds & all that, I don't type as fast as you though Paul :old:

The Melbury Rovers director normally comes away smelling of roses though and doesn't ever seem to lose real money. Maybe thats because its not the real world that The Melbury Rovers Director lives in because he never uses his own money.

Paul great post - should you actually say at the bottom of your posts - There is no Bob Holt !!

But if there WAS no actaul Bob Holt could Bob Holts character be stained ?

Thank you dell. Hmm, I don't know that denying Bob's very existence could be said to damage his reputation per se as I'm sure if he did exist he would be a fine upstanding individual who could be relied upon to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But if I'm wrong, I look forward to participating in the world's first existentialist libel action  :D

So if you talked about purely fictitious football clubs and people, could you say what you liked?

No, certainly not. If for example I made a false & damaging alegation about Mr Sid Namaid (not that he IS a backward twat), I could be sued, in a fictitious court of course.

i'm not trying to censor anyone. i'm trying to protect people from needless pathetic threats of libel, including protecting myself.

and i'm not going to apologise for doing that.

I dont think anyones having a dig at you in this thread Sonic old dear.

Yes, unless a real individual/individuals could be clearly identified from what you wrote. So if, for example, you wrote something defamatory about the general manager of Swinton United, Mick Doomundies, (not that anyone would want to do that, obviously), you could well get sued, as it would be obvious who you were talking about.

probably not but i'm over-sensitive.

Nor me, he's just after attention - bless him.

Everyone knows your reasons Sonic.

   What an unhealthy fascination in Nazi regalia?

So, if we refer to Mr Whippy, we are bombproof unless it is commonly known that Mr Whippy refers to ............. ?

Unfortunately not. Unlike in the USA, in English libel cases there is no onus on the plaintiff to prove that the statement is false.

It might also be worth mentioning that the courts have ruled that mere abuse is not considered defamatory, provided a reasonable person would not understand the words as conveying truth.

Actually he's not the "Fat Controller" any more. Apparantly they decided it was politically incorrect  :roll:

Fat Controller is now called the Big Controller (politically correct)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuvU8pPGQso

it will be changed to the 'governmentally denounced as morbidly obese controller' soon

He's not fat, he's just big boned.

To go back to a previous point, you can abuse anyone you want provided you don't name them or use a recognisable nickname.

So lets say you had a pet name for Bob Holt, which was Basil, you could happily post away that basil was a dodgy so and so.  You couldn't post that Mick the Greek was a dodgy so and so though because it's pretty clear other people would understand who it was.  You can refer to his past but it has to be specifically mentioned as thus, so "Diamandis was once banned from being a Director" is fine, however you are not able to write down an inference that he is currently dodgy just based on that past.

You cannot post stuff which insinuates more than the literall meaning either and you cannot get away with claiming it was just a joke unfortunately.

Likewise, Mr Andronikou was touching dodgy ground when having an article printed calling people busybodies.  Just the right side of ok.

I'm fairly sure you can use sweeping statements like that, so "people associated with STFC are a right dodgy lot" should be ok because it could refer to anyone.

That could get dodgy, actually, especially if you referred to, say, 'people running STFC'. Legal precedent for how big a group of people has to be before an individual cannot claim that they are identifiable within it is somewhere between 12 (there has been a ruling in favour) and 25 (there has been a ruling against).

Ah, but 40,000 ish could be claimed to Associated with STFC based on Wembley turnouts

So can you call people cunts if you really really think it's justified. That's all I want to know.

I repeat, mere abuse is not deemed to be defamatory. You can call anyone you like a cunt. Although I guess you're more likely to direct that sort of language at someone you don't like...

so basically we can only make comments if they are really, really offensive and the more bizarre and unlikely to be true the better ?!

You wonder how far this could all of this threat of being sued can go.

Maybe Alan Shearer should sue the tartan army for singing songs about him being a paedophile.

Hitler's ancestors should sue school children for alledging that the Fuhrer only had "one ball".

Ronaldinho could sue Gary Lineker for stating that the brasillian can eat an apple through a tennis racket.

Red maca, you're a cunt
foggy you're an old cunt obviously
flammable ben you're just a useless cunt
toddy you're a cunt

i never thought posh spice looked the type either - although thats not to say i find the idea impossible,  as presumably saying she doesn't could also be construed as libelous if she does.  I remain to be convinced either way.

i believe that this is actually true...

for the record, as i have mentioned in the past abuse is not acceptable either.

[quote="sonic youth
for the record, as i have mentioned in the past abuse is not acceptable either.[/quote]

Bloody hell :shock: that's 90% of the posts about the board outlawed then.  This is getting more surreal than ever - what about asterisks as in " ***  are a load of cheating, con artists who are lining their pockets and  ***   is a loud mouthed cunt"  I bet most people here could fill in the blanks but there's no libel

Wanker  :D

stop phoning me you cock

I thought that said labia for a moment

anyhooo

Welcome Nick !!

although with that spelling it could be Mike !!

 :wink:

stop phoning me you cock

 :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick: :roll:

:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:   Fred .. it's not Nick just another fortunate sole that managed to escape the grip of the alleged grim reaper .. and there are many of us.

I just find it sickening the way that certain individuals in this world can turn other peoples passion to shite for their own gain .... they make no secret of it either ... the wannabe bully in the playground .... compensating for other inadequacies, call it what you may the fact there is little regard for any other person in  the human race I find utterly appalling ..

These sort of people seem to be made from Teflon. No matter who tries to pin anything on them … even the DTI they always manage to slip out of it and come away scott free …

One day there will be a day of reckoning and that day we will all be better off.

If you are interested in such things there is quite a long article in When Saturday Comes this month regarding the threat of action against forums, including the Sheff Wed case study, one involving Hereford and one about the russian bloke interested in Arsenal.

I would summarise it, but I read it last night and was a little tipsy at the time!

So just to clear it up can i calll the members of the board nasty names or can't I?

As far as I know the rules are the same as they have been. personal abuse = no, criticism about how certain individuals have run the club = fair enough.

so i can't call board members a cunt but i can say i don't like the way that they have done stuff?

This is all a bit technical for me.

It's common sense really, so calling someone a cunting black jew gash is generally unacceptable; but your average tef regular, DV for example, isn't likely to go all legal and badger (or hairy land manatee) Whits and Sonic for details / post removal etc.