In the new censored TEF (thanks to the Board)

[RobertT]

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.

[Batch]

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.

[ghanimah]

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!

[figgis]

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.

[Reg Smeeton]

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.

[ghanimah]

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.

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

[Barry Scott]

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? :?

[horlock07]

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.

[bashful01]

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

[Barry Scott]

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.

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.

[RobertT]

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.

[redbullzeye]

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!

[RobertT]

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

[pauld]

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).

[Phil_S]

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.