redbullzeye
 Offline
Posts: 1319
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:07:17 » |
|
Because the site owner etc can all be taken to court as well. 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? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Phil_S
Offline
Posts: 1534
Who changed my Avatar ?!
|
|
« Reply #16 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:10:12 » |
|
Oh damn great minds & all that, I don't type as fast as you though Paul :old:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
From the Dark Side
|
|
|
|
dell boy
|
|
« Reply #17 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:10:22 » |
|
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).
In fact said fictitious character has possibly lost as many court cases as he has had companies liquidated. 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 !! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Phil_S
Offline
Posts: 1534
Who changed my Avatar ?!
|
|
« Reply #18 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:13:18 » |
|
But if there WAS no actaul Bob Holt could Bob Holts character be stained ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
From the Dark Side
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #19 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:26:15 » |
|
Paul great post - should you actually say at the bottom of your posts - There is no Bob Holt !! 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  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reeves for King
Offline
Posts: 751
|
|
« Reply #20 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:29:28 » |
|
So if you talked about purely fictitious football clubs and people, could you say what you liked?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
here's the man himself when you need him?
|
|
|
Phil_S
Offline
Posts: 1534
Who changed my Avatar ?!
|
|
« Reply #21 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:34:37 » |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
From the Dark Side
|
|
|
|
sonic youth
|
|
« Reply #22 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:44:02 » |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yeo
Offline
Posts: 3651
|
|
« Reply #23 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:46:40 » |
|
I dont think anyones having a dig at you in this thread Sonic old dear.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
/
W56196272
|
|
|
NW6Red
Offline
Posts: 105
|
|
« Reply #24 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:49:57 » |
|
So if you talked about purely fictitious football clubs and people, could you say what you liked? 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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sonic youth
|
|
« Reply #25 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:50:37 » |
|
I dont think anyones having a dig at you in this thread Sonic old dear. probably not but i'm over-sensitive. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Kinky Tom
Snow Master Sandwich King.
Offline
Posts: 9049
|
|
« Reply #26 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:51:54 » |
|
I dont think anyones having a dig at you in this thread Sonic old dear. Nor me, he's just after attention - bless him. Everyone knows your reasons Sonic. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #27 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:55:06 » |
|
I dont think anyones having a dig at you in this thread Sonic old dear. Everyone knows your reasons Sonic. What an unhealthy fascination in Nazi regalia? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Phil_S
Offline
Posts: 1534
Who changed my Avatar ?!
|
|
« Reply #28 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 12:57:55 » |
|
So, if we refer to Mr Whippy, we are bombproof unless it is commonly known that Mr Whippy refers to ............. ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
From the Dark Side
|
|
|
thepeoplesgame
Offline
Posts: 666
|
|
« Reply #29 on: Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 13:00:31 » |
|
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? 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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
