Forum Libel Action

[The Ken]

This is just for anyone not able to follow the debate across 2 pages

as long as comments true...............

Unfortunately that doesn't necessarily mean you won't get sued

Agreed.

And doesn't necessarily mean that any claim would fail, either.

And with the silly super injunctions you guys have you can get sent to prison for saying something that is true.

Well agreed that in the main they seem very silly, all things considered.

That said, I don't know of (*doesn't mean there aren't any, mind...) any cases where anybody has gone to prison as a result of breaking a super-injunction.

And with the silly super injunctions you guys have you can get sent to prison for saying something that is true.

An injunction is the order of a court of law. Intentionally, (knowingly), breaking it is a crime, whether you are telling the truth or otherwise.

The truth, regardless of how obvious or provable, will need to clarification in law where it has become the subject of a legal question. That usually takes time. Meanwhile injunctions have their place.

Injunctions/Super Injunctions granted to protect from trial by media or invasions of privacy seem reasonable as short/medium term measures.

I am for Super Injunctions, applied in the short/medium term purely on legal merits, accepting that exceptionally they may need to be permanent.

Defamation laws, particularly relevant to message boards, social networking and chat formats, are currently ridiculous. Defamation being actionable has become arbitrary, depending on the origin of the post or the location of the site.

How about someone defaming me? They currently have free rein on any number of sites; they would need to be very silly to repeat defaming material where it might allow me to take action.

This situation means anyone with a reputation, or identifiable by inference, can be dragged through the mud with practically no comeback.

While smothering sordid tales of extra marital goings on is not desirable, what about those maligned able to do nothing about it except respond via the same ‘covert’ channels?

Do we really want a future where the truth really is just a matter of consensus amongst the herd?

Which is really the Big Brother scenario?

Injunctions/Super Injunctions granted to protect from trial by media or invasions of privacy seem reasonable as short/medium term measures.

I am for Super Injunctions, applied in the short/medium term purely on legal merits, accepting that exceptionally they may need to be permanent.

There's a difference between an injunction, and a "super-injunction" - and everybody calling them silly has a good point.

They'd get no respect in the US - and why?

Now I get the canard often quoted in their favour - family law, or cases involving children that shouldn't be identified - true enough, there's a place - but by and large, nobody is that interested in breaking them. And that argument won't fly with the high-profile cases so recently "busted".

And I also get the subtle, yet poignant difference between "in the public interest" and "what the public are interested in" - but all the same, freedom of speech should not be a plaything for the rich and philandering.

The reality of global media and social "community" makes them a farce, as has been shown recently, what with international "networking" and relatively local bailiwick of English court rulings.

Defamation laws, particularly relevant to message boards, social networking and chat formats, are currently ridiculous. Defamation being actionable has become arbitrary, depending on the origin of the post or the location of the site.

You're conflating actionable defamation with the rationale behind granted "super-injunctions". They may well not be in any way connected.

How about someone defaming me? They currently have free rein on any number of sites; they would need to be very silly to repeat defaming material where it might allow me to take action.

1. At least on this forum, probably only a select few know who you really are.
2. Let's be realistic - is anybody truly interested in defaming you?

This situation means anyone with a reputation, or identifiable by inference, can be dragged through the mud with practically no comeback.

And there's a difference between global media being free to expose details, paid-off in England, with being "dragged through the mud".

And those people who are sufficiently financially endowed to be able to pay for a "super-injunction" most certainly have the ability to do something about being defamed, slandered, or libelled in England.

While smothering sordid tales of extra marital goings on is not desirable, what about those maligned able to do nothing about it except respond via the same ‘covert’ channels?

In most of the "super-injunctions" that I've heared about, it seems to be the significantly un-financially endowed party that seems to have little recourse.

Do we really want a future where the truth really is just a matter of consensus amongst the herd?

Well as an aside, for many things in life that's been the case for a very long time, that has seen before, seen, and will see after "super-injunctions".

Those who are rich enough to be able to get "super-injunctions" granted are more than rich enough to be able to afford civil cases if they truly have been defamed, slandered, or libelled, do they really need or deserve any more protection than that? Many, many "normal", Clapham-omnibus-riding people in society would not be able to afford such from England's legal system.

Do we really want a future where freedom of speech is so easily compromised on the whim and cheque-book of the rich and sleazy?

Which is really the Big Brother scenario?

Well opinons vary.

Legal and societal sympathies might be more readily given - and perhaps honoured - by those making such demands taking a bit more bloody resonsibility for their own actions, before going whining to teacher, first.

If the rich and shameless want more privacy, then for feck's sake they should be more discreet and less arrogant about being able to buy their way out of being caught with their pants around their ankles.

Personally, I don't begrudge them their philandering and sleaze, I just don't see why the legal system nor fundamental human rights should have to be compromised to support it - that, nor the fatuous claims that global media and internet resources should have to be censored or regulated to support the bought privacy, and pseudo, out-dated, protection of English "super-injunctions".

Injunctions/Super Injunctions granted to protect from trial by media or invasions of privacy seem reasonable as short/medium term measures.

I am for Super Injunctions, applied in the short/medium term purely on legal merits, accepting that exceptionally they may need to be permanent.

There's a difference between an injunction, and a "super-injunction" - and everybody calling them silly has a good point.

I AM WELL AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCES, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK OTHERWISE?

They'd get no respect in the US - and why?

Now I get the canard often quoted in their favour - family law, or cases involving children that shouldn't be identified - true enough, there's a place - but by and large, nobody is that interested in breaking them. And that argument won't fly with the high-profile cases so recently "busted".

YES THEY HAVE A PLACE, AND IT IS NO CANARD. YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT PROPORTION OF SUCH EXIST VERSUS THE HIGH PROFILE CASES.

And I also get the subtle, yet poignant difference between "in the public interest" and "what the public are interested in" - but all the same, freedom of speech should not be a plaything for the rich and philandering.

...SHOULD THE PRIVACY OF INNOCENTS BE THE PLAYTHING OF THE RED TOPS?

The reality of global media and social "community" makes them a farce, as has been shown recently, what with international "networking" and relatively local bailiwick of English court rulings.

Defamation laws, particularly relevant to message boards, social networking and chat formats, are currently ridiculous. Defamation being actionable has become arbitrary, depending on the origin of the post or the location of the site.

You're conflating actionable defamation with the rationale behind granted "super-injunctions". They may well not be in any way connected.

I AM CONFLATING NOTHING AT ALL, I MOVED ON TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORIGINATING POST.

How about someone defaming me? They currently have free rein on any number of sites; they would need to be very silly to repeat defaming material where it might allow me to take action.

1. At least on this forum, probably only a select few know who you really are.

HOW DROLE. WOULD IT HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND IF I SAID, “SOMEONE DEFAMING A MEMBER OF JOE PUBLIC”?

2. Let's be realistic - is anybody truly interested in defaming you?

MORE OF THE SAME AD HOMINEM BULLSHIT. HOW UNUSUAL FOR YOU. YOU HAVEN’T A CLUE WHO I AM. NOW YOU ARE SUGGESTING NO ONE WOULD EVER DEFAME THAT ANONYMOUS ENTITY, HAVING ADMITTED THAT FOR ALL YOU KNOW I COULD BE GEORGE MICHAEL. (DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR AYE?) YOU ARE SO UP YOURSELF IT IS PERFECTLY BELIEVABLE.

This situation means anyone with a reputation, or identifiable by inference, can be dragged through the mud with practically no comeback.

And there's a difference between global media being free to expose details, paid-off in England, with being "dragged through the mud".

I STAND BY MY STATEMENT. YOU ARE AGAIN TALKING IN RELATION TO SUPER INJUNCTIONS, WHEREAS I HAD MOVED ON TO DISCUSS THE IDEA OF DEFAMATION ON THE INTERNET. NOT THAT YOU WOULD NOTICE ANYTHING EXCEPT YOUR OWN VOICE.

And those people who are sufficiently financially endowed to be able to pay for a "super-injunction" most certainly have the ability to do something about being defamed, slandered, or libelled in England.

MY WHOLE POINT WAS THAT THE CRITERION FOR ALLOWING THESE TYPES OF INJUNCTION SHOULD BE NOTHING RELATED TO FINANCIAL MEANS.

While smothering sordid tales of extra marital goings on is not desirable, what about those maligned able to do nothing about it except respond via the same ‘covert’ channels?

In most of the "super-injunctions" that I've heared about, it seems to be the significantly un-financially endowed party that seems to have little recourse.

YOU ARE CONFLATING THE TWO ISSUES OF DEFAMATION AND SUPER INJUNCTIONS! I AM TALKING ABOUT DEFAMATION FROM LOCALES WHERE SUPER INJUNCTIONS ARE INEFFECTIVE. NEVER MIND THE DETAILS CARRY ON AS USUAL NEIL, ON AND BLOODY ON.

Do we really want a future where the truth really is just a matter of consensus amongst the herd?

Well as an aside, for many things in life that's been the case for a very long time, that has seen before, seen, and will see after "super-injunctions".

BOLLOCKS. THERE ARE MANY AREAS OF LAW MAKING AND APPLICATION OF LAW THAT HAVE SHIT ALL TO DO WITH JOE PUBLIC'S GENERAL AGREEMENT. IF THAT WAS NOT THE CASE THERE WOULD BE HANGINGS EVERY WEEK. LEGAL TRUTH, ON WHICH THE LAW ACTS, IS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC CONSENSUS.

Those who are rich enough to be able to get "super-injunctions" granted are more than rich enough to be able to afford civil cases if they truly have been defamed, slandered, or libelled, do they really need or deserve any more protection than that? Many, many "normal", Clapham-omnibus-riding people in society would not be able to afford such from England's legal system.

I HAVE STATED I CONSIDER THE SUPER INJUNCTION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE REGARDLESS OF MEANS. NOT THAT THE ACTUAL FACTS INTEREST YOU, THERE ARE CASES OF 'RICH' PEOPLE SUCCESSFULLY FIGHTING DEFAMATION; YET GOING BANKRUPT EVENTUALLY AS THEY CONTINUE TO BE FORCED INTO SEEKING LEGAL RECOURSE TO FIGHT THE SAME DEFAMATION ON MULTIPLE FRONTS REPEATEDLY.

Do we really want a future where freedom of speech is so easily compromised on the whim and cheque-book of the rich and sleazy?

INJUNCTIONS ARE ORDERS OF COURT, AND EVEN AS IT STANDS THEY ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY APPLIED JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN PAY. NEVER MIND THE FACTS THOUGH, STICK TO THE LINE WORN BY THE NOTW AND THE SUN.

Which is really the Big Brother scenario?

Well opinons vary.

Legal and societal sympathies might be more readily given - and perhaps honoured - by those making such demands taking a bit more bloody resonsibility for their own actions, before going whining to teacher, first.

If the rich and shameless want more privacy, then for feck's sake they should be more discreet and less arrogant about being able to buy their way out of being caught with their pants around their ankles.

Personally, I don't begrudge them their philandering and sleaze, I just don't see why the legal system nor fundamental human rights should have to be compromised to support it - that, nor the fatuous claims that global media and internet resources should have to be censored or regulated to support the bought privacy, and pseudo, out-dated, protection of English "super-injunctions".

LOVE TO HEAR HOW YOU INVEIGLED HUMAN RIGHTS INTO THIS ONE, BY PURE FORCE OF IGNORANCE I ASSUME?

Injunctions/Super Injunctions granted to protect from trial by media or invasions of privacy seem reasonable as short/medium term measures.

I am for Super Injunctions, applied in the short/medium term purely on legal merits, accepting that exceptionally they may need to be permanent.

There's a difference between an injunction, and a "super-injunction" - and everybody calling them silly has a good point.

I AM WELL AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCES, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK OTHERWISE?

Um, because you did conflate them.

Out of many of the "super-injunctions", how many do you think will really materialise in some actionable, defamation claim?

Now I get the canard often quoted in their favour - family law, or cases involving children that shouldn't be identified - true enough, there's a place - but by and large, nobody is that interested in breaking them. And that argument won't fly with the high-profile cases so recently "busted".

YES THEY HAVE A PLACE, AND IT IS NO CANARD. YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT PROPORTION OF SUCH EXIST VERSUS THE HIGH PROFILE CASES.

And neither do you.

And nobody - here, or otherwise - seems to be denying or arguing against the principle of family court privacy being maintained.

My point was pre-empting the whole, they're used in family court therefore they're valid for anybody stupid enough to get caught in an embarrassing situation, but rich enough to afford service from the "justice" system that only normally applies to average people when there are vulnerable minors involved.

And I also get the subtle, yet poignant difference between "in the public interest" and "what the public are interested in" - but all the same, freedom of speech should not be a plaything for the rich and philandering.

...SHOULD THE PRIVACY OF INNOCENTS BE THE PLAYTHING OF THE RED TOPS?

The privacy of vulnerable minors should be absolutely maintained.

The privacy of public figures, normally courting publicity, should not be a subverting, paid-for, service of our "justice" system, because they've got deep-pockets.

Clapham-omnibus-riding-person again...

Defamation laws, particularly relevant to message boards, social networking and chat formats, are currently ridiculous. Defamation being actionable has become arbitrary, depending on the origin of the post or the location of the site.

You're conflating actionable defamation with the rationale behind granted "super-injunctions". They may well not be in any way connected.

I AM CONFLATING NOTHING AT ALL, I MOVED ON TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORIGINATING POST.

Then what was the point then? How is it arbitrary, unless you are linking the situation with "super-injunctions", recently, being "busted" by global media and "community"?

How about someone defaming me? They currently have free rein on any number of sites; they would need to be very silly to repeat defaming material where it might allow me to take action.

1. At least on this forum, probably only a select few know who you really are.

HOW DROLE. WOULD IT HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND IF I SAID, “SOMEONE DEFAMING A MEMBER OF JOE PUBLIC”?

Then say it, then, rather than whining about me commenting on WHAT YOU ACTUALLY WROTE.

2. Let's be realistic - is anybody truly interested in defaming you?

MORE OF THE SAME AD HOMINEM BULLSHIT. HOW UNUSUAL FOR YOU. YOU HAVEN’T A CLUE WHO I AM. NOW YOU ARE SUGGESTING NO ONE WOULD EVER DEFAME THAT ANONYMOUS ENTITY, HAVING ADMITTED THAT FOR ALL YOU KNOW I COULD BE GEORGE MICHAEL. (DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR AYE?) YOU ARE SO UP YOURSELF IT IS PERFECTLY BELIEVABLE.

Eh?

How is it ad-hominem, and how is it being up-myself?

You'd be better considering the looking glass.

How does defamation apply to an "anonymous" entity? Go on - how does that work, unless that entity isn't anonymous?

Did you really think that through, or were you just determined to out your righteous indignation?

This situation means anyone with a reputation, or identifiable by inference, can be dragged through the mud with practically no comeback.

And there's a difference between global media being free to expose details, paid-off in England, with being "dragged through the mud".

I STAND BY MY STATEMENT. YOU ARE AGAIN TALKING IN RELATION TO SUPER INJUNCTIONS, WHEREAS I HAD MOVED ON TO DISCUSS THE IDEA OF DEFAMATION ON THE INTERNET. NOT THAT YOU WOULD NOTICE ANYTHING EXCEPT YOUR OWN VOICE.

Likewise.

OK, then, you claim you're now talking about defamation, generally, on t'internet. Who's been damaged, then, and why?

And those people who are sufficiently financially endowed to be able to pay for a "super-injunction" most certainly have the ability to do something about being defamed, slandered, or libelled in England.

MY WHOLE POINT WAS THAT THE CRITERION FOR ALLOWING THESE TYPES OF INJUNCTION SHOULD BE NOTHING RELATED TO FINANCIAL MEANS.

And yet, outside family court, they are.

And as recent history has shown, they're largely ineffectual, an almost King Canute-like, head-in-the-sand relic.

You're average man on the Clapham omnibus likely couldn't afford one.

While smothering sordid tales of extra marital goings on is not desirable, what about those maligned able to do nothing about it except respond via the same ‘covert’ channels?

In most of the "super-injunctions" that I've heared about, it seems to be the significantly un-financially endowed party that seems to have little recourse.

YOU ARE CONFLATING THE TWO ISSUES OF DEFAMATION AND SUPER INJUNCTIONS! I AM TALKING ABOUT DEFAMATION FROM LOCALES WHERE SUPER INJUNCTIONS ARE INEFFECTIVE. NEVER MIND THE DETAILS CARRY ON AS USUAL NEIL, ON AND BLOODY ON.

Likewise.

And you were the one raising the spectre of ad hominem. Isn't that just bloody typical - the loudest whingers are always the ones doing it themselves.

Sometimes, the expectations of some, about what the justice system should involve itself in, are truly bizarre.

Do we really want a future where the truth really is just a matter of consensus amongst the herd?

Well as an aside, for many things in life that's been the case for a very long time, that has seen before, seen, and will see after "super-injunctions".

BOLLOCKS. THERE ARE MANY AREAS OF LAW MAKING AND APPLICATION OF LAW THAT HAVE SHIT ALL TO DO WITH JOE PUBLIC'S GENERAL AGREEMENT. IF THAT WAS NOT THE CASE THERE WOULD BE HANGINGS EVERY WEEK. LEGAL TRUTH, ON WHICH THE LAW ACTS, IS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC CONSENSUS.

Um, what has that got to do with the fact that people gossip, and come to some communal opinion that may be undesirable for some?

You REALLY think that's something the justice system should involve itself in?

You've not thought ANY of this through, it's just an typical, knee-jerk, emotive response with no actual thought to the debate.

Those who are rich enough to be able to get "super-injunctions" granted are more than rich enough to be able to afford civil cases if they truly have been defamed, slandered, or libelled, do they really need or deserve any more protection than that? Many, many "normal", Clapham-omnibus-riding people in society would not be able to afford such from England's legal system.

I HAVE STATED I CONSIDER THE SUPER INJUNCTION SHOULD BE
AVAILABLE REGARDLESS OF MEANS.

Smashing.

Fact remains that they're not - outside of specific, family court cases, where vulnerable minors are involved.

NOT THAT THE ACTUAL FACTS INTEREST YOU, THERE ARE CASES OF 'RICH' PEOPLE SUCCESSFULLY FIGHTING DEFAMATION; YET GOING BANKRUPT EVENTUALLY AS THEY CONTINUE TO BE FORCED INTO SEEKING LEGAL RECOURSE TO FIGHT THE SAME DEFAMATION ON MULTIPLE FRONTS REPEATEDLY.

Who?

And weren't you just having some episode, a point or so back, with the shouty talk about conflating defamation with "super-injunctions". Like many, it's ok when it suits...

Who are you talking about here, that was once rich, had a valid and actionable defamation claim, persued it successfully, yet are forced into bankruptcy in the pursuit of still defending their reputation from defamation?

Do we really want a future where freedom of speech is so easily compromised on the whim and cheque-book of the rich and sleazy?

INJUNCTIONS ARE ORDERS OF COURT, AND EVEN AS IT STANDS THEY ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY APPLIED JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN PAY. NEVER MIND THE FACTS THOUGH, STICK TO THE LINE WORN BY THE NOTW AND THE SUN.

My opinion on the subject has got nothing whatsoever to do with the tabloids, or even journalism in general.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of fundamental RIGHTS being casually eroded, either because of governments with agendas, and a complacent populace; or because people with deep pockets can buy themselves judicial service, on PRINCIPLES that the average "person" (that the judicial system likes to use for their own ends, when it suits) wouldn't be able to afford.

Which is really the Big Brother scenario?

Well opinons vary.

Legal and societal sympathies might be more readily given - and perhaps honoured - by those making such demands taking a bit more bloody resonsibility for their own actions, before going whining to teacher, first.

If the rich and shameless want more privacy, then for feck's sake they should be more discreet and less arrogant about being able to buy their way out of being caught with their pants around their ankles.

Personally, I don't begrudge them their philandering and sleaze, I just don't see why the legal system nor fundamental human rights should have to be compromised to support it - that, nor the fatuous claims that global media and internet resources should have to be censored or regulated to support the bought privacy, and pseudo, out-dated, protection of English "super-injunctions".

LOVE TO HEAR HOW YOU INVEIGLED HUMAN RIGHTS INTO THIS ONE, BY PURE FORCE OF IGNORANCE I ASSUME?

I'm sure you would

With your oh-so-fervent righteous indignation, your whole, entire poorly thought out rant, doesn't have one degree of thought - it's entirely bereft of everything 'cept some shouty, emotional, outburst.

Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental human rights.

How's about engaging a little thought before deploying the caps lock, eh?

 

[IDB1]

Pretty sure that's not helping.... funny though...

 

[Kestonian]

There is a story in the cricket world that I shall tell you now. I know not if it's true, but I sincerely hope it is.

A fast bowler gets no-balled by the umpire and glares at him on his way back to his mark. He steams in for the next delivery gets no-balled again. He skulks back to the start of his run up, fuming.

After this happens a third time, the bowler goes up to the umpire and says

"Umpire, what would happen if I called you a ****"

The umpire replies "You'd get a 3 match ban and lose your match fee"

The bowler turns to walk back to his mark, stops, and goes back to the umpire.

"Umpire" he says, "What would happen if I thought you're a ****"

"Well" says the umpire "there's not a lot I can do about that is there?"

"Umpire" replied the bowler, "I think you're a ****"

FIN

 

[tintin40]

Hey, could you keep your arguments simple please? Thick people use this forum too you know.

Plus if a thread is too long then i just can't be bothered to read. Short and to the point is always best

 

[suburbanreuben]

Hey, could you keep your arguments simple please? Thick people use this forum too you know.

Plus if a thread is too long then i just can't be bothered to read. Short and to the point is always best

As are the most persuasive arguments... :roll:

 

[tintin40]

And the award for most boring argument ever goes to....

between two

 

[mikee]

is that chickens ruben ?

have you got any ducks ?

 

[stevec1975]

Loving the arguments..

I assume the OP question was in reference to the post re: Sithlord http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151343, around "he will take legal action if anyone libels him via these forums."

I find the concept of that in this environment laughable at best, and would love to see anyone try and be taken seriously if they did.

 

[KeepItSteel]

There is a story in the cricket world that I shall tell you now. I know not if it's true, but I sincerely hope it is.

A fast bowler gets no-balled by the umpire and glares at him on his way back to his mark. He steams in for the next delivery gets no-balled again. He skulks back to the start of his run up, fuming.

After this happens a third time, the bowler goes up to the umpire and says

"Umpire, what would happen if I called you a ****"

The umpire replies "You'd get a 3 match ban and lose your match fee"

The bowler turns to walk back to his mark, stops, and goes back to the umpire.

"Umpire" he says, "What would happen if I thought you're a ****"

"Well" says the umpire "there's not a lot I can do about that is there?"

"Umpire" replied the bowler, "I think you're a ****"

FIN

I'd forgotten that one, priceless.
Still need to be carefull for saying what you think here though..

 

[kaiser]

Still need to be carefull for saying what you think here though..

No more than in any public place.