Forum Libel Action

[Neil]

Is that not more to do with the ISP being sued rather than a forum user/owner??

Could have read it wrong..

That's simply the distinction between the media, propagation, and protocol.

usenet was forum related activity, BITD. Libel is normally about going after the publisher. As it's been a long time, I can't remember all the details about it, but in the instance of usenet, it's a much more complex issue because of how it is deployed.

Normal web-based forums are probably much simpler. If there's something actionable as libel, there's something actionable as libel. For web based forums, I'd imagine it's an easier task than dealing with a libel claim on usenet.

My initial point, being that the usenet libel case was precedent for libel being pursued on t'internet - and it was, and it is.

 

[IDB1]

My initial point, being that the usenet libel case was precedent for libel being pursued on t'internet - and it was, and it is.

Indeed.

I know ISP's were 'running scared' at one point (and may still be), a few folk with forums had their sites closed/removed/deleted for what looked outwardly like trivial reasons so it must be a very real risk.

I don't take enough notice of the news to know how common (or not) it is..

 

[The Ken]

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

Unfortunately that doesn't necessarily mean you won't get sued, and if you don't have enough cash to put up a defence against someone that does they might win through some technicality.

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

 

[Neil]

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.

 

[highlandsflyer]

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?

 

[Neil]

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".

 

[highlandsflyer]

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?

 

[KeepItSteel]

one concur's

 

[stedlocks]

Effing hell

That went tits up quickly....... I couldn't understand half of that, let alone put up an argument one way or tother

 

[suburbanreuben]

Effing hell

That went tits up quickly....... I couldn't understand half of that, let alone put up an argument one way or tother

Give a man a white wig for Christmas,...