 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Internet libel
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Internet libel |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: Internet libel From: Ireland Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:31 PM With the recent posts about Toogood etc, can people get carried away that they end up libelling some one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet libel From: khandu Date: 07 Oct 02 - 09:06 PM If I state an opinion, it is not libel. If I state as a fact that someone is a thief, then I am subject to charges of libel, unless it has been proven that the person is a thief. At least that is my understanding, but what the hell do I know? khandu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet libel From: Ireland Date: 07 Oct 02 - 09:26 PM If you accuse some one in the wrong and use their name while doing it is that libel? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet libel From: khandu Date: 07 Oct 02 - 09:39 PM I am not certain, Ireland. Personally, before I actually accuse anyone of anything, I generally make sure that there is a very good reason for the accusation; that is, I must believe the person is guilty. If I wrongfully accuse, I do not know whether that would leave my open for libel charges. As I said, what do I know? khandu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet libel From: toadfrog Date: 07 Oct 02 - 10:34 PM Defamation requires a statement (technically a "publication") of fact, not opinion, and to be actionable must also be false and unprivileged and cause damage to the person who is defamed. For example, after 9/11, people went around publishing e-mails saying that certain individuals of Arab descent were "dancing in the streets," so that those individuals of Arab descent experienced sudden and severe difficulty in making a living. Whichever S.O.B. sent those e-mails was sure enough guilty of actionable defamation, but of course will never get caught. If you publish a statement, say, that someone is a "sleaze-bag," that is probably not defamatory, although it depends on the context and how the word is understood. If you say that person is a "thief," that probably is defamatory, but again it depends on context - "thief" could be obvious hyperbole, or even jocular. But if you say of Ms. Toogood that she was caught trying to sneak merchandise out of a store without paying for it, that is sure as hell defamatory, and if it is also false you could be liable for any damage the statement caused. Of course, it is very unlikely she would sue anyone for saying things on Mudcat, because we don't have much power to damage her. Still and all, one really shouldn't call people thieves unless one is sure about the facts. It might be different if someone (a) who is respected and considered authoritative (b) said something damaging on Mudcat (d) about someone in the record industry, and (e) lots of people stopped buying their records. If the statement was false, it might get said respected person in real trouble. By the way, it is not a defense to defamation that you are only repeating stuff you heard from someone else. Don't believe everything you get in an e-mail! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet libel From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 07 Oct 02 - 10:56 PM Dave Bulmer of Celtic Music, is a crook and a cheat, do not buy his records. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet libel From: Ireland Date: 08 Oct 02 - 07:34 AM Thanks toadfrog,I was reading the posts about Toogood and it made me wonder about the libel aspect, so I thought I'd ask. Khandu has good advice on the matter, I wonder how many libelous statements are come by through pure frustration. Just like that record fella, ha ha. I may have misunderstood what I read, the just of the article was that ISP's in the UK are liable for such postings, which also left me wondering, but in this case I think the libel met all the criteria that toadfrog mentioned. |