Be VERY careful what you post

[dubai_phil]

OK we have seen recently that anyone can google and stuff that we post can come up. My daughter (trainee lawyer) just found this in her research for a project.....

 

 

 

Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Ltd & others v. Hargreaves (2007)

 

Hargreaves (the defendant) was the owner and operator of owlstalk.co.uk which invites fans of Sheffield Wednesday (if any!) to post messages on matters regarding the club.

 

The action was brought by the club and 7 of its directors, who felt that 11 comments placed on the website consisted of a 'sustained campaign of vilification against them' and that the comments posted were false and defamatory.

 

The club sought to pursue libel proceedings against the individuals who posted the messages, however brought an action in the first instance to compel Hargreaves to release the details of the authors of the blogs.

 

It was decided that four of the eleven postings could "reasonably be understood to allege greed, selfishness, untrustworthiness and dishonest behaviour" on the part of the club and the directors and were more than just "saloon bar moanings".

 

The court ordered the details of the 4 authors of the potentially defamatory statements to be released as the right for the directors to maintain their reputations outweighed the right of the authors to protect their anonymity.

 

The 4 bloggers are now facing costly libel action, and if their posts are found to be defamatory they may have to pay out damages amounting to £10,000s! One of the authors was based in Florida, and the club are now pursuing him in the US...

[CabbageFace]

Owen Hargreaves is a legend.

[Hatch]

Rupert Lowe has a huge ****.

[Professor]

Interesting report. People are only slowly coming to realise that the writing on a web site is publication, just as much as in a newspaper or a book. In the past only authors or journalists had to worry, although letter writers to Newspapers have been subject to libel action.

We like to think we are just debating amongst ourselves, just as we would in a pub, but its just as well to be reminded that actually this is fully in public.

Do the mods have anything to add?

[stevegrant]

Plenty more info on the OwlsTalk case here:

 

http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=owlstalk&sitesearch-radio=guardian&go-guardian=Search

[Pancake]

Did you know Rupert Lowe is actually gay, I saw him kiss a man last night

 

"He kissed a man and he liked it, the taste of his wooden hockey stick"

[Dicko]

I remember some controversy on a Hereford Utd forum last year.

 

Graham Turner was angered by some comment a supporter made and banned him for life from Edgar Street

 

This supporter was a season ticket holder and had even raised money for the club during their dark days

 

:o

[Saint Martini]

Under which countries law would I be sued? I know the UK has one of the strictest libel laws in Europe with rather high compensation in comparison to other countries. The example of the guy in Florida shows they can bring do it in the country where the posting (was probably) made but do they have to (in the case of the guy in Florida its probably better for the Sheff Wed directors but if they had to go to Sweden for instance they would have lot more difficulty proving their case and they would get a peanuts reward for it).

[Crouchie's Lawyer]

Rupert Lowe has a huge ****.

 

has a huge c*nt?

[hamster]

So, if someone were to write on here that they thought Harry Redknapp was a fiddling, dishonest, bungtaking, saggy-faced, renegade, charlatan, double-dealing corrupt man who w_nks a lot. They could end up in court?

 

If that happened and postings from this site were used in evidence, surely they would have to also prosecute Skate fans who posted similar comments when Harry was at St Mary's? No?

[Master Bates]

A HUNGOVER call centre worker made a global error by bragging on a social networking site that he had thrown a “sickie”.

 

Kyle Doyle, 21, emailed boss Niresh Regmi claiming he needed a day off due to serious “medical reasons”.

 

Crafty Niresh replied by sending back a copy of his employee’s Facebook page, which read: “Kyle’s not going to work, f*** it, I’m still trashed. Sickie Woo.”

 

The internet exchange has now been read by millions around the world. Management at AAPT in Sydney, Australia, are investigating.

[dubai_phil]

So, if someone were to write on here that they thought Harry Redknapp was a fiddling, dishonest, bungtaking, saggy-faced, renegade, charlatan, double-dealing corrupt man who w_nks a lot. They could end up in court?

 

If that happened and postings from this site were used in evidence, surely they would have to also prosecute Skate fans who posted similar comments when Harry was at St Mary's? No?

 

Well that could be fun.

 

So you have now posted that. In order to take you to court, H would have to show that you have lied, OR you would have to show that you were right.

 

So what it REALLY would mean is that you withdraw your life savings and send it to a lawyer.....

 

Hmmmm

 

Now THAT's a good idea. Will set up an ambulance chasing type legal firm and trawl web sites and find people like you that I can take to the cleaners.

 

brilliant!

 

Thanks I'll bung you a couple of percent of the shares and do free legal service when you get taken to court

[Eyes k8]

So, if someone were to write on here that they thought Harry Redknapp was a fiddling, dishonest, bungtaking, saggy-faced, renegade, charlatan, double-dealing corrupt man who w_nks a lot. They could end up in court?

 

If that happened and postings from this site were used in evidence, surely they would have to also prosecute Skate fans who posted similar comments when Harry was at St Mary's? No?

 

Before i ring my lawyer hamster could you clarify if you are talking about ALL skates or just some and further can you define what you mean by the use of "similar". I have to say at the outset we are unwilling to accept any defence that you said these things tongue in pouch as it were.

[stevegrant]

So you have now posted that. In order to take you to court, H would have to show that you have lied, OR you would have to show that you were right.

Not true. It would be entirely down to the poster to prove that what he was saying is true.

[Um Bongo]

Maybe Crouchie wasn't joking after all?

[mini_me]

I would LOL for the rest of 2009 if Granty and his Bajesty ended up having to spend all their fivers in court costs

[toofarnorth]

Similarly I think these Virgin employees will be out of work pretty soon.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7687758.stm

[Ponty]

I would LOL for the rest of 2009 if Granty and his Bajesty ended up having to spend all their fivers in court costs

 

I believe the owners of the Owls' website were paid to release the details of the posters in question.

[Roman]

Just a question: has there been a single case of a football supporters' message board member being SUCCESSFULLY sued? I'd suggest that the THREAT of a lawsuit at SW is simply designed to intimidate back. Bet the case is never pursued.

 

In any case, I think the danger can be overstated. Pretty much everything I read on here I think would pass, in context, as fair comment. Lowe may have succeeded in a case against Martin Samuel (for reasons that I have to say still escape me), but it's hard to see how the same thing said on here would have the same result. First of all would be hugely damaging to the club's relations with its supporters - at a time when it needs them more than ever. Second, you have to consider what counts as fair comment - which would be different for a passionate supporter than say a national newspaper reporter.

 

If that weren't the case, think how much money referees or managers or chairmen could make by taking out individual libel lawsuits against every fan who hurled abuse at them during a game.

[dubai_phil]

Just a question: has there been a single case of a football supporters' message board member being SUCCESSFULLY sued? I'd suggest that the THREAT of a lawsuit at SW is simply designed to intimidate back. Bet the case is never pursued.

 

In any case, I think the danger can be overstated. Pretty much everything I read on here I think would pass, in context, as fair comment. Lowe may have succeeded in a case against Martin Samuel (for reasons that I have to say still escape me), but it's hard to see how the same thing said on here would have the same result. First of all would be hugely damaging to the club's relations with its supporters - at a time when it needs them more than ever. Second, you have to consider what counts as fair comment - which would be different for a passionate supporter than say a national newspaper reporter.

 

If that weren't the case, think how much money referees or managers or chairmen could make by taking out individual libel lawsuits against every fan who hurled abuse at them during a game.[/QUOTE]

 

 

hmmmm

 

Now THAT is the first actual "outside the box" money making solution that anyone on here has come up with to help us out of the current predicament.

 

Yep, can see it now, Liverpool, Man Ure owners suing the pants off the fans to raise the money to pay the interest on the loans they took out to buy the clubs....

[Weston Super Saint]

I bet Saint Marc is sh1tting himself

[Roman]

I bet Saint Marc is sh1tting himself

 

Which reminds me...

 

Any attempt to force the mods on a messageboard to disclose the identity of posters being targeted in this way can be countered in the process of 'discovery' - a legally binding process which precedes pretty much any court action, and which enables a defendant to demand similar or equal disclosure from the plaintiff.

 

So any attempt to manipulate a messageboard by, say, orchestrating a PR campaign using the cloak of poster anonymity would have to be fully revealed. There are huge penalties - it would be contempt of court, an imprisonable offence - for dodging this.

 

Who knows what might tumble out of the woodwork?

[Danny]

The only real defences available to someone who posts defamatory statements on a forum like this are:

 

Justification

Opinion

Offer of amends

 

In defamation cases, it is up to the accused to prove his defence is water tight. All the claimant has to do is say "You've defamed me". They don't have to prove anything (in the UK, in the rest of the world the onus is on the plaintiff).

 

Justification is the most difficult defence as you need to have hard evidence to back up what you've said.

 

You can only use opinion as a defence if the statement is clearly labelled as such (something along the lines of "I think that..." or "In my opinion") and there is no inference that the statement is fact.

 

Offer of amends is basically where you admit you've defamed them, apologise, offer them a right of reply (which you should always do anyway, before publishing something that is possibly defamatory) and then offer them something like a cash sum. In affect it's an out-of-court settlement.

 

There are defences such as absolute and qualified privilege but the likely of either of those being available in circumstances such as posting on a forum are incredibly slim - they are for things like court cases and parliamentary debates.

 

There is a cap on the amount that can be paid in court to a plaintiff in defamation (£250,000) but there is no limit on the amount of costs that can be awarded.

 

Also, this bit is a slightly grey area but worth mentioning all the same: if you make a defamatory comment the publishers (ie the forum owners) are also liable, as is anyone who quotes you, as they have in fact repeated the statement.

 

Right, I best get back to doing some work!

Edited 25 October, 2008 by Danny

[Danny]

Just a question: has there been a single case of a football supporters' message board member being SUCCESSFULLY sued? I'd suggest that the THREAT of a lawsuit at SW is simply designed to intimidate back. Bet the case is never pursued.

 

In any case, I think the danger can be overstated. Pretty much everything I read on here I think would pass, in context, as fair comment. Lowe may have succeeded in a case against Martin Samuel (for reasons that I have to say still escape me), but it's hard to see how the same thing said on here would have the same result. First of all would be hugely damaging to the club's relations with its supporters - at a time when it needs them more than ever. Second, you have to consider what counts as fair comment - which would be different for a passionate supporter than say a national newspaper reporter.

 

If that weren't the case, think how much money referees or managers or chairmen could make by taking out individual libel lawsuits against every fan who hurled abuse at them during a game.

 

Firstly, if it's slander (as it would be with a fan saying something at a match) it's much harder to prove that it happened. Secondly, abuse is not defamation. Calling a referee/manager a wánker is not going to greatly "lower his reputation in the eyes of right minded people" which the law states is defamation. Also as a profession, referees' reputations are fairly low anyway, so it can be quite hard to lower it much more!

 

Fair comment is the same regardless of who you are. What matters is the likelihood you're going to get caught if you say something defamatory.

[Weston Super Saint]

I bet Saint Marc is sh1tting himself

 

I'm still LOLling at the fact that the ex-executives that Wilde appointed who then stitched him up, whom he then slagged off on here - under the guise of Saint Marc - who all subsequently left when Crouch came along, could technically sue the man who gave them the job in the first place

 

Weird and wacky times we live in, but the irony would keep Trousers going for years!!!