Football Banter

(22-04-2011 01:19 )The Narcissist Wrote:  It's not slander, its libel.

Slander is defamation in transitory form such as through speech. Libel is defamation by written words such as a written note, newspaper articles, web page comments etc.

But if someone has written a defamatory comment on a website then usually the moderator of the website will have to take the blame for not removing it and not the actual person who typed it

Trust me I'm a law student and studied it last year in Tort Law.

I'm not particulary eager to debate this with someone studying law, but I'm of the understanding that written defamation on an internet forum is classed as slander - its an anomoly I appreciate.

Sorry : Off-topic.

(22-04-2011 01:22 )skateguy Wrote:  

(22-04-2011 01:19 )The Narcissist Wrote:  It's not slander, its libel.

Slander is defamation in transitory form such as through speech. Libel is defamation by written words such as a written note, newspaper articles, web page comments etc.

But if someone has written a defamatory comment on a website then usually the moderator of the website will have to take the blame for not removing it and not the actual person who typed it

Trust me I'm a law student and studied it last year in Tort Law.

I'm not particulary eager to debate this with someone studying law, but I'm of the understanding that written defamation on an internet forum is classed as slander - its an anomoly I appreciate.

Sorry : Off-topic.

Very well said Skatguy. I do understand and see what you mean because a comment wrote on a forum is literally speech, but it is instead typed out. Therefore you are saying that it should be considered slander because it is essentially a spoken oral comment. Fair point.

It is an on going debate whether internet comments are slander or libel. And the courts still do not have a precedent to determine once and for all whether defamation through an internet forum or chat site etc is slander or libel. This is due to the fact that the internet is relatively knew and so has not been implemented properly in relation to defamation which goes back to the year 130 AD

Nevertheless our lecturer for Tort Law who is quite old fashioned I must say told us to disregard comments on the internet as slander and instead them regard them as libel. This is because a defamatory comment made on an internet forum is accessible, evident and proof of what was said. Therefore it would be akin to writing a note, article or email. It is there for everyone to see and there is no hiding it.

Whereas with slander, it is spoken orally. So it can be interpreted and heard differently by many people. Also when it comes to proof it would be substanially difficult to prove with slander, as you would need witnesses etc. Therefore our lecturer told us to regard interet comments as libel because they are present and evident proof.

Ipswich 1 v Norwich 5

Totally unbelievable what a match, what a performance.

And Fernanda on for 19.5 hours today and doing the nightshow.
I am going to wake up in a minute, cos this has to be a dream!!!

(22-04-2011 01:11 )The Narcissist Wrote:  

(21-04-2011 20:10 )malicious fan Wrote:  im not usually bothered what famous people get up to in their private lives, let them get on with it, but what really pissed me off is that itv news last night said they know who it is but they are not allowed to tell us. i thought you fucking wankers, now i wanna know who it is. cos i dont know who it is, its making me wanna know who it is, does that make sense

Bulllshit does ITV know who it is. They are probably just bluffing to bump ratings to see if the spill who it is, which they obviously won't because the courts will come down on them like a ton of bricks nailing them with heavy fines just like they do with newspapers that break injunctions and gagging orders

(21-04-2011 20:03 )WestCountryBoy Wrote:  If its a London based Welsh footballer it cant be Bale or Ramsey as the guy is married with a family the only other welsh footballer in London I can think is Danny Gabbidon but Im not sure if he is married

I don't think that it is either Ramsey or Bale

no son itv news do know who it is as well as some major newspapers. at the moment its all rumours who it is but it seems to be one of two people, but im sure in the end it will come out as proof one way or another. lets see if any premiership footballers will be getting divorced soon

I like how the newspapers are all claiming to be hard done by, the way I see it, the papers are finally been stopped from posting stories which wrek familys/marriages on the word of one person with no proof. Good on the courts I say

(22-04-2011 09:35 )gazfc Wrote:  I like how the newspapers are all claiming to be hard done by, the way I see it, the papers are finally been stopped from posting stories which wrek familys/marriages on the word of one person with no proof. Good on the courts I say

there have been attempts to bring in a privacy law. these attempts have failed in parliament. so the super injunctions handed out by the courts are a law being introduced by the backdoor.

look at what happened to tiger woods who built his career around being a good decent honest person then its revealed that he likes to play in the rough.

why should the rich, powerful and famous be treated differently than others?

the libel or slander on the internet forums debate is quite interesting. both slander and libel come under defermation law. i am no law student but i would say that forums or chat rooms would be both libel and slander, libel because its typed not spoken aloud and slander because its conservation that is spoken through typed words.

I thought tiger built a career from been good at golf??


No matter how rich somebody is they're still human and deserve some privacy and protection from somebody printing untrue stories just to sell papers. If this cones in the form of a gagging order sobeit, fuck what the papers say, this is payback for all the bollocks they print

(22-04-2011 10:36 )bigguy01 Wrote:  

(22-04-2011 09:35 )gazfc Wrote:  I like how the newspapers are all claiming to be hard done by, the way I see it, the papers are finally been stopped from posting stories which wrek familys/marriages on the word of one person with no proof. Good on the courts I say

there have been attempts to bring in a privacy law. these attempts have failed in parliament. so the super injunctions handed out by the courts are a law being introduced by the backdoor.

look at what happened to tiger woods who built his career around being a good decent honest person then its revealed that he likes to play in the rough.

why should the rich, powerful and famous be treated differently than others?

Currently Privacy Law is developing in the UK. There is no set precedent of Law relating to privacy like there is a set amount of Law for contracts or crime for eg. Currently for privacy law, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights implemented by the Human Rights Act is the biggest law protecting someone's privacy. Article 8 states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondance. Most of the other law regarding privacy is developed and being developed through case law. There is no set Law on protecting someone's privacy. Lawsuits that are brought to courts for breach of someone's privacy are dealt with through a case by case analysis.

On the other point that you mentioned. I think it is right that sports stars who are rich and powerful should have their lives scrutinised to a some extent. This because a lot of people look up to them and idolise them and see them as Role Models

Look how many people looked up to Tiger Woods and thought that he was a respectable, iconic sportsman. Who was an ideal family man outside of golf. When all that time his real image was completely the opposite of what people thought of him. Really he was shagging any random girl he met in the back of a car when he had a wife and kids at home waiting for him. What kind of a person, rich or not does that????

Secondly, when you earn that much money and people look upto you and idolise you, then you have a responsibility to be a role model. Just look at John Terry, Ashley Cole and Wayne Rooney. They are some of the best footballers in the world, but the worst kind of men in the world. I think it was totally right for the newspapers to name and shame those fucking cheaters. Their reputation absolutely deserved to be ruined by the newspapers so that people know exactly what kind of despicable people they are.

I mean how on earth can you cheat on Cheryl Tweedy?? She is so gorgeous!!!!! Ashley Cole is such a retard it's unbelievable.

Personally I don't really look up to any footballers as being role models. Most of them whilst they may be great footballers on the field, are despicable men off the field.

I do look up to Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Those two are my role models. Roger Federer is just a gentleman on and off the field, he is such a nice guy. Rafael Nadal , his net earnings so far (and he is only 24) is in excess of £30 million. Yet Nadal lives with his whole family in a block flats in his home town and drives a Ford Kia. Off the field he is such a great guy as well. I know because I have met him at Wimbledon because I am a huge Tennis fan.

(22-04-2011 11:02 )gazfc Wrote:  I thought tiger built a career from been good at golf??


No matter how rich somebody is they're still human and deserve some privacy and protection from somebody printing untrue stories just to sell papers. If this cones in the form of a gagging order sobeit, fuck what the papers say, this is payback for all the bollocks they print

As far as I'm concerned if the story IS true that the guy is a cheat who sleeps around with random girls when he has a wife and kids waiting for him at home. Then the papers have every right to nail the bastard and show the world what a despicable man he really is.

(22-04-2011 09:24 )malicious fan Wrote:  

(22-04-2011 01:11 )The Narcissist Wrote:  [quote='malicious fan' pid='807253' dateline='1303416655']
im not usually bothered what famous people get up to in their private lives, let them get on with it, but what really pissed me off is that itv news last night said they know who it is but they are not allowed to tell us. i thought you fucking wankers, now i wanna know who it is. cos i dont know who it is, its making me wanna know who it is, does that make sense

Bulllshit does ITV know who it is. They are probably just bluffing to bump ratings to see if the spill who it is, which they obviously won't because the courts will come down on them like a ton of bricks nailing them with heavy fines just like they do with newspapers that break injunctions and gagging orders

no son itv news do know who it is as well as some major newspapers. at the moment its all rumours who it is but it seems to be one of two people, but im sure in the end it will come out as proof one way or another. lets see if any premiership footballers will be getting divorced soon

I hope whoever it was that cheated gets nailed by the papers so everyone can know that he is a cheat