Log in:  

Register

Libel law discussion thread

Drop in, give us some feedback and talk to the team

Moderators: Daniel Benson, Susan Westemeyer, Irondan

Libel law discussion thread

26 May 2013 21:51

Dr. Maserati wrote:It's a simple question, how do you know if these allegations are libelous are not?
Unless you are one of these accused, then you don't.

This is an Internet forum, not a court of law.


No-one suggested it was a court of law. But it is SUBJECT to a court of law, as Sally Bercow just found out.
Sometimes, I wish all the bits of my life had an ignore button...

hrotha wrote:Following pro cycling is like reading A Song of Ice and Fire. You better not get too attached to any of the characters.


Opinions are a bit like a**eholes. Everybody has one, and they are often full of the same thing.
User avatar martinvickers
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,064
Joined: 15 Oct 2012 12:59
Location: Ireland

27 May 2013 06:25

martinvickers wrote:No-one suggested it was a court of law. But it is SUBJECT to a court of law, as Sally Bercow just found out.


Scaremongering? There are quite a few things at hand that makes this utterly different. (And yet less than I thought).

First off, we are indeed subject under UK law. I actually wonder if that invalidates the remainder of my post :D

Whereas Sally has no support for her claim, we have a framework which makes our "allegations" plausible. There is a nice case in the Netherlands about a coplaint against a top-Lawyer who was called "Maffia-Buddy" in the newspaper. The lawyer lost the libel case suit handily, as he could be seen as consorting with mobsters.

In our case we have very clear undeniable links with doping. Nobody can deny Leinders is a doping doctor and nobody can deny he worked at Sky. Nobody can deny that doping doctors at Teams generally mean doping practices. Nobody can deny there is still a huge doping problem. These are easy to research facts which show that an allegation isn't ungrounded.

Quite simply put: This is not an allegation that Sky kills puppies (which was basically what Sally did i her tweets). This is an allegation directed about their job, their attitude and behavior.

And I wonder if this matters as I thought it did :)
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

"It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one."
Franklin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,594
Joined: 26 May 2009 20:52
Location: Flatland

27 May 2013 06:35

Franklin wrote:Scaremongering. There are quite a few things at hand that makes this utterly different.

First off, we are not subject under UK law. But let's just gloss over that detail:

Whereas Sally has no support for her claim, we have a framework which makes our "allegations" plausible. There is a nice case in the Netherlands about a coplaint against a top-Lawyer who was called "Maffia-Buddy" in the newspaper. The lawyer lost the libel case suit handily, as he could be seen as consorting with mobsters.

In our case we have very clear undeniable links with doping. Nobody can deny Leinders is a doping doctor and nobody can deny he worked at Sky. Nobody can deny that doping doctors at Teams generally mean doping practices. Nobody can deny there is still a huge doping problem. These are easy to research facts which show that an allegation isn't ungrounded.

Quite simply put: This is not an allegation that Sky kills puppies (which was basically what Sally did i her tweets). This is an allegation directed about their job, their attitude and behavior.

You with your interest in the justice system really should know better.

You might want to think again. By posting on this forum you quite possibly are subject to UK libel law. This is a British website and Sky & Wiggins are British.
User avatar ultimobici
Member
 
Posts: 1,745
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 21:58
Location: London

27 May 2013 06:44

ultimobici wrote:You might want to think again. By posting on this forum you quite possibly are subject to UK libel law. This is a British website and Sky & Wiggins are British.


And you are right. I thought this was Australian... not sure why I had that idea/
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

"It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one."
Franklin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,594
Joined: 26 May 2009 20:52
Location: Flatland

27 May 2013 07:18

ultimobici wrote:You might want to think again. By posting on this forum you quite possibly are subject to UK libel law. This is a British website and Sky & Wiggins are British.


Should be good for a laugh when the mighty British military is sent to the U.S. to enforce a judgement.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,318
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

27 May 2013 07:21

BroDeal wrote:Should be good for a laugh when the mighty British military is sent to the U.S. to enforce a judgement.


Our military may not be big but at least they can recognise the difference between an ally and a foe before pulling the trigger.
User avatar ultimobici
Member
 
Posts: 1,745
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 21:58
Location: London

27 May 2013 07:43

ultimobici wrote:You might want to think again. By posting on this forum you quite possibly are subject to UK libel law. This is a British website and Sky & Wiggins are British.


I don't see how they can apply to people not subject to UK law. Anyway the UK or is it English(?) libel law is most probably unconstitutional.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,713
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

27 May 2013 07:51

ToreBear wrote:I don't see how they can apply to people not subject to UK law. Anyway the UK or is it English(?) libel law is most probably unconstitutional.


You do not need to be a citizen of a country or for that matter set foot in a country to be in breach of its laws. In the age of the internet on is virtually in the county that the person or persons they are communicating with as well as the country in which the server the website they are on is hosted.

As for whether English libel law is unconstitutional, how do you surmise that? It can only be unconstitutional if applied to an action that has no English connection. But as this forum is hosted on a British website it automatically applies.
User avatar ultimobici
Member
 
Posts: 1,745
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 21:58
Location: London

27 May 2013 08:03

ever heard of QB7?

Good luck Team Sky trying to disprove "libelous" doping allegations or insunuations after half their team - Leinders, Yates, Julich, Barry, Dodger et al - was sent packing for doping links. Just shows they shouldn't have lost Sir Daves non-doping policy tome, and done a little more due diligence with hiring staff
The long sobs of autumn's violins wound my heart with a monotonous languor

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
User avatar sittingbison
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,299
Joined: 05 Jul 2012 08:11
Location: Perth WA

27 May 2013 08:06

ultimobici wrote:You do not need to be a citizen of a country or for that matter set foot in a country to be in breach of its laws. In the age of the internet on is virtually in the county that the person or persons they are communicating with as well as the country in which the server the website they are on is hosted.

As for whether English libel law is unconstitutional, how do you surmise that? It can only be unconstitutional if applied to an action that has no English connection. But as this forum is hosted on a British website it automatically applies.


Who is were is a complex issue. I could go into that or just say English libel law is unconstitutional even if only applied to English subjects.

The English libel laws and the English(uk?) constitution(do you really have one?) is subservient to the European Convention on Human Rights.

"We are Europe. We will add your distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile."

Muahahaha:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,713
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

27 May 2013 09:22

ToreBear wrote:Who is were is a complex issue. I could go into that or just say English libel law is unconstitutional even if only applied to English subjects.

The English libel laws and the English(uk?) constitution(do you really have one?) is subservient to the European Convention on Human Rights.

"We are Europe. We will add your distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile."

Muahahaha:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights


1. The ECHR is not a constitution. Calling something unconstitutional in these circumstances exposes your own ignorance.

2. England, or the UK, hasn't had 'subjects' in decades.

3. Article 10 does not protect against libel.

Article 10, paragraph 2

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.


Seriously, guys, you're unlikely to be at much risk, simply because you don't matter much, and the McAlpine's of this world with money and anger to sue left, right and centre are few and far between.

But 100% safe? No chance.

Not least because, while Westminster recently (april) brought in some legislation to reduce 'libel tourism' in England and Wales (and for your information, E&W is the proper name of the jurisdiction, not England and not UK, you'll see why in a second) , the idea of suing someone in ANY jurisidiction the offending content was published (and internet forums are published world wide for these purposes), no such law was brought in for Northern Ireland.

Which happens to be both the home and work place of Paul Tweed, one of the most successsful international defamation lawyers in the world. And quite possibly the new libel tourism central.

As for Future's possible liability, normally a web forum or publisher is not responsible for the content posted on their site as they did not 'induc'e it....but running the Clinic, a part of a moderated forum dedicated only to doping and doping allegations, may or may not be 'normal'. Still, I'm sure they have a decent legal staff to sort these things out for them and keep them on the right side of the law. I wonder how many posters have the same...
Sometimes, I wish all the bits of my life had an ignore button...

hrotha wrote:Following pro cycling is like reading A Song of Ice and Fire. You better not get too attached to any of the characters.


Opinions are a bit like a**eholes. Everybody has one, and they are often full of the same thing.
User avatar martinvickers
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,064
Joined: 15 Oct 2012 12:59
Location: Ireland

27 May 2013 09:32

sittingbison wrote:ever heard of QB7?

Good luck Team Sky trying to disprove "libelous" doping allegations or insunuations after half their team - Leinders, Yates, Julich, Barry, Dodger et al - was sent packing for doping links. Just shows they shouldn't have lost Sir Daves non-doping policy tome, and done a little more due diligence with hiring staff


Libel 101 - Sky don't have to disprove it. You have to prove it. In libel, the burden falls on the person who makes the statement, i.e. the defendant, not the person bringing the suit, plaintiff.

And do rememeber, all those 'sent packing' were, officially, sent packing for 'historic' doping links, not for what they did at Sky.

Which is why all these "i think they are doping' statements are broadly fine - they are statements of opinion, expressed as such, and fair comment, especially in the history of the sport. But once you declare things are '100% facts' - we are in a rather different place.
Sometimes, I wish all the bits of my life had an ignore button...

hrotha wrote:Following pro cycling is like reading A Song of Ice and Fire. You better not get too attached to any of the characters.


Opinions are a bit like a**eholes. Everybody has one, and they are often full of the same thing.
User avatar martinvickers
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,064
Joined: 15 Oct 2012 12:59
Location: Ireland

27 May 2013 09:33

The British libel law used to be absolutely horrendous, protecting the powerful and wealthy from criticism, stifling free expression and encouraging "libel tourism". Recently, a new defamation bill was passed improving things. Probably still far from perfect tho, especially wrt the internet.
User avatar SeriousSam
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,221
Joined: 31 Aug 2012 00:06
Location: Now here

27 May 2013 09:40

Start a libel law thread or something.
Cyivel
Member
 
Posts: 1,885
Joined: 05 Aug 2012 22:46

27 May 2013 09:41

SeriousSam wrote:The British libel law used to be absolutely horrendous, protecting the powerful and wealthy from criticism, stifling free expression and encouraging "libel tourism". Recently, a new defamation bill was passed improving things. Probably still far from perfect tho, especially wrt the internet.


The problem, Sam, is the new law isn't a British law, it's an England and Wales law, and for very limited purposes, Scotland. It doesn't apply in Northern Ireland, much to the joy of Mr Tweed and moreover, his clients.

"Defamation Act 2013

...

17 Short title, extent and commencement

(1)This Act may be cited as the Defamation Act 2013.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), this Act extends to England and Wales only.

(3)The following provisions also extend to Scotland—
(a)section 6;
(b)section 7(9);
(c)section 15;
(d)section 16(5) (in so far as it relates to sections 6 and 7(9));
(e)this section.


Full text freely available at the UK Statute law Database.

For the sake of completeness, from the irish Statute law database

Defamation Act 2009 (Ireland)
Sometimes, I wish all the bits of my life had an ignore button...

hrotha wrote:Following pro cycling is like reading A Song of Ice and Fire. You better not get too attached to any of the characters.


Opinions are a bit like a**eholes. Everybody has one, and they are often full of the same thing.
User avatar martinvickers
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,064
Joined: 15 Oct 2012 12:59
Location: Ireland

27 May 2013 09:44

sittingbison wrote:ever heard of QB7?

Good luck Team Sky trying to disprove "libelous" doping allegations or insunuations after half their team - Leinders, Yates, Julich, Barry, Dodger et al - was sent packing for doping links. Just shows they shouldn't have lost Sir Daves non-doping policy tome, and done a little more due diligence with hiring staff

nah, they did their due diligence.

just their aims were different. they thought they had it covered with their PR. but when their PR conflicted with reality, they needed to re-set the markers.
"Hitler … didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."
User avatar blackcat
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,232
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

27 May 2013 11:01

martinvickers wrote:1. The ECHR is not a constitution. Calling something unconstitutional in these circumstances exposes your own ignorance.

2. England, or the UK, hasn't had 'subjects' in decades.

3. Article 10 does not protect against libel.



Seriously, guys, you're unlikely to be at much risk, simply because you don't matter much, and the McAlpine's of this world with money and anger to sue left, right and centre are few and far between.

But 100% safe? No chance.

Not least because, while Westminster recently (april) brought in some legislation to reduce 'libel tourism' in England and Wales (and for your information, E&W is the proper name of the jurisdiction, not England and not UK, you'll see why in a second) , the idea of suing someone in ANY jurisidiction the offending content was published (and internet forums are published world wide for these purposes), no such law was brought in for Northern Ireland.

Which happens to be both the home and work place of Paul Tweed, one of the most successsful international defamation lawyers in the world. And quite possibly the new libel tourism central.

As for Future's possible liability, normally a web forum or publisher is not responsible for the content posted on their site as they did not 'induc'e it....but running the Clinic, a part of a moderated forum dedicated only to doping and doping allegations, may or may not be 'normal'. Still, I'm sure they have a decent legal staff to sort these things out for them and keep them on the right side of the law. I wonder how many posters have the same...


Just keep on putting a ???? after everything - cover your ****. Did he/she or didn't he/she????

And we are such small fry anyway, no one gives a monkey's what we say except Brailsford, who doesn't care much for our innuendo's.:p
User avatar horsinabout
Member
 
Posts: 663
Joined: 20 Jan 2013 09:48

27 May 2013 11:06

martinvickers wrote:Libel 101 - Sky don't have to disprove it. You have to prove it. In libel, the burden falls on the person who makes the statement, i.e. the defendant, not the person bringing the suit, plaintiff.

And do rememeber, all those 'sent packing' were, officially, sent packing for 'historic' doping links, not for what they did at Sky.

Which is why all these "i think they are doping' statements are broadly fine - they are statements of opinion, expressed as such, and fair comment, especially in the history of the sport. But once you declare things are '100% facts' - we are in a rather different place.


Presactamundo....

If you say Wiggins doping with Farrari is fact 100% - you better have the paper work to back it up.
User avatar horsinabout
Member
 
Posts: 663
Joined: 20 Jan 2013 09:48

27 May 2013 11:56

horsinabout wrote:Just keep on putting a ???? after everything - cover your ****. Did he/she or didn't he/she????


That kinda of nudge, nudge didn't save Sally Bercow.

And we are such small fry anyway, no one gives a monkey's what we say except Brailsford, who doesn't care much for our innuendo's.:p


The McAlpine twitters thought that too.
Sometimes, I wish all the bits of my life had an ignore button...

hrotha wrote:Following pro cycling is like reading A Song of Ice and Fire. You better not get too attached to any of the characters.


Opinions are a bit like a**eholes. Everybody has one, and they are often full of the same thing.
User avatar martinvickers
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,064
Joined: 15 Oct 2012 12:59
Location: Ireland

27 May 2013 12:00

So where are we after all those post about some libel law ****ee in england and wales? can we still say we think they are dirty or that sky are dirty like other teams?
Testing the bounds of reality.
User avatar Zam_Olyas
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,174
Joined: 30 Sep 2011 10:17
Location: Rubber Plantation.

Next

Return to About the forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Back to top