RBPB4 Lurker Thread

[Gold Ergo Sum]

A) Slander (or in this case libel) is by definition an opinion (albeit often stated as fact), and one way to commit it is by making a malicious statement (which what you said could be taken as). The only ways to disprove defamation (the general term) is to prove you never made the defamatory comment, or that it has basis in fact.

This is simply not right. I can call you an asshole all day and it isn't defamatory. You cannot prove the falsity of the statement. I can also say what I think you might do in a situation, and it isn't defamatory, because it is entirely conjecture. The falsehood of the statement is impossible to prove. Defamation is a tort action, the burden is on the plaintiff, and falsehood of the statement is an element of defamation. On the other hand, if I said, "Brian Shanahan has AIDS," and you don't, THAT would be defamatory.

Take the Pacquiao v. Mayweather lawsuit. Floyd is probably liable in that suit because he accused Manny of taking PEDs. But he could've said, "If given the opportunity, I think Manny would take PEDs," and that isn't defamatory.

[Brian Shanahan]

This is simply not right. I can call you an asshole all day and it isn't defamatory. You cannot prove the falsity of the statement. I can also say what I think you might do in a situation, and it isn't defamatory, because it is entirely conjecture. The falsehood of the statement is impossible to prove. Defamation is a tort action, the burden is on the plaintiff, and falsehood of the statement is an element of defamation. On the other hand, if I said, "Brian Shanahan has AIDS," and you don't, THAT would be defamatory.

Take the Pacquiao v. Mayweather lawsuit. Floyd is probably liable in that suit because he accused Manny of taking PEDs. But he could've said, "If given the opportunity, I think Manny would take PEDs," and that isn't defamatory.

Actually if you did I'd be able to sue you and win (providing I had the money to cover costs and were that petty), because under Irish law (and UK law) what you would have said is slander. And frankly calling someone an arsehole, unless they're someone like Bono, is a defamatory remark whether it is actionable or not.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

And frankly calling someone an arsehole, unless they're someone like Bono, is a defamatory remark whether it is actionable or not.

But he cares about African children Brian!

[Brian Shanahan]

But he cares about African children Brian!

No he cares about looking good and lording it over the rest of us. He doesn't give two shits about starving children, because they can't afford to by his overpriced tat.

[Cyneheard]

Are there any issues here in the difference between the US standards for slander/libel/etc. versus the UK? In the US, it's REALLY REALLY hard to prove slander because Free Speech rights are rather sacrosanct, and for public figures borderline impossible.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

Are there any issues here in the difference between the US standards for slander/libel/etc. versus the UK? In the US, it's REALLY REALLY hard to prove slander because Free Speech rights are rather sacrosanct, and for public figures borderline impossible.

It sounds like there are legal difference down national lines based on what Brian is telling me.

Defamation is incredibly difficult to win here, and if you are commenting about a public figure, or a semi-public figure on a matter of public concern, the defamee must prove "malice," which is essentially proving that the defamor knew the statement was false or wantonly ignored the high probability of falsity. If someone is famous enough (i.e. Barack Obama), you can essentially say anything without it being defamatory.

[Brian Shanahan]

Are there any issues here in the difference between the US standards for slander/libel/etc. versus the UK? In the US, it's REALLY REALLY hard to prove slander because Free Speech rights are rather sacrosanct, and for public figures borderline impossible.

It sounds like there are legal difference down national lines based on what Brian is telling me.

Defamation is incredibly difficult to win here, and if you are commenting about a public figure, or a semi-public figure on a matter of public concern, the defamee must prove "malice," which is essentially proving that the defamor knew the statement was false or wantonly ignored the high probability of falsity. If someone is famous enough (i.e. Barack Obama), you can essentially say anything without it being defamatory.

In the UK and Ireland (our legal system is almost a replica of the UKs) it is easy enough to win a libel or other defamation case. In fact it is too easy, with libel writs being thrown at scientists over the publishing of their findings if they are embarrasing to companies, or other organisations (the Simon Singh case being a high profile exception to the rule). Basically the rule of thumb is don't write anything bad about someone rich unless you've testicles of steel or are rich yourself, as even if there is no case to answer the burden of (a very costly) proof is on you, and the judiciary is very pro-litigant in these cases (a lot more so in the UK, Irish judges are generally more sensible).

But on the other hand I think US free-speech provisions go too far. An incietement to hatred clause, properly written, would get rid of some of the worst groups in the US (the likes of the Klan) without having any impact on everyday rights to free speech.

Anyway we're getting too far off topic here, and probably getting too wordy and boring for the rest of the lurkers.

[darrelljs]

Yeah, to pull things back on topic, it seems a vast number of Irish do indeed hate Bono.

Darrell

[Brian Shanahan]

Yeah, to pull things back on topic, it seems a vast number of Irish do indeed hate Bono.

Darrell

That's because he's a pixie headed little tool, who hate's Ireland (as evidenced by him pretending to move to the Netherlands just to evade paying his taxes).

[Krill]

This is simply not right. I can call you an asshole all day and it isn't defamatory. You cannot prove the falsity of the statement. I can also say what I think you might do in a situation, and it isn't defamatory, because it is entirely conjecture. The falsehood of the statement is impossible to prove. Defamation is a tort action, the burden is on the plaintiff, and falsehood of the statement is an element of defamation. On the other hand, if I said, "Brian Shanahan has AIDS," and you don't, THAT would be defamatory.

Take the Pacquiao v. Mayweather lawsuit. Floyd is probably liable in that suit because he accused Manny of taking PEDs. But he could've said, "If given the opportunity, I think Manny would take PEDs," and that isn't defamatory.

Not in the UK...