Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
1972 Fox

Where's the 'Ominous silence' thread gone?

By 1972 Fox, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

DJ Barry Hammond

DJ Barry Hammond

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, SecretPro said:

PS. From a legal stand point, anybody retweeting a tweet that contains said content also becomes liable. 


That’s a stretch - for a successful libel claim the claimant would have to

 

1.) identify the person who are retweeted it - and in a lot of cases that would prove difficult in itself 

 

2.) prove that by retweeting that person has caused (or is likely to cause) significant harm to the claimants reputation.
 

Now if you retweet something libellous posted by someone else and you have a relatively small following yourself, the chances of a claimant being able to prove the level of harm to successfully win a claim of libel from someone retweeting is very slim.

 

Equally, if you’re one retweet of many - the claimant is again unlikely to come after you - they’ll make a claim against the original poster if anyone.

 

And thirdly - libel is an expensive legal practice, so if you don’t have a couple of million about you, it’s again, unlikely someone is going to make a claim for libel against you... because it just isn’t worth it.

 

The most likely request, if anyone was to contact you about a retweet would be for them to ask you to ‘delete / remove’ the retweet - but again, that would be bonkers, if you’re concerned about the tweet, you would always go to the original source.

 

Finally - I don’t think there is any legal standpoint here, because as far as I’m aware there has not be a libel case brought to court against a person who retweeted libellous material to provide relevant case law to confirm a position either way.

 

I believe the closest we got was the Riley / Oberman case, but that was dropped before getting to court. 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/29/rachel-riley-and-tracy-ann-oberman-drop-libel-claim-over-retweet


I suggest one of the reasons the case was dropped was that it had a very limited chance of success.

 

Edited by DJ Barry Hammond
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SecretPro

SecretPro

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:


That’s a stretch - for a successful libel claim the claimant would have to

 

1.) identify the person who are retweeted it - and in a lot of cases that would prove difficult in itself 

 

2.) prove that by retweeting that person has caused (or is likely to cause) significant harm to the claimants reputation.
 

Now if you retweet something libellous posted by someone else and you have a relatively small following yourself, the chances of a claimant being able to prove the level of harm to successfully win a claim of libel from someone retweeting is very slim.

 

Equally, if you’re one retweet of many - the claimant is again unlikely to come after you - they’ll make a claim against the original poster if anyone.

 

And thirdly - libel is an expensive legal practice, so if you don’t have a couple of million about you, it’s again, unlikely someone is going to make a claim for libel against you... because it just isn’t worth it.

 

The most likely request, if anyone was to contact you about a retweet would be for them to ask you to ‘delete / remove’ the retweet - but again, that would be bonkers, if you’re concerned about the tweet, you would always go to the original source.

 

Finally - I don’t think there is any legal standpoint here, because as far as I’m aware there has not be a libel case brought to court against a person who retweeted libellous material to provide relevant case law to confirm a position either way.

 

I believe the closest we got was the Riley / Oberman case, but that was dropped before getting to court. 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/29/rachel-riley-and-tracy-ann-oberman-drop-libel-claim-over-retweet


I suggest one of the reasons the case was dropped was that it had a very limited chance of success.

 

Agreed, the cost is far too high to pursue libel cases against those retweeting and that's the main reason people feel they can break a story and retweet it because the claimant isn't going to go after everyone. I'm merely pointing out that by law, retweeting libellous content does open said person up to a libel case. That's just a plain and simple fact and is no way 'stretching' it - trust me, I know the law on this, I've been involved working on a similar situation - just because the chances of ever being taken to court for it are slim doesn't change the law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr The Singh

Dr The Singh

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Manwell Pablo said:


Detective Inspector Alan Sheehan to you.

 

Although if any tabloids are snooping around this thread and want an epic story of an average league one left backs savage stalking and intimidation of the internet’s finest football forum poster my rates are reasonable.

You.amd him still friends :shakey_still:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJ Barry Hammond

DJ Barry Hammond

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, peach0000 said:

To what extent should free speech apply on a forum is a better question. I always think if anyone can post on it free speech should apply.

 

I know that's not the law and we don't have free speech in this country and can see why the owner of forums do what they do. They are put in a hard position.

 


To get the terminology right, it’s Freedom of Expression that is a universal right across EU Countries.

 

Now what that grants essentially is the freedom to express opinions / beliefs.

 

If they are honestly held beliefs, you can express those to your hearts content and there’s not a lot anyone can do about it (legally)

 

If you think Harry M‘s movement on a football pitch resembles a fridge - you can say that (but that doesn’t mean he can’t take matters into his own hands if you voiced that opinion in front of him).

 

What you are not free to do, however, is make false statements about another living person - this is where defamation comes in.
 

You are also not allowed to widely discuss matters pertinent to a criminal trial before it has concluded - that’s Contempt of Court. 
 

Finally - the Equalities Act is legislation in place to protect those with protected characteristics from discrimination - something that may come as a result of something someone has said, printed or posted online. 
 

But these are simply fair checks and balances to the right of freedom of expression.

 

Just because you’re free to do something - it doesn’t mean you don’t have responsibilities when wanting to exercise that right. 
 

So yes, we do have freedom of expression, but we also have the right to protect our reputation against untrue statements, the right to a fair trial and the right to live without discrimination for our personal choices in terms of relationships and religion. 
 

Side point: Freedom of expression is a little different when it comes to commercial enterprises, like this forum, because they have to balance the granting freedom of expression against it’s own interests in terms of protecting its user base and image.

 

That is why in most cases, a forum like this will act with the upmost caution when it comes to questionable content.

 

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing however, because quite often if you give an inch, people take a mile and this forum wouldn’t be the quality place for wide and (mostly) respectful discussion it is if the approach Mark and the team continue to take was anything different.

 

 

Edited by DJ Barry Hammond
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJ Barry Hammond

DJ Barry Hammond

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Agreed, the cost is far too high to pursue libel cases against those retweeting and that's the main reason people feel they can break a story and retweet it because the claimant isn't going to go after everyone. I'm merely pointing out that by law, retweeting libellous content does open said person up to a libel case. That's just a plain and simple fact and is no way 'stretching' it - trust me, I know the law on this, I've been involved working on a similar situation - just because the chances of ever being taken to court for it are slim doesn't change the law. 


Civil law revolves around case law (or common law).

 

Now I agree, the repetition of a libellous statement is deemed as a libellous statement in itself - but that ruling is based on print journalism.

 

What hasn’t been tested in court is whether that would stand for a retweet - and this could be a contestable area because is this repetition? Could a defendant claim it’s something else entirely? What about liking a tweet, is that a similar act? 
 

These are issues that in time, will probably see a case go through the courts system to define a position. 
 

But until that has happened - my opinion is it can’t be claimed definitively that retweeting someone else’s claims in itself is a libellous action. 
 

A belief that it is unwise and could result in legal action being taken - fine, but as it stands, as far as I’m aware there is no common law that has been created to define it as a libellous act in itself - which is why it’s a shame the Riley / Oberman case never went to court.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJ Barry Hammond

DJ Barry Hammond

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:


Detective Inspector Alan Sheehan to you.

 

Although if any tabloids are snooping around this thread and want an epic story of an average league one left backs savage stalking and intimidation of the internet’s finest football forum poster my rates are reasonable.


I might take you up on that offer! 
 

Do you still have the images you created back in the day? (my memory recalls Sheehan poised by a computer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, martyn said:

Rennie and Justin in threesome but Maddison obstructed it with Hamza, physio threatened leicesters midfielder, jail awaiting? 

 

Thats a scandal alright. 

Nah, Madison goes down to easy, Justin doesn't have enough experience, Hamza is too clumsy in close and Rennie is too old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJ Barry Hammond

DJ Barry Hammond

Posted
Posted


So we’re signing Messi on a free - that must be the “gobsmaking” development that was being referred to.
 

He’s going to be the left footed right winger we sign.


Can’t wait for his press conference where he expresses it’s a dream to play under Brendan Rodgers and that he is looking forward to linking up with Jamie to sink a few WKD’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bourbon Fox

Bourbon Fox

Posted
Posted
On 24/08/2020 at 22:04, DJ Barry Hammond said:


That’s a stretch - for a successful libel claim the claimant would have to

 

1.) identify the person who are retweeted it - and in a lot of cases that would prove difficult in itself 

 

2.) prove that by retweeting that person has caused (or is likely to cause) significant harm to the claimants reputation.
 

Now if you retweet something libellous posted by someone else and you have a relatively small following yourself, the chances of a claimant being able to prove the level of harm to successfully win a claim of libel from someone retweeting is very slim.

 

Equally, if you’re one retweet of many - the claimant is again unlikely to come after you - they’ll make a claim against the original poster if anyone.

 

And thirdly - libel is an expensive legal practice, so if you don’t have a couple of million about you, it’s again, unlikely someone is going to make a claim for libel against you... because it just isn’t worth it.

 

The most likely request, if anyone was to contact you about a retweet would be for them to ask you to ‘delete / remove’ the retweet - but again, that would be bonkers, if you’re concerned about the tweet, you would always go to the original source.

 

Finally - I don’t think there is any legal standpoint here, because as far as I’m aware there has not be a libel case brought to court against a person who retweeted libellous material to provide relevant case law to confirm a position either way.

 

I believe the closest we got was the Riley / Oberman case, but that was dropped before getting to court. 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/29/rachel-riley-and-tracy-ann-oberman-drop-libel-claim-over-retweet


I suggest one of the reasons the case was dropped was that it had a very limited chance of success.

 

You're not actually a DJ, are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:


So we’re signing Messi on a free - that must be the “gobsmaking” development that was being referred to.
 

He’s going to be the left footed right winger we sign.


Can’t wait for his press conference where he expresses it’s a dream to play under Brendan Rodgers and that he is looking forward to linking up with Jamie to sink a few WKD’s.

If Congerton stuffs this up....Ill be so pissed off

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
On 24/08/2020 at 16:48, les-tah said:

Events from this morning.

 

A deleted 'gobsmacking' post from @UpTheLeagueFox triggers LCFC conspiracists and the pretend ITK to go wild at what the news could be, while at the same time a man who cannot be named was let go by the club. Whilst at the same time a infamous tweet that no one seen but everyone seen apparently could be the truth but i dont think there ever was a tweet lol . 

The physio right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...