Forum List | Politics Forum
Start Previous 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 -- 5 -- 6 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 -- 11 -- 12 -- 13 -- 14 -- 15 -- 16 -- 17 -- 18 -- 19 -- 20 -- 21 -- 22 -- [ 23 ] -- Next End| Topic: Trump |
|---|
| 441. Author: Dave_1885 Date: Sun 14th Dec 2025. 15:54 jake89, Sun 14 Dec 13:10 Also most likely to have hurled some libellous claims himself as well in these posts…… Reply |
| 442. Author: wee eck Date: Sun 14th Dec 2025. 16:47 Is anyone`s reputation likely to be tarnished by a few comments made on a sub-forum of a provincial Scottish football club`s fans` forum? And as jake says, anyone who reads them is unlikely to know the `victim` anyway! Reply |
| 443. Author: hurricane_jimmy Date: Sun 14th Dec 2025. 18:02 Half of Reddit would be in litigation if there were real grounds for such claims with the amount of trolling that goes on on there. For someone to take that level of umbridge, I would surmise that there is an element of truth to what has been said and it`s touched a nerve that it`s been called out. And with the level of Propaganda-based statements that have been made and made repeatedly, I wouldn`t be surprised if that`s hit the radar of Aussie security services, particularly with everything in Ukraine and the tensions surrounding Taiwan. "Thank God for Vladimir Putin" is one quite that springs to mind among others! The claim of harassment is hilarious too, because it would boil down to: "If you don`t like being challenged on what you say on a forum, dinnae go on it and dinnae post". The reaction really reminds me of how the Chinese wolf-warrior diplomats have been behaving here over Takaichi`s comments on Japan. Then again, this is a country that banned Winnie the Pooh because of a meme... It`s all about ego and nothing else. Reply |
| 444. Author: P Date: Sun 14th Dec 2025. 19:03 Here’s an AI view on Oz odds 🤣 Short answer: very little, and quite possibly nothing at all beyond nominal damages. Here’s how an Australian judge would be likely to approach a defamation claim arising from a childish spat on a small Scottish provincial football club chat site with under 1,000 users. 1. Threshold issue: is it even defamatory? Under Australian defamation law (uniform Defamation Acts), the plaintiff must show: 1. Publication to at least one third party 2. Identification of the plaintiff 3. Defamatory meaning (would it lower the person’s reputation in the eyes of ordinary reasonable people?) In a football fan chat site spat, a judge would be sceptical that: • Readers treat comments seriously • Statements are understood as anything more than banter, abuse, or opinion Australian courts repeatedly note that: Context matters — online forums, comment sections, and heated exchanges are often read as exaggeration, insult, or venting, not factual assertion. If the comments are clearly abusive opinion, ridicule, or hyperbole, the claim may fail at step one. 2. Serious harm requirement Since reforms (2021–2024 depending on jurisdiction), Australian law now requires the plaintiff to prove serious harm to reputation. A judge would look at: • Size of the audience (<1,000 users is tiny) • Nature of the audience (insular, partisan football fans) • Duration and reach of publication • Whether anyone outside the group took the comments seriously • Evidence of actual reputational damage In your scenario: • Small, niche, foreign football community • Likely anonymous or pseudonymous users • Comments lost in fast-moving banter 👉 Serious harm would be extremely hard to establish. Many Australian cases involving Facebook posts to a few hundred people have already failed on this ground. 3. Even if defamation were technically proven… Damages would be minimal Australian judges award damages to: • Vindicate reputation • Compensate actual harm • Not to punish childish behaviour For a case like this, damages would likely be: • Nominal damages: $1 – $5,000 AUD • Possibly no damages if harm is trivial • No aggravated damages unless: • There was malice • Repetition after takedown requests • Campaign-style harassment A judge might explicitly say something like: “This was an exchange of insults in a partisan sporting forum and caused no real reputational damage.” 4. Defences that would likely succeed Even if defamatory meaning were found, defendants would have strong defences: • Contextual truth • Honest opinion (especially strong in sports commentary) • Triviality / lack of serious harm • Qualified privilege (discussion between interested parties) • Public interest (limited, but relevant) 5. Costs reality check (very important) Australian defamation litigation is extremely expensive. Even a completely successful plaintiff might: • Recover $0–$10,000 in damages • Spend $100,000 in legal fees • Risk adverse costs if they lose Judges are increasingly hostile to defamation claims that: • Arise from online squabbles • Involve trivial audiences • Look like attempts to weaponise the law in personal disputes Bottom line An Australian judge would most likely: • Dismiss the claim outright, or • Find defamation but award nominal or very low damages, or • Strongly criticise the plaintiff for bringing the case at all For a childish spat on a small Scottish football chat site, the realistic award would be: $0 to a few thousand dollars AUD at most —and quite possibly a judicial lecture about proportionality. Reply |
| 445. Author: ipswichpar Date: Sun 14th Dec 2025. 19:17 Insular!?! The thing is clearly hallucinating. Reply |
| 446. Author: hurricane_jimmy Date: Sun 14th Dec 2025. 21:24 Enjoyed that P! Just on the back of the stuff that has been mentioned about Russia and China, funnily enough, Winston Sturzel who goes by the handle SerpentZA (lived in China for about 10 years, speaks the language, has a Chinese wife etc), just posted on the very subject of China peddling propaganda on non-Chinese platforms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-s4jxrutb8 Not surprising that there are folk coming out of the woodwork with these kinda views - the sheer volume of Z and CCP propaganda out there is insane! Reply |
| 447. Author: jake89 Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 09:18 hurricane_jimmy, Sun 14 Dec 21:24 Is it any different to the crap people are fed on twitter every day? I rarely look at it as my "For you" nowadays is just fake stories (old footage or AI) about Muslims. Reply |
| 448. Author: Dave_1885 Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 11:46 jake89, Mon 15 Dec 09:18 Welcome to the new world. Once popular page LadBible is now just full of AI videos and regurgitated news - and if you click on an article it takes 4 minutes to scroll to the last paragraph, which is the only one with anything of note to the headline in it 😂 Reply |
| 449. Author: OzPar Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 12:21 Hurricane Jimmy: On reflection, you are probably correct on the legal point. As others, including the AI summary posted by P, have noted, pursuing a defamation claim over comments made on a niche forum like dotnet is neither a proportionate nor realistic course of action. Therefore, I retract that threat. I am old school. I was taught a very different set of behavioural rules than you. The law has not caught up fast enough. However, let’s be clear about what that retraction is and is not. It is a concession to legal reality and common sense. It is NOT a concession that personal attacks, accusations of being a paid propagandist, or attempts to diagnose someone`s motives ("touched a nerve") are valid forms of political discourse. They are not. They are the tools used when someone cannot, or will not, engage with the substance of an argument. I have already explained my methodology and modus operandi, so I will not repeat myself. My original defence of specific policies of China and Russia was based on my own analysis of global events as seen from multiple perspectives. Inevitably, my perspective will differ from the mainstream Western narrative. You are free to disagree – vigorously if you like. I welcome a debate on the merits or otherwise of NATO expansion, adherence to or non-adherence to the Minsk agreements, or indeed the pros and cons of China`s development model. What I do not accept is your attempt to shut down that debate by suggesting my views can only stem from corruption, family ties, or mental compromise. From this point forward, I will only engage with posts that address the arguments themselves. I will not respond further to ad hominem attacks, speculations about my income – I am 70, retired, and comfortably off, thank you. I do not need pennies in envelopes from the CCP. And neither do I need your links to AI-generated YouTube content designed to poison the well. You would be wise to avoid the ramblings of that South African nutjob on YouTube you linked. He is cooking your brain with his nonsense. If others wish to "pile on" with personal remarks, they may do so, but they will be speaking into a void as far as I am concerned. I know who they are – same empty pipsqueaks every time – frankly, they all bore the tits off me. I have been on dotnet since day one. The off-topic forums have been, in the main, fascinating and enjoyable. But they are spoiled when people decide to have a go at others because they have a different view. The choice for the dotnet forums is: do we want a space for challenging, albeit heated, political discussion, or just another venue for trading schoolyard insults? I’m here for the former. And while we are at it, Hurricane Jimmy. Let`s not forget that this website is primarily about our football team. You very rarely post in our football forum. Please spend more time there. It would certainly give me some welcome peace. Reply |
| 450. Author: wee eck Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 17:00 Back on topic, Trump has been commenting on the death of Hollywood director, Rob Reiner and his wife. He criticised Reiner on social media, saying without evidence that the two "reportedly" died "due to the anger he caused others" with his "Trump Derangement Syndrome". Reiner was a vocal critic of the president. The couple`s son, Nick, has been arrested and is in custody in connection with the deaths. Trump hasn`t got an ounce of common decency in his body. Reply |
| 451. Author: Bletchley_Par Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 17:08 Topic Originator: wee eck Everything Trump said about Reiner is true, his TDS was off the scale. We need to have a conversation about mentally ill people being pumped full of hormones to affirm their delusions. the consequences seem to be deadly at an disproportional rate.  Reply |
| 452. Author: wee eck Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 17:20 Where`s the evidence supporting his theory of why he died. Why even comment? That doesn`t change my opinion that Trump doesn`t have an ounce of common decency in his body. Reply |
| 453. Author: red-star-par Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 17:24 wee eck, Mon 15 Dec 17:20 I agree, Trump no decency whatsoever, and I would add that appears to be the case for Bletchley Par too Reply |
| 454. Author: Bletchley_Par Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 17:33
I`m not trying to free you of your prejudices, I was simply stating Trump`s claims were true. Reply |
| 455. Author: Dave_1885 Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 18:08 All these MAGA fans claiming folk have “TDS” but failing to realise they are the ones that are brain washed by the big tangerine fella. Post Edited (Mon 15 Dec 18:08) Reply |
| 456. Author: red-star-par Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 18:16 Dave_1885, Mon 15 Dec 18:08 Yep, they are not right in the head, naive wee fools. It`s unbelievable that his followers can be so easily manipulated Reply |
| 457. Author: P Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 18:53 Something weird about classless ghouls that can’t wait to jump on a death to try and score some bizarre points about something that only makes sense in their own head. Reply |
| 458. Author: Dandy Warhol Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 18:57 Trump is an utter lunatic with the onset of dementia, he`s a nonce too. I don`t wanna go down like disco. Reply |
| 459. Author: Raymie the Legend Date: Mon 15th Dec 2025. 20:21 Trump is a horrible person. People who support him are questionable, at least.  It`s bloody tough being a legend Ron Atkinson - 1983 Reply |
| 460. Author: Wotsit Date: Tue 16th Dec 2025. 08:11 Bunch of vile hypocrites. All that virtue signalling after Charlie Kirk, then defending whatever Trump is trying to say. I`m not going to pretend to be shocked about it mind you, it is completely typical of the cultists. The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy. Reply |
Post your Reply
Your Message:
By using your account you have implicitly accepted the DAFC.net Forum Rules and agree to be bound by them. You also agree that you will take sole responsibility for your post and indemnify dafc.net on all matters and costs. Refrain from making any potentially libelous comments about anyone
- - -