Forum List | Sticky
Start Previous [ 1 ] -- 2 -- Next End| Topic: Blackpool to sue football forum |
|---|
| 1. Author: Orangeryhoor Date: Mon 9th Feb 2015. 18:05 Oystons sue web forum Football Blackpool's owners are suing a web forum for libel in the latest of a series of actions against fans making derogatory comments online. Owen and Karl Oyston are seeking £150,000 damages from the Back Henry Street website. Papers were served on Thursday over six alleged defamatory comments which were made in 2014. Reply |
| 2. Author: DRFC_no1 Date: Mon 9th Feb 2015. 18:08 Just read this! Sounds a lot like a certain thing that happened on here not too long ago....... Reply |
| 3. Author: Hummingbird Harry Date: Mon 9th Feb 2015. 18:19 What?... Reply |
| 4. Author: Pars Will Never Die Date: Mon 9th Feb 2015. 18:24 That is so 2013... Reply |
| 5. Author: Crabbit Date: Mon 9th Feb 2015. 18:48 A wee reminder that some folk need to read what they type before hitting the post button...  Reply |
| 6. Author: Frank Grimes Jnr Date: Mon 9th Feb 2015. 18:55 Blackpool are a bunch of  Reply |
| 7. Author: Rastapari Date: Mon 9th Feb 2015. 19:00 Horrible club....allegedly pay their ground staff in slaughtered kittens...allegedly. Reply |
| 8. Author: mcfc-par Date: Mon 9th Feb 2015. 20:52 Whatever they said about the Oystons it probably wasn't strong enough. Reply |
| 9. Author: LesPaulPar Date: Mon 9th Feb 2015. 21:08 Was .net not getting threatened with legal action when Masterton was at his sh**e? Please like my Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/NeilPhilpMusic> Please subscribe to my Youtube Channel Neil Philp Music <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwsDGe-5L-lmJswuOCmdxmQ> Post Edited (Mon 09 Feb 21:08) Reply |
| 10. Author: The Lawyer Date: Mon 9th Feb 2015. 22:17 Very sad to read this. However, the point has been made many times in the past that anyone libelled on a forum like this has a potential claim against the forum as well as the person who wrote the post. Against that background, it is wholly understandable that the site administrators sometimes err on the side of caution. That shouldn't stop fair comments made in a sensible way. Paraid Reply |
| 11. Author: brian Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 02:53 I concur with the lawyer. :o) its my opinion that this web site has never had a problem with people providing their own opinion. however, how that information comes across was always the problem (and as far as I am concerned is still a problem). regardless of the content of posts should a web forum administrator get threatened with legal action they have no option but to react in the first instance. if posts were written in a different manner then there would have been no reason for any legal action - so no point in blaming the web forum administrators ! I really don't wish to bring up this old chestnut again and don't wish to go over old ground and certainly won't wish to get into long long thread about it. ____________________ contact: email me File Share: https://share2.co.uk ParsTV: https://ParsTV.co.uk Reply |
| 12. Author: Patons Premier Pars Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 08:43 Lawyer. You might be able to help on this. If theres a clear disclaimer on the board somewhere that states that the individual posting is solely liable for anything put on the site would that exonerate any liability for the board owners/administrators or whoever else for anything put on the site? Btw I don't have anything controversial to post to make that clear Reply |
| 13. Author: jamiec1983 Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 10:58 why don't the Blackpool Board bring out a share issue.......... Reply |
| 14. Author: Stanza Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 12:01 "If theres a clear disclaimer on the board somewhere that states that the individual posting is solely liable for anything put on the site would that exonerate any liability for the board owners/administrators or whoever else for anything put on the site?" PPP, I'm pretty sure that a forum owner cannot walk away from their legal responsibilities as easily as that. The general rule is that the publisher of a defamation faces liability. If the owner does not monitor the content or respond to complaints, he might not be classed as an author, editor or primary publisher but is likely to be treated as not having taken reasonable care and therefore treated as a secondary publisher. Given that the UK is the libel capital of the world for bringing dubious cases before a court, it is not in a forum owner's interests to take risks! _________________  Support Dunfermline Athletic Disabled Supporters` Club (DADSC) when you shop online with one of 8000 firms: http://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dadsc[Reply |
| 15. Author: Patons Premier Pars Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 12:41 Stanza, Tue 10 Feb 12:01 Fair enough Stanza. I would argue though that its the internet equivalent of charging a landlord for what someone someone says in his pub. Also is twitter and fb libel for everything thats written on there? Btw this isn't anything to do with admin specifically here btw (or what happened before). I just think the laws a farce if the owner of the website is charged for something someone else posts Edit to say- since the law isn't clear as far as I aware then I don't blame admin for taking precautions Post Edited (Tue 10 Feb 12:46) Reply |
| 16. Author: mcfc-par Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 12:51 I would argue though that its the internet equivalent of charging a landlord for what someone someone says in his pub. One obvious difference is that what's posted on here stays here for a decent length of time and can be read by anyone with access to the internet in that time - whereas a comment made in the pub is heard by a few people and most likely forgotten by the next morning. Also the pub landlord does not actively encourage you to make comments, he's more concerned with selling you drinks. this forum is here for the sole purpose of people posting comments. Reply |
| 17. Author: Patons Premier Pars Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 12:56 It is true though I found this on the web (although not sure how accurate it is) http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html "On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material." Post Edited (Tue 10 Feb 12:57) Reply |
| 18. Author: Patons Premier Pars Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 12:57 "One obvious difference is that what's posted on here stays here for a decent length of time and can be read by anyone with access to the internet in that time - whereas a comment made in the pub is heard by a few people and most likely forgotten by the next morning." "Also the pub landlord does not actively encourage you to make comments, he's more concerned with selling you drinks. this forum is here for the sole purpose of people posting comments." Valid points, But I still feel the laws a farce on the subject Reply |
| 19. Author: Crabbit Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 13:05 Also is twitter and fb libel for everything thats written on there? Yes they are. But if you consider how many users there are compared to the number of users of Blackpool.net or DAFC.net or whatever the Blackpool one is called, its obviously harder to track and administrate. Reply |
| 20. Author: Patons Premier Pars Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 13:08 http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ed40836 "Defence for operators of web sites An important innovation in the 2013 Act is its treatment of intermediaries such as internet service providers, search engines and usenet and web site hosts. Section 5 of the 2013 Act creates a new defence for the operators of web sites in respect of a statement posted on a web site. Where an action is brought against an operator of a web site it will be a defence if the operator can show that he or she did not post the statement on the web site. The Defamation (Operators of Web sites) Regulations 2013 provide the detail of the operation of s 5 and introduce a notice of complaint and take down procedure. There is no special defence for the operators of web sites in Scotland. However, the provisions of reg 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 continue to apply, providing a service provider with a defence until such time as it obtains knowledge of defamatory material, provided that it acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material. It is likely that in Scotland, as in England, victims will continue to take a pragmatic approach to material posted on web sites. The terms and conditions of the web site operator will normally contain provisions on take down. In most cases that will be the most effective way of getting the content removed without the need for litigation. Indeed, initial anecdotal evidence also suggests that some of the larger internet businesses consider that the administrative burden imposed upon them by s 5 means that it is easier to simply take down the allegedly defamatory material. It will be interesting to see how the use of this defence develops. " 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
- - -