Internet and freedom of speech

[The PIT]

Although you may not think this effects you it does really.
I'm not directly effected and it's not a rant.

A small football club. Sheffield Wednesday has taken a number of fans to court over posts in it's forums. The fans made certain claims about transfers and whether they were legal or not. Needless to say several take over attempts have failed due to the refusal of the club to open the books. So I guess that's where the fans have coming from. I make no comment either way.

One of my friends brother is being sued over comments he made in the thread.

You may not think this effects you but in reality it does.

One person on here made certain comments about me in a response to one of the posts I made. Now if I was rich I could have sued and chased him down to the rock he lives under. But what the heck I believe the guy has the right to say what he feels however misguided he is.

The question is do we have the right to say what we feel and express an opinion or is the internet going to end up censored with people dodging around under proxies etc.

[Brian Ellis]

There's all the world of a difference between expressing an opinion and making libellous statements. Just because it is the Internet does not let you off the hook for libel, any more than if you published it in a newspaper. Compare the following as sentences in a local blog:
1. Joe Muggins of Neverland is a thief, a rogue and a villain.
2. Joe Muggins of Neverland is helping police with their enquiries over the theft of 50 TV sets.
3. Joe Muggins of Neverland was convicted of the theft of 50 TV sets and was sentenced to six months prison.
4. It would seem that Joe Muggins of Neverland may have been involved in yesterday's theft of 50 TV sets.

Statement 1. is libellous and the only defence against a suit would be to prove to judicial standards that it is true
Statement 2 is not libellous because it is a statement of fact, even though there is an implication of wrongdoing (note that newspapers would probably word it as "An inhabitant of Neverland is helping police with their enquiries over the theft of 50 TV sets." or somesuch).
Statement 3 is not libellous because it is a straight report of court proceedings
Statement 4 is not libellous, as it expresses an opinion. OTOH, it is defamatory, whether the implication is true or not.

This section of UK law is not clearly defined with contradictory jurisprudence and the success or otherwise of a suit often depends on lawyers' skills, whether the judge's wife let him have it the previous night and other imponderables, uless the case is fairly clear cut. In the case you cite, if the accused stated that the managers performed an illegal act without being able to provide legal proof that this was the case, then this is libel. A civil court may inflict damages and costs against the accused. The extent of damages may be swingeing if the plaintiff(s) can show t(he)y suffered monetary losses, loss of reputation or caused a deal to fail, but they would have to show to the court the extent of the damages. OTOH, if the result of the publication changed nothing in the outcome, the damages awarded against the defendant may be nominal (e.g., a quid). If it were clearly expressed as an opinion, and not an accusation, the case would be dismissed.

[Admiral]

With all due respect, as I see it it's like people here on the forum getting sued by Muslim groups or local government and/or individuals for the opinions expressed. In the case of a news group I can understand, picking on regular users I don't think it's fair.

In the case of Sheffield fans, would you rather have them vent in the real world ? Unless someone had inside information that could damage the team (and was under some confidentiality agreement) and started ranting on the forums, I don't see the problem.

[The PIT]

Of course I can't link to the threads concerned as they'll will have been deleted. It would have been interesting to read I suppose.

Overall to me it seems a strange way to run a football club. A club that's 20 million in dept according to the local press. Last thing you want to do is alienate your fan base as the fans will in the end have the last laugh.

I think a polite letter to the people concerned would have been enough and certainly a more sensible approach.

[The PIT]

Found a little info from a Leeds site.

http://www.waccoe.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=103986

Bad lang involved by the way just to warn you.

By the way the Chairman certainly seems to have problems. Opps I'm being sued now.

http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/boards/read/s37.htm?38,8322273

Also this press conference is interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78AsOlC4E-I

[BarryS]

The question is do we have the right to say what we feel and express an opinion or is the internet going to end up censored with people dodging around under proxies etc.

Under current UK libel law, the publisher of the site is liable for content on their site, just as a newspaper publisher is responsible for what is printed. That's why moderators remove posts (simply editing a post can leave you open to complicity) and some sites require confirmed membership before posting is allowed, so that posters can be traced to real addresses.

I understand that the area of cyber-libel has not yet been *fully* tested in a court of law in the uk, so no legal precedent has yet been set.

[The PIT]

I find it interesting that the local paper won't run with the story. Is it because it's scared as it's certainly an article the local people would be interested in.

One OAP is being sued for £40,000 because he was asked to leave an executive box. Since they had paid to be there they didn't bother renewing and he posted to this effect on the website in question. Shortly afterwards he was contacted by the clubs lawyers.

His Lawyer is so confident of winning he's taking it on as a no win no fee job.

A shameful episode of Sheffield Wednesday History.

[The PIT]

Gets even better for Sheffield Wednesday fans. The Team Manager is now joining and suing them.