Comments on: Defamation for dummies

By: skepticlawyer » Blood Elves and Blogwars

skepticlawyer » Blood Elves and Blogwars — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:46:23 +0000

[...] I think they might have skated a bit too close to the edge here. As we’ve explained in our Defamation for Dummies post, defamation will be made out where false statements are communicated about a person to others, [...]

By: skepticlawyer » Sticks and stones…

skepticlawyer » Sticks and stones… — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:37:38 +0000

[...] on another level, this case reminds me of the Ettingshausen case mentioned in our Defamation for Dummies post. There was some suggestion in the material I read on the Ettingshausen case that although [...]

By: skepticlawyer » No, tell us what you really think!

skepticlawyer » No, tell us what you really think! — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:20:24 +0000

[...] our post Defamation for Dummies, we outlined the possible defences to an action in defamation, including fair comment, [...]

By: cearta.ie » Cowengate: no use crying over spilt milk

cearta.ie » Cowengate: no use crying over spilt milk — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:11:05 +0000

By: Armagny

Armagny — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:43:47 +0000

It’s a question of relevance I suppose, and of judges doing their job and not letting in meaningless slanders to diminish the witness. In that case, his propensity to hitting accused was at issue, so the fact that he said:
“If he wanted to tune him up some, he should have delayed cuffing him … If you were going to hit a cuffed suspect, at least get your money’s worth ’cause now he’s going to get disciplined for a faggot-ass love tap.”
online is probably not irrelevant.

Kind of like a judge saying “if he was willing to take a bag of money to swing the judgement, he should have gone about it this way….”

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 02:53:04 +0000

WB - here's the article. Has to be seen to be believed:

Be careful how you set your mood on MySpace, your status on Facebook and never post dumb comments on video sites because it all can and will be used against you in a court of law. That at least is the experience of New York police officer and amateur body builder Vaughan Ettienne who has been out-manoeuvred by a canny legal aid lawyer. Using evidence drawn from the policeman's online social networking activities, Adrian Lesher of the Legal Aid Society cast enough doubt on the policeman's character to have a jury dismiss a serious charge against his client, Gary Waters.

By: WB

WB — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 02:07:11 +0000

Good grief, LE – MySpace updates upsetting evidence? I guess it’s a fair enough source, after all – the authors are typing it all up themselves. See, I don’t play in that pond. I’d rather just blog (altho’ I am very very slack about that lately). I suspect the whole thing with MySpace and twitter et al is the constant need to update and contribute. You’ll end up saying something inappropriate through sheer weight of pressure to jump in cos nature abhors a vacuum, or something like that.

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:13:20 +0000

WB, very interesting – wish I’d watched it. I think people forget how very public the Internet is. I read a case the other day of an American cop whose testimony was thrown into doubt because of MySpace status updates – there his various moods and thoughts were, recorded for all to see.

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:10:49 +0000

I’d say if a pseudonymous blogger had a reputation to be damaged, he or she could be defamed. The important thing is the reputation – it doesn’t matter whether someone uses their real name or not.

By: WB

WB — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:17:45 +0000

Hey SL, slight segue, but tonight’s Four Corners was excellent (!) all about school bullying and cyber bullying particularly. Seems to me it might be real necessary to get the word out about new technology and how it can be utterly damaging to people, not just bullying using Instant Messenger and Facebook which is dreadful for the bullied, but also terrible for the idiot perpetrators who’s history of perfidy is traceable and that stain can follow them for ever.
While news folks are busy extolling the virtues of new media (there was a conference last week banging on about the delights of twitter etc) a bit of legal education seems to me to be sorely needed to explain basics like defam as you guys have done here (cheers again – good stuff). Typing out some hurtful blather is just appalling. If you wouldn’t do it to their face, you shouldn’t do it about someone online. Just lately I’ve discovered quite a lot of bilefilled tappers here in Oz and I honestly don’t think they have a clue what they’re actually doing, how hurtful it can be and how liable they are publicly showing themselves to be.
In the 4Corners show, one poor girl at a school found a Facebook site set up to slag her off cos of race and doubtless other meangirl attacks – every contributor now knowable. What a stupid way to behave, to give your own reputation a complete recsting so that now you’re known as a cyberbully – before you’ve even started living in the real world as an adult they’ve wrecked their own credentials. I am not at all sure they’ll ever be able to make amends, other than to take it all down and publish very clear mea culpas to try to wipe the stain away. Just awful.