That new sticky...
jimmythecuckoo
Posts: 4,718
Is it possible to have a section of the forum that is hidden from view unless you are a member... I thought the laws were different regarding "private" forums and libel.
0
Comments
-
Sounds like someone's been on the 'phone...
Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
No and no (this forum is anything but private).
We can't police the entire forum, so it's up to the users to make sure they don't break the rules. If anyone is flagged for a libellous post, they will be banned.
Yes this will have the "chilling effect" of stifling one side of debates, but hey, we didn't make the law. If you're going to argue or insinuate that someone's doping, then you'd better have hard evidence. Just saying "so and so is clearly on the juice" does not stand up in a court of law as hard evidence. Otherwise, just argue the established facts without crossing the line into judgement.Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
oh dear, in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary it appears Mr Armstrong is clean! Hello Aurelio hello hello.
Well since conjecture supported only by physics, biology chemistry and large amounts of circumstantial evidence is not now acceptable, is questioning if a rider might be on a program also forbidden?0 -
You can ask questions, "was Valverde blood doping?" (beware if you attempt to answer the question).
Also you can put the word "alleged" before terms, like "current Pro Tour leader Allan Davis is alleged to have taken EPO, IGF-1 and HGH, according to police documents published in Spain".
The point is not to make direct allegations, for example, "X is jacking" is libellous and frankly it makes for a blunt debate, as we saw with KKSpeeder's accusations against Bradley Wiggins. Unless you have the evidence of course.
But what ever you say is not just a legal matter, the moderators of this forum seem fairly tolerant but seem unlikely to consult a barrister before pressing "delete" if you say anything questionable.0 -
Also you can put the word "alleged" before terms,
I'm fairly sure that use of the word 'alleged' or similar affords you know legal protection at all. You can't libel dead people though, or groups too large to actually libel. For instance I think if you wrote all pro cyclists are (insert allegation here) you would be fine.0 -
I would hope that this now would put an end to the hijacking of EVERY race thread that always ends up on the subject of doping - but it wont. I follow cycling racing and I know whats going on and can make up my own mind if I think someone has doped(and can actually search the internet myself) without hardcore group on this forum clammering to put up 'NEW' posts straight fom other sites or just basically claiming someone has doped just to provoke some activity with people who cannot comprehend that their chain is being janked!
Doping is the scourge of our sport(and many others) but do we have to always end up on the subject?Brian B.0 -
This sticky isn't new, it was there all the time before the forum was rearranged... the question of what constitutes libel is interesting through.
I would assume that it is ok to say "it is alleged that X did Y" as long as there has actually been an allegation made (although how anyone would have ever made such an allegation without being in breach of libel laws in slightly unclear).
However, would it be ok to say "in my opinion X did Y"? I mean, that statement you are making is "my opinion is Z" in which case you could only be possibly be libelling yourself. However, surely whenever you write anything it is implicitly saying "in my opinon..." as you are the author. But we have already established that just stating things that are not true is libel... so maybe expressing an opinion that cannot be proven is libellous, even if you make it clear that it is an opinion?
I am off to google on the subject and will report back! Meanwhile, any lawyers on here feel free to explain!
Simon0 -
Brian B wrote:I would hope that this now would put an end to the hijacking of EVERY race thread that always ends up on the subject of doping - but it wont. I follow cycling racing and I know whats going on and can make up my own mind if I think someone has doped(and can actually search the internet myself) without hardcore group on this forum clammering to put up 'NEW' posts straight fom other sites or just basically claiming someone has doped just to provoke some activity with people who cannot comprehend that their chain is being janked!
Doping is the scourge of our sport(and many others) but do we have to always end up on the subject?
But if everyone stopped discussing it you wouldnt be able to research it on the internet would you? very soon our suspicians would give way to incredulity and then respect for unhuman performance and the whole doping thing will have gone away. There is no doping, say after me there is no doping. the UCI is an admirable and effective governing body and in its non self serving way it protects our sport and the athletes health within it.
At that point professional cycling will be no more real than American wrestling.
In any case drugs are still the current big talking point. Something else will come along perhaps gene therapy and thats all well hear about.0 -
I would assume that it is ok to say "it is alleged that X did Y" as long as there has actually been an allegation made
I don't think that is the case, even if someone else has made the original allegation. By copying the original allegation you are in effect making it yourself. If the subject was found guilty of X then you'd be ok, if they were found not guilty then you could be in trouble. I don't think that by simply prefacing a statement with 'it is my opinion that X did Y' you can get away with it as you are still making a claim about someone else that could be libelous.
I'm not lawyer, I used to run a student radio station and had to go to an OFCOM seminar on broadcasting law which included libel etc. Of course things might have changed a little since then.0 -
I haven't really found a definitel answer but did find this (or words to this effect) in several places regarding opinions:
Expressions of opinion, based upon true facts, made in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest may be protected. Note the distinction between fact and opinion.
The facts must be proved to be true and the opinion, the subject of the fair comment defence, must be honest. Therefore the facts upon which the comment is based must be correct. It does not matter if the view expressed is extreme, so long as it is an honestly held view and not malicious. For this purpose, 'malice' may be established if it can be proven that the commentator did not genuinely hold the view he expressed.
So if your opinion is based upon 'true facts' then you're ok... as long as it's really your opinion and you're not pretending to have an opinion... quite how anyone can show what facts your opinion was based on I'm not sure. I think there may be a responsibility on you to state what facts inform your opinion, although as stated above the opinion can be extreme, so the link may not have to be particularly rational, I'm not sure where they draw the line in terms of tenuous links between fact and opinion.0 -
Repeating an allegation made elsehwere is ok. For example, Italian footballer Marco Materazzi won his libel case against a tabloid newspaper after they alledged he had made racist comments to Zinedine Zidane. I can repeat the claim but mentioning it was proved false helps readers decide.
But as I said above, legal niceities are not so important, if the moderator doesn't like it, they can press delete. At the same time, if a rider or team manager disliked the chat on here, the first thing would be that they contact the forum's owners and ask for the comments to be deleted, it's unlikely a comment on here would bring direct legal action.
Besides I think some riders might regret a day in court! But that is not what Future, owners of this site, worry about, they just want to minimise the business risks and part of that includes warning the users.0 -
markwalker wrote:.
At that point professional cycling will be no more real than American wrestling.
.
Both feature doped up men in lycra - I'd say as far as integrity goes wrestling probably edges it.\'You Come At the King,You Best Not Miss\'0 -
Not sure on the law, but if this is strictly enforced it's going to be pretty quiet on here. Or is it just a reaction to some of the more wild allegations that have been flung about on here in the past 3 weeks?0
-
Jeff Jones wrote:No and no (this forum is anything but private).
We can't police the entire forum, so it's up to the users to make sure they don't break the rules. If anyone is flagged for a libellous post, they will be banned.
Yes this will have the "chilling effect" of stifling one side of debates, but hey, we didn't make the law. If you're going to argue or insinuate that someone's doping, then you'd better have hard evidence. Just saying "so and so is clearly on the juice" does not stand up in a court of law as hard evidence. Otherwise, just argue the established facts without crossing the line into judgement.
Well put Jeff. We all seem to be guilty of "judgement" calls on this forum. I suppose that
anyone can "judge" another(people do it all the time - you, me, them) but putting it out there as "fact" is something else again. Once again, well said.
Dennis Noward0 -
Er, perhaps it's because doping is the scourge of our sport, and as a consequence the results of the racing mean about as much as who won the latest WWF contest.Brian B wrote:Doping is the scourge of our sport(and many others) but do we have to always end up on the subject?0 -
Brian B wrote:I would hope that this now would put an end to the hijacking of EVERY race thread that always ends up on the subject of doping - but it wont. I follow cycling racing and I know whats going on and can make up my own mind if I think someone has doped(and can actually search the internet myself) without hardcore group on this forum clammering to put up 'NEW' posts straight fom other sites or just basically claiming someone has doped just to provoke some activity with people who cannot comprehend that their chain is being janked!
Doping is the scourge of our sport(and many others) but do we have to always end up on the subject?
I agree...well put.0 -
+1Dave_1 wrote:Brian B wrote:I would hope that this now would put an end to the hijacking of EVERY race thread that always ends up on the subject of doping - but it wont. I follow cycling racing and I know whats going on and can make up my own mind if I think someone has doped(and can actually search the internet myself) without hardcore group on this forum clammering to put up 'NEW' posts straight fom other sites or just basically claiming someone has doped just to provoke some activity with people who cannot comprehend that their chain is being janked!
Doping is the scourge of our sport(and many others) but do we have to always end up on the subject?
I agree...well put.0 -
I guess that's why Walsh hasn't been taken to court over the contents of 'From Lance to Landis', and why Paul Kimmage's 'libels' have been met with nothing more then petulant point scoring.Kléber wrote:I think some riders might regret a day in court!
The bottom line is that the UK's libel laws are a joke, explicitly designed to protect the powerful, and that a heavy-handed approach to 'libelous' comments would play straight into the hands of the dopers. Perhaps all talk of doping should be banned and the owners of the forum instead take up selling Armstrong-like wristbands carrying the motto 'Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.'
British libel laws violate human rights, says UN
Human rights committee says UK laws block matters of public interest and encourage libel tourism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/1 ... tednations
A national disgrace, a global menace, and a pre-democratic anachronism
Britain's libel laws are a gift to the censorious and powerful. It's better to be caught mugging than to be caught speaking freely
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... s.medialaw
How can the rich still be buying our silence with this 13th-century law?
If even football fans can be sued by their club for online remarks, it's clear libel is too easily used to stifle legitimate dissent
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... h.medialaw
ESLJ Volume 5 Number 2
Doping and Free Speech
John Cooke
Liverpool John Moores University
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/e ... ber2/cooke
For the court reports on the Times / Armstrong libel case see:
http://www.5rb.com/casereports/list.asa?area=110 -
Is it ok for me to then (for egsample) say that based on his enourmous winning margin, course profile and the riders physical size, all of which are fact, that i believe contador is either doping or just more talented than the other riders who many appear to believe are doping big time.
Would it also be wrong to comment on possible reasons for the apparent strength and recovery profile of the postal/disco/astana teams.
eg theyre better than the majority of the peleoton (possible)
they have a doping/ performance enhancing program (possible)
They have riders and team staff with a close association to proven cheating teams (true)
they have better coaches and training. (possible)
They have an equipment advantage (posible)
if we discuss any of these possibilities there will be things that might indicate that one or all of those things were likely to be true surely thats not slanderous?0 -
The libel laws are slated for reform, because the British courts and legislators recognise London has become a haven for "libel tourism".
As for talking about doping, it's ugly and hard to escape from but it's important not to get in denial or to brush it under the carpet. In some ways, now more than ever is the time to discuss it. I'm not talking about posting messages accusing Moncoutie and Wiggins of "jacking", instead I mean it's useful to discuss the bio passport scheme, it's good to ask why mega teams like CSC-Saxo can't afford a trainer and discover their riders getting "training" plans from Fuentes and Cecchini, it's good to want Puerto to be seen to the end. Doping is like the "sword of damocles" hanging over the sport but I think the sport is at a turning point, not to clear it up for good but to significantly reduce the incidence of it and that's to be applauded. So don't shove your hand in the sand.0 -
This is what the "report inappropriate post" is for. It gets used, but surprisingly sparingly. If someone flags a post and it's libellous then we'll delete it and ban the poster at our discretion. It's for their benefit as well, as they can get sued.Brian B wrote:I would hope that this now would put an end to the hijacking of EVERY race thread that always ends up on the subject of doping - but it wont. I follow cycling racing and I know whats going on and can make up my own mind if I think someone has doped(and can actually search the internet myself) without hardcore group on this forum clammering to put up 'NEW' posts straight fom other sites or just basically claiming someone has doped just to provoke some activity with people who cannot comprehend that their chain is being janked!
Doping is the scourge of our sport(and many others) but do we have to always end up on the subject?
Some anti-doping crusaders would be amazed at how far over the line they've stepped, apparently without being aware of the fact. "It's not illegal unless you get caught" also doesn't stand up in court.
But, debate is good and we want it to continue. Just argue with the right weapons.
I'll make it clear again that although we have a handful of excellent moderators, we can't possibly police everything on the forum so we have to take a reactionary approach rather than a proactive one. This protects us but alas it doesn't protect you.Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
We all might as well watch this phoney, yellow-clad, doped-up 'American hero' in action*Dave_1 wrote:
I agree...well put.Brian B wrote:Doping is the scourge of our sport(and many others) but do we have to always end up on the subject?
*Nothing libelous here, surely.
Hulk Hogan Speaks on Steroid Use
Posted on August 5th, 2007
Hulk Hogan has lashed out at the industry which made him a megastar. And he has demanded an end to the decades-long cover-up of steroid abuse in the sport.
Hogan took the muscle-enhancing drugs almost daily for 16 years during his career and says he can spot a user a mile off. With more than 100 grapplers dying before the age of 50 in the last decade, he is begging others to face up to the crisis.
http://www.thewrestlingpost.com/categories/hulk-hogan/0 -
Aurelio,
I agree with your comment about wristbands.
For balance it would be interesting to understand how much time and money is spent in Libel related activity by the Guardian and other newspapers and wether that is reflected in the editorial content?
Mark0 -
I find this new restriction a little frightening. Of course the internet is full of rubbish info that is presented as "fact" and I despise this as much as anyone. But what is the alternative? If all the lively discussions of the past regarding doping were to be examined I think you would find quite a bit of suspect and unprovable allegations but many turned out to be true. How many of the past TDF winners since Bjarne Riis have admitted to doping? And how many have been actually legally been proven guilty? And how many of us believe that only Floyd Landis is guilty yet former pros are still coming out years later to confess to using during their career. Did Indurain dope? I can't accuse him of doping because there is no "proof". Most confessions are due to fact that the public, such as the people that post here, have kept up the pressure and these riders feel it best to confess before being "outed". I'm certainly not going to wait for the UCI to sort it out. Should we apply these slander rules to out government officials (a scary thought)? I think it is the responsibility of the readers as well to question everything they read on the internet and investigate for themselves. This is just a fact of life now and if you aren't aware of that then you need to wake up. It is so incredibly easy to do some internet research on any subject and with a little common sense and rational thinking (am I being too optimistic here?) some legitimate answers can be found. At the very least you can go away with the realisation that something you have read is not proveable. Before the internet it should have been so much easier to fool the public because people actually had to get up and read a book, newspaper, etc. But amazingly it seems that the public has become even more gullible and as a result restrictions are being put in place to try to limit the "false" info. An impossible task. I don't fault the owners of this site so much. They would probably lose their business trying to defend every slander suit against them. They should not have to defend every poster because it's easier for lawyers to go after the organisation rather than the offender. I think it's us as a society that should be more responsible in checking claims and educating our children to use their common sense, don't believe everything you see and hear and let the people that are trying to take away your free speech, including some of the lawyers, know that you don't approve.
Rant over,
Carry on.0 -
I think Kleber's hit the nail right on the head with this. There's nothing wrong with discussion of what's in the puiblic domain (of which there's reams of material), it's the baseless and seemingly random allegations against individuals which cross the line and we've seen a lot of in the last 2-3 weeks.0
-
aurelio wrote:
We all might as well watch this phoney, yellow-clad, doped-up 'American hero' in action*Dave_1 wrote:
I agree...well put.Brian B wrote:Doping is the scourge of our sport(and many others) but do we have to always end up on the subject?
*Nothing libelous here, surely.
Hulk Hogan Speaks on Steroid Use
Posted on August 5th, 2007
Hulk Hogan has lashed out at the industry which made him a megastar. And he has demanded an end to the decades-long cover-up of steroid abuse in the sport.
Hogan took the muscle-enhancing drugs almost daily for 16 years during his career and says he can spot a user a mile off. With more than 100 grapplers dying before the age of 50 in the last decade, he is begging others to face up to the crisis.
http://www.thewrestlingpost.com/categories/hulk-hogan/
How dare you call The Hulkster a phony? Why that's a slam against every red blooded American. He's a genuine American hero. Stay right where you are and I'll be right over
to kick your *ss up and down the length of the U.K. In the for what it's worth column, I
used to love pro wrestling as a child, that and Roller Derby, great stuff. It was great to watch but even at the tender age of 7 or 8 I knew it was fake. Yet I still have a few friends from that era who STILL believe at the age of 60 or so. Has me baffled as to why, but they do. And you can't reason with them.
Not sure how or why or to whom any of the above might apply to anything or anyone on these forums but you never know.
Dennis Noward0 -
Is this to say that it's Future Publishing's policy to automatically respond in the affirmative to legal requests for the identification of users? The terms of service I accepted were clear on that situation if the demanding party is a law enforcement organization, but what happens with a civil case (such a libel), where UK, EU and International laws and past legal judgements make this discovery process non-binding to the website host?0
-
I have a feeling we could be writing something very similar about the disciples, sorry 'fans', of a different yellow-clad 'American hero' in another 30 or 40 years time.dennisn wrote:How dare you call The Hulkster a phony? Why that's a slam against every red blooded American. He's a genuine American hero... I used to love pro wrestling as a child, that and Roller Derby, great stuff. It was great to watch but even at the tender age of 7 or 8 I knew it was fake. Yet I still have a few friends from that era who STILL believe at the age of 60 or so. Has me baffled as to why, but they do. And you can't reason with them.
0 -
I don't know. I'd have to check with our legal dept on that one. Do you really want to risk it?drenkrom wrote:Is this to say that it's Future Publishing's policy to automatically respond in the affirmative to legal requests for the identification of users? The terms of service I accepted were clear on that situation if the demanding party is a law enforcement organization, but what happens with a civil case (such a libel), where UK, EU and International laws and past legal judgements make this discovery process non-binding to the website host?Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
aurelio wrote:
I have a feeling we could be writing something very similar about the disciples, sorry 'fans', of a different yellow-clad 'American hero' in another 30 or 40 years time.dennisn wrote:How dare you call The Hulkster a phony? Why that's a slam against every red blooded American. He's a genuine American hero... I used to love pro wrestling as a child, that and Roller Derby, great stuff. It was great to watch but even at the tender age of 7 or 8 I knew it was fake. Yet I still have a few friends from that era who STILL believe at the age of 60 or so. Has me baffled as to why, but they do. And you can't reason with them.
Only time and history will tell(maybe).
Dennis Noward0
