Lible for comments posted to a Wargaming Forum? Janthkin?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**muwhe**

Pulled this off the TMP. Thought it might be an interesting discussion topic for Dakka.

http://jhussey.com/jhussey.pdf

**Kilkrazy**

Libel is the publication of statements damaging to a person's reputation. Something published online is just as liable as something in a newspaper.

**lifeafter**

Holy goodness 10,000 pounds!

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

My Reader can't decrypt the file....any chance of a transcript being posted?

**lifeafter**

I can't copy and paste because it's a pdf, but basically some Austrian guy got sued for making libelous remarks about another poster on a Napoleon Bonaparte forum. The Austrian dude agreed to pay the other guy 10,000 pounds and issue an apology as a settlement.

Austrian dude must have been a super troll

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Nice!

And do watch yourselves on the Interwebs children. Remember that Webcomic that insinuated (I won't say accused as thats not entirely accurate) the GW Board with Kiddy Fiddlers? They were very lucky GW just gave them a slapped wrist. That sort of thing can be taken very seriously.

Not that it stopped them whinging on about freedom of speech and the evil empire.

**malfred**

I wonder if Janthkin has his declaimer ready to cut and paste for situations when he
comments on a legal situation online.

**muwhe**

Both these guys have a pretty impressive list of publications on the subject.

Settlement would certainly buy a large number of Nappy models!

I included Janthkin in the title because I thought Kevin would be interested in the topic.

Course I would be interested to know what the differences are between the US and the UK when it comes to this sort of law.

**Kilkrazy**

The UK is generally reckoned to have the harshest slander and libel laws in the world, which is why rich people from overseas come here to get their defamation cases done.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Though there is a dead easy way to avoid any such law suits, as amply demonstrated by Have I Got News For You.

Simply attach the word 'allegedly' onto the end of the defaming sentence and you are safe.

So, for example......

Killkrazy is extremely fond of buying other peoples goats, nailing them to crosses, performing Satanic rituals involving Baby Organs, then disposing of the evidence in his neighbours bins, allegedly.

With the allegedly attached, KK cannot touch me for defamation of character (P.S. the above statement about KK is of course completely false. And if it isn't, was simply a bloody good guess!)

**muwhe**

Here is the link to the original post on the TMP

http://theminiaturespage.com/news/117159/

For those interested in the discussion ....

**dietrich**

I don't think allegedly gets you out of trouble. Allegedly is used when something hasn't been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

If a journalist wrote, "Mad Doc Grostnik allegedly had a beardy opponent killed and then ate his spleen," I'm pretty sure there would still be a lawsuit. If there was anyone who could make supporting statements, you might get away with it. For example, if someone stated that they were told by MDG that he killed a guy and ate his spleen, then they would become the target of the libel/slander suit.

**Polonius**

First off, I'm not a legal expert, and nothing herein constitutes legal advice.

Interesting case. For those that can't/won't download the PDF, essentially the defendant accused the plaintiff of being a bad historian, commiting a civil offense in germany for incorrect information, etc. The Plaintiff sued for libel and the case was settled for 10,000 pounds.

It is incredibly important to remember the difference in American and British libel laws. The US has 1st amendment protection, which dramatically curtails who can sue for libel. Public officials and "public figures" generally have to show that any slander or libel was published with malice and knowledge that it is false. In addition, US common law generally requires that a person show actual damages (generally in lost wages, missed opportunities, etc) for the libel or slander.

In my opinion, which is not a legal or professional opinion, this case would be much harder to advance in the US. It would be difficult to show actual damages, and than the defendant would probably simply claim that the historian in question was a limited public figure.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

dietrich wrote:I don't think allegedly gets you out of trouble. Allegedly is used when something hasn't been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

If a journalist wrote, "Mad Doc Grostnik allegedly had a beardy opponent killed and then ate his spleen," I'm pretty sure there would still be a lawsuit. If there was anyone who could make supporting statements, you might get away with it. For example, if someone stated that they were told by MDG that he killed a guy and ate his spleen, then they would become the target of the libel/slander suit.

Well, true story this, around this time last year a Scottish Newspaper (Daily Record if anyone is interested) made allegations to my family that I had killed my Dad. Which was patently untrue as he's not actually dead. What happened was they confused me with someone of a broadly similar name (I'm Ross Alexander Allan, the murdered was Ross Alexander Allen) and popped a note through my Uncles door asking how he felt about me killing my Dad. Fun and games ensued with many many phone calls. They claimed they got my details from the Electoral Role, which is a bloody good trick as I have never been registered to vote in Scotland, as I moved to England when I was 11. Then the story changed and so on. What didn't help was the murder victim was Sandy Allen, and my Dad is called Norrie (well, Norman) Allan. Yet I couldn't sue them as nothing had gone to print, even though we had a hand written note and a confession of who had sent it....

**Janthkin**

malfred wrote:I wonder if Janthkin has his declaimer ready to cut and paste for situations when he
comments on a legal situation online.

I ought to make it part of my signature.

Oooh, Lego needs to give us selectable signatures!

Anyway - the actual legal issue here, as far as I can tell (NOT a UK attorney) has nothing to do with libel. It's a breach of contract case, with a bit of agency law thrown in. The defendant's counsel agreed to settle an ongoing libel dispute, for GBP10k plus a published apology. Defendant didn't pay up, and asserted that his counsel had no right to make such an agreement. Court held defendant to the terms of the settlement, and noted that he probably had a cause of action against his counsel.

But yes - defamatory published comments, wargaming forum or not, can constitute libel. So you should consult an attorney in your jurisdiction before posting anything on the interwebs.

**Hellfury**

Janthkin wrote:But yes - defamatory published comments, wargaming forum or not, can constitute libel. So you should consult an attorney in your jurisdiction before posting anything on the interwebs.

I was going to reply to this, but I got sued so now I cannot afford the intarnetz and had to use the liberry computerz.

**dr vompire**

English Libel law is ridiculously harsh and very hard to defend against an accusation.

Added into this the fact that our judges have recently been making a habit of giving rulings on issues which only a very liberal definition of jurisdiction would identify as coming under English law.

As a result there is a good going trade in Libel tourism, particulary from rich people who don't like critiscim.

There was one case where a UK judge ordered the pulping of a book which was written by a US author about a middle east subject which was never published or sold in the UK, but because it was possible to buy said book on the Internet and get it shipped to England that was enough for our libel laws to be applied. Needless to say this caused a monster Kerfuffle in the US where some uppity colonials thought that their first ammendment rights might be being impinged on just a wee bit.

not that that stopped the ruling.

Unfortunately that sort of case makes it likely that if you are going to get sued for Libel due to the internet, it's going to be in the UK, even if you are an Austrian who never goes to the UK

Finally from the one lecture on Tort Law I sat in on a rainy day at university, using "Allegedly" doesn't give you any protection against libel in English law, where you can be taken to court for Libel for giving misleading information, even if you make it clear you aren't the one saying it.

So me saying that MDG allegedly said "Killkrazy is extremely fond of buying other peoples goats, nailing them to crosses, performing Satanic rituals involving Baby Organs, then disposing of the evidence in his neighbours bins, allegedly. "

has opened me up for a massive lawsuit.

**Lordhat**

dr vompire wrote:
Unfortunately that sort of case makes it likely that if you are going to get sued for Libel due to the internet, it's going to be in the UK, even if you are an Austrian who never goes to the UK

Well. I certainly hope somebody from another country doesn't try to sue me for using my first ammendment rights, ESCPECIALLY if the suit happens in a country that has no jurisdiction over me. I'd love to see em extradite. I'd very politely point out my second ammendment rights. Not that I think I'm a super bad$%# or anything, but I'm good enough to hit my target enough times they'd think twice about it. And I have no problems violently refuting a foreign country's jurisdiction over my person; I barely have a problem refuting my OWN country's jurisdiction over my person, with the way our legal system is turning to mush and lobbyism. (A dead defendant isn't going to comply with the court's decision no matter HOW hard they try.)

**Janthkin**

Lordhat wrote:Well. I certainly hope somebody from another country doesn't try to sue me for using my first ammendment rights, ESCPECIALLY if the suit happens in a country that has no jurisdiction over me. I'd love to see em extradite. I'd very politely point out my second ammendment rights. Not that I think I'm a super bad$%# or anything, but I'm good enough to hit my target enough times they'd think twice about it. And I have no problems violently refuting a foreign country's jurisdiction over my person; I barely have a problem refuting my OWN country's jurisdiction over my person, with the way our legal system is turning to mush and lobbyism. (A dead defendant isn't going to comply with the court's decision no matter HOW hard they try.)

*sigh* The only thing I'll bother to point out here is that extradition treaties cover various criminal offenses; you don't need to worry about the Brits coming to haul you off to civil court in jolly ol' England any time soon.

**Lordhat**

Oh good. Thought I was gonna have to shoot me some Redcoats fer a sec.

**Relapse**

A little something else about differences in freedom of speech between the U.S. and other places comes from this example:
I've been reading some news stories lately about a law in Canada titled "C-250" that apparently makes it a criminal offense to speak out against homosexuality.
I then checked out the wording of the law, and it seems a person can be open to prosecution if not careful about what they say, even to the point of hauling in people preaching against homosexuality in church.

**PanamaG**

First off, I'm not a legal expert, and nothing herein constitutes legal advice.

People are babies, I wish the duel would come back in style, that way at least natural selection is taking place.

**olympia**

Agreed that English libel is harsh. But remember until the mid 1850s a Duel-provoking conversation could go like this:
Mr. Tophat, "It is clear that you and I do not agree so I shall say good day to you sir."
Mr. Plonker, "But.."
Mr. Tophat, "I SAID GOOD DAY!"

oh snap! it's on!

**JohnHwangDD**

Hell, in the 1850s, if you spoke ill of another man's woman, his nephew could cane you within an inch of your life, US Senator or not!

**GreyFox555**

Oh no, someone said something bad about me on the internets BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Ridiculous.

**Ozymandias**

Man, what a pus... Oops, better watch it, may get sued...

Ozymandias, King of Kings