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.

Mickey, it's not going to come down to what Romeo intended by his actions, but if the events happened or at least Nick was led to believe happened. Beyond that, point of view of what happened, or critique of the events, are protected under the first amendment.

carboncopy wrote:
Mickey, it's not going to come down to what Romeo intended by his actions, but if the events happened or at least Nick was led to believe happened. Beyond that, point of view of what happened, or critique of the events, are protected under the first amendment.

My understanding (albeit limited admittedly) is that the first amendment does not allow one to wilfully falsify facts damaging to another? I apologise profusely if I'm wrong there.

If that is the case then it's down to legal teams to prove/disprove who knew what and who has what evidence to support their views. That's not anything we can work out here.

It it important to know just Where this legal action is going to take place. If it case takes jurisdiction in California, chances are that the case not be a winnable one.

 Janthkin wrote:
Various OT posts deleted. There may have been some good content in them, but it was lost in the OT vitriol.

If it's not clear: I don't care about your opinions of either party's personality; it's off-topic. Calling other users names? OT at a minimum, quite possibly rude.

Believe it or not, it is possible to have an opinion in favor of one or the other party without being a sock-puppet.

I'm not sure how various posters could have misunderstood my words, but apparently they did. A whole page's worth of OT digression removed.

Next poster who drags us off-topic is going to have to find something else to do over Memorial Day weekend, as they won't be posting on Dakka.

Had a nice rant going on prior to seeing Janthkin's last post. Lets just say it was about how everyone on the 40kradio forums is drinking the Kool-aid and I've woken up.

Now onto the the meat of what I want to post about. Until we know exactly what Romeo has in is filings we can only speculate. However, again thanks to previous postings by Outrider(now taken down), the Infinity blow up and Romeo's POV on 2 podcast, His blow up towards MLB with a different company, it does not help Romeo's image nor reputation regardless. Until that time BoK will be seen as in the right(for the most part). If BoK thought what he was reporting as right and truthful, it will be hard to disprove that. Just like how Scientologist believe their beliefs are right. You don't see them Sueing the Catholic Church...

my question for this case to this point is, thanks to mickey's stance. Would there not be a conflict of interest if mickey is a material witness(forgive me if i misread a post saying his is) or any other mod of the 40kradio forum, as some have said they are.

 MickeyP2K wrote:

carboncopy wrote:
Mickey, it's not going to come down to what Romeo intended by his actions, but if the events happened or at least Nick was led to believe happened. Beyond that, point of view of what happened, or critique of the events, are protected under the first amendment.

My understanding (albeit limited admittedly) is that the first amendment does not allow one to willfully falsify facts damaging to another? I apologise profusely if I'm wrong there.

If that is the case then it's down to legal teams to prove/disprove who knew what and who has what evidence to support their views. That's not anything we can work out here.

We can, however, look at the information that we have on each side, and draw our own conclusions - and I know which way my own reading of the information leans.

We can discuss what that information is. (And, for the most art, we are.) And we can discuss how many times similar situations have arisen with one side or another.

We can also make assessments as to whether those conclusions affect the way we spend our hard earned money.

For me, it has. Regardless of how the court hearing pans out I have held a trial of the mind, and one side or the other has been found, if not guilty, then wanting.

That said, yes, freedom of speech does allow for the possibility of slander and/or libel. Since it was published in a public manner it can be taken to trial, and if proven to be libel (published or broadcast) then consequences can be handed out.

On the other hand, there have been enough similar incidents that it seems to me that the preponderance of information favors one side....

You see, it needs to be proven false... and if proven true....

The Auld Grump

Tycho wrote:

Plus, even if you can somehow justify that Romeo said that in jest, you'd still have to explain "called shot to the kneecaps ...". I think that's going to be the biggest issue in the court case as well.

To be fair, I certainly saw the "called shot to the kneecap", not as a threat to perform that particular physical action, but rather as a way of saying; "That should teach you a lesson".

The particular remark is taken from the comic "Knights of the Dinner-table" in which "called shot to X" is a stable (usually groin, kneecap or ear ). It is sometimes even followed by the very same; "Natural 20!".
Romeo could also have said; "Boom! Headshot!" to use a FPS in-game meme.
He could have said; "He shots! He scores!" to use a sports meme.
He chose to use a RPG meme.

Saying that particular remark constitutes a threat of said action is IMHO not warranted at all.

Please note, I am not impressed by the way Romeo have been acting in the past (if stories are to be believed of course), but I am a strong proponent of being fair, and this seemed an unfair presentation of events to me.


...

To be fair, I certainly saw the "called shot to the kneecap", not as a threat to perform that particular physical action, but rather as a way of saying; "That should teach you a lesson".

The particular remark is taken from the comic "Knights of the Dinner-table" in which "called shot to X" is a stable (usually groin, kneecap or ear ). It is sometimes even followed by the very same; "Natural 20!".
Romeo could also have said; "Boom! Headshot!" to use a FPS in-game meme.
He could have said; "He shots! He scores!" to use a sports meme.
He chose to use a RPG meme.

Saying that particular remark constitutes a threat of said action is IMHO not warranted at all.

I'm well aware of where the comment came from (the comic actually took it from D&D players years ago). That's not really the point at all. Like I said before, the real point is that when one of the allegations against you is that you threaten people, and you are claiming defamation based on that allegation, you CANNOT under ANY circumstance say ANYTHING that could even potentially possibly in any way shape or form be construed as threatening and still have a case. Do I literally think Romeo is going to seek out Hayden and actually kneecap him? No. I think that's highly unlikely. Do I literally think that if I bump into Romeo at a con and we have a disagreement that I'm going to get punched? Possibly. On the other hand, when the legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the charge being claimed as liable is "Romeo sometimes physically threatens people" and I have one of his own podcasts where (more than once) he makes statements that could be construed as threats, I start to find it hard to completely believe that that particular charge is actually slanderous.

Tycho wrote:
On the other hand, when the legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the charge being claimed as liable is "Romeo sometimes physically threatens people" and I have one of his own podcasts where (more than once) he makes statements that could be construed as threats, I start to find it hard to completely believe that that particular charge is actually slanderous.

The legal standard here isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's only the standard for criminal cases.

Thats a good point regarding standard for coming to a conclusion in this matter. Broadly speaking, of course:

Beyond a reasonable doubt applies in criminal cases.

Preponderance of evidence applies in civil cases.

For this situation...

What standard of evidence is required to prove the libel claim?

More specifically, what standard is needed to show the contested statements on BoK are (1) true, or true enough, vs. (2) believed to be true (i.e. intent)?

Hypothetically, how could those standards be met?

The legal standard here isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's only the standard for criminal cases.

Doh! Fair enough. In that case I'd second Gymnogyps questions.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
It it important to know just Where this legal action is going to take place. If it case takes jurisdiction in California, chances are that the case not be a winnable one.

Again. I will state. If this case is tried in California, the Case will probably be dismissed.

Out of everything being talked about, this, right now is the most important step concerning this case. Everything else is a moot point at this point.

If this case gets tried out of the California Legal System and be tried in another state, such as Arizona, then the case could be a more viable one.

Regardless of whom is right or wrong this is the key element of the case. Where it is going to take place, California or Arizona.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
It it important to know just Where this legal action is going to take place. If it case takes jurisdiction in California, chances are that the case not be a winnable one.

Again. I will state. If this case is tried in California, the Case will probably be dismissed.

Just so I'm clear in my head - dismissed in whose favour, or just chucked out without resolution?

I'm not a legal guy, and feel free to jump in czaak, but I believe it's like this:

BoK filed in California to deem the article as non-defamatory. In very simple terms, if BoK "wins" here he essentially "wins" the case, and would basically stop Romeo from going any further with a defamation suit. His article would be deemed non-defamatory and he could more freely place it up online with a court ruling to back it up.

Why California is important, is because it has stronger free speech laws than Arizona (specifically the Anti-SLAPP law), so it would make it easier to rule the article as non-defamatory.

I think it's still an uphill battle for Romeo in either state, but California is a much steeper hill.

This case is a lose lose for Battle Foam, If he wins he'll be facing the Streisand effect. If he loses you can be sure copies of the article will be repeated everywhere.

I'm not sure where the gain is here.

I'm not sure how people continue to miss that BattleFoam didn't FILE the case. They are the defendant, not the plaintiff.

 Janthkin wrote:
I'm not sure how people continue to miss that BattleFoam didn't FILE the case. They are the defendant, not the plaintiff.

I'm not sure how you can forget that BF filed th C&D letter FIRST, and requested reimbursement for the defimation. The case w filed by BoK in response to what BF did, not the other way around.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
I'm not sure how people continue to miss that BattleFoam didn't FILE the case. They are the defendant, not the plaintiff.

I'm not sure how you can forget that BF filed th C&D letter FIRST, and requested reimbursement for the defimation. The case w filed by BoK in response to what BF did, not the other way around.

BF did not 'file' anything first. They just sent a C&D, no courts were harmed in its delivery.

BR didn't file the first complaint, but BF has filed two. BF, Mr. Filip, and his miniatures company filed a suit in Arizona, and BF filed one in California (the cross-complaint). The cross-complaint can survive the death of Mr. Hayden's request for declaratory judgment.

In California:
Mr. Filip is a defendant.
Battle Foam is both a defendant and a plaintiff in California (well, cross complainant).

Mr. Hayden is both a plaintiff and a cross defendant.
Ms. Jane Doe Hayden is a cross defendant.

Presumably the Arizona one will be stayed until the California stuff sorts itself out.

In Arizona
Mr. Filip is a plaintiff.
Battle Foam is a plaintiff.
Outlaw Miniatures is a plaintiff

Mr. Hayden is a defendant.
Ms. Jane Doe Hayden is not a party.

 Janthkin wrote:
I'm not sure how people continue to miss that BattleFoam didn't FILE the case. They are the defendant, not the plaintiff.

Battlefoam took first "legal action" by sending a Cease and Desist, threatening suit and making demands (removal of article, money, and posting an affidavit). In defense of this (and probably to get choice of venue) BoK filed the first "suit" in California to deem the article non-defamatory.

carboncopy wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
I'm not sure how people continue to miss that BattleFoam didn't FILE the case. They are the defendant, not the plaintiff.

Battlefoam took first "legal action" by sending a Cease and Desist, threatening suit and making demands (removal of article, money, and posting an affidavit). In defense of this (and probably to get choice of venue) BoK filed the first "suit" in California to deem the article non-defamatory.

I'm aware of all of that. But there are numerous comments in the thread that mention not understanding what BF's "gain" is here.

Oh I see what you mean. I think R3con was talking about the whole situation as a whole, not just this initial suit. Depending on what happens in the initial suit, if it were to go in Battlefoam's favor, I would think Battlefoam would follow through with a counter-suit, force the article to be taken down, and try to get compensation for damages.

 Janthkin wrote:

carboncopy wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
I'm not sure how people continue to miss that BattleFoam didn't FILE the case. They are the defendant, not the plaintiff.

Battlefoam took first "legal action" by sending a Cease and Desist, threatening suit and making demands (removal of article, money, and posting an affidavit). In defense of this (and probably to get choice of venue) BoK filed the first "suit" in California to deem the article non-defamatory.

I'm aware of all of that. But there are numerous comments in the thread that mention not understanding what BF's "gain" is here.

Battlefoam still took the first action.

The BoK article could have been ignored.
Instead, Battlefoam decided to send a C&D, which is overreacting, but easy to comply with.

Battlefoam eas the one to demand a takedown of the article, monetary restitution, an affidavit, and a C&D. That is what people are citing as the first metaphorical "shot". BoK simply filed a legal 'put-up-or-shut-up'.

BoK may have created this situation, but Battlefoam escalated it to the point of no return.

 Absolutionis wrote:
Battlefoam still took the first action.

The BoK article could have been ignored.
Instead, Battlefoam decided to send a C&D, which is overreacting, but easy to comply with.

Battlefoam eas the one to demand a takedown of the article, monetary restitution, an affidavit, and a C&D. That is what people are citing as the first metaphorical "shot". BoK simply filed a legal 'put-up-or-shut-up'.

BoK may have created this situation, but Battlefoam escalated it to the point of no return.

Look, you can spin this quite a few ways. BoK didn't have to post the article they did. They didn't have to comply with the C&D, insofar as they did, by removing the article. They didn't have to file a declaratory judgment suit.

But my only point here is that it's useless to critique BF for being party to a lawsuit where they have nothing to gain; they didn't file the lawsuit, but they can't ignore it.

They didn't comply with the C&D. The C&D inexplicably demanded an arbitrary amount of money and a public apology, and they have yet to comply.

Battlefoam could have just requested a takedown with threat of legal action. Instead, they decided to escalate the situation tremendously.

It's not spinning. If I find something about me on a blog that is defamatory, I could issue a C&D regardless of whether the information is true or not. However, if I demand money and an apology alongside that, I no longer hold the victim card.

 Janthkin wrote:
They didn't have to comply with the C&D, insofar as they did, by removing the article.

 Absolutionis wrote:
They didn't comply with the C&D. The C&D inexplicably demanded an arbitrary amount of money and a public apology, and they have yet to comply.

And who said anything about being a victim?

I have no dog in this hunt. Again, my only point is that BattleFoam didn't file the first lawsuit, and so critiquing them as if they somehow chose to be party to that particular lawsuit is pointless.

Perhaps I should clarify that my [point is that Battlefoam was the one to first escalate the matter to the courts. They could have done what every other celebrity does when someone writes about them and ignore it.

With the decalaratory judgment suit, I don't think BoK has any intent on following through with the reparations or the affedivit.

 Absolutionis wrote:

With the decalaratory judgment suit, I don't think BoK has any intent on following through with the reparations or the affedivit.

Push too hard and they'll push you back.

Heh I got ninja'd That's okay too

 Janthkin wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
They didn't have to comply with the C&D, insofar as they did, by removing the article.

 Absolutionis wrote:
They didn't comply with the C&D. The C&D inexplicably demanded an arbitrary amount of money and a public apology, and they have yet to comply.

And who said anything about being a victim?

I have no dog in this hunt. Again, my only point is that BattleFoam didn't file the first lawsuit, and so critiquing them as if they somehow chose to be party to that particular lawsuit is pointless.

No dog in this hunt? When BF is a major supporter of this website? bs.