Online Safety Bill

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Your sister had the right idea. In an ideal world all parents would do the same but, unfortunately, they don't and their children need to be protected from paedophiles scammers, trolls etc too.

Fine and/or Prosecute the parents for failing to safeguard their children then.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Fine and/or Prosecute the parents for failing to safeguard their children then.

If there are no good reasons why action shouldn't be taken, I don't disagree with you.

---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 ----------

Following racist comments last time, as per the FA CEO, Mark Bullingham has said that the Football Association is to provide the funding to aid in the prosecution of individuals who abuse England’s players on social media.

It's good to see organisations being more proactive against trolls.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Following racist comments last time, as per the FA CEO, Mark Bullingham has said that the Football Association is to provide the funding to aid in the prosecution of individuals who abuse England’s players on social media.

It's good to see organisations being more proactive against trolls.

But you're still allowed to call them crap, useless and rubbish I take it.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by peanut

But you're still allowed to call them crap, useless and rubbish I take it.

I'd think that they would be more concerned about personal comments than criticism of their football skills, though they could argue that this is libellous.

Same as if someone put a poster in their window saying that the local doctor was crap/rubbish at being a doctor.

To be completely safe, i'd remember the old saying 'If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all'.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I'd think that they would be more concerned about personal comments than criticism of their football skills, though they could argue that this is libellous.

Same as if someone put a poster in their window saying that the local doctor was crap/rubbish at being a doctor.

To be completely safe, i'd remember the old saying 'If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all'.

Defamation is more than simply saying something unkind to someone. To prove it in court you have to prove that what was printed (libel) or spoken (slander) would tend to lower the reputation of the individual in the opinion of the common man. Even if it does, there are defences in truth, honest opinion and public interest, amongst others.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

Defamation is more than simply saying something unkind to someone. To prove it in court you have to prove that what was printed (libel) or spoken (slander) would tend to lower the reputation of the individual in the opinion of the common man. Even if it does, there are defences in truth, honest opinion and public interest, amongst others.

To try & cover themselves people could precede their comments with 'In my opinion', though personally I wouldn't risk it myself as the FA & today's footballers (and indeed doctors) have a lot more money than the average person.

[Russ]

Kruger Dunning again.

Simply adding “in my opinion” is no assurance of any protection in such Law.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

To try & cover themselves people could precede their comments with 'In my opinion', though personally I wouldn't risk it myself as the FA & today's footballers (and indeed doctors) have a lot more money than the average person.

Nope.

The honest opinion defence fails if you can’t prove that it is your genuine, honest opinion, reasonably held (and that means the contentious opinion, when it was published, must have indicated some reasons why that opinion is held), or if you can’t point to facts that back that opinion up. It’s designed to protect newspaper op-ed writers, not internet trolls.

That said, as a footballer you’re never going to win a libel action against a fan who accuses you of being a donkey on an internet forum because libel has to damage a reputation. That sort of barracking is so commonplace in football fandom that nobody could claim that any one instance of it it made any difference to a footballer’s reputation.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by peanut

But you're still allowed to call them crap, useless and rubbish I take it.

Not for much longer, you'll hurt their feelings and affect their mental health

---------- Post added at 19:00 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

To be completely safe, i'd remember the old saying 'If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all'.

Or as my dad always said , nothing nice to say run away you know you won't keep your mouth shut

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

Nope.

The honest opinion defence fails if you can’t prove that it is your genuine, honest opinion, reasonably held (and that means the contentious opinion, when it was published, must have indicated some reasons why that opinion is held), or if you can’t point to facts that back that opinion up. It’s designed to protect newspaper op-ed writers, not internet trolls.

That said, as a footballer you’re never going to win a libel action against a fan who accuses you of being a donkey on an internet forum because libel has to damage a reputation. That sort of barracking is so commonplace in football fandom that nobody could claim that any one instance of it it made any difference to a footballer’s reputation.

Ahh, so making it clear that it's an opinion wouldn't make any difference then.

I suppose it would be difficult for either party to prove one way or the other whether an individual is a bad footballer or not, I mean how could it be measured? Number of goals scored? Number of red cards? The list is endless!

[RichardCoulter]

Fun fact that was brought to my attention today. Disputes used to be resolved by 'Trial By Combat' and it was believed that, if God was with the defendent, he would win.

It was then decided to use the judicial
system to decide such matters, but
Parliament forgot to repeal the earlier law!

Therefore, in 1819 a man demanded the right to have his innocence or guilt decided by Trial By Combat. Because nobody was willing to fight him, he won his case!

[Stephen]

What on earth has that got to do with anything?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Stephen

What on earth has that got to do with anything?

His daily post to keep the thread going

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Stephen

What on earth has that got to do with anything?

It had nothing to do with anything in 1819 either, the wager of battle was designed to see to accused dead, not walk free