Syrian kid bullied in Huddersfield



Man About Town said:
Fuck off you dirty mag cúnt, any excuse to shit on Sunderland that's what your lot are really about.
Click to expand...

Ha ha, that the best you've got you racist little div? Sunderland season ticket holder but will tell you something now, if my choice was between being a racist and being a Mag I would buy my Newcastle season ticket tomorrow. Racists are the lowest form of shit bag on the planet, they are up there with homophobes and sex offenders. All are about the same thing, bullying and controlling other human beings to try and validate yourself and to pretend you are not a weak fool.
 
Aituk7 said:
Because you can't sue someone for telling a lie based on misinformation. He believed it to be true at the time and has been set up by someone. He's since clarified and redacted.

I hope it goes to court but he won't get sued for that. Imagine the result? How many more people could be sued if everytime they say something they believe to be true but turns out isn't they can be sued?
Click to expand...

This is simply not true in law.

His prompt retraction and take-down may make a case less likely, or damages lower if the case is pursued, but you're absolutely wrong if you look at the defences against libel set out in the law. If you look at the explanatory notes to the 2003 Defamation Act: "There is a long-standing common law rule that it is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he or she was only repeating what someone else had said (known as the “repetition rule”)".

Or some advice from a law firm: "Can you defame someone accidentally? Yes. A defendant's intention is generally irrelevant. The real issue is what the average reader would have understood the words to mean and whether they would cause reputational harm. You can accidentally defame someone by being careless in what you say. You may also be liable for simply repeating someone else's defamatory statement (e.g. by re-tweeting a defamatory statement) if your republication causes the claimant harm."

Most of the time it's just not worth it for people to take action, given the cost of bringing one (no legal aid for it), which is why this stuff happens all the time on Twitter when any of us might fall into the same trap, and people aren't sued. But this isn't the run of the mill case - Robinson is a high profile figure with zillions of followers unlike you or I, so the defamatory statement has far more reach and is far more damaging than if you or I posted it. Given his recent 950k home purchase he's also got assets that are worth going after. So whether this one will go the distance I don't know, but they could if they wished to - hence his hasty retraction, and in the wrong circumstances anyone else could find themselves in the same position.
 
Last edited:
The King of Um said:
This is simply not true in law.

His prompt retraction and take-down may make a case less likely, or damages lower if the case is pursued, but you're absolutely wrong if you look at the defences against libel set out in the law. If you look at the explanatory notes to the 2003 Defamation Act: "There is a long-standing common law rule that it is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he or she was only repeating what someone else had said (known as the “repetition rule”)".

Or some advice from a law firm: "Can you defame someone accidentally? Yes. A defendant's intention is generally irrelevant. The real issue is what the average reader would have understood the words to mean and whether they would cause reputational harm. You can accidentally defame someone by being careless in what you say. You may also be liable for simply repeating someone else's defamatory statement (e.g. by re-tweeting a defamatory statement) if your republication causes the claimant harm."

Most of the time it's just not worth it for people to take action, given the cost of bringing one (no legal aid for it), which is why this stuff happens all the time on Twitter when any of us might fall into the same trap, and people aren't sued. But this isn't the run of the mill case - Robinson is a high profile figure with zillions of followers unlike you or I, so the defamatory statement has far more reach and is far more damaging than if you or I posted it. Given his recent 950k home purchase he's also got assets that are worth going after. So whether this one will go the distance I don't know, but they could if they wished to - hence his hasty retraction, and in the wrong circumstances anyone else could find themselves in the same position.
Click to expand...
As I said.
 

Back
Top