"in my opinion" preface..... any defence? (need fast response :) )

DeVore

Hi there,

Your resident suit-attractor here!

I have a question. If someone says something like "This was an investigation into someone who in my opinion is a fraudster." on this site, should we be concerned?

Also, what about words such as charlatan, swindlers and "manipulative grasping conmen" in place of "fraudster".

Does "allegedly" or "in my opinion" as a preface prevent or mitigate (in any way) the actionability of it from Boards.ie's point of view?

DeV.

maidhc

DeVore wrote:

Does "allegedly" or "in my opinion" as a preface prevent or mitigate (in any way) the actionability of it from Boards.ie's point of view?

DeV.

Simple answer: No.

You still have to prove the substantial issue, not that your opinion was..... your opinion.

flogen

Yeah, I think it could still be claimed as defamatory, as someone might see your opinion and based on that form an ill opinion of their own; if that is unjustified then they've been defamed etc.

hullaballoo

The law doesn't draw a line between something defamatory that is stated as fact and something that is stated as opinion. If it did, we would have a situation where everyone would be claiming their statements were merely opinion.

Aside from that, someone's opinion is no less damaging than someone stating something as fact. I mean if I opined that someone was a paedophile, and they weren't, that could potentially be as damaging as if I had stated as fact that this person, let's call him Mr A, was on the sex offender's list.

So, to answer your question, having a caveat that it is just an opinion or hypothesis will make no difference in the courts whatsoever. (Although, remember that it's a jury who decides, and they might take a lighter view. [That said, in Reynolds v Malocco (sp?), the jury took a very conservative and almost fascist view.])

I still think this whole area of the law is a shambles.

Victor

Making a complaint to officialdom is not defamatory unless it was malicious, unfounded, etc. If you see someone lurking in the shadows outside your neighbour's house at 2am, challenging the person or reporting them is not defametory.

DeVore wrote:

I have a question. If someone says something like "This was an investigation into someone who in my opinion is a fraudster." on this site, should we be concerned?

The person exhibited behaviors similar to some of the behaviors engaged in by fraudsters. It was investigated and there was a distinct pattern that was consitant with fraudulent behavior. I then ....

focusing

Just stick to facts and you're fine.

hullaballoo's right, there’d be no point in having defamation laws if all you had to say to stay clear was “allegedly” or “in my opinion” at the start of a sentence

padser

DeVore wrote:

Does "allegedly" or "in my opinion" as a preface prevent or mitigate (in any way) the actionability of it from Boards.ie's point of view?

DeV.

Not in the slightest

hullaballoo

Victor wrote:

Making a complaint to officialdom is not defamatory unless it was malicious, unfounded, etc. If you see someone lurking in the shadows outside your neighbour's house at 2am, challenging the person or reporting them is not defametory.

The person exhibited behaviors similar to some of the behaviors engaged in by fraudsters. It was investigated and there was a distinct pattern that was consitant with fraudulent behavior. I then ....

I don't agree here, I would say the only way of safely saying it would be to say, "this was a fraud investigation of such-and-such a person". That way your just relaying the fact that he was investigated for fraud without making any character-damaging accusations.

focusing

There's a problem with innuendo there.

It could be taken as either:

I) implying that they committed fraud, but the authorities couldn't make it stick; or

II) a statement of fact that they acted in a way which warrented a fraud investigation

and so be actionable in defamation.

You'd be fine with "they were investigated for fraud, but were found to have engaged in no wrongdoing whatsoever."

pH

Is it the responsibility of a website(that allows the general public to post comments) to prevent any defamation occuring (actively seeking it out and removing it), or merely that they remove it when notified?

For example Uri Geller is notoriously litigous and yet boards.ie hosts this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50596158&postcount=138

focusing

Unless there's a particularily bad post, you should be safe leaving a post until there's a complaint.

But technically, a website is responsible for its content, even if posted by a member of the public.

Some of the people on this forum know some case law on innocent dissemination which I've missed out on, so I'll leave it to them to explain it properly. I think it just means that you can't be sued for a statement being made that you had no active part in making or disseminating. (?)

Anyone want to explain innocent dissemination as a defence to libel in the context of internet public access message boards?

DeVore

I think Hullaballo reckoned it didnt apply in our case but would be grateful if others cast their oars in here...?

DeV.

Victor

focusing wrote:

Anyone want to explain innocent dissemination as a defence to libel in the context of internet public access message boards?

Its possible for someone to post something that is a little obscure and while the general population or any one admin won't cop it, some individual somewhere might.

pH

After the last round of legal letters I had some additional questions.

If a person makes a defamatory statement, is it also defamatory to report the initial defamarory statement "Mr X called Mr Y ...".

If it is then would this also apply to a web-link? - could linking to a slander be itself a slander?

Also, what about merely being rude about someone? This is taken from the wikipedia.org entry on the Penn & Teller show Bullsh*t!

"Since their act is not normally associated with a frequent use of profanity, Jillette explains this choice in the opening episode: if they referred to people as frauds or liars, they could be sued for slander, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of chicanery, but as "vulgar abuse" is not legally considered slanderous, referring to them as assholes or ****ers ostensibly expresses an opinion rather than a statement of fact and is legally safer for them."

Is this purely an interpetation of US law with no bearing on Irish law?

focusing

Repetition of a libel is a libel.

dermot_sheehan

Use of what has been termed "soldiers language" has held not to be defamation though.

focusing

Though comedians occassionally imply the subject of their jokes is a sexual deviant or a corrupt, etc. so they sail close to the wind of defamation.

And if abuse could be said to imply an untrue negative statement about the subject, then it's defamation.