Is it legal to call someone a diver?

Dave!

Hey folks,

I'm not too clued up on the law, but was wondering with all the publicity around diving in the World Cup lately, is it legal for a newspaper or somethin like that to directly call someone a diver? Would it not be slander? Or is it fair comment or somethin like that? Could they not take legal action?


Thank you please!

Dave!

not a very popular forum by the looks of things

BKtje

i dont know m8 but i would assume that it cant be slander if its true

Our man in Havana

Yep the truth is a 100% defence to slander.

Hagar

I'd say video evidence would be compelling even if the ref cannot accept it at the time.
If you dive and they have an un-biased independent video to prove it...

numorouno

i would say its only a game....a funny oul game....a game of two halves.....its not over yet but it is now..

the player wud want to be fairly sad to take up a slander case against a commentator for calling him a diver. if that was the case if the player had a bad game and he was caled a crap player would that be slander too if he played impeccably for the rest of his games?

does a bear sh!t in the woods or would he sue me for slander if i suggested that he does?

Dave!

Bond-007 wrote:

Yep the truth is a 100% defence to slander.

Yeah but videos are open for interpretation, so while I might see a dive, a judge might see a foul, and so rule in favour of the diver!!! Is this not true? If I say that it's just my opinion or somethin, then does that make it alright? I mean, if I called someone a drug-dealer, and they were never charged with that, then they can sue me, so surely this is the same thing.

Thirdfox

Fair comment defence? Person wrote the piece without malice and gave a fair opinion of the action. This is what protects food critics from getting sued by angry restaurant owners.

There was a case a while back when a footballer sued a newspaper for saying that he couldn't play with his left foot (or something similar to that). I can't remember the result (sorry!)

Ava

slander is oral communication. any defamatory publication whether printed or video film etc is libel

sh_o

Ava wrote:

slander is oral communication. any defamatory publication whether printed or video film etc is libel

Note that under section 5 of the new defamation bill both Libel and Slander will no longer be referred to in that way and they will be collectivly known as 'defamation'

DaveMcG wrote:

Yeah but videos are open for interpretation, so while I might see a dive, a judge might see a foul, and so rule in favour of the diver!!! Is this not true? If I say that it's just my opinion or somethin, then does that make it alright?

In practice it is difficult to distinguish between fact and comment, therefore the defence that would be used would be what is known as a 'Rolled up Plea' and generally worded like this:
“Insofar as the words complained of consist of allegations of fact, they are true in substance and in fact, and insofar as they consist of opinion they are fair comments made in good faith and without malice upon the said facts, which are matters of public interest.”
LRC p 77

KdjaCL

Wouldnt stand up in court as its a phrase to denote someones ability, as in saying they are "pacy" "good on the ball" "dirty player" "filthy dirty scummy diving knacker"

And as D"iver" has no relevance in the english language only to say someone who dives in water.


be a short court case.


kdjac

Lplated

The ultimate test in defamation is that the impugned words must lower the plaintiff in the eyes of others. I'm not sure that calling someone a 'diver' would necessarily lower them (other than to the ground, bad pun intended) in anyones eyes. In contrast, it may be argued to be a viable and supportable strategic move at a key point in the game.

Dave!

KdjaC wrote:

Wouldnt stand up in court as its a phrase to denote someones ability, as in saying they are "pacy" "good on the ball" "dirty player" "filthy dirty scummy diving knacker"

And as D"iver" has no relevance in the english language only to say someone who dives in water.


be a short court case.


kdjac

So you think that the court would rule in favour of the person who passes the comment?

To those who said about it being "without malice", what does that mean exactly? Because it's in the context of a balanced piece, or somethin? I mean, if the newspaper had a big headline that said "RONALDO IS A DIVER", that would bear alot of malice...!

Thoughts?

Thirdfox

sh_o wrote:

Note that under section 5 of the new defamation bill both Libel and Slander will no longer be referred to in that way and they will be collectivly known as 'defamation'

Really? What about the legal distinctions between slander and libel? How does the new legislation distinguish between the two forms of defamation? e.g. slander is not actionable per se (except for a few cases) and libel is.

sh_o

Thirdfox wrote:

Really? What about the legal distinctions between slander and libel? How does the new legislation distinguish between the two forms of defamation? e.g. slander is not actionable per se (except for a few cases) and libel is.

This is also covered in the proposed Section 5 :
5.—(1) The tort of libel and the tort of slander—
(a) shall cease to be so described, and
(b) shall, instead, be collectively described, and are referred to in this Act, as
the “tort of defamation”.
.....
(5) The tort of defamation is actionable without proof of special damage.

The full bill is downloadable here

Thirdfox

Thanks for the link... seems they have some (possibly) radical changes in the Bill.