People Leaving Themselves Open to Defamation Charge

Diceicle

I wanted to get the opinions on the following situation and how/if people are leaving themselves open to getting sued for defamation by carelessly posting on Facebook etc.

Following Conor McGregors win in Vegas my Facebook feed was filled with salty posts of people just having to tell the world exactly how much of a dislike they have for the Irish MMA star.

The content of the comments made me think that a reasonable number of people could be leaving themselves open to a defamation charge by claiming McGregor is a "raper" / "rapist" etc. Is that the case? Is that actionable?

My understanding is of defamation is:

The traditional definition of defamation was publication of a false statement which subjected a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt. That rather archaic definition has given way to a more modern one: according to the Defamation Act 2009, a defamatory statement is one which tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society. (That means that a person cannot sue for having his reputation lowered in the eyes of, for example, other members of his criminal gang!)

And from reading another thread related to defamation, it doesn't necessarily even need to be a false statement. That aside, McGregor, whatever your opinion on him, hasn't been convicted of any crime of a sexual nature, therefore it is slanderous to post writings of that nature claiming otherwise?

28064212

Diceicle wrote: »

therefore it is slanderous to post writings of that nature claiming otherwise?

Most likely.

Why do people take the risk? For pretty much the same reason that 90% of drivers regularly go above the speed limit: the chances of there being consequences are extremely low. It's generally not worth a public person's money or effort to go after a few online comments. Not to mention the strong possiblity of the Streisand Effect coming into play

Dublinensis

That aside, McGregor, whatever your opinion on him, hasn't been convicted of any crime of a sexual nature, therefore it is slanderous to post writings of that nature claiming otherwise?

One of the defences to defamation is the "defence of truth", i.e. the defendant proves on the balance of probabilities that the defamatory statement is true.

So if B says that A has robbed a bank, A sues B for defamation, and when the case comes to trial B is able to prove on the balance of probabilities that A did indeed rob a bank, B will not be held liable—regardless of whether or not A has ever been convicted for bank robbery.

davindub

A former Taoiseach will attest defamation cases in Ireland are generally not easy, famously been awarded zero damages by a jury (later increased to 1p).

Obviously he had the funds to seek a retrial and negotiate a settlement but I'd imagine the resultant publicity of the case served to bring the offending material published well beyond it's normal audience.

L1011

The Reynolds case was actually in London - I worry he would have got a lot more here.

davindub

L1011 wrote: »

The Reynolds case was actually in London - I worry he would have got a lot more here.

He actually had taken a case in Ireland too against the Irish times.

GM228

L1011 wrote: »

The Reynolds case was actually in London - I worry he would have got a lot more here.

He got a lot more there in the end though following appeals to the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, the figure was never disclosed though I can imagine they were fairly high especially when he made public statements of being "very pleased" with the settlement.

The so called resulting Reynolds Defence from the House of Lords case was essentially incorporated into Irish law via S26 of the 2009 Act.

davindub wrote: »

He actually had taken a case in Ireland too against the Irish times.

I don't recall any Irish case.

davindub

GM228 wrote: »

He got a lot more there in the end though following appeals to the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, the figure was never disclosed though I can imagine they were fairly high especially when he made public statements of being "very pleased" with the settlement.

The so called resulting Reynolds Defence from the House of Lords case was essentially incorporated into Irish law via S26 of the 2009 Act.





I don't recall any Irish case.

Part of the settlement, he had a case pending in Ireland.

L1011

GM228 wrote: »

He got a lot more there in the end though following appeals to the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, the figure was never disclosed though I can imagine they were fairly high especially when he made public statements of being "very pleased" with the settlement.

Was that not solely getting his costs? Or that may have been the rumour at the time.