Defamation Online...is it defamation or just an opinion?

drunkmonkey

I'm assuming we can't discuss an upcoming case in relation to this subject and Facebook.

So where does the law stand, have we a right to hold an opinion no matter how crazy that is, can you be prosecuted for defamation for discussing that opinion online?

splinter65

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm assuming we can't discuss an upcoming case in relation to this subject and Facebook.

So where does the law stand, have we a right to hold an opinion no matter how crazy that is, can you be prosecuted for defamation for discussing that opinion online?

What is your understanding of defamation?
If I tweet “drunkmonkey is a right plonker” then that’s my opinion. It may be hurtful and I may be wrong but it’s not defamation.
The Sun described Johnny Depp as a wife beater. He says he’s not a wife beater and that The Sun describing him thus has damaged his reputation. So he’s suing them for libel (defamation in Ireland).

Assetbacked

When is Facebook liable for what is posted and when is it allowed to state it is just a platform? Once Facebook starts moderating, not just illegal speech, but immoral or unwelcome speech, it becomes a publisher. This grey area it lurks in is a wild west and Facebook needs to be held fully accountable for content on its platform as if it published the statements itself.

drunkmonkey

If I tweet Splinter looks like he'd murder a sheep with his big murdery head while there's some mystery surrounding all the missing sheep. Did I defame you or just express and opinion?

coylemj

splinter65 wrote: »

What is your understanding of defamation?
If I tweet “drunkmonkey is a right plonker” then that’s my opinion. It may be hurtful and I may be wrong but it’s not defamation.

I guess it depends on the words you use to describe the subject. If you called someone a 'thief' or a 'wife beater', that would constitute a statement of fact and you would not be able to rely on the defence of 'honest opinion'.

eleventh

Was it in text, or video?

Bikerman2019

coylemj wrote: »

I guess it depends on the words you use to describe the subject. If you called someone a 'thief' or a 'wife beater', that would constitute a statement of fact and you would not be able to rely on the defence of 'honest opinion'.

If you said " I THINK you are a thief or wife beater ", is that different?

drunkmonkey

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

If you said " I THINK you are a thief or wife beater ", is that different?

Isn't any opinion when you've no connection to the subject just a thought. I don't see why you would have to say I think.

drunkmonkey

eleventh wrote: »

Was it in text, or video?

Text

coylemj

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

If you said " I THINK you are a thief or wife beater ", is that different?

Might make a 1% difference to the damages award

I deliberately chose explicit terms (based on fact) like 'thief' and 'wife beater' because if you cannot prove an accusation like that as a statement of fact, I don't see how you could fall back on the defence of 'honest opinion'.

Different if you used vague and hard to define terms like 'dishonest' or 'a spineless cretin' - you might get away with 'honest opinion' with terms like those. But 'thief' and 'wife beater' are pretty explicit and leave no room for misinterpretation. In both cases, the person so described either is or is not so it's up to the defendant in a defamation case to prove it.

eleventh

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

If you said " I THINK you are a thief or wife beater ", is that different?

I think it's very different.

hullaballoo

I'm just wondering are we going to list out all the possible defamatory statements that can be made exhaustively or is there a more focused aspect to this thread?

drunkmonkey

Is it correct you can cross-examine the claimant, can you do this with the intention of proving your opinion true or at least cast doubt on the claimant?