<snip>

kaimera · 14-11-2006 08:02PM

No.

It's only in cases now since it was brought up on Feedback and this thread was linked to, did you 'choose' do act.

I somehow doubt you are going back through old threads to see what libel comments are sitting idle in the archives.

Retr0gamer · 14-11-2006 08:35PM

The OP didn't express any opinion about Sony. He just linked to an article that mentioned Sony's bad business practices and made satire of them. I thnik we are taking this too far and it's impinging on peoples ability to have their opinions heard.

Just like Maddox I think my PSP is ****e. I can't prove it's ****e only give my opinions about the lack of decent games (define a good game) and the battery life is terrible (again what defines decent battery life). i welcome Sony to sue me for libel for that silly statement.

RuggieBear · 14-11-2006 08:42PM

Retr0gamer wrote:

Just like Maddox I think my PSP is ****e. I can't prove it's ****e only give my opinions about the lack of decent games (define a good game) and the battery life is terrible (again what defines decent battery life). i welcome Sony to sue me for libel for that silly statement.

Retr0gamer, i think your PSP is crap too.:p

hullaballoo · 14-11-2006 09:19PM

Retr0gamer wrote:

The OP didn't express any opinion about Sony.

Yes he did. His precise words were, "Sony are ****ing evil, soulless, lying suckers of satan's cock, all." Then there was a series of expletives and angry faces.

He just linked to an article that mentioned Sony's bad business practices and made satire of them.

You know, it really pains me to see that you didn't give any of my posts even a cursory glance, even to see if there just *might* be some sort of a valid reason for the edit.

I didn't edit the article. There was nothing wrong with the article, and even if there was, I couldn't care less because boards.ie wouldn't be liable.

I thnik we are taking this too far and it's impinging on peoples ability to have their opinions heard.

Again, I'll say that this is mountain out of molehill stuff. There's no one here trying to tell you that you can't have an opinion, or air grievances.

Basically, all I'm trying to say is that people cannot say things like "company X raped my daughter", to use the cliché example.

You're all right, though. The law in this area is a circus and most of the top academics and practicing lawyers would agree with you. Unfortunately, it's the law of the land and until further legislation, it will remain so. (Incidentally, there is Defamation Act due out this year, and I believe it's to address certain issues in relation to the internet for clarity, but as far as I can tell it's just going to make things worse.)

sprinkles · 14-11-2006 10:23PM

This thread sucks. I mean there's nothing about the art of snipping in it anywhere...

Retr0gamer · 14-11-2006 10:24PM

hullaballoo wrote:

Basically, all I'm trying to say is that people cannot say things like "company X raped my daughter", to use the cliché example.

So it would be wrong to say something like that, using similar wording, even if you were just joking. (not being smart but want to clarify for myself what would be acceptable on boards.ie)

hullaballoo · 14-11-2006 10:52PM

Yeah, there's an ambiguous sort of an exception for when you're blatantly joking.

The words used in the authoritative text (Law of Torts, McMahon & Binchy, [34.86]) are 'To call a person a thief or a horse-theif might normally be defamatory but to say to an acquaintance in backslapping banter "How are you, you old horse-thief?" would not be defamatory.'

monument · 14-11-2006 10:52PM

Oh...

griffdaddy · 14-11-2006 11:00PM

oh sony, you old horse-thieving cúnts!!:D

DrunkLeprachaun · 14-11-2006 11:02PM

hullaballoo wrote:

Yes he did. His precise words were, "Sony are ****ing evil, soulless, lying suckers of satan's cock, all." Then there was a series of expletives and angry faces.

You know, it really pains me to see that you didn't give any of my posts even a cursory glance, even to see if there just *might* be some sort of a valid reason for the edit.

I didn't edit the article. There was nothing wrong with the article, and even if there was, I couldn't care less because boards.ie wouldn't be liable.

You know, it pains me that you don't even remember properly what I posted. There were no angry faces. I don't use smilies, ever. There were expletives used, but I made no attempt to obscure them from the language filter. ****, I even ended the post saying I still love my ps2, highlighting the lack of seriousness. And it wasn't an edit, it was a delete.

I do understand perfectly what you're saying, but what you don't seem to understand is that sony would not bring a forum to court for one member simply stating a dislike for them. Would they not go to maddox first? Or all the countless reputable gaming blogs ragging on them? What I said expressed a negative opinion, true. And if it did go to court, what judge would even listen to the case? In what way can a 21 year old student seriously damage their market, by linking to an article someone else wrote and agreeing with the sentiment? You're being a stubborn fool here. To the letter of the law, it is concievably possible that sony might attempt legal action, but it just doesn't work like that in the real world. The point I was making in my last post is that the statement I made was so blatantly and intentionaly ridiculous, it was not meant to be taken seriously.

Just because certain companies have been ***** in the past, it shouldn't mean that we can never speak ill of any other company again. If sony make a complaint, THEN you edit the "inflamatory" content. Otherwise your just being the bitch of every corporation out there.

sprinkles · 14-11-2006 11:10PM

hullaballoo wrote:

The words used in the authoritative text (Law of Torts, McMahon & Binchy, [34.86]) are 'To call a person a thief or a horse-theif might normally be defamatory but to say to an acquaintance in backslapping banter "How are you, you old horse-thief?" would not be defamatory.'

You went ahead and quoted Law of Torts and even gave the reference. :rolleyes: Get a life......

Seriously dude, this is Boards not a criminal trial.

failsafe · 15-11-2006 12:56AM

sprinkles wrote:

You went ahead and quoted Law of Torts and even gave the reference. :rolleyes: Get a life......

Seriously dude, this is Boards not a criminal trial.

More importantly, this is the gaming forum, not legal discussions. If it were legal discussions, i'd applaud you, cos in fairness, you defended yourself pretty well and put up a good strong arguement. But this is just a gaming discussion, where people should be able to get a little bit passionate and over involved without the fear of having a dusty old law book taken off the shelf and thrown at them.

Technically, to the letter of the law, the OP was in the wrong, but in reality nothing like what you're trying to prevent would happen. And if someone does complain, what's wrong with a edit then? Surely it would save this censorship from escelating out of control?

Retr0gamer · 15-11-2006 12:57AM

Sprinkles sucks satans cock!

You bring the best lawyer you can afford and I'll bring mine, see who wins. It will be like a cross between Pokemon and Pheonix Wright. I just hope Edgeworth or Pheonix aren't charging too much these days.

DrunkLeprachaun · 15-11-2006 01:28AM

failsafe wrote:

More importantly, this is the gaming forum, not legal discussions. If it were legal discussions, i'd applaud you, cos in fairness, you defended yourself pretty well and put up a good strong arguement. But this is just a gaming discussion, where people should be able to get a little bit passionate and over involved without the fear of having a dusty old law book taken off the shelf and thrown at them.

Technically, to the letter of the law, the OP was in the wrong, but in reality nothing like what you're trying to prevent would happen. And if someone does complain, what's wrong with a edit then? Surely it would save this censorship from escelating out of control?

Exactly what I was trying to say. I think I became too hung up on the details.

sprinkles · 15-11-2006 09:27AM

Retr0gamer wrote:

Sprinkles sucks satans cock!

You bring the best lawyer you can afford and I'll bring mine, see who wins. It will be like a cross between Pokemon and Pheonix Wright. I just hope Edgeworth or Pheonix aren't charging too much these days.

Can we add some rolling of dice to this game too?

hullaballoo · 15-11-2006 04:20PM

At this stage, I don't really see the point in keeping this going because as far as I'm concerned, the issue was resolved after my first explanatory post. I do want to point out one thing thought.

People have continuously said that they don't think a large corporation like Sony would sue an internet forum for something like this. If that's true, then why is boards being sued for something that was arguably far less offensive at the moment? The answer is that it isn't true. This is precisely the type of thing that companies sue other companies for.

The world of business is petty and childish at times, and this is one area that is exemplary.

sprinkles: I have a life - it revolves around law. It's sad, but my mother's proud so I couldn't give a toss what you think.

I wasn't quoting from that book to prove any of the points I made earlier, I was just offering information to someone who asked. Some people use wikipedia.

Vegeta · 15-11-2006 05:46PM

Hull if i say "Sony sucks" is that libel/slander

the mods have pretty much said that we cant post negative opinions about a company because that is what was done here

sprinkles · 15-11-2006 11:45PM

hullaballoo wrote:

sprinkles: I have a life - it revolves around law. It's sad, but my mother's proud so I couldn't give a toss what you think.

I have a life and it revolves around engineering (well in some part) but you don't hear me quoting BS6399:2

My point was that this isn't a legal debate, no one is being brought to court. It was an opinion someone raised with a considerable amount of sarcasm in it and imo it was dealt with in a very draconian manor.

I now fear that everything I say must be passed by lawyers to ensure I'm not being defamatory to anyone.... the get a life statement was meant as "lighten up";)

kaimera · 15-11-2006 11:47PM

sprinkles wrote:

My point was that this isn't a legal debate, no one is being brought to court. It was an opinion someone raised with a considerable amount of sarcasm in it and imo it was dealt with in a very draconian manor.

..manner even if you are that way inclined.

sceptre · 15-11-2006 11:59PM

K.O.Kiki wrote:

Isn't there a provision in the DMRA (Digital Millenium Rights Act) which protects websites from being held accountable, in court, for user-posted content?

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

(ignoring the obvious fact that satire can't be liabel).

This isn't the USA. People often tend to forget that when they're posting legal opinions. Additionally the "digital millennium rights act", while it appears on google 42 times, is presumably the equally silly named "digital millennium copyright act"

sprinkles · 16-11-2006 02:05AM

kaimera wrote:

..manner even if you are that way inclined.

Ah... and here was me thinkg Bruce Wayne lived in a Manner

<snip>

Comments