Jump to content

Oh Kez!!!


John Lambies Doos

Recommended Posts

There was a case in the US of a convicted mobster who sued a newspaper for defamation of character but was told by court that his character was so bad no-one could defame it. Is this the shite Scottish Twitter version?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Yes, if I admit downloading pictures of Dundee teenagers.

The analogy doesn't work, he.never admitted to.being homophobic.  All granny has to do is.genuinely believe you're a paedophile and he can say that you are in a national newspaper.  Apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Yes, if I admit downloading pictures of Dundee teenagers.

How about answering the question.

ETA or better yet let someone who knows what they’re talking about answer.

 

 

Edited by Granny Danger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

It’s useful to have the explanation but it seems bizarre.  By definition a statement could be false and harm someone’s reputation but still be fair comment?  How can a false statement be fair comment?

Because people are entitled to reach incorrect conclusions from fact and to assert them in a free society. If they do so maliciously, there is a good case for the civil law to intervene. Where they do not do so maliciously the case is far less clear cut and the process of public debate should be the means by which we reach the conclusion and resolve the dispute rather than the courts.

The judge was clearly a complete and utter yer da here though. Wings is a homophobe, his tweet was homophobic, and a veritas defence should have also stood. In truth though the judge shouldn’t even have said whether the statement was defamatory because *even if it had been* the defence would have applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/04/2019 at 18:57, Granny Danger said:

So if I honestly believe that you’re a paedophile I can post it then claim it as fair comment?

Fair comment requires the position to be grounded in a plausible interpretation of the factual context. Kezia’s statements about Wings’ manifest homophobic tendencies were grounded in tweets from which the reasonable person could have concluded a homophobic intent even if (as the judge erroneously concluded) that conclusion was reached erroneously.

The law doesn’t exist to stop people from being wrong. It exists to stop them from deliberately abusing their freedoms in malicious ways.

Edited by Ad Lib
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ad Lib said:

Because people are entitled to reach incorrect conclusions from fact and to assert them in a free society. If they do so maliciously, there is a good case for the civil law to intervene. Where they do not do so maliciously the case is far less clear cut and the process of public debate should be the means by which we reach the conclusion and resolve the dispute rather than the courts.

The judge was clearly a complete and utter yer da here though. Wings is a homophobe, his tweet was homophobic, and a veritas defence should have also stood. In truth though the judge shouldn’t even have said whether the statement was defamatory because *even if it had been* the defence would have applied.

I don't think you're in a position to be overruling a judge.  There was nothing remotely homophobic about what he said.  And you seem a bit of a yer da tbf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, renton said:

Yeah, maybe. On the other hand he clearly states the comments were defamatory. That's what I'm struggling to square in my head (not a lawyer, obviously). Her right to believe something vs. his right not to be harmed by that belief? Like it seems to pivot on a subjective standard to some degree, rather than an objective truth as to whether or not the comment was or wasn't homophobic. If it was homophobic then it's fair comment, if it wasn't then it's defamation. This ruling seems to suggest you can have a grey area where someone can be damaged by comments that are incorrect but not to receive recompense so long as the person making the comments can demonstrate that those comments were made in a spirit of honest conviction? Believing your right as a legitimate defence for being wrong? I get that it'd be a mitigating factor, but not an exoneration surely? Or is the fact there was no tangible damage to Campbell suffcient to stay in that grey area rather than come down definitively one way or the other?

 

Maybe he thinks she's so irrelevant that she could repeatedly call him a nonce in the Daily Record and it wouldn't register with anyone past the editor?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...