welshbairn Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: How can a false statement be fair comment? Because it was an honest belief. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Because it was an honest belief. So if I honestly believe that you’re a paedophile I can post it then claim it as fair comment? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: So if I honestly believe that you’re a paedophile I can post it then claim it as fair comment? Apparently, doesn't matter if it's untrue or defamatory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Granny Danger said: So if I honestly believe that you’re a paedophile I can post it then claim it as fair comment? Yes, if I admit downloading pictures of Dundee teenagers. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: So if I honestly believe that you’re a paedophile Probably better off letting the police know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Yes, if I admit downloading pictures of Dundee teenagers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 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 April 17, 2019 by Granny Danger 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Savage Henry said: Okay. Who’s latest alias is this? Tynie confirmed elsewhere that it's that fucking oddball Peppino. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieThomas Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Odd one that, but hard to give a f**k either way. Is wee Dunc holding a street party this weekend in celebration? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 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 April 19, 2019 by Ad Lib 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 2 hours ago, Granny Danger said: So if I honestly believe that you’re a paedophile I can post it then claim it as fair comment? I always knew there was something funny about him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Kuro said: I don't think you're in a position to be overruling a judge. I think I am tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 8 hours ago, Detournement said: Also reading the comments the Sheriff (unsuprisingly) seems to have a very Yer Da outlook on this. I think that's the most basic qualification for being a Sheriff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: I think I am tbh. Oh really. I seriously doubt it. Are you a judge? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Can't believe so many folk missed Welshy's fairly obvious reference to the MattyDFC situation there tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.