|
Another shooting in club district (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
In order for it to be technically called libel what was said would have to be a defamatory statement which damages the reputation of the business/individual. Besides, there would also have to be a financial/economic loss to the business because of the statement. |
it wouldnt be hard to prove that making allegations on a dance music public message board about a dance music playing establishment is detrimental to a reputation and costing money.
Its a no brainer. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
At Chemenhanced libel trial:
Judge, i present to you exhibit A as proof of damages to reputation and/or loss of income:
| quote: | Originally posted by simms327
I generally go to the guv for the music and to have a good time, however the allegations made (ppl walking in without being searched etc) are really scary. They are enough to me to rethink going to the guv, or at least next time I do, be worried and paranoid about this kind of stuff.
|
LOL |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
a police report validates the reporting of what then becomes news. If someone is a suspect after a police report is filed it means that you are pretty much safe to talk about it in a public forum. Even then you have to be careful but it would doubtfully ever come to court since there was police action behind it. If the guy has been charged, obviously the police have enough evidence to charge them.
However, making allegations based on assumption or hearsay is an entirely different matter. And everytime i hear allegations against guv or system employees in tranceaddict its always based on assumptions and hearsay. This is what consitutes libel or slander in the eyes of the law.
People need to remember that this is a public forum and that the laws of the land do apply.
I happen to agree with the libel/slander laws. I dont happen to agree with media bans and gag orders.
However either way we still have to comply with both laws on this board. |
However, to say that any comment on this board has actually caused a economic loss to any club is crazy. The comments can only be considered libel/slander if there has been a financial loss. Any individual or business would also have to prove that what was said is in fact not true....it is not up to the person who made the comments to prove they are true. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
At Chemenhanced libel trial:
Judge, i present to you exhibit A as proof of damages to reputation and/or loss of income:
LOL |
I will pay the extra $10.00 this weekend then :D |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
it wouldnt be hard to prove that making allegations on a dance music public message board about a dance music playing establishment is detrimental to a reputation and costing money.
Its a no brainer. |
Even if every person on TA who goes there stopped....there still wouldn't be a marked economic loss that could be contributed to comments made on a message board. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
it wouldnt be hard to prove that making allegations on a dance music public message board about a dance music playing establishment is detrimental to a reputation and costing money.
Its a no brainer. |
You would think, however, this is not the case. The aggrieved party would have to prove a) a demonstrable decrease in revenue, b) an unequivable cause for that decrease in revenue, c) a direct and unmitigated causal relationship between the alleged libelous statement and the cause for the decrease in revenue. Given that there there have been next to no damage awards for Libel or Slander in Ontario in the past hundred years I would suggest that this is a very difficult thing to prove. FYI, most lawyers will not even consider taking a libel case as they are never successful. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Any individual or business would also have to prove that what was said is in fact not true....it is not up to the person who made the comments to prove they are true. |
sorry but you're incorrect on this one.... claiming an alleged libelous statement to be true is a defence that can be employed by the alleged tortfeasor. There is no reverse onus of proof for slander/libel. That said, the aggrieved party will often endevor to disprove the libelous statement as a counter to the tortfeasor's affirmative defence that the statement was true. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
You would think, however, this is not the case. The aggrieved party would have to prove a) a demonstrable decrease in revenue, b) an unequivable cause for that decrease in revenue, c) a direct and unmitigated causal relationship between the alleged libelous statement and the cause for the decrease in revenue. Given that there there have been next to no damage awards for Libel or Slander in Ontario in the past hundred years I would suggest that this is a very difficult thing to prove. FYI, most lawyers will not even consider taking a libel case as they are never successful. |
so what you are saying is that we can get thrown in jail and deported for saying an event in history never happened but yet cant even get sued if we make damaging statements against someone personally.
What a ed up country this is. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
so what you are saying is that we can get thrown in jail and deported for saying an event in history never happened but yet cant even get sued if we make damaging statements against someone personally.
What a ed up country this is. |
that's not quite what I'm saying but I like where you're going with this. What I said was that one can sue someone for libel/slander, however, it is nearly impossible to prove damages resulting from libel/slander and subsequently nearly all (if not entirely all) libel/slander tort actions fail. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
that's not quite what I'm saying but I like where you're going with this. What I said was that one can sue someone for libel/slander, however, it is nearly impossible to prove damages resulting from libel/slander and subsequently nearly all (if not entirely all) libel/slander tort actions fail. |
so what good is a law if it cant be enforced. that essentially means there is no law.
There are absolutely no rights for the common man in many realms of our society. We are too busy pandering to the special interests. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
so what good is a law if it cant be enforced. that essentially means there is no law.
There are absolutely no rights for the common man in many realms of our society. We are too busy pandering to the special interests. |
au contrare mon ami, the requirement that one be able to prove damages in order to receive restitution for libel/slander is for the protection of the common man. It is far more likely that the common man will be the alleged tortfeasor in a libel suit then will a corporate, commercial, or governmental entity. If it were not for the requirement that damages be demonstrable and causal then the tortfeasors in libel suits would be subject to punitive damages, which would almost certainly be in excess of the claimed damages. Moreover, how is it possible that one has suffered a loss by another's statement if the aggrieved party cannot prove that loss? The courts can't go awarding damages just because someone says they lost money due to a negative comment.... if they did people would be sued everytime they made any criticism of another. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
so what good is a law if it cant be enforced. that essentially means there is no law.
There are absolutely no rights for the common man in many realms of our society. We are too busy pandering to the special interests. |
It can be enforced. For someone to say they suffered a financial loss and proving it is difficult....if we didn't have to prove a financial loss then if I called you an idiot then you could sue me for a libel/slander. Everytime someone was called a name they would sue that person...it would get out of control.
Where most libel/slander cases are found is with media broadcasts or newspapers. Even then.....in Canada it is rare that you would find a situation where there is no some truth to the allegations. |
|
|
|
|
