pilldoc Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Simple solution.... major news media outlets such as TSN should not air Twitter comments (or any social media comments). It is just too easy for one deragatory one to slip on by. Just my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Clueless Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Simple solution.... major news media outlets such as TSN should not air Twitter comments (or any social media comments). It is just too easy for one deragatory one to slip on by. Just my humble opinion. To be honest, I don't find that they add anything, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarsippius Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 The poster ran into hot water because had made a statement of fact that was untrue. You are always allowed to give your opinion on something, but when you make a factual claim, you are subject to the validity of that claim. If it is a false claim, then you can be held liable for any damage caused to the people affected by that claim. Example: "I think Kessel sucks." This is an opinion. I cannot be charged by Kessel for thinking that he sucks. I am always entitled to my own opinion. Example #2: "Kessel is on drugs." This is a factual claim, and now evidence is required to support it. If someone posts a statement like example #2, they better be prepared to show data verifying said claim or face the possibility of a lawsuit. So......if I drop I drop the "I think" part from example 1, have I now defamed Kessel because I am now making a factual claim? Good Lord if everyone not prefacing their statements with clarifying language gets sued, there would be no comedians left. And last I checked they do their work in a public forum as well or on tv . Anybody read The Onion? Mad magazine back in the day? That's different why exactly? Because that's a comedian and we know he's just joshing.....to make money at other people's supposed detriment.....as opposed to Twitter guy who isn't making any money of his comments? Say what??? I'll come down on the side of free speech vs some whiny bitch every time. All that aside, the thing that galls me is some thin skinned millionaire has the balls to name Joe Public in his lawsuit. You can justify it all you want, but it stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 The poster ran into hot water because had made a statement of fact that was untrue. You are always allowed to give your opinion on something, but when you make a factual claim, you are subject to the validity of that claim. If it is a false claim, then you can be held liable for any damage caused to the people affected by that claim. Example: "I think Kessel sucks." This is an opinion. I cannot be charged by Kessel for thinking that he sucks. I am always entitled to my own opinion. Example #2: "Kessel is on drugs." This is a factual claim, and now evidence is required to support it. If someone posts a statement like example #2, they better be prepared to show data verifying said claim or face the possibility of a lawsuit. Kessel is fat. That's a fact. The prima facie evidence is overwhelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 So......if I drop I drop the "I think" part from example 1, have I now defamed Kessel because I am now making a factual claim? I'll come down on the side of free speech vs some whiny bitch every time. All that aside, the thing that galls me is some thin skinned millionaire has the balls to name Joe Public in his lawsuit. You can justify it all you want, but it stinks. I agree with you 100%. All I'm saying is, there's a subtle distinction in the eyes of the public, and a huge distinction in the eyes of the law. It's not just the difference between "I think x" and "x". More examples: A) Peanut butter is tasty. (Subjective, opinion based.)vs.B) Eating peanut butter will cure cancer. (Medical claim. Requires evidence. Lawsuit.) A) Obama is the meanest President I ever met. (Subjective, opinion based.)vs.B) Obama operates an illegal drug cartel. (Statement of fact. Requires evidence. Lawsuit.) A) He looks like a bad person. (Subjective, opinion based.)vs.B) He stole my wallet. (Statement of fact. Requires evidence. Lawsuit.) What it boils down to is that nobody cares about the opinion of another person (from a legal perspective) unless you are an expert witness at a trial. Opinion is based on personal experience and is subjective. Courts care about factual claims. Factual claims can be investigated and rely on evidence. They are either true or false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 To be honest, I don't find that they add anything, either. Exactly! Just a distraction, and in this case this distraction just bit TSN in the A$$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Kessel is fat. That's a fact. The prima facie evidence is overwhelming. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Anybody read The Onion? Mad magazine back in the day? That's different why exactly? Because that's a comedian and we know he's just joshing.....to make money at other people's supposed detriment.....as opposed to Twitter guy who isn't making any money of his comments? Say what??? Yes, I believe there are exemptions for satire/comedy. The statements are not meant as factual claims but to get people to laugh. All that aside, the thing that galls me is some thin skinned millionaire has the balls to name Joe Public in his lawsuit. You can justify it all you want, but it stinks. It's not about thin or thick skinned. Honestly, I think very little damage would come of this, and it was heavy handed to react that way right away - they could have just asked TSN to issue an apology and ask the poster to retract his comment. Problem solved. No need to come out with the big guns. But libel and defamation are not about whether or not your feelings were hurt. That's immaterial. It's whether or not the false claims passed on as fact can have a material effect on your public reputation and the financial harm that can come of it. This is a very mild case... but it's not hard to imagine something a more substantial affecting their earning power - maybe a movie studio doesn't want to deal with Cuthbert because of her public reputation (in the case that it's not true), maybe Lupul loses out on a sponsor because he's publicly viewed as a homewrecker (which in this case is apparently also not true). That could be millions of dollars. And libel and defamation laws are stronger in Canada than the US. Plus, we seem to have more instances of curtailing free speech in the name of public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Kessel has a few things to say over the media's treatment of Phaneuf. Kessel: ''I'm fed up over what's been said" "Is it his fault we're losing? No. Did he build this team? No. http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/3/3/8142979/phil-kessel-has-something-to-say-maple-leafs-leadership http://www.tsn.ca/is-kessel-s-anger-warranted-1.221390 Kessel has a few things to say over the media's treatment of Phaneuf. Kessel: ''I'm fed up over what's been said" "Is it his fault we're losing? No. Did he build this team? No. http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/3/3/8142979/phil-kessel-has-something-to-say-maple-leafs-leadership http://www.tsn.ca/is-kessel-s-anger-warranted-1.221390 He's not wrong, but someone with really long arms needs to give Mr. Stay Puft a hug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 He's not wrong, but someone with really long arms needs to give Mr. Stay Puft a hug. What I find interesting is that by Kessel taking a shot at the GM, he is taking a shot at the two people (Burke and Nonis) that are responsible for him and Phaneuf being in Toronto. The two people that made historic blunders in acquiring both of them! If anything, Kessel should be kissing Burke's and Nonis's ass for giving him an 8-year deal so he can float around like a useless tool on the ice and get coaches, GMs, and other teammates moved out of town. Kessel isn't just a coach killer, he's a GM killer!!! I just thought it was ironic. The one player on the Leafs that can't complain about the quality of the team assembled is the guy that complains. I think this is the first of three conversations/post-game interviews that lead up to Kessel demanding a trade out of Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Kessel isn't just a coach killer, he's a GM killer!!! At this rate, he's gonna kill Christmas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 At this rate, he's gonna kill Christmas! Someone call Bill O'Reilly before it's too late! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 At this rate, he's gonna kill Christmas! [iNSERT GRINCH PHOTO WITH KESSEL'S HEAD ON IT] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 What I find interesting is that by Kessel taking a shot at the GM, he is taking a shot at the two people (Burke and Nonis) that are responsible for him and Phaneuf being in Toronto. The two people that made historic blunders in acquiring both of them! If anything, Kessel should be kissing Burke's and Nonis's ass for giving him an 8-year deal so he can float around like a useless tool on the ice and get coaches, GMs, and other teammates moved out of town. Kessel isn't just a coach killer, he's a GM killer!!! I just thought it was ironic. The one player on the Leafs that can't complain about the quality of the team assembled is the guy that complains. I think this is the first of three conversations/post-game interviews that lead up to Kessel demanding a trade out of Toronto. Interesting prediction, but I'll bet you're not far off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 This is a very mild case... but it's not hard to imagine something a more substantial affecting their earning power - maybe a movie studio doesn't want to deal with Cuthbert because of her public reputation (in the case that it's not true), maybe Lupul loses out on a sponsor because he's publicly viewed as a homewrecker (which in this case is apparently also not true). That could be millions of dollars.And libel and defamation laws are stronger in Canada than the US. Plus, we seem to have more instances of curtailing free speech in the name of public interest. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ashley-judd-pressing-charges-against-twitter-users-abusive-155250558.html Again, folks, "Free Speech" in America means the government can't proscribe speech. It doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want with no repercussions whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.