Page 4 of 6

Re: Why is this news so quiet?

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:32 pm
by dls
Find a use of defame which isn't derived from its legal meaning.

Re: Why is this news so quiet?

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:37 pm
by atticus
It is what happens to the winner of X Factor after a couple of weeks.

Re: Why is this news so quiet?

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:54 pm
by dls
I give in.

Re: Why is this news so quiet?

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:38 pm
by Hairyloon
dls wrote:Find a use of defame which isn't derived from its legal meaning.

Was the word invented for the express purpose of creating legislation against it? Or did it exist before it was made unlawful?

Re: Why is this news so quiet?

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:37 pm
by atticus
Defamation existed as a common law tort long before any legislation on the subject.

Re: Why is this news so quiet?

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:49 pm
by Millbrook2
Hairyloon wrote:I suggest that is a guideline rather than a term of use.
I can't see that it matters as long as they are not confused.


I said 'a point of the board' not a term of use. In other words it might be assumed a user was using a term in it's legal sense but I take your point about confusion. I look forward to you flagging it up when you go for common rather than legal usage.

Re: Why is this news so quiet?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:19 am
by Hairyloon
atticus wrote:Defamation existed as a common law tort long before any legislation on the subject.

Was the word invented to create the tort?
Do the rules of Common Law expressly prohibit an entity from being defamed?

Re: Why is this news so quiet?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:35 am
by atticus
The common law on defamation has been amended by the Defamation Act 2013. Section 1 provides that a statement is not defamatory unless it causes "serious harm"; which in the case of a body trading for profit means that "serious financial loss" is caused.

There had been a related tort of "trade libel".

Re: Why is this news so quiet?

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:38 pm
by Hairyloon
Rhodri Philipps, the fourth Viscount St Davids, was convicted on Tuesday of two counts of sending malicious communications. He wrote on Facebook that he would put up “£5,000 for the first person to ‘accidentally’ run over this bloody troublesome first-generation immigrant”, soon after she won her high court case.

The judge told Philipps he had directed “extreme racial abuse” towards Miller and caused her distress. Sitting at Westminster magistrates court on Thursday, senior district judge Emma Arbuthnot said Philipps had attempted to justify his actions by claiming that public figures were fair game.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... are_btn_fb

Re: Why is this news so quiet?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:36 am
by dls
Which probably answers your question - It has been sub judice