2761

cool it on the defamation stuff chief, I actually do know a fair bit about defamation and none of the above is defamatory.

2762

Oops, almost had a conversation with the hive mind

2763

Actually I do know UK law on the matter, because our defamation law is identical to your defamation law with a few reforms since the early 1980s. Most of our leading cases are actually cases from the House of Lords. So there :P

2764

Christ people, has it not occurred to you yet that you’re arguing with someone who is, in all likelihood, mentally ill? Continuing to post to him is entirely fruitless. I know some people can’t help themselves, but there are other people in this thread who really ought to know better.

2765

Oops, almost had a conversation with the hivemind.

2766

Canada is enough of a colony that we still read most of the House of Lords cases, certainly the sexier ones, and that includes defamation cases. I assure you, I know enough about common law defamation to tell you that none of the above comments were defamatory.

2767

Right, so your defence for being nasty about someone’s career is that “it’s not defamatory, really”.

Hey kids, what might one conclude about the person from this?

2768

How on earth can you claim defamation while posting under an assumed name where no-one knows your real identity? Even UK defamation laws can’t be that daft, can they?

2769

Oops, almost had a conversation with the hive mind

2770

No, they are not that daft. The plaintiff must show a lowering of reputation within the community, and an anonymous name does not have such a reputation. There’s no damages, either. Plus, the UK awards costs, so if Dawn Falcon sued you and lost, he would have to pay for the cost of you defence. Good times!

2771

I can’t remember the name of it, but there is a UK case from the 1940s involving the use of a nick name. Basically a paper published an article slandering someone, but by using a nick name rather than the person’s actual name. In order to show defamation, you have to show that the public would associate the nickname with the person, and that the association would lower that person’s reputation. I think this would extend to a pseudonym as well.

2772

You’re falsely accusing JeffD of defamation. He could sue you for libel.

2773

Is there a way I can get this for all of Dawn Falcon’s posts? Way better than the usual blocked message.

2774

FWIW (no idea if the board is moderated) I used that “report” button. I get trolling, but this is even lamer, it’s braindead spam. And it was a decent thread…

2775

Well, good luck with your various suits. Of course if you want to sue Lum, you’ll have to come here to do it since foreign libel suits are unenforceable in the US.

2776

Yes, and?

2777

Yes, I’m quite aware of that. Everyone involved has mentioned the ridiculous state of UK defamation law.

Which is being fixed - http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/defamationhl.html

However, I’m not bringing any suits, I’m simply pointing out people’s hypocrisy on the matter.

De_Treville - But how does your posting to whinge about this help?

2778

I’m not going to spoon-feed you your own country’s laws dude. Damages in libel cases are presumed, but in this case there would be no damage, because the name “Dawn Falcon” has no reputation to damage. So the presumption of damages would be upset. The case you linked is about Norwich Parmaceutical orders, which are a kind of injunction used to get the name of a prospective defendant from a third party. It does not magically imbue a pseudonym with a reputation sufficient to ground an action for defamation. Costs are not solely awarded for frivolous cases, but are awarded at the court’s discretion in most cases, whether or not the action is found to be frivolous or vexatious.

IANAL but damn you should really quit on this stuff you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

2779

Yes, and?

2780

Oh shit guys. Dawn Falcon could have photocopied stuff for SlyFrog. We’d better back off of all this slander before they take us to court.