I wonder if they will all counter sue Sheffield Wednesday for impersonating a football club and therefore taking their money under false pretences.
Not that I would sanction such an act as I'm sure that such a fine football club has delivered top quality footie entertainment for as long as anyone cares to remember.
"The judge said that in some cases, the postings were "far from serious", but accepted that they were arguably defamatory.
Some of them bordered on the "trivial", and he did not think it right to order disclosure of the identities of those who had posted messages which were barely defamatory, little more than abusive or likely to be understood as jokes.
"The postings which I regard as more serious are those which may reasonably be understood to allege greed, selfishness, untrustworthiness and dishonest behaviour on the part of the claimants."
Making the disclosure order in relation to four postings by three users, he said that their right to maintain their anonymity and express themselves freely was outweighed by the claimants' entitlement to take action to protect their right to reputation."
I can't personally see how the Sheff Wed board will gain from this action but fully accept(in case their lawyers are reading this) that I'm not in full possesion of the facts or background.
I think the judge makes a very valid point about anonymity and the limits of what can be said before persons could expect action to be taken.
What seems to have happened is that the focus is on those who may or may not have made statements rather than the website as a whole or it's owner which is a good thing IMHO.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]" What seems to have happened is that the focus is on those who may or may not have made statements rather than the website as a whole or it's owner which is a good thing IMHO.[/quote]
This is all very depressing. The judge ordering disclosure was always likely to happen. The judge appears to have been quite sensible in that he didn't order disclosure in all the postings. Any business that considers legal action against it's customers to be a sensible way forward has some serious issues in my opinion
hopefully the judge will issue a restraining order on their blinking band from not getting any closer than 300 miles to the pitch on the day's of an England game
Comments
Sod your number plates, I hope the board dont ask me to have my right leg removed ; )
Not that I would sanction such an act as I'm sure that such a fine football club has delivered top quality footie entertainment for as long as anyone cares to remember.
LOL , just not David Bailey I guess!
Got a front wheel, west spam, chelski and they all have to wear them, its company policy!
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=71511&in_page_id=34
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/22/news.blogging
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/22/news.blogging
Some of them bordered on the "trivial", and he did not think it right to order disclosure of the identities of those who had posted messages which were barely defamatory, little more than abusive or likely to be understood as jokes.
"The postings which I regard as more serious are those which may reasonably be understood to allege greed, selfishness, untrustworthiness and dishonest behaviour on the part of the claimants."
Making the disclosure order in relation to four postings by three users, he said that their right to maintain their anonymity and express themselves freely was outweighed by the claimants' entitlement to take action to protect their right to reputation."
I can't personally see how the Sheff Wed board will gain from this action but fully accept(in case their lawyers are reading this) that I'm not in full possesion of the facts or background.
I think the judge makes a very valid point about anonymity and the limits of what can be said before persons could expect action to be taken.
What seems to have happened is that the focus is on those who may or may not have made statements rather than the website as a whole or it's owner which is a good thing IMHO.
What seems to have happened is that the focus is on those who may or may not have made statements rather than the website as a whole or it's owner which is a good thing IMHO.[/quote]
Agreed :-)
What a bunch of absolute over the top idiots , oops maybe I shouldn't say such things or I might get sued.
Good news for footbal supporters!