Dave S (Login greenman2) from IP address 212.50.160.27
The following is from the Hyde message board:-
18-05-03
Ossett Town have been fined £400 (with £200 suspended) by the Unibond League for comments made on their website about the league and other clubs. A club official has also been fined, and since left the club I believe. All parties have been warned about their future conduct.
Ossett were found guilty of "conduct detrimental to the good name of the league". Please be warned. This has been threatened for some time and we do not want to fall foul of league rules or incur any form of league penalty for comments on either Official or Unofficial websites.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Tony Beard - Secretary
There is nothing at the moment on the Ossett Town message board (which has the usual disclaimer to the effect that:- Please note that the views expressed on this forum are not those of the club.-*), but it seems to be the responsibility of the webmaster, even on unofficial sites, to remove any comments which may be deemed to be critical of the League, its management or its policies to avoid a similar fate.
I'm pretty sure that if any club made it a legal matter they would have won, however that would just annoy the league. Oh well, just as well the Alliance is coming! (draws breath and prays for a rare top-half season)
Oh yes if they did take it to a court of law the League would lose-The HRA 1998 matters here. The League has a want of juristiction and can only persue the indivdual(and that would be costly if it is not libel or slander- that is unlawful whether criminal or civil) that has posted not the club or webmaster- Due to the fact that the person who actually writes the post owns the post not the website or webmaster!As for upseting the league- i bet their finances would be!
If comments are libellous, or contain any comments likely to cause events in any country in which they can be viewed, then both the webmaster and host are liable.
Hence Yahoo had to ensure that Neo-Nazi items could not be bought or sold by anyone living in France (where such things are illegal) but still be accessed by those in the USA (where such censorship woudl be illegal).
Interestingly, who would the league charge if the comments from Ossett were repeated on this board?
Brian- Your knowledge of the law is known to be limited. A person owns the post he or she has made- they are the writers and therefore the owners.The Law has been distorted by the league here and to be honest if there was an appeal to a Court, the appeal would be successful in that a league has no juristiction over an individual's opinion other than sueing the individual through a court IF there was any libel etc. However this is not only costly but they would have to Prove(The Burden of Proof is on them) that it was untrue and had no substance and that the person willfully lied, and that the person was not acting in good faith and without predjudice etc etc.The league has a want of juristiction on this matter- especailly on a unofficial website-On an Official website they still have to "sue" the individual and they would have the right to reply to the league(HRA 1998 and Natural Justice- right to reply- established 1852-grimes v Grand junction canal).A webmaster has only responsilibilty if HE KNOWS that something is libel.It is the individual's responsibilty not a third party to check facts- however, will the league also sue the media then for criticisms and have them up in front of them- There is the crux of the matter is it not?That is where the precedent has been set me thinks-
Red4 - I know that when sone-one is punched then a crime has been committed
However, you're right about the responsibility for libel. I can remember that hosts used to be responsible for postings in the same way that a newspaper was responsible for its letters page.
Things seem to have changed nowadays, although hosts and ISPs still have to supply the names of people charged with libel (this is now being challenged as well).
"Messages that contain any malicious or potentially defamatory information or comments about any individual, company or organisation are not permitted and will be removed if posted. This is because we are legally liable under UK libel laws for any loss suffered by the subject of such messages."
Very sweeping statement that brian, and in law there is no crime(only alledged) until proven(beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law-balance of possibilties in civil) there is, or a person admits to a crime-even then a Police officer still has to check the facts.
The law has not strictly changed except the HRA1998 has come in force and this makes many "grey" areas which can only really be examined in a court. IN this case,however, the league have a want of juristiction and would lose an appeal by the club in question. As for an unofficial website the league has even less chance and would be in breach of the HRA 1998 unless and slander or libel(Which is it on the web- still being discussed)and then the only remedy would be throught the courts on the individual person writing it-the webmaster would only be liable if he ignored the rules set for postings- The League have no juristication over a person other than players and officials, even then they have to be careful as was shown in the case of Derbyshire Cricket Club and their Captain at that time. He held that he had a right to reply and to an opinion which was not libel or slanderous to the club(which it was not). Although this did not go to court it is cited, as it is in the public domain and legal opinions agreed.
