I’m really cross that the teacher shown punching her horse …..

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Germanshepherdsmum

Which comments do you consider defamatory DAR?

... yes, I'm puzzled as to which comments on here are defamatory - in legal terms.

You talk about ‘some of the statements’, DAR - I assume you mean on this thread, but refuse to identify them saying it’s not your problem. I ask again, which statements do you consider defamatory?

And you say I ‘need to leave it be’ unless I am ‘going to be helpful to them’. Whatever does that mean? Who do you think is in need of help?

It's not my problem GSM. People need to decide for themselves and you need to leave it be unless you ard going to be helpful to them.

Which comments do you consider defamatory DAR?

Maisie

According to the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 10(2), defamation is one of the valid reasons for limiting a person’s freedom of expression.

A defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of another person: it "tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally". I imagine most people can decide that for themselves if their comment did that. Was that what some people were actually trying to do?

Of course, if you can prove such a statement to be true, it is not deformation. My argument their was no such legal proof where some of the statements are concerned.

If I was this woman I would just want to put this behind me but it does matter. Having an opinion is on thing; sharing a defamatory comment in print with the rest of the world's quite another.

No, I didn’t notice anything actionable.

Germanshepherdsmum

If you mean any particular post, well I’m not going to trawl through them!

No, no need to do that. You've presumably read the thread as it developed.

I just wondered, in view of remarks being made, if anything had struck you as being actionable.

Thanks for your response.

Callistemon21, thanks for that (10 hours of relaxing classical music) - ideal for any 'skittish' creature, I should think - naming no names!

Iam64

That’s glorious Callistemon. I usually ask Alexa to play soothing classics for dogs as I leave the house. I’ll try the horse music as I go off to tai chi in ten mins

I'm going to recommend it to a family member who has a rather skittish horse.
She is endlessly patient with it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168630/Mumsnet-ordered-hand-identities-users.html (An article was also in the Times, but behind a paywall). There is also a thread on Mumsnet. I imagine that an online platform could challenge the court order to release the contact details, if they have deep enough pockets and see a loss of revenue if they go through with it.

The controversy over those running the site, rests on the differences in law already existing for the printed word. If you are a publisher, you can be equally liable. If you are a distributor, you will not be. Although this is clear in print, it is not so transparent online. For example, in the print world a publisher makes money from the content of a book or newspaper and controls that content (with lawyers). A distributor, e.g., a newsagent, makes money from selling ready-made goods and has no control over the content.

So, when you move this onto the Internet, everyone wants to be a distributor despite making money from the content. Publishers and writers are equally liable. Distributor liability is much more limited.

Hairs are split over how much the business restricts or edits user content. This is perverse. It means that the more an online forum, chat room, etc., decides to restrict or edit user content, to protect its members, readers or the general public, the higher the risk of prosecution and liability.

This doesn't just apply to GN/MN, although you should be aware that a platform may be at risk if it starts removing libelous comments and misses one/some. It is most likely to leave such comments. So you can't rely on the platform doing your thinking for you. The liability is therefore all yours. Perhaps, more importantly, this also applies to sites where children and grandchildren 'chat' with their friends.

If you mean any particular post, well I’m not going to trawl through them!

Anything? Hardly.

Germanshepherdsmum

You are are correct fancythat.

Would you say that anything said about the actual incident, videoed and admitted to, on this thread could be actionable?

That’s glorious Callistemon. I usually ask Alexa to play soothing classics for dogs as I leave the house. I’ll try the horse music as I go off to tai chi in ten mins

Iam64

Hetty58, I’m rather pleased you’re having a laugh. I’m beginning to feel lying down in a darkened room listening to soothing classics for dogs is where I need to be 🙏🏽🐕

What about this compilation for anxious horses?
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DDDeahNbN4jw&ved=2ahUKEwjinfT-14mBAxXVVEEAHaUXDDAQwqsBegQIDxAB&usg=AOvVaw0lC6GI7IqygZvgsxqS1quz

You are are correct fancythat.

It is still my opinion that the "gossip" on the internet should be treated as if it were published in print. This would mean that both the publisher and the writer could be sued if they were found guilty of publishing a false statement damaging to a person's reputation.

I always thought that was true actually. Perhaps it isnt in that case?

I always act as if I am putting into print. Because I thought I was.

So, because I asked what you meant by your question, I am to be given what you call a "taste of you own medicine" GSM. Really?

It is still my opinion that the "gossip" on the internet should be treated as if it were published in print. This would mean that both the publisher and the writer could be sued if they were found guilty of publishing a false statement damaging to a person's reputation.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable post to make, one not in the least off-topic on a thread with the OP:

I’m really cross that the teacher shown punching her horse ... Has been found not guilty of animal cruelty! Just that really……

Throughout this thread, I have refused to give any opinion about what happened. I believe none of us have evidence proving or disproving anything. The court has tried and found the women concerned not guilty of the only charge brought against her. This also seems relevant to the OP.

I hope to see some trials for hate crimes in the future. No one should threaten people, their children or anyone concerned with them, with death or any other punishment they deem appropriate after a good gossip. However, I won't hold my breath. The internet seems to excuse a lot of behaviour not otherwise legally tolerated.

... it happens.

Distressing incidents cause emotion. We should be 'allowed' to discuss it, and them.

DAR You posited an argument in abstract terms about 'absolutism' suggesting that there were no 'absolutes'.

I countered that by highlighting an actual case. That of the torture / abuse of a young child by his parent who was found guilty of deliberately inflicting cigarette burns to his body. Which, I argued, could unequivocally be said to be wrong in absolute terms. Pointing out that there were indeed "acts" as you called them, which could be deemed wrong - always wrong, absolutely wrong.

Somehow this is deemed "gossip" and an "attack" on you. I've no idea why. It was a counter argument with an example to prove it.

You gave examples of how torture could be deemed to be the only alternative. Therefore it is debatable whether it's always wrong. I said that the torture of a child cannot be the subject of an ethical debate - for obvious reasons, torturing a child is simply absolutely wrong.

See your post of 30 August 15.20 DAR.

Yes, this thread has been driven off course and has become totally ridiculous. I’m off.

Arrgghhh!

GNhq need to take this thread down. It is getting ridiculous 🤔

Germanshepherdsmum

Just giving you a dose of your own medicine DAR.

What on earth do you mean by that?

Just giving you a dose of your own medicine DAR.