JonH comes home wrote:

---

Ha - ok. Someone (I forget who) posted a follow up to the earlier message which inferred somethings in the realms of previous. I suggested we needed to be careful in an open forum and in particular as people from the tennis world do come here. Without evidence it is possible to say things that border on libellous. One of the mods agreed with that and removed the comments to avoid that possibility. Does that make sense.

I think it was the right move, by the way, we do need to be careful with what we say here as anyone can read it and we quickly lose control.

---

You're probably right but do remember that most people have a very poor understanding of libel (or defamation in general).

There is far too much general scaremongering and fear about potential libel.

i.e. something which is true can never be libellous, no matter how offensive etc.

Also, under s.1 DFA 2013, the claimant now needs to show 'serious harm', i.e. the statute has raised the bar, and the relevant standings are taken into account (difficult for a top tennis player to claim that a statement on a lowly tennis forum has caused him/her 'serious' harm - has it stopped prize money? has it taken away sponsorships?)

And there are several important defences - honest opinion etc.  

It's very important that people are not scared and threatened into misunderstanding the law 

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Ha - ok. Someone (I forget who) posted a follow up to the earlier message which inferred somethings in the realms of previous. I suggested we needed to be careful in an open forum and in particular as people from the tennis world do come here. Without evidence it is possible to say things that border on libellous. One of the mods agreed with that and removed the comments to avoid that possibility. Does that make sense.

I think it was the right move, by the way, we do need to be careful with what we say here as anyone can read it and we quickly lose control.

---

You're probably right but do remember that most people have a very poor understanding of libel (or defamation in general).

There is far too much general scaremongering and fear about potential libel.

i.e. something which is true can never be libellous, no matter how offensive etc.

Also, under s.1 DFA 2013, the claimant now needs to show 'serious harm', i.e. the statute has raised the bar, and the relevant standings are taken into account (difficult for a top tennis player to claim that a statement on a lowly tennis forum has caused him/her 'serious' harm - has it stopped prize money? has it taken away sponsorships?)

And there are several important defences - honest opinion etc.  

It's very important that people are not scared and threatened into misunderstanding the law 

---

 Hi CD - any maybe libellous is too strong a word that I used - more to the point that I think when we make accusations we just need to be careful that we aren't causing anyone undue upset or concern. How about that. 

---

 Yes, I agree with that - but we don't know what is causing anyone upset and concern - we can only know that if they contact us - so there's an assumption here which, again, is only valid so long as that doesn't infringe too much on the rights of the forumites as many people now are particularly overly-sensitive and there is an assumption that if someone is upset then something has to be changed - whereas nearly all rights are a balance - the poster might be equally upset that their message is deleted and their rights are as valid as the other person's who's being mentioned.  

JonH comes home wrote:

---

I agree and dont want to censor anyone unduly or pussyfoot around things too much. In the case of this instance, someone here said something to affect of " this player was called X and I have experience of them being X previously" (I am paraphrasing). And that just felt like it needed a demonstration of evidence as to why they would say that or, being frank, I dont think it should be there.

A number of folks here have called Nick K a pretty horrible person and, in the round (despite him being one of my favourite players) there is probably lots of evidence to back that up! So that wouldnt cause me concern, it was just this specific statement about one of British players that made me personally a little worried.

---

All fair points. It's a discussion, here, not a disagreement - and interesting too 

You don't need proof though that someone is a prat if you're saying they're a prat - you don't even need proof that people called them a prat if you're claiming people did. 

Indeed, if someone says they have experience of X being a prat that's interesting first-hand info. Of course, people do lie - but people do act as prats too.

And you don't have to worry - it's not your worry 

Just to add, though, I do agree - it's obvious (to everyone, I'm sure) that you don't want a forum to be a nasty abusive place. But it is a fine line.  

jb288 wrote:

---

Harri has explained in a comment on his blog that the drama resulted from Lloyd requesting that the courtside big screens be turned off (it being possible to see opponents' serve signals apparently), and the umpire failing to deal with this and with crowd noise while he was serving.

Personally I can't imagine anything more distracting that having live video on screens beside the court but there we are. Apparently they were turned off in previous matches but not here.

---

Interesting - & an entirely understandable rection by Lloyd, if that is the case.