Rumour Bicks to head back to a media role?

[Mattrox]

One of my unanswered questions to Chapman was whether we would be suing The Age for defamation given that they published articles that said the Board were aware of the details of the Tippett contract - something denied publicly by the club.

Given that The Age painted us as liars and destroyed any credibility Chapman ever possessed, I thought it strange that we let it go.

It was almost as though The Age had copies of the Board minutes and could prove their allegations were true.

True.

But if what was published didn't further damage their reputation then there is no point suing either.

Then there is always the meek nature of our board. Never ruffling feathers etc.

 

[beartoo]

Are you really suggesting there's an action in tort for truthful statements that may harm a reputation?

Pretty sure that used to apply in SA. I don't know if it still does.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Pretty sure that used to apply in SA. I don't know if it still does.

Seriously. Just think about what you're suggesting.

You believe the law offers protection for people who would have their reputations damaged by the truth?

 

[Mattrox]

Are you really suggesting there's an action in tort for truthful statements that may harm a reputation?

What I was saying was ..... what I consider truth and what can be proven truthful are 2 different things.

I just said that "truth" doesn't necessarily stop you being found guilty of defamation.

In the situation of a threat it quite likely could be shown that the intent was to harm reputation in order to remove someone from a job. This is the context that Beartoo was alluding to.

This is why lawyers make money. They argue about technicalities. If it were always clear cut cases would be over very quickly and lawyers would make less money.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Can I also say: it's wrong to draw a presumption of fact from whether or not someone initiates an action. Not suing for defamation does not prove the truth of a statement.

 

[Southerntakeover]

What I was saying was ..... what I consider truth and what can be proven truthful are 2 different things.

I just said that "truth" doesn't necessarily stop you being found guilty of defamation.

In the situation of a threat it quite likely could be shown that the intent was to harm reputation in order to remove someone from a job. This is the context that Beartoo was alluding to.

This is why lawyers make money. They argue about technicalities. If it were always clear cut cases would be over very quickly and lawyers would make less money.

Yes a court will make findings regarding facts, and one such finding would be regarding the truthfulness of a statement. It is possible that such a finding may not actually reflect reality.

That does not mean that statements which are found to be truthful give rise to an action in defamation.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Not commenting on what youve said or whatever, but seriously the law is an ass:

"True in substance or not materially different from the truth" WTF?

I think that saying is intended to cover circumstances in which inflexibility leads to perverse results, rather than just it being difficult to read.

 

[JP Sauce]

Clarke has Sauce as a probable All Australian this year--get rid of him.
Our midfielders are on record as singing the praises of Camporeale--let's find someone else.
I've not seen Bickley at training so I don't know how he goes--others obviously do.
Make all the changes suggested on this thread at the same time and we'll get one good result next year--a high draft pick.

Of course our midfielders are singing the praises of Camporeale - he's their coach.

No one bagged Craig, not one bagged Trigg... People don't publically criticise their bosses.

 

[Bacon8]

If only a lawyer could add something.

 

[crowman_23]

Time to get aggressive. Bickley out for Tredrea, Carey or Jono Brown. Camporeale out for Ling or Hayes. Clarke out for Dean Cox.

Yes, let's get aggressive and wipe those guys all for blokes who have not been assistant coaches before.

I think our biggest need in the coaches box is someone to replace Bailey in the senior assistant role.

Not against replacing those guys as they have been around for quite a while and our results haven't warranted automatic positions, but we need some experience.

 

[beartoo]

Of course our midfielders are singing the praises of Camporeale - he's their coach.

No one bagged Craig, not one bagged Trigg... People don't publically criticise their bosses.

No, obviously no player comes out and says so and so isn't a coach's bootlace. Nor do they have to say how good a coach is, and this is what has happened with Camporeale a number of times. Do people on BF know better than the mids that train under Camporeale?

 

[beartoo]

Seriously. Just think about what you're suggesting.

You believe the law offers protection for people who would have their reputations damaged by the truth?

Yes, seriously, I seem to remember a debate ages ago about the foolishness of SA law where this was the case. I'm fairly sure it is no longer the case.

 

[beartoo]

“We have a talented young team and a coaching group, which I think can bring the best out of me and the rest of the boys.
“I also enjoy the Adelaide lifestyle.”

Ricky Henderson on AFL.com.au twenty minute ago.

 

[pjcrows]

Of course he says that.

 

[Mattrox]

Yes a court will make findings regarding facts, and one such finding would be regarding the truthfulness of a statement. It is possible that such a finding may not actually reflect reality.

That does not mean that statements which are found to be truthful give rise to an action in defamation.

That's not want I was saying though.

 

[King Elvis]

I'll give an example because Mr. "everything is black and white" has convoluted the situation.

Let's say it could be proven that a board member knew about Tippettgate. An article goes to print with "proof" that the board knew and were incompetent in their dealings.

You and I would largely agree with that. We would call it "the truth".

However, if whoever made the allegations can't prove incompetence they could be found to be defaming the board member, or in fact the Club. The board member could establish the "proven truth" to be that there was an error of judgement. And that the information released paints a substantial difference in the readers mind (ie incompetence vs error of judgement) to the "proven truth", a defamation charge could stand.

This would be what the lawyers argue. And even if someone could "prove truth" later in court it doesn't stop a law suit from being filed.

What can be proven as truth and the actual truth may not be the same thing.

This is why I said not "necessarily" because there are shades of grey. As I said, those semantics would be argued by lawyers.

Dig up.

 

[FR0GGY]

Reporting for jury duty

 

[AJB84]

Of course he says that.

Yes it is all part of an elaborate ploy the first step in his plan for world domination!

 

[Mattrox]

Can I also say: it's wrong to draw a presumption of fact from whether or not someone initiates an action. Not suing for defamation does not prove the truth of a statement.

That I agree with too.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Yes, seriously, I seem to remember a debate ages ago about the foolishness of SA law where this was the case. I'm fairly sure it is no longer the case.

I'm happy to look at anything that you find on the subject, but I do not believe it to ever have been the case.

 

[Jack McKraken]

I think he's right, to an extent. Before our uniform defamation laws, it wasn't enough in some States to say a statement was the truth. There was a requirement that the statement was also in the public interest.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Before our uniform defamation laws we had the common law (which we still have).

I'm not aware of any history of law in Australia in which it was unlawful to make honest statements (excluding for example state secrets and confidentiality).

Again, happy to review anything that you find on that subject though. I learn new things every day.

 

[Jack McKraken]

Good thing I'm bored!

Not sure if link will work- but see s15 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW). Ousted the common law defence. Needed substantial truth and public interest or qualified privilege.

http://portsea.austlii.edu.au/cgi-p...ml/nsw/act/438ea6beb76b602c.xml&date=20040724

 

[Southerntakeover]

Good thing I'm bored!

Not sure if link will work- but see s15 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW). Ousted the common law defence. Needed substantial truth and public interest or qualified privilege.

http://portsea.austlii.edu.au/cgi-pit/renderFrag.py?frag=/home/www/pit/xml/nsw/act/438ea6beb76b602c.xml&date=20040724

Thanks for that. Like I said, I learn new things every day.

Now I'm interested in whether this was a statutory creation or a limitation on the defence at common law. Don't worry, I'll look that up myself.

 

[beartoo]

Well, I was almost right.
Good on ya JM.