b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 9163420 (Thread)

# Hum.
Does libel apply to the dead?
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 13:38, archived)
# no, this is all they have:
According to Section Four of the Public Order Act: "A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."
(polished turd 404 pixels wide, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 13:43, archived)
# Apparently "you can't libel the dead" is a well known saying.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4630243.stm
I didn't know.
I would have thought the deceased should be able to sue for any damages incurred after their death.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 13:46, archived)
# The next person who verbally abuses me is going to get sued
then I will become rich and rule the world!

(I helped save b3ta! Flowerpot No longer has the vapours thanks to DTH, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 14:14, archived)
# I presume that a living family can sue for libel against a dead member of the family
Or maybe they would just claim emotional damages?

edit : ^ I stand corrected
(I helped save b3ta! The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 13:44, archived)
# Do we have the tort of emotional distress in this country?
I rather hope our law encourages all to distress one another as much as we like, in the absence of material harm.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 13:52, archived)
# Woah could you imagine an entire family pressing for loss of earnings due to emotional damage.
That must nearly be 10 quid in yorkshire!
(Jeru War and Piss, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 14:00, archived)
# arf!!!
(I helped save b3ta! god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 14:10, archived)
# Nope
Presumably they'd sue for 'distress' or 'emotional damage' if anything.

"Of their dead relative, there are no circumstances under which a family could sue for libel." - source: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4630243.stm
(I helped save b3ta! kitaro is all, like, "Nifty Biscuits" 'n that..., Sat 7 Feb 2009, 13:48, archived)
# It would be quite hard
They have to take action in America I think as that is where the site is hosted.
(I helped save b3ta! riverghost servicing your mum since, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 14:08, archived)
# But it's not where Rob is, so that wouldn't work very well.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 14:16, archived)
# Yeah but this is how a lot of these spamming viagra sites get away with it.
The are hosted in some of the poorer Asian countries.
(I helped save b3ta! riverghost servicing your mum since, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 14:19, archived)
# What puzzles me is:
you can apparently sue for emotional damage as part of a claim for road traffic accident compensation, and for injury to feelings as part of a discrimination case. So if Rob had published sick jokes about their deceased relative while simultaneously running them over in a car, or refusing to employ them because of their race, then they could claim.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 14:30, archived)
# rob didn't post them though
All they can do is make him takwe them down. He can just say he was unaware that they'd been posted.
(I helped save b3ta! riverghost servicing your mum since, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 14:50, archived)
# ah
the old 'plausible deniability' chestnut

(polished turd 404 pixels wide, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 14:56, archived)