Phaneuf, Cuthbert, and Lupul seeking damages from TSN & Tweeter

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Buster

So the Flames should be able to sue Sureless for posting a trade rumour?

Either you have freedom of speech, or you don't.

Libel and defamation suits restrict our liberty.

You don't want to live in a country where people can tell you what you are and are not able to put on Twitter.

The fact that you cannot comprehend the difference, and that you completely misconstrue what slander and libel entails, is incredibly troubling.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Man, I thought the whole "final solution" thing was a joke saying Draisaitl was the last piece of the puzzle.

My mind is too innocent for that one. Pardon my ignorance for thinking it wasn't a big deal. (Not that I ever posted anything about it)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I don't understand why broadcasts and networks want to post twitter feeds on the screen anyways. It doesn't add any value to the broadcast or to the viewing public. They should just stop this practice altogether.

Cool story bro: A long time ago, around 1999 or so, I was member of the CNN/SI sports forums that CNN/SI likely forgot existed. It was, for the most part, a complete free-for-all that was largely self-moderated. One day, some exec at CNN got the bright idea of tapping into the voice of the people by using the "information superhighway" and putting message board posts on air while discussing stories. CNN rediscovered their webforums, and were totally aghast at what they found. And what they found isn't any worse than what Calgarypuck produces.

So they set about cleaning it all up. Anybody who was registered under an athlete's real name was summarily banned. Cursing was an instaban - to the point that even using the letter F brought down the hammer. This resulted in a large-scale revolt against CNN/SI. At one point, we were trying to see how fast their admins could work to ban accounts named after real people telling CNN/SI to go F itself. They actually started hardblocking all addresses from various ISPs. Including Cadvision, I'm somewhat proud to admit. End result: the forum became a deserted wasteland within weeks, and CNN never did bring that plan to air.

tl;dr: Trying to involve the internet on your TV broadcast is inevitably doomed to failure and embarrassment. The internet is the mob. It is ruthless and anonymous, and that is rarely a good combination.

[Obsidian]

At least that idiot will think twice about the consequences of spouting out dumb things on a public medium.

Though there are far worse individuals who could also use that lesson.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Yamer

The fact that you cannot comprehend the difference, and that you completely misconstrue what slander and libel entails, is incredibly troubling.

It does actually pose an interesting question though, a team could sue a reporter for posting a rumour if they could prove the reporter didn't do his due diligence and that the rumour caused the team harm, say a player demanded a trade due to the rumour, in reality it would never happen, but I could see it being possible in theory.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The tweeter's account is still active https://twitter.com/AdragnaA21

He put this up yesterday:

So: "I'm not blaming anyone, but it's TSN's fault...not mine."

He knew what he was doing.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Buster

Sure it is. That's the whole point.

People should be able to say that a player had sex with a donkey, if they want.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

I don't think you understand what freedom of speech is.

You cannot be charged with any offense arising from your "speech" (obvious caveats are hate speech)

That has no bearing on civil disputes or liabilities, nor should it.

Should I be allowed to tell your boss you have been stealing without proof?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Cool story bro: A long time ago, around 1999 or so, I was member of the CNN/SI sports forums that CNN/SI likely forgot existed. It was, for the most part, a complete free-for-all that was largely self-moderated. One day, some exec at CNN got the bright idea of tapping into the voice of the people by using the "information superhighway" and putting message board posts on air while discussing stories. CNN rediscovered their webforums, and were totally aghast at what they found. And what they found isn't any worse than what Calgarypuck produces.

So they set about cleaning it all up. Anybody who was registered under an athlete's real name was summarily banned. Cursing was an instaban - to the point that even using the letter F brought down the hammer. This resulted in a large-scale revolt against CNN/SI. At one point, we were trying to see how fast their admins could work to ban accounts named after real people telling CNN/SI to go F itself. They actually started hardblocking all addresses from various ISPs. Including Cadvision, I'm somewhat proud to admit. End result: the forum became a deserted wasteland within weeks, and CNN never did bring that plan to air.

tl;dr: Trying to involve the internet on your TV broadcast is inevitably doomed to failure and embarrassment. The internet is the mob. It is ruthless and anonymous, and that is rarely a good combination.

The Guardian used to have a great talk board, possibly the best in the world if you were a politics junkie, it just closed without explanation a few years ago, mostly, it was surmised due to fear of law suits.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Yamer

So: "I'm not blaming anyone, but it's TSN's fault...not mine."

He knew what he was doing.

Yup, and I'm sure he thought he was mr cool when it got aired too.

Whether it got aired or not, he still put it on the net, so he's liable.

[SofaProfessor]

Freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you want. It does not protect you from the consequences of what you say.

The fact there are some ADULTS on this forum who don't seem to understand that is a little bit sad.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by BurningSteel

I would post something in this thread but am scared I will be next to be sued.

How about you start with not accusing someone of sleeping with someone's wife in a public forum?

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by Yamer

So: "I'm not blaming anyone, but it's TSN's fault...not mine."

He knew what he was doing.

He's trying to push it off as an inside joke between friends

Get real kid.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Buster

Sure it is. That's the whole point.

People should be able to say that a player had sex with a donkey, if they want.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

No it's not. If it's untrue, and defamatory, it's not freedom of speech, it's defamation.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by SofaProfessor

Freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you want. It does not protect you from the consequences of what you say.

The fact there are some ADULTS on this forum who don't seem to understand that is a little bit sad.

This is the most succinct description. Thanks!

And yes. It's part of the entitlement culture so prevalent these days.

"I should be able to do anything I want, to anybody and not suffer consequences"

[Blarg]

The lawyers have told him to formally apologize or get sued. Instead he brushes it off and claims he did nothing wrong.
He is going to get wrecked hard in court.
Love it.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The tweeter's account is still active https://twitter.com/AdragnaA21

He put this up yesterday:

Idiot.
It doesn't matter. Twitter is a public communication vehicle just like broadcast television is.
Why do people think they aren't responsible for what they say in social media.
I'm glad this stuff is finally happening. The crap that people say on social media (as someone said - look at the Curt Schilling story for another recent example) is appalling. I'd love to see some of these clowns pay a price for their behavior.
Go get 'em Dion.

[midniteowl]

I'm surprised someone would keep on bringing up freedom of speech after so many cyber bullings ending up in tragedies. After reading so many young people committed suicide because some morons excised their so called "freedom of speech" , censoring the internet isn't such a bad idea!

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by SofaProfessor

Freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you want. It does not protect you from the consequences of what you say.

The fact there are some ADULTS on this forum who don't seem to understand that is a little bit sad.

Pretty much. Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want without fear of persecution. It doesn't protect you from other people holding you responsible if you post false information. Hope the lawyers make this idiot twitter guy wet his pants. It's about time people were held accountable for some of the dumb stuff they post on the internet.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Blarg

The lawyers have told him to formally apologize or get sued. Instead he brushes it off and claims he did nothing wrong.
He is going to get wrecked hard in court.
Love it.

I hope they totally clean him out, make an example out of him!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Buster

Sure it is. That's the whole point.

People should be able to say that a player had sex with a donkey, if they want.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

As already noted, "freedom of speech" does not mean "consequence free speech".

So yes, you are free to say that. But that does not mean you should be immune to consequences of what you say.

Or, to expand on another poster's example, would you be alright if someone called your employer and told all of your co-workers that you raped the neighbour's pre-teen daughter?

Free speech means anything goes, right?