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

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Righteous1

So if it were true, they wouldn't be able to sue tsn?

Correct. Truth is an absolute defense in defamation cases.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Anyways, this article was discussed in another thread but I think it also belongs here: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/15...html?referrer=

Great article.

Getting "offended" on behalf of other people is a cottage industry now, and on full display in this thread. The fact that this is essentially the equivalent of high-school gossip seems to get the attention of pro hockey players and internet forum posters. What if the post had said that Phaneuf was a scientologist? or gay? Would you support his ability to restrict freedom of expression in the same way?

I am really curious how CP would react, if one of the posters here got sued because they made a post that said that Phaneuf was playing poorly because he was obviously injured. I very much doubt that the reaction here would be the same type of defense of Phaneuf's rights.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

You have to prove you suffered a harm to your reputation within the community. Often lost wages or opportunity because of the defamatory comments are the easiest way to quantify them, but not the only way.

IIRC (and though I'm a lawyer I don't do defamation stuff too much), the fact that a defamation occurred gives rise to a presumption of damage, and at least nominal damages will be awarded and often mitigatiev steps such as retractions and apologies will also be directed.

The courts will award damages for non-pecuniary loss such (i.e. pain and suffering) with some evidence of that harm.

With celebrities, damages can be bigger given that their reputation is part of their value. You still have to prove it if you want something substantial in dolar amount. Funny though, it's often struck me that suing just increases the harm by keeping the spotlight on the situation. In this case, however, since it was immediately made clear the statement was false, that probably isn't a factor.

In this case I suspect it'll be settled, since the media defendants will not want further attention given to their gross error.

[photon]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

You have to prove you suffered a harm to your reputation within the community. Often lost wages or opportunity because of the defamatory comments are the easiest way to quantify them, but not the only way.

As far as I understand in Canada for libel (written) damage is assumed because it is published and things go straight to defence (i.e. is it opinion, fair comment, etc), while slander (spoken) has to prove damage.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Originally Posted by Buster

Great article.

Getting "offended" on behalf of other people is a cottage industry now, and on full display in this thread. The fact that this is essentially the equivalent of high-school gossip seems to get the attention of pro hockey players and internet forum posters. What if the post had said that Phaneuf was a scientologist? or gay? Would you support his ability to restrict freedom of expression in the same way?

I am really curious how CP would re-act, if one of the posters here got sued because they made a post that said that Phaneuf was playing poorly because he was obviously injured. I very much doubt that the reaction here would be the same type of defense of Phaneuf's rights.

I can't decide if you are just an amazing troll, or if you are actually this clueless about the differences between opinion and libel/defamation and what Freedom of Speech ACTUALLY legally means.

I'm leaning towards Troll, because I refuse to believe anyone could be this stupid, unless it's willfully so.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Buster

Great article.

I am really curious how CP would react, if one of the posters here got sued because they made a post that said that Phaneuf was playing poorly because he was obviously injured. I very much doubt that the reaction here would be the same type of defense of Phaneuf's rights.

Holy strawman argument. One situation is a lie presented as fact. The other is nothing more than an opinion (what constitutes poor play? Is it really even poor?) and is totally subjective. You can't have an opinion that Lupul slept with Cuthbert. It's either true or it's not.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

You are very wrong. Just because you are famous does not give others carte blanche to make up lies about you. As someone said earlier, is it OK for me to tell your boss you are a paedophile, and you get fired? Or is that not OK, because you are not famous?

And I fixed your post for you...

Well the main difference is millions of people don't know who I am or care about what I do. Like it or not being famous comes with being in the public spotlight and having to deal with those types of things. I'm sure if you surveyed every single person with a little bit of fame and asked them if they have been harassed on twitter the answer would be yes. It's just the way it is. This one unfortunately was broadcasted by a national media outlet. They are partially at a fault so if your that mad go sue or whatever. Realistically if you just shut your mouth it probably would have blown over by now. While it might be TSN's responsibility to monitor all their employees we know that's not always possible. I'm sure at the end of the day it's one person who caused all of this so that person should ultimately be the one who has to answer. I see you take personal offense to this and missing apostrophes on a hockey message board though so were likely not going to see eye to eye.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Buster

Great article.

Getting "offended" on behalf of other people is a cottage industry now, and on full display in this thread. The fact that this is essentially the equivalent of high-school gossip seems to get the attention of pro hockey players and internet forum posters. What if the post had said that Phaneuf was a scientologist? or gay? Would you support his ability to restrict freedom of expression in the same way?

I am really curious how CP would react, if one of the posters here got sued because they made a post that said that Phaneuf was playing poorly because he was obviously injured. I very much doubt that the reaction here would be the same type of defense of Phaneuf's rights.

Would you be okay if someone called your workplace and told your co-workers that you raped a pre-teen girl?

Stop being such a coward and answer the question.

[Resolute 14]

Oh, and Photon, if you're the one who changed Buster's user title, you're a god damned hero...

[photon]

Originally Posted by Buster

Great article.

Getting "offended" on behalf of other people is a cottage industry now, and on full display in this thread.

It's not about offence, if you read what defamation is it's got nothing to do with being offended. That might be why you seem confused and keep offering parallels that you think are similar but are obviously not.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Oh, and Photon, if you're the one who changed Buster's user title, you're a god damned hero...

Just saw this. Brilliant, hahaha.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Buster

Great article.

Getting "offended" on behalf of other people is a cottage industry now, and on full display in this thread. The fact that this is essentially the equivalent of high-school gossip seems to get the attention of pro hockey players and internet forum posters. What if the post had said that Phaneuf was a scientologist? or gay? Would you support his ability to restrict freedom of expression in the same way?

"Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins."

The fist in this case being purposely making up lies to harm someone. Why are you so blindly protecting the rights of one party while ignoring the rights of another? Why is this such an important right to have?

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Buster

Great article.

Getting "offended" on behalf of other people is a cottage industry now, and on full display in this thread. The fact that this is essentially the equivalent of high-school gossip seems to get the attention of pro hockey players and internet forum posters. What if the post had said that Phaneuf was a scientologist? or gay? Would you support his ability to restrict freedom of expression in the same way?

I am really curious how CP would react, if one of the posters here got sued because they made a post that said that Phaneuf was playing poorly because he was obviously injured. I very much doubt that the reaction here would be the same type of defense of Phaneuf's rights.

If people are commenting on the quality of someone's play, they are not going to get sued. It isn't libelous or slanderous. However, online posters have been sued for making libelous comments before.

See here:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...000751306.html

You can say whatever you want unless what you say does harm to another person. Brian Burke was right to defend himself against libelous comments and Phaneuf, Cuthbert, and Lupul are right to do the same.

My point in posting that article is that people shouldn't just dump their brains onto their Twitter feed. People really need to think about what they say because the internet is forever...you can't easily take it back once you put it out there.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by photon

As far as I understand in Canada for libel (written) damage is assumed because it is published and things go straight to defence (i.e. is it opinion, fair comment, etc), while slander (spoken) has to prove damage.

You still have to establish the value of the damages.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

You're welcome.

It is, but the winner will get solicitor and his own client costs, on a full indemnity basis, meaning the actual legal fees paid.
This will be quite substantial in such a case, and are extremely difficult to get in most circumstances.

While agree with what you indicate in principle, as applied to this specific case, I don't see the harm to necessarily provide for those costs or potential damages.

I get that people find the tweet outrages and offensive, but does anybody really think it hurt anyone's reputation? (especially Phanuef, it really isn't about him at all).

[northcrunk]

This was barely a story when the tweet occured. The ony reason it has legs past the appology by TSN is Phaneuf/Cuthbert/Lupul IMO. They are the reason this is getting traction and has legs past the 1 day. If they would have not launched legal action most people would have dismissed the tweet. Instead they probably have a bunch of people now online looking for rumors.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

This was barely a story when the tweet occured.

Uhh, yes it was. It spread all over the internet about 5 minutes after TSN put the tweet to air.

The ony reason it has legs past the appology by TSN is Phaneuf/Cuthbert/Lupul IMO.

TSN apologized yesterday. Please show me what Phaneuf/Cuthberth/Lupul have done in the past 20 hours to cause the story to continue.

They are the reason this is getting traction and has legs past the 1 day. If they would have not launched legal action most people would have dismissed the tweet. Instead they probably have a bunch of people now online looking for rumors.

See above, the Tweet had already been sent all over the place, so this was objectively false even before they lawyered it. In fact, it is specifically because this is false that they lawyered up.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I just cannot see why a trio of millionaires wants to go through a drawn-out, expensive, onerous litigation process to recover probably nominal amounts from some nobody. If you're Elisha Cuthbert or, hell, Joffrey Lupul, do you really want to go through questioning for X days on your sexual history?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Uhh, yes it was. It spread all over the internet about 5 minutes after TSN put the tweet to air.




TSN apologized yesterday. Please show me what Phaneuf/Cuthberth/Lupul have done in the past 20 hours to cause the story to continue.




See above, the Tweet had already been sent all over the place, so this was objectively false even before they lawyered it. In fact, it is specifically because this is false that they lawyered up.

The internet is not the MSM. The main stream media would not have been able to publish anything about the incident. But they can write stories now since it's been legitimized by bringing lawyers into it. Give the media more to talk about and a reason to print the story.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

This was barely a story when the tweet occured. The ony reason it has legs past the appology by TSN is Phaneuf/Cuthbert/Lupul IMO. They are the reason this is getting traction and has legs past the 1 day. If they would have not launched legal action most people would have dismissed the tweet. Instead they probably have a bunch of people now online looking for rumors.

Incorrect, Kessel rant with the media the next day is what brought it into light along with FAN discussing Phil's rant and also directing it as a response to the tweet

regardless of Dion's reaction and TSN's apologies this was going to be news and have more attention drawn to it