Just a scenario for all u legal guys out there. Say i do Ironman Uk next year and my time just happens to be unbelievable compared to my other times. I win a Kona spot.
Then someone calls me a cheater. Saying I did not complete the swim, bike or run course. Yet this person has no REAL proof that I did this.
Does anybody know if I can sue this person, and if so on what grounds, and if so under what jurisdication.
Just want to know in case this scenario does happen to me in a race next year.
The WTC will have a new division next year to keep track of punks, cheaters, idiots, posuers and hotties; people like you and me.
My IM PR is 12:10. However, I plan on going 9:45 at IMAZ next year. Since my athletic transformation will be hard for most people to comprehend, the WTC will assign me (and others like me) a GPS enabled timing chip and my own personal draft marshall on the bike. The draft marshall will be a personal injury attorney as well…so if anyone hurts my feelings by talking shit about my race result, during or after the race, a lawsuit will be filed as quickly as the slanderous remarks are made on slowtwitch.com.
Normally if someone verbally says something bad/wrong/misleading about you, you can sue for slander. If they write/publish something bad/wrong/misleading about you, you can sue for libel. Not sure how the Internet plays into all of this - if a post is treated as written material. Freedom of speech does not allow you to slander someone, but this may be considered libel if it is treated like written material. Could you sue? Sure. Would you win? Probably not - usually the first step is to demand a written retraction/apology/correction to the libelous statement(s).
Sorry but my experience with slander & libel came at the early days of the internet & email, so I honestly don’t know how the law has changed with the prevalence of the internet, forums like this, blogging, etc.
The First Amendment does not allow you to say what you want about someone. It merely protects the GOVERNMENT from going after you for it. In other words, a private employer can tell you to shut up and not protest something. But the government cannot.
With regards to slander or libel you would have to prove some real or economic harm or some malicious intent. Thats gonna be relatively tough to do on an internet forum where the pure essence of an internet forum is to allow someone to voice their opinions in an anonymous and uninhibited manner.
Granted, we have some rules on this forum, but breaking forum rules is a weak argument to take into court.
Exactly, I had forgotten about the having to show specific harm, like losing a job over it, or your spouse leaving you, etc. Good points.
Re: 1st amendment, as a Canuck, I have no such law - I have my charter of rights & freedoms, which is similar, but the interpretations of the 1st am. are a bit of a mystery to me
Most of what was said above is correct. It would probably be some form of defamation you’d be looking at as your cause of action. However, you do need to show you were caused economic harm, because your only damages woudl be economic. That said, most lawyers will file suit against the party with the money…who has the money? Usually not some anonymous poster, it tends to be the website where it was posted. Hence the fact that these cases usually name AOL or some internet service provider/website as a Defendant. Under a law called the Communications Decency Act (originally intended to control internet porn aimed at children) the ISP is essentially in a protected class–whether they police what is on their chatrooms/forums or not. I did a research project on this 2 years ago and was surprised that it is only the original “creator” of the defamatory language that can be held liable. Usually, because the ISP only posts the information, they are allowed to go scott-free. Now, once they go and alter it (i.e. in a blog), that’s a different story. I haven’t checked into it lately, so I don’t know the exact status of the law, but it is pretty hard to track down the person who defamed you and even less likely they have money to pay you.
How about sexual discrimination on the race course? I’d like to sue on these grounds right now.
First, tri-girls are always googeling me like a piece of beef steak. It’s really embarrassing and emotionally disturbing. I can’t hardly concentrate and all the howls and butt pinches stress me out so much I usually have to take a nap after any event, including simply going to registration. Really, it’s not like I can sleep my way to a better time result, although I’ve tried on many occassions. And the girls, they’re always making promises like massages that never come. Also, I get showered with little gifts like water bottles all the time. I just don’t know what to do anymore. I feel so used and I’m thinking about ending my MOP triathlon career over it.
Second, I feel that my times are as good as the top female finishers in my AG. Yet, they get a spot to Kona and I have to live in obscurity. This is literally taking food out of the mouth of my kids. I want the WTC to give me equal recognition and allow me to qualify as a woman.
This summer in Chicago some guy got lambasted on the Chicago Athlete message board for having cut short the bike course in a duathlon and still accepting his award. Others piled on and said he always drafts them on the bike courses. I suspect that these posts were true given that more than one person chimed in and now this guy’s rep, at least in the Chicago, is tarnished forever.
What would be horrible is for someone to be accused of cheating who didn’t.
Two years ago I lost a CEO category race by 2 seconds to a person who I suspected did not meet the CEO requiements. I kept quiet because I was not sure and did not want to look like a sore loser.
Bottom line: You shouldn’t accuse someone of cheating unless you are 100% sure. Once the accusation is made, whether it’s true or false, that person’s rep is tarnished forever. Just ask Lance.
Libel, slander and defamation laws vary from country to country. Within the US, they also vary by state. In the US, partly because of the First Amendment, it is virtually impossible to prove such cases and very difficult to obtain damages unless you can show serious economic harm. But, the laws in Canada and Great Britain are different, and it’s a lot easier to prevail on such claims there. For example, I recall hearing that some of the books containing scandalous material about the British royal family were not published in Great Britain or were published in a different form to avoid the risk of such suits. I also think, but am not sure, that Lance may be pursuing one of his lawsuits in Great Britain because there is no chance he would win such a suit in the US.
As a result, I think that you might have a case in the British courts if this series of events occurred next year.
If memory serves me right (and its been almost 20 years since taking the courses at uni) For an action in defamation you need to show a) what was said is a lie, b) it was broadcasted to a 3rd party, c) form damages some harm must have been caused to reputation etc. On the face of the situation as described would give rise to an action in libel.
The internt net issue does not in view affect the basic premises, however one issue to consider is jurisdiction - which legal system has right to hear the case and depending on the outcome of that argument, the laws governing libel in that jurisdiction would apply.
I suspect this becomes even more difficult given the State system in the US. Another factor is the other defendants - Slowman and ST can also be named as this was the methd of broadcast (like a newspaper or tv station) Also consider which State historically is more advantages from the point of view of damages and jury v judge system (jury is favoured by the plantiff of course)
As I mentioned above, there is a federal law (U.S.) that essentially absolves websites like ST of liability under these claims, it is a strange thing, but true (at least up until about 1 year ago since I haven’t done the research since). Of course, I failed to realize the original poster was talking about the U.K. – could be a different story there, I’m sure.
home owners insurance might cover it if there is a personal injury section under the policy, but not an expert on home owners. A case could be made under a commercial general liablity policy though
Assuming you are not a public figure, then you could potentially sue for defamation. (Libel and slander are forms of defamation depending on the mode of publication. The bottom line from a legal analysis is that they’re both defamation.) The prove defamation (under California law, at least, a probably most other states), you would have to show (1) a false assertion of fact, (2) published to a third party, (3) that caused damages.
It’s important to distinguish between an opinion and an assertion of fact, as an opinion cannot be defamatory. Of course, sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish between an opinion and a statement of fact, as we don’t always properly articulate what we want to say. For example, the comment “racer X cheated” may appear on it’s face to be a statement of fact. But if what’s really being said is “my only explanation for racer X’s time is that he had to have missed the final loop of the bike course,” it’s opinion.
If the subject of the defamatory comment is a public figure, then it may not be enough to simply prove that the statement was false. You would also have to prove that the statement was published with malice, which is defined as knowledge or a reckless disregard for the probability that the statement was false.
If the defamatory matter is libelous on its face, no special damages need be shown (at least not in most U.S. states). General damages (hurt feelings, loss of reputation, etc.) are enough. The defendant could also be forced to pay exemplary (i.e., punitive) damages. I haven’t done the research, but calling someone a cheat seems to be libelous on its face.
Specifically as to the prior thread by Wimothy, did he ever actually name the person who allegedly cheated? My recollection is that someone else did. I don’t remember if Wimothy never agreed or disagreed with the identification. I’m not sure if Wimothy would be liable under these circumstances.
Ok, my LLB is only eight years old. This (to the best of my dated tortilogical knowledge) is how it stands in the UK:
i) the statement must be defamatory - nobody has to believe it is true - however, if it only defames a person within a special subset of people (i.e. triathletes) they may not succeed unless most people would take the same view;
ii) there must be reference to the plaintiff;
iii) there must be publication
Seems there may be grounds. Failing this, the plaintiff could also perhaps go down the route of negligent miss-statement - although I think there may be some requirement of economic damage.
