Hawks in Crisis?

[dom_105]

Absolutely no mention of this on either channel 10 or 7 news here in Perth tonight. Hawthorn must have got some sort of injunction on the story.

That's not all.

Herald Sun, The Age, West Australian, Sportal, Ninemsn have all dumped their stories. All running scared.

If it wasn't for Bigfooty, you wouldn't know the issue even existed.

[bomberdonnie]

they reported it at half time in the saints v WC match and said that Hawthorn have not denied the claims but have an injunction to stop anyone naming the players...

f*** Hawthorn and f*** their players!!!! No better than WC!

[Megan]

They're naming 7 players atm, and by they I mean gossipmongers, no one who you'd necessarily have any reason to believe.

I believe that something is coming up, I don't believe what I read online. I feel sorry for Hawthorn, because anyone who believes that this isn't happening at Essendon are dreaming. AFL teams are simply a small pocket of life, and we all know people doing drugs in some fashion or another, right?

Someone, several someones at Essendon are probably doing drugs. I'm thankful that we're able to keep these things in house. I only hope none of them are addicted.

BTW. No names. I speak on behalf of the admins and mods when I say anyone who names names will be in the poo. I know you guys are smart enough to know better than to do that.

[Gyoza]

BTW. No names. I speak on behalf of the admins and mods when I say anyone who names names will be in the poo. I know you guys are smart enough to know better than to do that.

Just a quick question on this (and I`m not necessarily disagreeing with you).

Where does the strong focus on not naming possible names come from? Has there been a precedent of a corporation and/or individual taking action against a public online forum?

It just seems like a bit of paranoia and overkill to me. I mean who out there would really give a toss what a bunch of nobodies on a very small football website say? But...if there`s more to it please let me know

[dom_105]

BTW. No names. I speak on behalf of the admins and mods when I say anyone who names names will be in the poo. I know you guys are smart enough to know better than to do that.

Just a quick question on this (and I`m not necessarily disagreeing with you).

Where does the strong focus on not naming possible names come from? Has there been a precedent of a corporation and/or individual taking action against a public online forum?

It just seems like a bit of paranoia and overkill to me. I mean who out there would really give a toss what a bunch of nobodies on a very small football website say? But...if there`s more to it please let me know

I wouldn't want to be a test case for a lawsuit.

AFL forums have had a pretty checkered history. Puntroadend got in the shit for showing AFL matchday clips, Hawkheadquarters posted a certain umpire's mobile phone number online and got practically shut down by the AFL. Even this site stirred up some people within the Essendon hierarchy which was one nail in the coffin that saw us kicked off the main site.

At any case, the AFL have handed down an injunction to Channel 7, and the News Limited + Fairfax papers, as well as Sportal, have taken any reference to the incident off their sites.

These are sites (especially News and Fairfax) which would have access to legal advice. That's good enough for me.

[F111]

C7 are still running with the story, however they're not mentioning the club or players names.

They did mention the injunction.

Does anyone know which players were not mentioned

[Gyoza]

BTW. No names. I speak on behalf of the admins and mods when I say anyone who names names will be in the poo. I know you guys are smart enough to know better than to do that.

Just a quick question on this (and I`m not necessarily disagreeing with you).

Where does the strong focus on not naming possible names come from? Has there been a precedent of a corporation and/or individual taking action against a public online forum?

It just seems like a bit of paranoia and overkill to me. I mean who out there would really give a toss what a bunch of nobodies on a very small football website say? But...if there`s more to it please let me know

I wouldn't want to be a test case for a lawsuit.

AFL forums have had a pretty checkered history. Puntroadend got in the shit for showing AFL matchday clips, Hawkheadquarters posted a certain umpire's mobile phone number online and got practically shut down by the AFL. Even this site stirred up some people within the Essendon hierarchy which was one nail in the coffin that saw us kicked off the main site.

At any case, the AFL have handed down an injunction to Channel 7, and the News Limited + Fairfax papers, as well as Sportal, have taken any reference to the incident off their sites.

These are sites (especially News and Fairfax) which would have access to legal advice. That's good enough for me.

Some fair points there. The difference in my opinion is that when News and Fairfax report something it has a lot of (mistaken) credibility and is widely reported as fact. When I say on this forum that "It`s Bob Smith from Hawthorn", what credibility do I have to lend this statement any credibility or substance that would damage that person`s reputation?

[BenDoolan]

BTW. No names. I speak on behalf of the admins and mods when I say anyone who names names will be in the poo. I know you guys are smart enough to know better than to do that.

Allegedly

[tonysoprano]

BTW. No names. I speak on behalf of the admins and mods when I say anyone who names names will be in the poo. I know you guys are smart enough to know better than to do that.

Would you be allowed to list jumper numbers?

Maybe someone who knows could start a thread just titled - "Random Numbers" and then list them off

[Megan]

No numbers - if you want to know, go search the web, there are sites saying who they alleged players are but god knows where they got that info from. Please, no one post the links. Race around looking for forums hosted by search engines... that's all I'm saying.

I have NO idea legally where we stand? And I'd rather not find out. And dom I know you mean well but we weren't kicked off the site for any one thing, we were kicked off the site because we potentially could cause trouble - there were specific incidents years ago, but no specific incident had us shafted. Just potential.

[tonysoprano]

Sorry Megan

[Gyoza]

I have NO idea legally where we stand?

Again, I`m not trying to stir shit...but I don`t see the need for the strict enforcement of this rule given that there seems to be no basis for an assumption that trouble would be created for anyone.

I think we`re seriously overrating our own importance in the scheme of things here.

Anyway, now I`ll just shut up and follow the rule

[rama_fan]

You simply can't allude to names or anything.

Any reasonable assumption can be liable for legal action.

For example If I started a new thread saying titled "Bomber spotting" and then said "I saw James Hird in Ivanhoe yesterday" I'd be liable.

Simply cant do it.

However if someone would like to private message me who is suspected it would be appreciated!!

[F111]

However if someone would like to private message me who is suspected it would be appreciated!!

[Gyoza]

You simply can't allude to names or anything.

Any reasonable assumption can be liable for legal action.

For example If I started a new thread saying titled "Bomber spotting" and then said "I saw James Hird in Ivanhoe yesterday" I'd be liable.

Simply cant do it.

However if someone would like to private message me who is suspected it would be appreciated!!

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Liable for what? Is Ivanhoe such a truly horrible place that you would cause financial harm to Hirdy by suggesting that he went there?

Now, I`m stretching back a few years to my uni days, but as I understand it you need to show that damage has been done to receive anything in a civil case.

As I said before, I think we`re vastly overinflating our place in the world here at BomberTalk if we think what we say has the potential to seriously damage anyone`s reputation.

Taking legal action against BomberTalk would generate one million percent more media coverage of the issue and the player/s than a few posts on a website by Joe Public with no standing or credibility in the football world. It would be madness.

Edit: Ok I understand the Ivanhoe reference now after I found a newspaper that hadn`t pulled all details of the story. But I still think my point stands.

[Gossy7]

Well said Megan, but then again, if worst comes to worst, we've got Jimmy as our lawyer

[Rossoneri]

Shows the difference in professionalism between Hawthorn and Essendon.

We can hide our drug problem

[jimmyc1985]

I think BIJ is pretty close to the mark. Defamation isn't something that i was taught at uni so i'm only speaking off the cuff, but it's a precondition of most claims in tort that someone has suffered harm - i fail to see what harm would come about to a given player from naming a few players on an anonymous internet forum, or, if there was harm, it'd be so trivial as to be unactionable.

That said, it's probably a matter of comity more so than a fear of legal issues that render it appropriate to not mention names in my opinion. It's easy enough to find out anyway if one was interested, and as the old adage goes, better to be safe than sorry.

[j-mac31]

Defamation isn't something that i was taught at uni so i'm only speaking off the cuff, but it's a precondition of most claims in tort that someone has suffered harm - i fail to see what harm would come about to a given player from naming a few players on an anonymous internet forum, or, if there was harm, it'd be so trivial as to be unactionable.

If I remember rightly from last semester, the plaintiff must prove:
1. Defamation occurred: that is, his/her reputation has been lowered
2. The defamatory material referred to that plaintiff*
3. The material was published.

This is in line with the new act. I think saying a player is on drugs would be considered defamatory because it would damage their reputation in that clubs would be less likely to want them on their team. If you name a player, that clearly refers to them. Publishing would include on an internet forum.
The obvious problem for the un-nameable club however is tracking down someone to sue. Can someone fill me/us in on how you would even go about finding someone via a forum. Obviously it would require finding out e-mail and IP addresses somehow, which I believe is possible.
And I don't know that they could sue whoever hosts the boards. I think they probably could be sued as publishers, but probably have an exclusion clause and again, would probably be difficult to track down.

* On an slightly related topic, element 2 of defamation is where I believe Braun will fail in any action he takes against Aka. If an article doesn't expressly refer to the plaintiff, than I think the test is whether an ordinary, reasonable person would link the plaintiff with the material. I didn't read Aka's article, but surely no one could have thought "he's talking about Braun".

[j-mac31]

However if someone would like to private message me who is suspected it would be appreciated!!

Good idea. If possible, me too.