Feeds

Judge orders football website to name 'libellous' posters

Owls boss gets the hump over strikers and hookers dig

New hybrid storage solutions

A UK judge has ordered a football fans' website to hand over details of posters who made potentially defamatory remarks about directors of Sheffield Wednesday. The move, in what's being viewed as a test case, has implications for the owners of, and posters on, other football chat websites.

Sheffield Wednesday club chairman Dave Allen, chief executive Kaven Walker and five other directors successfully sought the order against Neil Hargreaves, who runs the owlstalk.co.uk forum. They claimed Hargreaves offered a forum that allowed 11 as yet unidentified individuals to mount an anonymous and "sustained campaign of vilification" against them, the Metro reports.

Earlier this month, Allan launched a separate libel action seeking to force the BBC into identifying the names of two users of a Radio Five Live football forum, the UK Press Gazette adds.

The owlstalk case focuses on 14 postings made between July and August this year. Among other things one poster suggested the Owl's chief exec spent money on "hookers" and didn't know the difference between a rugby hooker and a football striker.

Deputy Judge Richard Parkes QC said the prostitute claims were unlikely to be taken seriously, but the suggestion that Walker was incapable of spotting a competent football player was more professionally damaging.

Judge Parkes said that some of the postings, although arguably defamatory, bordered on the trivial. The identity of posters who made remarks that were trivial or likely to be understood as jokes ought to remain under wraps.

"The postings which I regard as more serious are those which may reasonably be understood to allege greed, selfishness, untrustworthiness and dishonest behaviour on the part of the claimants," Judge Parkes said.

Disclosure orders were made by the judge regarding four postings by three users. In those cases the rights of posters to maintain their anonymity and express their feelings were outweighed by the the plaintiff's rights to protect their reputations, the judge ruled.

The judge ordered the club and directors to pay £9,000 in costs to cover Hargreaves’ reasonable costs of compliance with his order. Hargreaves sought almost £23,000. ®

Security for virtualized datacentres

More from The Register

next story
Found inside ISIS terror chap's laptop: CELINE DION tunes
REPORT: Stash of terrorist material found in Syria Dell box
Show us your Five-Eyes SECRETS says Privacy International
Refusal to disclose GCHQ canteen menus and prices triggers Euro Human Rights Court action
Heavy VPN users are probably pirates, says BBC
And ISPs should nab 'em on our behalf
Radio hams can encrypt, in emergencies, says Ofcom
Consultation promises new spectrum and hints at relaxed licence conditions
Former Bitcoin Foundation chair pleads guilty to money-laundering charge
Charlie Shrem plea deal could still get him five YEARS in chokey
NORKS ban Wi-Fi and satellite internet at embassies
Crackdown on tardy diplomatic sysadmins providing accidental unfiltered internet access
'Serious flaws in the Vertigan report' says broadband boffin
Report 'fails reality test' , is 'simply wrong' and offers ''convenient' justification for FTTN says Rod Tucker
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile
Data demand and the rise of virtualization is challenging IT teams to deliver storage performance, scalability and capacity that can keep up, while maximizing efficiency.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops
Balancing user privacy and privileged access, in accordance with compliance frameworks and legislation. Evaluating any potential remote control choice.