BIGMARK wrote:not trying to be a trouble maker but can you give us an example of what would be consider trouble legally for the site and what wouldnt using that Calzaghe NOTW thread as an example. I just wonder as surely discussing something that has gone to press with the thread linked to the articule (with in this case the boxer admitting guilt) isnt or is it? I understand a thread saying promoter X didnt pay boxer X any money which is just internet goship being a legal issue but not something linked could be trouble but previous mentioned example not.
Good question, Mark. I've had to make myself a mini-expert in defamation law simply in order to not get bent over by certain people who want to send me threatening letters. But - and I must stress this to you - even if a post/article is not defamatory this doesn't mean that someone who has a few quid won't send you a legal letter saying it is, and saying if you don't do x we'll do y. This is because some people simply don't like bad press of any kind, even if it's merited. Despite the nature of the sport, boxing has some of the most hyper-sensitive people you could ever meet.
Fortunately, BoxRec News has access to high quality legal help if and when I need it. I should very rarely need it because I don't publish anything that isn't protected by 'fair comment'.
Re the thread you mention - just because something has appeared in a paper doesn't mean you can openly repeat it. Repeating a libel is still libel. I know that doesn't apply in this case because it's true (the drug bit) and has been admitted. However, I did cringe when I saw some posters accusing another boxer of taking drugs. Unless you can PROVE that - almost impossible I'd suggest - you're potentially in choppy water.
and there i no substitute for seeing a fighter live as records can lead you astray.
