[slandered]

I play an amateur sport in Ireland at a high level, and there is a number of websites and magazines who report my clubs games.

I have spent my last six weeks out in Thailand with my wife, we spend quite a lot of time out there as my father and brother both live out there. And in a preview of game for this weekend on one of my sports leading websites, a contraversial journalist wrote that "NAME(Me) has had his annual service at the hands of the Bankok ladyboys and returns in place of NAME2".

At no point in my time in Thailand did I have any interaction with ladyboys other than my wife buying a scarf or two from one on a stall.

I have requested that the comment be removed from the website immediately and that I receive an apology from both the editor and the journalist. I am wondering if I have a case in relation to Defamation of character or Slander? Ideally I don't want to sue but this has cased considerable embarrassment for me and my family.

Also If I were to sue, what would it be for(slander/defamation of character)? And should I be suing to prove a point or for a cah amount?

Thanks and look forward to your responses.

[N0help4u]

You can sue them but no guarantee you will win. Media and rag mags can pretty much say anything they want.
You need to think about the pros and cons of if you want to make an example out of them and put them through the wringer even if you may not win.

Oh and its libel. Libel is publishing lies in print form

[stevetcg]

At least according to US law, in order to receive monies for damages, you have to be able to prove lost monies.

In order to receive punitive settelment, you have to be able to prove criminal intent.

Chances are the apology is all you will get. Your mileage may differ in Ireland.

[Fr_Chuck]

Once you start being a public figure, news writers and other publication have more freedom to write things from 2nd or 3rd sources.

Just in America look at what they write about Bush, or now Obama, most untrue but there is nothing they can really do

[excon]

Hello s:

The above stuff is right on... But, nobody said that you WOULDN'T win, and you might. So, I'd run it by a libel attorney. If you have a case, he'll probably take the case on consignment, meaning you won't pay unless you win.

Couldn't hurt to shop a little.

excon

[excon]

Since it is in print Criminal Deframation of Character maybe an issue along with libel.

Hello T:

You had me all the way to the end... No matter HOW the website defamed him or lied, if they did, it ISN'T criminal.

excon

[stevetcg]

Hello T:

You had me all the way to the end... No matter HOW the website defamed him or lied, if they did, it ISN'T criminal.

excon

Best part of the quote is "deframation". Is that what happens when a square leans and no longer has a frame?

I mentioned criminal intent in reference to many forms of fraud. TGlobe posted 5 answers that I have found, ALL of which are horribly incorrect. :)

[excon]

Hello again:

-------------------

PUNISHMENT FOR DEFAMATORY LIBEL.

301. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. [R.S. c.C-34, s.265.]

--------------

The guy is Irish. But whoda thunk them Canadians would do that?

excon

[stevetcg]

Section 301 of the Criminal Code of Canada is Criminal Deframation. Perhaps the question is not posted by a Canadian User and for that I would apologize. If it is Canadian read this section.

He specifically stated that his is from Ireland...

Devil is in the details, eh?

[N0help4u]

The thing is like Fr_Chuck said when you have some fame you are fair game.
The Star and those magazines seem to get away with it no matter what country the person is in. Very few sue and even less win. Look what they did to Princess Di, Michael Jackson,
Liz Taylor and others.

OP is from Ireland and this happened in Thailand

[JudyKayTee]

The reason Canadian have such a criminal consequence as some will do it with clear intent.

What? "The reason Canadian (do you mean Canadians?) have such a criminal consequence as some will do it -"

People all over do whatever with clear intent. I don't think Canadians "own" that thinking.

[JudyKayTee]

best part of the quote is "deframation". Is that what happens when a square leans and no longer has a frame?

I mentioned criminal intent in reference to many forms of fraud. TGlobe posted 5 answers that I have found, ALL of which are horribly incorrect. :)

Yes, if I take a picture off the wall and take it out of the frame, that is clearly de-framation. I think it's a hyphonated word, though.

(Out of greenies but this is your best yet!)

[stevetcg]

What? The reason Canadian (do you mean Canadians?) have such a criminal consequence as some will do it -"

People all over do whatever with clear intent. I don't think Canadians "own" that thinking.

That's OK... until recently I didn't know they had internet in Canada.

[JudyKayTee]

While tgoble is correct it is unlikely the court would awarded you exceptional damages. Therefore you may want to think how far you want to take this. My suggestion is let it go. However if you chose to pursue the matter you will probably need a lawyer however if you keep the amount below $10000 a paralegal can handle he file (on a small claims basis) or if you wait until the new year (below $25000).

How odd that you follow TGoble around and argue on his behalf.

In my area a Paralegal (or para-legal as Mr. Goble appears to thinK) CANNOT legally give legal advice or represent a person.

Again - I find it extremely strange that you follow TGoble around, agreeing with him.

[PL4one]

JudyKayTee I don't follow anyone around nor agree with anyone person. The fact you have now posted the reply is "slander" and "libel". I have read tgoble other answers as I have read yours and what is odd is the confrontational approach you have taken rather then simply making a passing comment.

[JudyKayTee]

JudyKayTee I don't follow anyone around nor agree with anyone person. The fact you have now posted the reply is "slander" and "libel". I have read tgoble other answers as I have read yours and what is odd is the confrontational approach you have taken rather then simply making a passing comment.

No, what's odd is that you are using the same computer Mr. Goble uses. I think you are confused about your identity and have some sort of problem which causes you to agree with yourself using another name.

In fact, I'll go a step farther. It is, indeed, sick of you to make up another (and I am aware of 2 previous) screen names so that you can agree with yourself. You need help which is definitely not available on AMHD.

[J_9]

Judy, please note that they BOTH have been banned.