Posts Tagged ‘sports’

UK Bans Warns of Criminal Charges for Using Social Media to Discuss 25-Year-Old Soccer Tragedy

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014
Persons scramble away from the human crush in the stadium

From television coverage of the game in 1989.

In the United Kingdom, there is a new example of that country’s sometimes surprising limitations on free speech.

The UK Attorney General is warning people that they might be held in criminal contempt for using social media to discuss the 1989 Hillsborough soccer tragedy. That disaster resulted in 96 deaths when people were crushed in an overcrowded stadium to watch a match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest.

The notice reads:

Editors, publishers and social media users should note that the inquest proceedings are currently active for the purpose of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

The Attorney General wishes to draw attention to the risk of publishing material, including online, which could create a substantial risk that the course of justice in the inquests may be seriously impeded or prejudiced, particularly as this inquest involves a jury.

This risk could arise by commentary which may prejudge issues that witnesses may give evidence about, or matters that the jury will need to consider in reaching their verdict. The inquests could also be prejudiced by publishing details of material (whatever its source) which may not form part of the evidence at the inquest.

The Attorney General’s Office will be monitoring the coverage of these proceedings.

This spring marks the 25th anniversary of the disaster, so naturally people want to talk about it. But just at this moment, the British government squelched discussion with heavy-handed criminal laws. That seems extremely regrettable to me.

An ESPN documentary on the tragedy is currently banned from being distributed in the UK. The director told Sports Illustrated:

Because the new inquest has started just two weeks ago, it can’t be shown in the UK until the jury delivers its verdict. Which is a year from now. I really want it to be shown now. You want it to have the impact now, but you can’t. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, the conversation a year from now will be a different one than could be had now. So it’s not just delaying speech, it is destroying speech.

Previously I’ve discussed how in the UK using social media can quite easily subject someone to possible jail time or draconian civil liability.

And here’s another example of the UK banning speech related to soccer:

Pippen’s Self-Affirmation Lawsuit is Over

Wednesday, October 10th, 2012

(Photo from Scottie Pippen's Facebook page. Used without permission.)

A federal court in Illinois has dismissed a defamation case brought by Scottie Pippen against various websites for saying he was broke. The reason Pippen lost is because he failed to allege the actual malice hurdle required by the First Amendment for defamation cases brought by public figures.

This looks less like a win for the defendants and more like a withdrawal by Pippen. I’m not sure why Pippen couldn’t have kept going with this lawsuit – at least for a little while – by amending his complaint.

My guess is that Pippen probably had a lousy case he wasn’t going to win. So that begs the question, why did he file in the first place? Well, I think this is probably a typical celebrity-blowing-off-steam lawsuit. Throwing the lawyers around makes the celeb feel good and provides a way to try to blunt bad press with the news that the celeb is going to court. But, in this pattern, the case doesn’t go anywhere. The celeb  just gives up after a little while. It’s kind of an obnoxious use of the judicial system.

Ready to roll your eyes? Here’s the first paragraph of Pippen’s complaint:

It is a most foul libel indeed to be falsely accused of being bankrupt.

Oh, for crying out loud. Then look at the next paragraph:

That is what happened to Scottie, and the malicious libel was disseminated across the nation by the media.

Ooooh. I love the arm-over-shoulder cooing of his first name.

Then comes the third paragraph. It’s over 900 words and reads like a Wikipedia entry about Pippen that was written by his publicist. It starts by saying where he was born and then goes through his whole career, bestowing one accolade on the Pippen after another.

Then, at the end of the complaint, there is a prayer for relief asking for $1 million from each defendant.

Sometimes a complaint isn’t written for the court so much as it’s written for the media – what is sometimes called a “press release complaint.” Those are bad enough. But Pippen’s complaint appears to be the kind that is actually written for the client. Ugh. It’s lawyer-mediated self-affirmation. And it’s a colossal waste of time. Courts ought to feel more comfortable sanctioning this kind of thing.

At any rate, Pippen proved one thing in countering rumors of his insolvency: He at least has enough money that he can waste bags of it on a pointless lawsuit.

From a legal angle, the lawsuit is well-summed-up in the court’s minute order:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: In its order of 8/02/2012, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, but allowed him to seek leave to file a complaint that made allegations that were legally sufficient under constitutional and defamation principles. The complaint that plaintiff now seeks leave to file alleges with more detail the recklessness of defendants’ publications regarding his financial status. However, as the court has observed, the malice required to establish liability for defamation of a public figure such as famed and well-respected athlete Scottie Pippen is greater than the mere failure to investigate, no matter how allegedly egregious that failure may be. The court concludes that plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint cannot be considered a sufficient allegation of defamation against a public figure. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file that amended complaint is accordingly denied, and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Civil case terminated.

Some case documents for your reference:

  • Minute Order of September 26, 2012 dismissing lawsuit [pdf]
  • ORDER of August 2, 2012 granting motion to dismiss [pdf]
  • ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS’ INDEPENDENT MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT[pdf]>
  • COMPLAINT [pdf]

UK Soccer Star Ryan Giggs Sues Twitter and Tweeters Over Super-Injunction

Monday, May 23rd, 2011
Ryan Griggs, soccer player, standing on field

UK soccer star and super-injunction taker-outer, Ryan Griggs (Photo: Allison Pasciuto, CC-BY 2.0)

A soccer player who is famous in the United Kingdom, Ryan Giggs, apparently obtained a “super-injunction” to force the press to not reveal his name in connection with ongoing litigation involving an extra-marital affair he allegedly had with UK reality-television star Imogen Thomas. He has now apparently sued Twitter and Twitter users for revealing his identity.

The so-called super-injunction is one that not only gags the press and others with regard to the sensitive subject matter (such as allegations of an extra-marital affair), but also prohibits the press from even reporting about the injunction itself, thus shielding the identity of the person who took out the super-injunciton.

As your author of Blog Law Blog, based in the United States, I am confident that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects my ability to identify the person. And regardless, free-speech sufficient to discuss the use and potential over-use of judicial power ought to be considered a universal human right.

I actually looked through several news stories looking for the athlete’s name. All the sites I read, all of which were UK-based, were very cheeky, refusing to name Griggs, but dropping lots of hints, implying that the reader must then know who it was.

I’m sorry, but for me, on this side of the pond, if it’s not David Beckham, then I’m not going to know who it is unless you give me a name.

I eventually was able to get Griggs’s name through Google’s auto-complete feature, by typing in “superinjunction footballer …”

And now Griggs is suing Twitter, which was apparently where his identity broke.

Good luck with that, buddy. You’ll need it.

Twitter, based in San Francisco, U.S.A., has not only the First Amendment protecting it, but also the super-safe-harbor of section 230.

And now, here’s my commentary on the law: The super-injunction is a rank abuse of judicial power. It’s especially disappointing, to me, since the United Kingdom is one of the few countries on Earth that places the sort of premium on free speech that the United States does.

Imogen Thomas, Griggs’s ex-squeeze, who has been accused of blackmail in this whole thing, had this to say in the UK’s Daily Mail, which I think shows quite nicely what is wrong with the super-injunction as a legal institution:

“Yet again my name and my reputation are being trashed while the man I had a relationship with is able to hide.

“What’s more, I can’t even defend myself because I have been gagged. Where’s the fairness in that? What about my reputation?

“If this is the way privacy injunctions are supposed to work then there’s something seriously wrong with the law.”

Social Media Restrictions on Athletes at Public Universities

Tuesday, November 16th, 2010

Eric P. Robinson at Citizen Media Law Project writes about Twitter bans on football players at public universities and the First Amendment.

Podcast on Bloggers’ Use of Mainstream News

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

A podcast from the Legal Talk Network tackles the issue of bloggers’ legal and ethical obligations regarding use of material from mainstream news sites. In the piece, lawyers Robert J. Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams interview Alan Schwarz, sports reporter for the The New York Times. Schwarz is critical of bloggers who go too far in using copyrighted content. Schwarz says:

When you create your own work, you have rights to its dissemination. You know, this whole information, you know, “wants to be free” business is a bunch of hooey. It’s preposterous. And an entire generation of Americans has grown up with no respect for copyright law.

For the purpose of policing his own material, Schwarz has a Google alert set to notify him when a blog uses his name. I would assume many reporters do the same. (Hi, Mr. Schwarz!)

Note: This post was revised July 9, 2010, as explained here.

NBA Fines Player $35K for Blogging Gripe on Foul Calls

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

Orlando Magic center and two-time NBA defensive player of the year Dwight Howard has been fined $35,000 by the league for posting a gripe about what Howard sees as the unwarranted attentions of officials. Howard blogged:

I’m not looking to say anything to get myself in trouble with the league, but I just don’t see other star players getting called for fouls the way I get them. No star player in the league is outta games the way I am.

More: WESH Orlando; Yahoo! Sports; Miami Herald