Burke Wins Default Judgment Against Internet Defamers

[FireCaptain 563]

Or he'll sue you. Anonymously. Or something. They're subpoenaing people through private messages?

Good luck with that.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/20/brian-burke-wins-judgment-against-online-commenters/

[evilmrt 636]

Brian Burke is a poo poo head! Come lock me up!

[T.Low 1,011]

That's pretty serious defamation. Good for Burke to sue and win.

Thread title is totally misleading.

Edit: Thread title has been changed.

Edited September 21, 2013 by T.Low

[55fan 5,133]

Agree with T.

It's one thing for us to sit here and bash a player or GM for his hockey-related moves or even comment on a public disclosure of their personal lives.

When people are famous, gossip abounds on the net, but to state outright something that is not just a suspicion and is baseless, that's just as much libel as if it's in an article.

As far as suing, I think that depends on whether or not someone took the gossip seriously and there were bad results from it. I don't know if that happened in this case or not, so I'm not going to judge Burke, but if (just for instance) his wife had read and believed it or if the lady had lost her job over it, there would certainly be reason to sue.

I would hope that people realize that the internet is filled with people who ramble on about crap (cf me) and not put any stock into comments like these people made. Of course, if we read it on the internet, it must be true. And I'm a French model.

[55fan 5,133]

I for one dislike the litigious society that we live in today, but this is one case I'm glad that was filed.

Hey - Quels sont vos projets pour ce soir?

Je connais un merveilleux restaurant avec musique live ... Êtes-vous intéressé?

Merci pour l'offre, mais je dois travailler. Attendez une minute ... n'êtes-vous pas marié? Je suis sûr que j'ai lu que dans l'Internet.

I just noticed that this is in BC. I wonder if there are different laws there regarding libel and the internet.

[The Greek 323]

Pretty weak, he wouldn't receive such a judgment in the U.S.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Burke should try to get his name expunged from his time running the Maple Leafs.

[Wing Across The Pond 196]

That's pretty serious defamation. Good for Burke to sue and win.

Pretty true. If it was something like "Burke is the reason that [TEAM] hasn't won anything" would be weak, but saying he had an affair and a lovechild without a definitive source/proof is pretty big. It's libel and is worth a good suing!

[The Greek 323]

Pretty true. If it was something like "Burke is the reason that [TEAM] hasn't won anything" would be weak, but saying he had an affair and a lovechild without a definitive source/proof is pretty big. It's libel and is worth a good suing!

You're right. I had to look up the precedent. I knew it is difficult for public figures in the U.S. to claim libel damages. But even under that standard, it appears Burke would have a case.

[Shaman 713]

So Burke sued the whole Internet?

[Euro_Twins 4,475]

So Burke sued the whole Internet?

And won lol

[sleepwalker 512]

Looking at the story, it seems nobody named was actually found guilty of defamation. They just failed to respond in the specified amount of time, and thus a default judgement was awarded.

Also, if the people named in the case were only notified by private message on some internet forum, as the article seems to imply, and not officially, as is required by every other case, I can't imagine that even the default judgement is enforceable.

[55fan 5,133]

Looking at the story, it seems nobody named was actually found guilty of defamation. They just failed to respond in the specified amount of time, and thus a default judgement was awarded.

Also, if the people named in the case were only notified by private message on some internet forum, as the article seems to imply, and not officially, as is required by every other case, I can't imagine that even the default judgement is enforceable.

True. They could also claim that someone hacked their account or something of that nature. It would be very hard to prove. It is basically just a moral victory. I'm sure he won't get anything for it, but it does send a message.

[Resetti 44]

This is an interesting case, but I don't see how it can be enforced. People should be held accountable for the things they say, even online, but because of the electronic shield of anonymity... what can really be done in a situation like this? There's a difference between being subpoenaed at a physical address because, hey, you live there... but a private message on an Internet forum? I have accounts on websites I've not visited in ages. I couldn't make those rounds today if I wanted to.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Hazel Mae, Sportsnet on-air personality.

Edited September 23, 2013 by cusimano_brothers

[FireCaptain 563]

Actually, it would be easier than that IF the IP address was their house.

That's how they get the music sharers... tie the violation to a specific IP address.

True. They could also claim that someone hacked their account or something of that nature. It would be very hard to prove. It is basically just a moral victory. I'm sure he won't get anything for it, but it does send a message.

Edited September 23, 2013 by FireCaptain

[FireCaptain 563]

SHE should be the one suing...

"They said I effed WHO?"

"Yeah, that Brian Burke."

"Get my lawyers on the phone STAT!"

Hazel Mae, Sportsnet on-air personality.