Chamaco Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 After reading Alan Truscotts book I have my doubt about the integrity of the famous Italian Blue team. That's what I feared. It's not the first time some high level US player suggested that, and I find it very sad. Of course you might want to read the italian version of the facts, including episodes where it was the italians who claimed to be victims of unethical behaviours during the matches vs USA. Unfortunately I do not think that Perroux's book about the blue team (which mention such episodes) is available in english. I hoped that we were all old enough to know that it would be nice to hear both sides of the versions, but unfortunately, it seems that the version popularized by a fw high level US players ad writers should be considered the most objective, and that we should credit their versions as more reliable that the one of their opps. Personally, I think that anyone that suggests the italian Blue Team cheated, either owes a big apology, or should include the reply of the counterpart, otherwise it is just another case of propaganda via the easier access to publishing/broadcasting medias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 Any lawyers around to explain whether this might be libel or slander? I am not a lawyer, but libel is making unsubstantiated comments in print, while slander is making them verbally... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 Any lawyers around to explain whether this might be libel or slander? I am not a lawyer, but libel is making unsubstantiated comments in print, while slander is making them verbally...I am a lawyer, who does defamation litigation, amongst other matters :P . You are close: but with the advent of radio, television and the internet, it is probably more accurate to say that libel is anything that is published or broadcast: slander would be purely verbal, spoken in a context in which only those physically present could hear. A radio interview, as an example, can give rise to an action in libel. The distinction continues to have significant meaning in Commonwealth countries (I do not know if this is true in all such countries, and I do know that US laws are somewhat different). Anyway, I agree with those who deplore one-sided versions of events. One of the problems with defamation is that it is human nature to want to believe bad things about successful people... about people generally in fact. Hence the popularity of gossip. I do not claim immunity from that inclination :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.