KalosCast said:
SenseOfTumour said:
EDIT: Yes, I know it's a simplistic solution and wouldn't work, I'm just sick of the legal system being used just to sue people for an easy payout, instead of being about, you know, crime and justice and all that stuff that comes under 'legal'.
You probably shouldn't comment about the legal system in the US if you don't know anything about it. .
(do note that this is still a rather simplified and basic overview of how the US legal system works)
To be fair, I never really aimed anything at the US legal system, (tho I still criticise this particular case against EA) and in fact the UK system is currently being looked into as our libel laws are being abused on a regular basis, it being regularly abused to shut up anyone who can't afford a legal battle, if it turns out for example, a journalist has information about a rich individual or company.
From the Wall St Journal, reporting about the abuse of the libel system:
"Damage awards are often in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. Ditto lawyers' fees. The mere prospect of possible financial ruin in a process where the cards are stacked in favor of the plaintiff has chilled free speech.
"In a democracy, though, laws should encourage, not penalise, vigorous debate and investigative reporting. Instead, lawsuits are stifling the spirit of inquiry, which is at the heart of science and sound journalism...."
"British libel laws claim almost universal jurisdiction, allowing plaintiffs to sue over publications that may have only a tenuous link with Britain.
"This in turn has encouraged libel tourism - a lucrative business for British lawyers - as foreigners jet to British courts seeking protection from public scrutiny...
"The Labour government doesn't seem to think that the libel laws tarnish the reputation of the world's oldest parliamentary democracy. To the contrary, British lawmakers from all parties have often threatened and sometimes pursued legal action against newspapers to stop them from publishing reports...
"Settling scientific and political disputes through lawsuits... runs counter the very principles that have made western progress possible."
I should note that I very rarely stand on the side of journalism against anything, but the most famous case was Simon Singh, a science reporter, who was calling out US chiropractors who were claiming that its members could use spinal manipulation to treat children with colic, ear infections, asthma, sleeping and feeding conditions, and prolonged crying. This coming from the arm of chiropracty that stems from a belief that 95% of medical ailments can be rectified by spinal manipulation. Signh has no problem with those that perform it to fix spinal problems of course.
Even the UN are against the current system, because if you can vaguely prove that that a Turkish billionaire had something printed about him in a New Zealand newspaper, if the news gets subsequently reported in the UK, they can sue the NZ journo (not even the UK paper that reprinted it) in our courts, knowing they'd get nowhere in Turkey or NZ.
Now I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to sue, but it shouldn't be a first option, and under the current system, the truth isn't really relevant, it comes down to who runs out of cash first. Fortunately it's under review, and I take your point about most publicised cases being reported to sensationalise the facts, and that good, worthy cases get ignored.
I also take the points that I did come across as a bit of a Sun reading 'how do they get away with it?' sort of guy, but I don't believe there is a case here. Anyone can make a football game, just they can't use NFL names or likenesses. I'd hope that if someone else could do better, the word would get out and some people would be buying it, even without real names and team colours. Hell, if it was good enough, maybe the NFL would approach them come contract renewal time, instead of EA.
In short, Richard Dawkins covered it quite well in a piece - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/20/richard-dawkins-libel-laws , as I know I've rather gone on. I just dont want to look like one of those who believes that we can't buy bent bananas because of EU laws and all that
