陳文敏批紀誹謗保留法律追究權利

simontonysoup

陳文敏批紀誹謗保留法律追究權利 2015/10/30 18:12
在港大校委會已經報警，重案組正在跟進下，再有懷疑校委會會議錄音流出，今次是紀文鳳的發言，她指陳文敏威嚇校委會成員。紀文鳳發聲明，稱感到非常震驚，又指道德淪亡、令人痛心。

港大法律學院前院長陳文敏回應指，公道自在人心，重申他獲推薦的決定是由《文匯報》率先披露。他說紀文鳯妄顧事實，將報章或他人的評論，歸究為他對校委會的「脅逼、恐嚇、偽造，甚至威嚇校委會成員」，不但毫無事實根據，亦屬對他個人的誹謗。他對這種不負責任，在背後暗箭傷人的誹謗行為，極度遺憾和不齒，亦保留法律追究的權利。
好奇怪，這些發言並非公開，只是閉門會議中委員對招聘者作出個人意見，是讚是彈，都不會外傳，對當事人有何影響？點可以話人誹謗你？
如果咁都得，咁我尋晚打完波在更衣室同班波友一齊D7某君，俾人偷錄放上網，某君又可告我地誹謗？

梁非凡

咁都可以告誹謗 仲話系前法律系院長……

roadmanz

證實佢D法律知識

HKOXSEX

好似D粵語片律師,乜都話告人

begoniah

回復 simontonysoup #1 的帖子

陳未來副校首先要證明該言論是公開發表而對未來副校聲譽做成傷害才可能成案，但該會議是閉門，參與者也簽了保密協議相信除了正義會長應該找𣎴到其他證人，告上庭的話要看大老爺怎樣開案了，未來副校會申請法援嗎?

PKIP11

I am NOT a supporter of Chan and NOT a pro-democratic.  To be fair, I would however like to point out that to constitute defamation under common law, the communication does not have to be made to the public, so long as if it is false and made to someone other than the person defamed.  In this particular case, persons other than Chan were present when Ki made that statement.  Chan is therefore not so legally ignorant as some might have thought, even though the result of such a litigation would be hard to predict under such circumstances.   

simontonysoup

PKIP11 發表於 2015-10-31 08:26
I am NOT a supporter of Chan and NOT a pro-democratic.  To be fair, I would however like to point ou ...

This is exactly why confidentiality is important in this case. It meant to protect persons making statements against others. If somebody broke confidentiality resulting in a council member being sued, no body would make any negative remarks to others in the future. That's not the way I see justice.

simontonysoup

begoniah 發表於 2015-10-31 07:55
回復 simontonysoup #1 的帖子

陳未來副校首先要證明該言論是公開發表而對未來副校聲譽做成傷害才可能成案 ...

舉証當然有難度，陳前院長不會不知，
不知他有心還是無意，
寒蟬效應就是出現了。

四台國際CEO

simontonysoup 發表於 2015-10-31 00:07
陳文敏批紀誹謗保留法律追究權利 2015/10/30 18:12
在港大校委會已經報警，重案組正在跟進下，再有懷疑校委 ...

呢漢奸狗賊又扮可憐博上報呀

PKIP11

simontonysoup 發表於 2015-10-31 08:48
This is exactly why confidentiality is important in this case. It meant to protect persons making  ...

No one can be sued for making negative statements against others if such statements are made in good faith with reasonable belief that they are true, or represent merely an expression of opinion rather than a statement of facts.  

goldzurich

不負責任，表証成立

simontonysoup

PKIP11 發表於 2015-10-31 10:28
No one can be sued for making negative statements against others if such statements are made in go ...

Agree. Then chan's response is inappropriate for a teacher of law.

PKIP11

simontonysoup 發表於 2015-10-31 10:48
Agree. Then chan's response is inappropriate for a teacher of law.

I do not know Chan personally and have no idea if Ki's statements are all facts.  I would therefore refrain from making any judgment like you did.

谷村富郎

死啦！
今早老婆同我講:
我昨夜發開口夢話好中意某女電視演員阿X,仲話想同佢上床x佢一Q,俾老婆錄咗音,唔知佢會唔告我想搞婚外情呢？
如果段錄音俾老婆擺咗上網,果位女演员又唔知會唔會告我意圖強姦呢喂？
今回真係麻九煩啦！

simontonysoup

谷村富郎 發表於 2015-10-31 15:27
死啦！
今早老婆同我講:
我昨夜發開口夢話好中意某女電視演員阿X,仲話想同佢上床x佢一Q,俾老婆錄咗音,唔知 ...

小弟門外漢，但聽過非法手段得來嘅嘢，法庭不會接受作為證供，
呢樣陳文敏一定心知肚明。
而所謂「保留法律追究權利」是靠嚇居多，
這是否引証了紀文鳯的「恐嚇，威嚇」論並非無稽之談？

usthk

律師那有那麼笨，敗訴了自己唔駛比律師費都要比堂費！？

superbcech

上面的是否看到我看不到的字句?
我只看到保留法律追究的權利
而你們竟然看到姓陳的去告他人,真是佩服

superbcech

梁非凡 發表於 2015-10-31 01:33
咁都可以告誹謗 仲話系前法律系院長……

上面的是否看到我看不到的字句?
我只看到保留法律追究的權利
而你們竟然看到姓陳的去告他人,真是佩服

usthk

回復 Alantang1 #20 的帖子

Alan兄，此君就是斷章取義！不看前文，不解下理。

superbcech

Alantang1 發表於 2015-11-1 18:02
你无错，他是话保留法律追究的权利，但他讲这句都多余，因为根本他想告都无任何依据告，告乜？

你同我都唔係法律專家
但人家是，你又知人地沒有聲譽受損等之類？
保留唔等於要告