Richard Lewis shares his derailed train of thought with the wider world in his regular column feature, Gonzorreah.

Read Richard's last column "Super Injunction 64 "HERE

This column is the sole opinion of the author and does not represent the opinion of Heaven Media Ltd or the opinion of any affiliates.

It was a court case of seemingly little consequence when it was presented before the judge. Certainly those that attended the Royal Courts of Justice in The Strand, London – still open to the public for most cases – would have been hoping for something juicier and more in keeping with their favourite soap operas. No, there were no tales of domestic abuse, no accounts of bar brawls or descriptions of thievery. Instead they were presented a simple story of a young man who liked to play computer games competitively and how one website took it upon themselves to say that he was not up to scratch in certain areas. It was as dull as ditch water and certain members of the gallery dozed off in the stuffy room as the facts of the case were presented in a dull monotone, nestling in ears like a childhood lullaby. Those that slept missed history in the making.

The Royal Courts of Justice, London

There were many details of the case that would have flown over the head of the general public, not least of all the industry that it concerned. Competitive gaming, sometimes dubbed “e-sports” or “cyber-athletics”, is a niche concern despite the growing popularity of gaming. Yet, in much the same way that the more obscure sports and hobbies have hardcore followings, so this is true of gaming. And within that world there are stars, heroes to a small and select few who admire their talent and perhaps even wish to emulate them.

Duke Breen, who competed under the alias “PitifuL”, was neither star nor abject failure. Someone who played the PC game Counter-Strike: Source to neither a truly exceptional level but was above average and had even represented his country on the odd occasion when others declined to do so. Yet whatever the “facts” about his ability, and indeed it is the debating of such clear opinions that saw the case come to court in the first instance, it was clear that Breen wanted to preserve his legacy in the eyes of whoever would be around in the future to read it.

The likely archive of that legacy would be Europe’s leading Counter-Strike: Source website, Badred.org. There an award winning team of writers chronicle both the history of the game in question as well as dealing with current affairs relevant to the enthusiast. It is much the same as any conventional sporting website in that it as a place where people can express opinions, while the staff provide both factual and opinion based writing about the game and those that play it. It’s a fairly open place for frank exchanges among people passionate about their pursuit and given the amateurish nature of the pursuit in question it’s not out of the ordinary to see those at the top come together with those at the bottom of any perceived hierarchy.

When one of the editorial team of the website decided to publish his latest feature he couldn’t have possibly known the wider reaching ramifications of such an action. A simple top ten list about who he believed to be the most overrated players of all time seemed to be exactly what the fans would want to discuss, the sort of water-cooler talk that is the norm amongst those that followed the game, and indeed any game, put into an editorial format. It’s nothing out of the ordinary… Such lists have become a staple since the turn of the century. It is often said that anything that can’t be catalogued in such a manner isn’t worth discussing in the first place, and now the cultural movement that holds nostalgia in such high regard has gone into overdrive. It can only be a matter of time before some television station broadcasts “The Top Ten List of Top Ten Lists” or something similar.

Or at least that would have been the case had this incredible legal ruling not come into play. Duke “PitifuL” Breen featured on that list and deemed it to be defamation. At first it seemed a laughable assumption given the nature of the laws surrounding such matters. After all, the best player in the world could be “overrated” – it is a term that isn’t in itself derogatory about the individual but instead speaks more about the people surrounding them, those same enthusiasts at which the article was aimed. It also has no directly quantifiable measure. How do you assess if someone is “rated” accurately based on their skills and reputation in any field? These were clear issues with the case that stood out long before the day in court came about and this is before even finer points were debated, such as the matters of “opinion” and “fair comment” being protected forms of speech in the press.

Breen, aged 23 and a former law student, wasn’t going to let it go. He felt slighted, believing the comments to have impacted on his opportunities within a field where they were limited. He argued, very publicly, that if anyone were to see the article and treat it as gospel how on Earth could he expect to be viewed in a positive light. It was a spurious argument but one he was willing to invest swathes of his own time and money into proving was the right one to make.

Ricardo Castro, moments before his court appearance

Representing the website was a clearly bemused Ricardo Castro, a one time political correspondent who had never managed to make it to court despite some truly bizarre dispatches down the years. Whether his attendance was a contributing factor to the outcome is anyone’s guess at this stage… For the most part he sat slumped, looking tired and emotional in the true tabloid sense, before only springing into life when being questioned about the intentions of the article. The arguments were animated but even had he been at his best the specialist team that Breen had assembled, from the defamation specialists of Doughty Street Chambers, picked apart every point that he made and gave it the appearance of something hollow.

Then, in a brilliant summation, they tied it to the “right to privacy” debate that had featured so prominently in the light of the Ryan Giggs saga. “If one has a right to privacy and the courts agree that potentially damaging comment that is not in the public interest can be suppressed” said Godfrey Robinson QC “is it then not logical that non-factual commentary should also be subject to such scrutiny?”

In the end the ruling went in favour of the claimant and although the impact of the decision may have initially have been wasted on him, already those few members of the local press assembled had made the connection in their simple minds and sent smoke signals out to the rest of Fleet Street. The ruling was a landmark in that now it could be invoked as a precedent for the suppression of any arguably negative opinion, that performance could no longer be criticised in any public format without potential recourse. It would change reporting forever, not just the sweeping editorials on the sports pages, but certainly sports reportage would feel the sting more acutely. Without such discourse those pages suddenly looked a lot harder to fill.

A court sketch as the judge looks at the website in question (image obtained from the Press Association archives)

An undisclosed amount of damages were awarded with Justice Judge James Pickles II adding “even though the opinions expressed can be argued as valid, their intent clearly seems to be malicious and it cannot be argued against that their existence could prove potentially harmful to the individual. It is time that we finally put a muzzle on the dogs within the press and start protecting the common man from an intrusive foe that can, at times, seem unassailable.”

On the famous steps Ricardo Castro spoke, seemingly to no-one, in mostly cryptic terms. His final line seemed oddly succinct “Of course we will appeal but if this is the way reporting is headed then it’s time for me to get out. Maybe even you too. Today’s pig is tomorrow’s bacon.”

As he left Duke Breen cut a much more positive figure. A grin on his face and the ruling in his hand he knew that he had won his most significant victory, one that outshone anything he had achieved in e-sports and made an indelible mark on the British legal system. He declined to comment after the case, stating that “the outcome speaks for itself. I was right all along.” Yet in one inappropriate physical salute to those that offended his sensibilities he raised both fists to the skies and screeched “Have some of that you wankers” before composing himself and leaving the scene.

With the landscape thus changed the next few months are expected to be not only a minefield of potential litigation but also awash with retroactive legal action based on existing offending articles. The Sun is especially fearful having only recently published an article listing the top ten worst Premiership signings of the season. Each of the named players are multi-millionaires. Affording the legal minds that made this possible should pose no threat.

For the purists though, those old fashioned enough to believe in a true right to freedom of speech, it comes as a bitter blow. These are rapidly being cut back and this latest development is not the end by any means. Rather, it is a foundation for further changes to the law to be built. For that reason it is not just the claimant but also the outcome that is pitiful.