Youth Defence write the Observer

Spectator#1

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Spectator you can argue all day that this is a serious issue, but to compare it to the hollocaust - goodwins law

1. I preceded my drawing a parallel with WWII Germany by saying 'excuse the extreme example'.

Further, the point still stands. To excuse such a blatant disregard for the rights of three separate parties: the Observer, Ivana Bacik, and MRBI to protection by the law of this country on the basis that the authors of the fake Observer were 'only having a laugh' or being 'satirical' is disingenuous. They broke the law and they should be reprimanded for it now.

The analogy with Germany is still relevant. To excuse the organisation on the basis of an excuse that has only been supposed by people on this forum: that the publication was printed in the spirit of a jest, one which I would deem untrue anyway judging by past experience, is to invite other, worse crimes in the same vein.

As well as this, by invoking the German example along with many others I was responding to the rather fallacious attempt at a maxim as delivered by Ferdi, who claims that in most cases if you ignore issues, they go away. This, I am sure most people will agree, is untrue as a general rule. If Ferdi expects our legal system to ignore such disregard for the laws as demonstrated by that publication in the hopes that it will go away itself I feel that my analogy still stands and any recourse to some 'law' invented to prevent it has been overrided.

Blowfish

Spectator#1 wrote:

As well as this, by invoking the German example along with many others I was responding to the rather fallacious attempt at a maxim as delivered by Ferdi, who claims that in most cases if you ignore issues, they go away. This, I am sure most people will agree, is untrue as a general rule. If Ferdi expects our legal system to ignore such disregard for the laws as demonstrated by that publication in the hopes that it will go away itself I feel that my analogy still stands and any recourse to some 'law' invented to prevent it has been overrided.

I actually agree with Ferdi, he obviously didn't mean that if you ignore all issues they will go away, but in this case I feel it would.

YD are simply attention whores, if they get sued, it'll just bring even more attention to what they did, and make whomever sues them look worse by it being percieved that they can't take a joke, no matter how crap the 'joke' actually was.

FionnMatthew

ferdi wrote:

ignore something long enough and it will often go away

Like exams?

ferdi wrote:

my towering intellect is obviously too much for you to bear.

Ever play Jenga?

ferdi wrote:

FionnMatthew wrote:

It's not satire. It's misquotation, and unlawful impersonation of college publication.

quite simply, get over it.

No.
So you accept it's not satire then?

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Let ppl talk publically, and challenge them publically.

Freedom of speech also entails the freedom not to be quoted as having said something you didn't. You should be free not to be made say things in the media. Putting words in someone's mouth is an infringement of freedom of speech.

For instance:

ferdi wrote:

I'm so lonely I could thrash one off right about now.

panda100

humbert wrote:

they gave out a few silly copies of a paper, I don't understand why it would offend anyone or why would care at all, unless perhaps if it became a regular occurrence which is unlikely. .

Id agree with humbert. I didnt even see the paper,no one I know on campus saw it, so taking legal action would just publicise it even more which is exactly what youth defence wants. Unless they publish something like this again but till then let sleeping dogs lie....

Interesting

THe actions of who i think we all presume are YD are totally illegal/against all disciplinary codes of the college depending on if they are students or not on the following grounds:

1. Trespassing on private property (if they are not students, which presumably they are not).

2. If they are students - under the code of conduct for students there actions amount to harrassment, and can thus be sanctioned or expelled from UCD immediately.

3. UCD are legally obliged to ensure that its staff are not subjected to offensive material, regardless of what the student opinion on it is, if any of the staff object to the material being distributed, the college are legally obliged to have all of that material conviscated and removed from the campus.

4. I'm not sure of the legality of the impersonation of the observer or mrbi but i'm sure that both are probably covered in some way by copyright and therefore that has clearly been breached.

I personally found the mateiral very offensive, regardless of any position on abortion that i hold, that material did not further the pro-life argument in any way and served no purpose other than to offend people.

The_Minister

In the linked picture I
1)misrepresent someone else's views
2)make someone else look like a muppet
3)give no written indication that the picture is satire, relying instead on the intelligence of the viewer to determine that.
satire!

Will I be sued? No.
Should I be? No

hullaballoo

Apologies to FionnMatthew who was unfairly banned because I misread his post.

Stabshauptmann

I meant, let ferdi talk, dont ban him because you think hes talking rubbish.

Het-Field

Interesting wrote:

THe actions of who i think we all presume are YD are totally illegal/against all disciplinary codes of the college depending on if they are students or not on the following grounds:

1. Trespassing on private property (if they are not students, which presumably they are not).

2. If they are students - under the code of conduct for students there actions amount to harrassment, and can thus be sanctioned or expelled from UCD immediately.

3. UCD are legally obliged to ensure that its staff are not subjected to offensive material, regardless of what the student opinion on it is, if any of the staff object to the material being distributed, the college are legally obliged to have all of that material conviscated and removed from the campus.

4. I'm not sure of the legality of the impersonation of the observer or mrbi but i'm sure that both are probably covered in some way by copyright and therefore that has clearly been breached.

I personally found the mateiral very offensive, regardless of any position on abortion that i hold, that material did not further the pro-life argument in any way and served no purpose other than to offend people.

Hence its time to let YD slither back into the mouldy corner where they tend to reside and let the more rational people get on with the debate about abortion.

griffdaddy

I thought it was fúcking hilarious to be honest with you, not funny the way it was meant to be, but funny because it was so shít that it was almost as if they were taking the píss outta themselves. The whole thing just makes them look like oddballs with a nerdy 12 year old's sense of humour. I have a copy here that i'll scan up if anyone wants to see it. Also Ivana Bacik will not be taking legal action, or so i heard yesterday anyway. She said she doesnt think there's much point engaging with them legally, and that she wasnt really bothered getting involved. Not sure about the observer or MRBI

FionnMatthew

The_Minister wrote:

In the linked picture I
1)misrepresent someone else's views
2)make someone else look like a muppet
3)give no written indication that the picture is satire, relying instead on the intelligence of the viewer to determine that.
satire!

Oh goodness. What you've done in that picture, it's not satire. It's just not satire.

Wikipedia wrote:

Satire is a technique of writing or art which exposes the follies of its subject (for example, individuals, institutions, organizations, or states) to ridicule, often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. The humor of satire tends to be subtle, using irony and deadpan humor liberally.

Satire is clever. Yes Prime Minister is political satire, but stuff like Harry Enfield's political sketches - that's not satire - it's caricature.

If you'd made the campaigners in the photo say something not quite out-of-character that made their position seem silly or absurd, that would have been satire. All you've done is make them say the complete opposite of what they actually did say. There's nothing clever about that. It's not satire. It's just a maladroit, childish prank.

And the same goes for the YD thing. Not satire. They made the Observer say "We are dorks!" There's nothing subtle about that. It doesn't expose the Observer's follies. It just makes them call themselves names and abandon their principles. You might find it funny, but it's not satirical comedy. You might, if you wanted to be kind, call it parody, or lampoon.

But anyone who says it's satire is just being publicly ignorant. It's a ham-fisted, illiterate defence of a crude practical joke.

The_Minister wrote:

Will I be sued? No.
Should I be? No

Of course not. I don't allow that what you've done is satire, but neither do I think what you've done is equivalent to what YD did. It's a trivial example.

Say I were to write a fictional interview with you, using your real name, and names of the organisations to which you are affiliated, and attributing to you the view that it should be ok to have sex with minors or something like that. Say I printed that "interview" in the Irish Times, and portrayed you as the leader of a ring of political activists campaigning for the recognition of pederasty as a legitimate sexuality.

I envision that such a stunt would stand a chance of damaging your public standing, your reputation, your job prospects, your credibility. It would be, in a word, slanderous.

In such a case, would you sue me? I think you probably would.
In such a case, should you sue me? I think so.

I think that's a more comparable type of situation to the YD thing than your little "satirical" picture.

FionnMatthew

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I meant, let ferdi talk, dont ban him because you think hes talking rubbish.

I know you meant that. But that very maxim that provides that he should be allowed to speak also obliges us to be outraged when someone is forced to speak without their consent, or is quoted as having said something that they didn't, or is impersonated in print.

And, ironically, that's exactly what he's disagreeing with.

Red Alert

Funny how the pro-choice lobby always make themselves look as idiotic as the YD when it comes to getting incensed.

Other risque publications like the Slate have come and gone, enough said.

FionnMatthew

Red Alert wrote:

Funny how the pro-choice lobby always make themselves look as idiotic as the YD when it comes to getting incensed.

Other risque publications like the Slate have come and gone, enough said.

I'm not sure, but you seem to me to be labouring under the presumption that I'm pro-choice. This entire argument ignores the question which side of the abortion debate (if any) you or I come down on. It's an argument about whether YD's actions are commendable, equivocal or despicable.

You've committed the Appeal to Common Practise fallacy. Doesn't change a thing about the fake Observer. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that somebody else is doing it doesn't mean it's ok. We're discussing the YD stunt, not some other stunt. It's still a questionable action.

I've never been directly confronted by any pro-choice stunts like that, but I'm willing to believe that there are silly radicals everywhere. Anyone who pulls stunts like that deserves this kind of criticism. But, again, we're discussing the YD stunt, not some other stunt. It's still a questionable action.

The Slate, as I remember it, was more frequently actually satirical. It generally had a whole world's worth more subtlety than the YD stunt (although it didn't always hit the mark). I also remember that the Slate wasn't particularly loyal to any viewpoint, and everyone was fair game, as long as they were behaving in a way that was easy to satirise.

Sarah Golgan

Haaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For all you losers who don't find this funny you have to admit that the bullin reaction from all of you is priceless!!!

HA!

Me and my friends all got copies the other morning and thought it was hilarious.

Good on YD for stickin it to the observer SUCKAS!

boneless

Ah, yes. It was really funny:rolleyes: ... I wonder how funny it will be in court though?

Sarah Golgan

See what I mean boneless? I'm still laughing at your nerdy post.

Would ye get a life and stop ****ing on about courts and legal action.

It was a good gag and you're all dying to admit it

HA!

boneless

Yes dear, it was brilliant... :rolleyes: Now go back on the medicine.

hullaballoo

Sarah Golgan wrote:

blah blah blah

Soooo picked the wrong forum to start that shit.

arbeitsscheuer

boneless wrote:

Ah, yes. It was really funny:rolleyes: ... I wonder how funny it will be in court though?

lol, nicely put.

I'm too lazy to type my own opinion up here (I've spoken about this enuff during the week since we discovered the thing at the beginning of the week), but I'll just say that I agree wit pretty much everythin FionnMatthew has said.

1. It's not satire.
2. It's actually libellous. There are at least 3 parties depicted in the document that have grounds for a defamation of character lawsuit; Observer, L&H and Ivana Bacik.
3. It's not even well-written, FFS.
4. Yeah, they should be f*cking sued.

Chances are they won't be tho, cos there is no actual hard evidence to prove that Youth Defence made the thing.

I really can't believe some of the people on here trying to defend it. That's just... baffling.

FionnMatthew

Sarah Golgan wrote:

Haaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For all you losers who don't find this funny you have to admit that the bullin reaction from all of you is priceless!!!

HA!

Me and my friends all got copies the other morning and thought it was hilarious.

Good on YD for stickin it to the observer SUCKAS!

You found it funny.

But I would have expected that an organisation claiming to campaign for the rights of aborted children would have treated such a weighty issue with the gravity it deserves.

I didn't find it funny, but to pose a question, should you find their pamphlets funny at all? Should they be funny? Is that an appropriate way to defend the rights of unborn children, if YD seriously believes unborn children should have rights?

cast_iron

Chakar wrote:

How about the misrepresentation of the figures of people who oppose abortion and the use of a reputable polling agency such as MRBI?.

I my opinion, polls are more biased by the way they phrase the question - NOTHING else. The opinion poll on Fianna Fail (a couple of weeks back) illustrates this to perfection.

MRBI or whoever, they may be entirely 'accurate' in their results - but the when the structure is wrong from the start, the entire process must be called into question.

Chakar wrote:

How about the insulting references to Ivana Bacik a respectable lawyer, Reid Professor of Law in TCD and a aspiring politician?

If people here dont' know that Ivana is a bit more than a laywer, a TCD lecturer and an aspiring politician (which, incidentally, - if you think about it- completely disproves your point), then they should be reading "After Hours" or something similar.

Chakar wrote:

You're right that the leaflet is a piss take but you're wrong that it had no effect on people.

Having not read it, any opinion I give on the content would be meaningless.

Het-Field

arbeitsscheuer wrote:

lol, nicely put.

I'm too lazy to type my own opinion up here (I've spoken about this enuff during the week since we discovered the thing at the beginning of the week), but I'll just say that I agree wit pretty much everythin FionnMatthew has said.

1. It's not satire.
2. It's actually libellous. There are at least 3 parties depicted in the document that have grounds for a defamation of character lawsuit; Observer, L&H and Ivana Bacik.
3. It's not even well-written, FFS.
4. Yeah, they should be f*cking sued.

Chances are they won't be tho, cos there is no actual hard evidence to prove that Youth Defence made the thing.

I really can't believe some of the people on here trying to defend it. That's just... baffling.

Much as I would like to se the ass sued of YD, it doesnt defame any character and any action on the part of the Union, The Observer or Ivana Bacik would prove futile. The integrity of the three parties has not been interfered with at all. All Bacik need say is that its bull**** and that the paper does not represent her view at all. The Obsever has also no grounds, all that can be done is an injunction against further publication of the leafelet

-if the paper had said that Bacik kills babies or performs abortions herself (which would of course be totaly untrue), she would have ground to
sue, but by claiming that she has renounced her view on abortion she has not been defamed.

hullaballoo

Where did you get your information, Het-Field? It strikes me that it's slightly disingenuous.

The_Minister

hullaballoo wrote:

Where did you get your information, Het-Field? It strikes me that it's slightly disingenuous.

I think he's right. Think of all those people who call Michael McDowell a nazi, even though he isn't? You can misrepresent someone's views, I believe.

hullaballoo

What you believe isn't at issue though. What's at issue is the legal accuracy of Het-field's post. I would disagree with what he said in terms of libel laws.

Sarchasm

The_Minister wrote:

Those plucky fellows, youth defence, appear have published their own observer, in which they strike back at the real Observer by apologising to themselves (read it and it makes sense). Anyone else laugh their hole off at this?

I thought it was great, kind of strange though as the dweebs in the L+H who said they were harassed/ threathened dont seem to be the types that would lie.
still very funny, wish I had kept a copy

Blush_01

I'll give you my copy on wednesday or thursday if you're around, might not have the time to get it before tomorrow night.

To be honest, it was kind of sad. It lacked the cutting intelligence that would have made it actually funny.

Red Alert

i think i have a copy of this thing too if anybody wants to read it.

sceptre

Spectator#1 wrote:

The Observer could take action for something along the lines of false impersonation, slander and libel, Ivana Bacik for libel and MRBI for libel, as far as I know.

Passing-off rather than false impersonation for the first I'd imagine.

In the old days Youth Defence used to just turn up at debates in dark clothes and act menacing although the one time I was present when they did that I chuckled for ages after. Nice to see they've learned how to type or someone who can do it for them.