Fair Comment?

Villain

I'm sure most people have heard about the Court case between Ciarnan Convery and the Irish News in relation to a resturant review that was published in the paper in August 2000. Basically Ciarnan Convery, the owner, sued the newspaper for libel over a highly critical review of his restaurant, and a jury found in his favour and he was awarded £25,000.

Now an appeal of that decision found that the jury had been misdirected on whether the opinions expressed in the review were justified and therefore defensible as fair comment. The Judge added that while he thought a properly directed jury would have found in favour of the 'Irish News' he could not be certain.

So what has this to do with Boards you might ask, well there has been a lot of discussion on various radio shows and some legal experts have clarified what the defence of Fair Comment means, btw this defence is the same in Irish Law as it is up North.

Fair comment is a defence which relates to matters of public interest, fair comment allows where someone honestly holds an opinion on a matter of public interest cannot be found to have libelled the people which that opinion relates to.

So on boards if a topic is of public interest and someone states an opinion and that they honestly hold that opinion it should be allowed.

Why is this not always the case?

Sherifu

Irish libel law sucks.

Overheal

"I believe that all black people are dirty ****** refugees and should be outlawed from our land."



This is a fair comment

Hennessy

Overheal wrote: »

"I believe that all black people are dirty ****** refugees and should be outlawed from our land."



This is a fair comment

Depends really.

Krieg

In my opinion...

I believe this term allows you to say anything and still make it a 'fair comment'

Overheal

I believe asbad is a transexual homophobe and should be sitebanned on principle.

I also believe I have evidence to prove this but I also believe I cant show it because I believe I left it in the car.

Sangre

Overheal wrote: »

"I believe that all black people are dirty ****** refugees and should be outlawed from our land."



This is a fair comment

How is it in the public interest?

More like 'Bertie Ahern our taoiseach touches little boys, i have proof'

Overheal

Sangre wrote: »

How is it in the public interest?

More like 'Bertie Ahern our taoiseach touches little boys, i have proof'

'
refugees and imported labor forces.

Krieg

Overheal wrote: »

I believe asbad is a transexual homophobe and should be sitebanned on principle.

I also believe I have evidence to prove this but I also believe I cant show it because I believe I left it in the car.

[Users comment has been removed]

Sangre

Overheal wrote: »

'
refugees and imported labor forces.

yes but why does the public need to hear your opinion on it?

it should be in the public interest to hear the comment, its not enough that the comment is on a general area that is the public interest.

Esel

"Your lordship [seeing as how we're up North], would it be acceptable to the plaintiff if my client published a retraction stating that the food in this establishment is esquelent in all respects?"

IBL, tbh.

Overheal

Sangre wrote: »

yes but why does the public need to hear your opinion on it?

it should be in the public interest to hear the comment, its not enough that the comment is on a general area that is the public interest.

Well if I were a columnist in the Irish Times and I were type some drivel a few years back about how the Romanians were going to take over our jobs and how we should show them all the could shoulder.... what, this is fair comment so long as I state it as my opinion? It is of public interest if I made some lewd claims about them being criminals (a few of which always crop up here and there) but cmon Im trying to get around to the point that it should be wrong..

Then again I am reading this 'Ringworld' book where apparently instant teleport is installed across Earth - within 300 years the cultural melting pot is history and everyone's a bit of everything and we all speak the same language... to be honest, the thought is mildly chilling, because I enjoy the insight of other culture. Maybe we should tell them to pack up and fuk off [not srsly]

But now Im getting totally off the point. I tend to rant more as I get more tired. Holy crap its almost time for the server backup :eek: nighty night folks..

The Sweeper

I'm pretty sure 'fair comment' isn't just defined as you truly and honestly holding an opinion on something.

I'd describe it more as you truly and honestly holding an opinion that could in itself be held up to be true and honest because it has a basis in fact.

'The chicken was horrible.' - not fair comment.

'The chicken was horrible, because it was raw in the centre and burnt on the outside.' - fair comment, because let's be honest, that's pretty horrible chicken.

'The chicken in that restaurant is always horrible.' - not fair comment, because you can't make a sweeping generalisation referring to 'always' based on a single experience you had, even if your experience would support a one-off assertion that the chicken was horrible.

amp

mmmmm chicken

stevenmu

As far as I'm aware, by and large people have always been allowed make fair comments here. There are some exceptions which shall not be mentioned here, but for the most part there is a huge number of posts across the site complaining about products or services, or people discussing the merits and demerits of them.

The admins take a constant risk that one of us eejits will say something that lands them in court, and I for one appreciate it.

biko

The same discussion has been up before. I agree with MJD, if you add a "beacuse" or a link it makes a better fair comment and will probably not get you banned.

Orange Motors in Limerick clocks cars.
versus
Orange Motors in Limerick has been found to clock cars.

Villain

I should probably have included that some information is required to back up your opinion, i.e. you don't just dream up the opinion its based on some facts.

I agree that there is a lot of posts on here that are allowed as fair comment, but that is not always the case and I was just wondering why.

Slow Motion

Villain wrote: »

I should probably have included that some information is required to back up your opinion, i.e. you don't just dream up the opinion its based on some facts.

I agree that there is a lot of posts on here that are allowed as fair comment, but that is not always the case and I was just wondering why.

Because this is a private site and we are guests, therefore the owners have the last say as to what is or is not a fair comment! We don't make the rules, we abide by them, if you want to talk about certain events here, you can't end of story! Why? Cause the owners say so!

Villain

I'm not trying to bring up any individual event, I have deliberatly not done so it was just a general topic for discussion.

seamus

I agree that there is a lot of posts on here that are allowed as fair comment, but that is not always the case and I was just wondering why.

Because we have to be cautious about stuff that may not be "fair comment". What one person thinks is a fair comment, what I think is a fair comment and what a judge would think is a fair comment will be three different opinions. So we always have to err on the side of caution.

Unfortunately it's never a black-and-white situation so moderator discretion has to used, it can't be standardised. There are people out there who would say that politician X is a paedophile and defendent Y is a rapist and try to argue that's "fair comment".

Villain

Ok so obviously common sense is needed, but if someone expresses an opinion on a matter of public interest and show facts that led them to honestly hold that opinion surely that is enough to show that it is fair comment?

seamus

If you're talking specifically on the "Bertie is a liar" issue that seems to be a bone of so much contention, then I think that's a special case. Not least because the tribunal is still ongoing*, the "evidence" is already in the public domain and published. So expressing one's opinion on the matter cannot be seen to be in the public interest because you're not providing the public with any new information.

The restaurant case is different because the critic in question was providing new information to the public, providing a public service in essence.

My opinion on the veracity of Bertie Ahern's statements doesn't serve the public interest unless I can show evidence to back up my statement that hasn't already been published.

*I know it's not a legal case so we can "comment" on it, but when the tribunal releases its findings, Bertie may be able to line up a whole rake of libel suits to fund his retirement. Since we can't predict the outcome of the tribunal, the potential for libel is enormous

GuanYin

This law doesn't change how politics is modded nor, at present, will it.

The politics forum rules are based on an ethos of rational debate, heated discussion and civility (thats what the rules are based on you understand, it doesn't mean that people adhere to them very well), if these rules are followed, libel should ever be an issue.

Personally, I don't care what the laws are, if you broke the rules, you broke the rules.

Seamus wrote:

My opinion on the veracity of Bertie Ahern's statements doesn't serve the public interest unless I can show evidence to back up my statement that hasn't already been published.

*I know it's not a legal case so we can "comment" on it, but when the tribunal releases its findings, Bertie may be able to line up a whole rake of libel suits to fund his retirement. Since we can't predict the outcome of the tribunal, the potential for libel is enormous

politics forum tbh

seamus

politics forum tbh

Actually, I wasn't giving my opinion

I used "My opinion" instead of "One's opinion" so I wouldn't look like a pratt

GuanYin

seamus wrote: »

Actually, I wasn't giving my opinion

I used "My opinion" instead of "One's opinion" so I wouldn't look like a pratt

don't play semantics with me.

banned from politics

ballooba

Overheal wrote: »

"I believe that all black people are dirty ****** refugees and should be outlawed from our land."

This is a fair comment

Incitement of Hatred Act TBH.

stevenmu

Villain wrote: »

Ok so obviously common sense is needed, but if someone expresses an opinion on a matter of public interest and show facts that led them to honestly hold that opinion surely that is enough to show that it is fair comment?

One big problem is that peoples opinion of what is fact and what is not can differ greatly. Even more of a problem is what people may decide can be inferred from "facts".

For example, it may be a fact that politician X recieved money, one person may infer from that fact that politician X is corrupt and they would claim that their opinion is backed up by the fact that politician X recieved money. However that fact does not actually prove that claim and the claim could be considered libelous.

Sangre

seamus wrote: »

If you're talking specifically on the "Bertie is a liar" issue that seems to be a bone of so much contention, then I think that's a special case. Not least because the tribunal is still ongoing*, the "evidence" is already in the public domain and published. So expressing one's opinion on the matter cannot be seen to be in the public interest because you're not providing the public with any new information.

The restaurant case is different because the critic in question was providing new information to the public, providing a public service in essence.

My opinion on the veracity of Bertie Ahern's statements doesn't serve the public interest unless I can show evidence to back up my statement that hasn't already been published.

*I know it's not a legal case so we can "comment" on it, but when the tribunal releases its findings, Bertie may be able to line up a whole rake of libel suits to fund his retirement. Since we can't predict the outcome of the tribunal, the potential for libel is enormous

Tbh, I think 'bertie is a liar' is a perfect example of fair comment. Its based on fact and it is in the public interest that people know findings of the tribunal and their meaning. Although I haven't looked at libel in several months so take that with a pinch of salt.

Anyway, if our libel law was anyway developed we'd have exceptions for talking about public figures and politicians.

bonkey

Villain wrote: »

I'm sure most people have heard about the Court case between Ciarnan Convery and the Irish News in relation to a resturant review that was published in the paper in August 2000. Basically Ciarnan Convery, the owner, sued the newspaper for libel over a highly critical review of his restaurant, and a jury found in his favour and he was awarded £25,000.

Now an appeal of that decision found that the jury had been misdirected on whether the opinions expressed in the review were justified and therefore defensible as fair comment. The Judge added that while he thought a properly directed jury would have found in favour of the 'Irish News' he could not be certain.

So, we have a situation where a judge could not be certain as to whether or not something would have been found to be fair comment, even though he was clearly of the opinion himself that it was.

This is just-about the best example you could give to answer your own question....

So on boards if a topic is of public interest and someone states an opinion and that they honestly hold that opinion it should be allowed.

Why is this not always the case?

Firstly, boards doesn't (and shouldn't) have a panel of libel-experts to review each and every contentious post to ensure its not over the limit.

Secondly, even if they did, the example that you provide shows that even the best of such experts could - at times - only offer a verdict of "probably safe, but don't blame me if it goes to court and you lose".

Villain

seamus wrote: »

If you're talking specifically on the "Bertie is a liar" issue that seems to be a bone of so much contention, then I think that's a special case. Not least because the tribunal is still ongoing*, the "evidence" is already in the public domain and published. So expressing one's opinion on the matter cannot be seen to be in the public interest because you're not providing the public with any new information.

The restaurant case is different because the critic in question was providing new information to the public, providing a public service in essence.

My opinion on the veracity of Bertie Ahern's statements doesn't serve the public interest unless I can show evidence to back up my statement that hasn't already been published.

*I know it's not a legal case so we can "comment" on it, but when the tribunal releases its findings, Bertie may be able to line up a whole rake of libel suits to fund his retirement. Since we can't predict the outcome of the tribunal, the potential for libel is enormous

It doesn't have to provide new information to the public to be a matter of public interest.

Villain

BTW I'm not going to comment on the Bertie issue individually, that was discussed here to death. I posted the thread as a general discussion.