AH, 'Celebrities' and 'Abuse'

brummytom

Hi, I'm not seeking to cause trouble, I'm asking a genuine (and short) question.



Now, I'm of the opinion that, if someone actively puts them-self in the public eye, they're 'fair game'.

Obviously I can see that potentially libellous comments could be problematic; but what's wrong with expressing an opinion about someone who chooses to place themself in the spotlight?


I don't mean to be one of these 'WE WANT FREE SPEECH" numpties, I understand boards is, above all, a company. But can users merely stating an opinion about someone realistically lead to legal action? (again, a genuine question - I'm, obviously, not familiar with such laws).

oscarBravo

brummytom wrote: »

Now, I'm of the opinion that, if someone actively puts them-self in the public eye, they're 'fair game'.

As a purely personal opinion, that's an attitude I find a wee bit distasteful. Why should being well-known make someone a target for abuse?

Obviously I can see that potentially libellous comments could be problematic; but what's wrong with expressing an opinion about someone who chooses to place themself in the spotlight?

If that opinion is defamatory, the problem is built-in.

But can users merely stating an opinion about someone realistically lead to legal action?

If the opinion is defamatory: yes, it can.

Rabies

brummytom wrote: »

Hi, I'm not seeking to cause trouble, I'm asking a genuine (and short) question.



Now, I'm of the opinion that, if someone actively puts them-self in the public eye, they're 'fair game'.

Obviously I can see that potentially libellous comments could be problematic; but what's wrong with expressing an opinion about someone who chooses to place themself in the spotlight?


I don't mean to be one of these 'WE WANT FREE SPEECH" numpties, I understand boards is, above all, a company. But can users merely stating an opinion about someone realistically lead to legal action? (again, a genuine question - I'm, obviously, not familiar with such laws).

I think under Irish law, Boards.ie is held accountable for the content of the site and its wording, not the individual that posted it.

Gummy Panda

I think the main point is that there is a line between criticising someone's actions and defamation of character. I think in that thread did go too far and the line got blurred.

Dudess

oscarBravo wrote: »

As a purely personal opinion, that's an attitude I find a wee bit distasteful. Why should being well-known make someone a target for abuse?

If they're not altogether renowned for being of pleasant character themselves - e.g. Michael O'Leary?

That said, in the case of someone not particularly well known or in the public eye like that reporter, I don't agree with venom like groundless character assassinations or slating of appearance (I do agree with people having the right to air their view if they really dislike her writings though) but someone like the aforementioned MOL - not averse to gimmicky publicity stunts - is surely fair game for harsh criticism?

brummytom

oscarBravo wrote: »

As a purely personal opinion, that's an attitude I find a wee bit distasteful. Why should being well-known make someone a target for abuse?

I appreciate that's your opinion, but I do disagree. As I said, I believe that if someone thrusts themself into the public eye, they should fully expect to recieve both positive and negative feedback.

If they're not prepared for this, then, in my opinion, they're not equipped to deal with 'fame'.


When does expressing an opinion become defamy?

Dudess

Yeah, where draw the line? Some people seem to be big fans of not allowing criticism of anything, including e.g. musical acts. If a positive opinion is allowed, then a negative one should also be.

Terry

oscarBravo wrote: »

If that opinion is defamatory, the problem is built-in. If the opinion is defamatory: yes, it can.

Surely you cannot be sued for voicing your opinion.

If that's the case, then Bono and BIFFO can never be mentioned in AH ever again.

Ok, here's a few hypothetical situations.

I'm a journalist and author. I've written some articles and books which AH users disagree with (read: absolutely hate).

Which of the following are permissible, and which are defamatory?

Terry is a cúnt.
Terry is a cúnt because he said <something/> in that article/book.
Terry is a fat bastard. I've no idea how he got a book deal. His books suck.
Terry can suck my balls. I hate him.
Terry is wrong about X. I hate him.
Terry is wrong about X. He's a ****ing wanker.
Photoshopped pic of me with Hitler or someone similar.
Photoshopped pic of me with sad Keanu Reeves.
Photoshopped pic of me with a tiny peni... Sorry. Been done.
Terry is a dickhead because he said X.
I hate Terry for X reason.

Note: I'm not a boards.ie member in these hypothetical situations.

K-9

I thought some of those posts in that thread were OTT. It is AH though, so I'd say alot of it was oneupmanship or tongue in cheek.

In general, where do you draw the line? Gets chalk.

I assume Myers, Quinn and O'Toole are fair game, so why not other journalists?

epgc3fyqirnbsx

It is accepted that when somebody publishes an article or book or whatever that that then is subject to the criticisms which you may think it deserves, as it is put in the public domain by the writer.

If a writer publishes an article that is then descriptive of their personality and lifestyle, as some in question have done, then that personality and lifestyle should also be subject to criticism as it is they who placed it in the public domain.

where the line needs to be drawn is invasions of privacy on information that was not put forward, such as publishing personal details, relationships etc

And as if someone publishes an article that may rub some people up the wrong way on a particular issue, but the said person does it from an opinion point of view, then it should be perfectly acceptable to argue against that opinion but under no circumstances mention their personal life


In short the type of comment that should be allowed needs to be directly proportionate to the amount of personal information that the writer puts forward.
This is true from a legal and moral point of view

El Weirdo

Terry wrote: »

Terry is a cúnt.

^This. :pac:

Rabies

Since Terry has thrown himself to the floor I'll use his name in this example
This is the way I see it.

Terry is a stupid fat bitch
How ****ing stupid is that overweight health minister Terry?
Why do we have retarded politicians likes Terry, everything they do is wrong.
I wouldn't piss on Terry if he was on fire.
*stupid thread time* What politicians would you like to shoot?

Terry is the worst politician Ireland because <insert valid reason>
Does having an over weight minister of health (Terry) send a right message to the public?
Terry is doing a terrible job in his role, things have got worse. Who should we replace Terry with?
Terry's policies are rubbish, how did he graduate for uni? Never listens to the people's needs or acts accordingly.
*light fun stupid thread time* If you could send 5 politicians to the moon who would it be?


There is a bit of a difference between the above paragraphs.
To be in the public eye and receive a back lash is fine. It is expected. Any tabloid or sloppy journalist that insults or lies about the public figure or celebrity often finds out that they get sued fairly quickly. Check the media, there is more than enough examples out there, including newspapers posting apologies.

coletti

brummytom wrote: »

Now, I'm of the opinion that, if someone actively puts them-self in the public eye, they're 'fair game'.

While I am not entirely sure what qualifies as "puts them-self in the public eye" consists of (does the partner of a celebrity qualify, for example, if the partner is photographed with the celebrity on a shopping trip/holiday/night out?), your statement has been the argument used by the tabloid press for years to justify them to do their build-them-up-then-knock-them-down in an effort to sell their filthy papers to unthinking morons.

If you think it through, the statement is a slogan and not an argument. There is no excuse to intrude into and poke and pry into someone's life for no reason other than their perceived celebrity status, whether or not they have "put them-self in the public eye".

The tabloid press is a nasty vicious medium which doesn't stop at those who have "put themselves in the public eye", but will trample over anyone who can invoke the base emotions of jealousy, hatred, greed and spite towards other human beings in an attempt to make profits.

Don't fall for their nasty excuses for their pretty foul behaviour. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone "puts them-self in the public eye" which is a smoke screen invented by the same tabloids to hide their own base and vile behaviour to human beings.

Tom Dunne

RopeDrink wrote: »

The problem is that the large majority of users seem to opt for critiquing someone in an abusive manner rather than just critiquing them.

This^

I had numerous long-winded posts created, pointing out my displeasure with the tabloid-esque manner in which AH posters slate celebrities, but the above sentence puts it succinctly.

I have no problem with a bit of slagging, I can give as good as I can take, but when it starts getting nasty and personal, I have no time for it.

And there is of course the fact that we live in a very litigious society and that Boards.ie can be held accountable for what you say (and I believe in some cases, the poster themselves can be held liable, though don't quote me on that, I am no legal eagle).

My name is URL

The thread about yer one in negative equity was closed for the same reason. It was going well allowed to stay open up until people started trawling through her Bebo & Facebook accounts so they could rip into her looks and her boyfriend. No need for that carry on.. there was plenty one could say about her writing skills and the material in her articles without getting overly personal. Just makes it seem like a load of bullies having a go, when that happens

DeVore

Sorry, I'm on hols so I'm going to keep this short.

A statement is defamatory when it fulfills all three of these criteria:

1. Its published. (thats a given on Boards)
2. Its untrue.
3. It lowers the target person in the eyes of their right-thinking peers.

Now, the one everyone will jump on is: Its untrue. So lets expand on that one.

Terry, sorry mate you put yourself forward as our guinea pig. Suppose someone posts:
"Terry stole from SSF". They might genuinely believe it but unfortunately they need to be able to prove it in a court of law. The burden of proof is on the poster. And consequently on Boards as the publisher

The reality is that Terry isnt going to sue BiggusDickus69 he's going to sue Boards. As the publisher, if we knowingly continue to publish that comment, we are responsible for it. It doesnt matter what you think SHOULD be the law. That IS the law.

"Surely" is the most expensive word in legal history. "Surely" precedes what YOU think the law SHOULD be. If there is one thing this job has shown me its that the gulf between what people think the law should be, and what the law ACTUALLY IS, is enormous.

So, when the OP says that in his opinion someone who is famous is fair game.... thats fascinating but utterly irrelevant. The law does not share his opinion and in fact, holds almost the diametrically opposite view (someone who makes their living from celebrity is damaged more).

Your opinions on what should happen in a perfect world are all very interesting (and I agree with many of them) but shall we return to deal with the reality of the situation?

I'm off for another pina colada.

DeV.

Bonito

So, so long as it's true, we're allowed say it?

E.g. Celeb is caught with trousers down with someone who wasn't their wife/husband/BF/GF etc. We can call them a dirty, rotten, cheating so-and-so and it'd be allowed, because it's true?

aidan_walsh

Bonito wrote: »

So, so long as it's true, we're allowed say it?

E.g. Celeb is caught with trousers down with someone who wasn't their wife/husband/BF/GF etc. We can call them a dirty, rotten, cheating so-and-so and it'd be allowed, because it's true?

Unless said someone later transpired to be a doctor who specialises in issues of such areas

Terry

DeVore wrote: »

Terry, sorry mate you put yourself forward as our guinea pig. Suppose someone posts:

That cracked me up.
I've no problem ever taking one for the team.

Enjoy your pina colonics.

Terry

Terry wrote: »

That cracked me up.
I've no problem ever taking one for the team.

Enjoy your pina colonics.

Dear pedants, when I say "the team", I mean the entire boards community. Not mods or admins or anyone else. I mean everyone who enjoys this site.

AckwelFoley

Rabies wrote: »

Since Terry has thrown himself to the floor I'll use his name in this example
This is the way I see it.

Terry is a stupid fat bitch
How ****ing stupid is that overweight health minister Terry?
Why do we have retarded politicians likes Terry, everything they do is wrong.
I wouldn't piss on Terry if he was on fire.
*stupid thread time* What politicians would you like to shoot?

.

Says more about the person making the comments like above than it does about their target, if i were a politicin i wouldnt be bothered in the slightest by such comments as i would hold the value of what was said similar to how i would regard that person.. zero.

I see alot of thses comments on AH in particular about the governement and bankers etc, and it somewhat irritates me, they're brainless quips from brainless people or perhaps too lazy to perhaps put some thought into what they are saying.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Terry wrote: »

Dear pedants, when I say "the team", I mean the entire boards community. Not mods or admins or anyone else. I mean everyone who enjoys this site.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Nonsense - We all know by now that Mods/CatMods/Admins ONLY look out for themselves/eachother and are a power hungry inbred race of hermits who hate all outsiders. Various Feedback threads prove this to be true.

:rolleyes:

Jesus. Defensive much, fellers?

pleasant Co.

Omar Repulsive Platoon wrote: »

Jesus. Defensive much, fellers?

can you blame them? :eek:

AckwelFoley

Mactard wrote: »

can you blame us? :eek:

Fixed your post. :pac:

4zn76tysfajdxp

Mactard wrote: »

can you blame them? :eek:

Oh I don't know. I just think it looks as paranoid as the people they were making fun of is all.

Bonito

Dev's drinking cocktails. IMO, this is proof enough that he has caught the ghey.


It's always the good'uns.

pleasant Co.

snyper wrote: »

Fixed your post. :pac:

Defamation of character! you're gonna git it now

Jazzy

took your time closing the Tom thread didnt ya! :pac:

DeVore

When it was brought to our attention, we closed it within 24 hours. No pleasing some people it seems.... damned if we do etc.

DeV.

oscarBravo

Bonito wrote: »

So, so long as it's true, we're allowed say it?

E.g. Celeb is caught with trousers down with someone who wasn't their wife/husband/BF/GF etc. We can call them a dirty, rotten, cheating so-and-so and it'd be allowed, because it's true?

This seems to have been missed.

As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer), the fact that what you say is true may be a defence in a defamation action. The problem is, if a poster says something nasty about a public figure, and the public figure sues boards.ie for defamation, then it becomes boards.ie's problem to try to create a defence by establishing the truth of the allegation. Part of our role as mods and admins is to try to prevent the website from getting sued, because getting sued isn't fun.

I'll reiterate what Tom Dunne has said: I don't understand the need to be abusive when criticising someone.

Bonito

oscarBravo wrote: »

This seems to have been missed.

As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer), the fact that what you say is true may be a defence in a defamation action. The problem is, if a poster says something nasty about a public figure, and the public figure sues boards.ie for defamation, then it becomes boards.ie's problem to try to create a defence by establishing the truth of the allegation. Part of our role as mods and admins is to try to prevent the website from getting sued, because getting sued isn't fun.

I'll reiterate what Tom Dunne has said: I don't understand the need to be abusive when criticising someone.

So we can use "nice defamation"?

"Ah, sure Terry's a right aul lovely bollox."

Am I doing it right?