Why is Boards.ie like the Ministry of Truth...

Darragh

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

They were pre moderated comments, in essence the site published them. Edit: Woops that was another case.


Darragh, as far as I can see if you remove something when someone points out it is defamatory boards.ie will be fine.

That's our understanding of it too. BUT, it doesn't mean that when someone sends in a Section 8 request for information about a poster or a solicitor's letter that there's not work there in gathering all that information - time that would be better spent doing something - anything - else.

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Anyway, this is all rather pointless, not nice to see people threatening to sue one another.

QED.

oscarBravo

I love how all the amateur lawyers here are bravely staking boards.ie's time and money on their "expert" opinions on what is and isn't defamatory - which completely misses the point that the idea is to avoid having to defend a defamation suit in the first place.

Chinafoot

Sorry, I don't mean to be butting in here and I'm not being smart or anything but can I ask where this "reputation" is? I mean, who is saying that the site has that sort of reputation? I've used this site for 9 years now and I genuinely don't see it. Apologies if you've explained in the thread already, I may have missed it.

I do find it a little funny that this is all coming on the back of a comment by a comedian who bases his entire act around abusing people

TheZohanS

TheZohan wrote: »

It actually wasn't, it shows you have people can talk about bringing legal action even when there really is no case to answer. We really shouldn't be afraid every time someone mentions the word "solicitor" or "legal".

is the same as:

What I said is that not everybody that mentions the words "legal" or "solicitor" has a valid case.

Darragh wrote: »

See, you didn't say that. You said



and that is different. It implies that we shouldn't be concerned when these things are brought up. Well, we are.

If you're going to quote me quote my entire post.

Wolfe Tone

Darragh wrote: »

That's our understanding of it too. BUT, it doesn't mean that when someone sends in a Section 8 request for information about a poster or a solicitor's letter that there's not work there in gathering all that information - time that would be better spent doing something - anything - else.

But Darragh, the more action you take to prevent these posts the more liable you will be if one slips through.

Wibbs

Jesus lads and lasses can we dial this the fcuk back for a second? Lets get some perspective and some sleep and chill out. the world will still be turning in the morrow, for us anyway, so... My take is we're all singing from the same hymn sheet, but in slightly different keys. Step back and find some common ground. That way progress lays.

AlmightyCushion

Darragh wrote: »

Tell me AC, what's your own, personal answer to the question that many of this thread's contributors seem to be avoid answering?

Well first I'd have to say that it isn't primarily known for abuse. I've talked to a few people who either weren't members or were fairly new/not very active posters about the site. Some knew who I was here others didn't. I've also talked to some relatively new members who have contacted me through pm in my time here. The most prevalent opinions of boards that I come across are that it's a great place for getting information about things and the other is that it's good craic. I've never heard of it being known for abuse.

For someone who doesn't give the site a chance because they think it's full of muppets who post abuse or whatever, I'd say it's there loss not boards and even if all abuse was magically eradicated tomorrow, I doubt these people would change their opinion.

Chinafoot

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus lads and lasses can we dial this the fcuk back for a second? Lets get some perspective and some sleep and chill out. the world will still be turning in the morrow, for us anyway, so... My take is we're all singing from the same hymn sheet, but in slightly different keys. Step back and find some common ground. That way progress lays.

Not sure if the "lasses" part was aimed at me but I was asking a genuine, non-confrontational question. I'm genuinely curious as to who perceives boards.ie in such a negative way, other than Mr. McSavage if he indeed does.

Nodin

Darragh wrote: »

Tell me AC, what's your own, personal answer to the question that many of this thread's contributors seem to be avoid answering?

Considering the difference between "abuse" and legitamate criticism is as clear as mud, I'd be happy enough with it.

I'd also suggest you're exaggerating somewhat.

Wolfe Tone

Just so we are fully clear, the "legal issues" are Darragh having to gather up ip addresses ad stuff?

oscarBravo

Wibbs wrote: »

My take is we're all singing from the same hymn sheet, but in slightly different keys.

With the best will in the world, we're not. There's a spectrum of opinion here, from those who can't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to be vitriolically abusive; through those who feel that it's just the way Irish people are, so there's nothing to be gained from trying to raise the standards of discourse here; to those who would like to see vitriol and bile kept off the site. Some of those views are irreconcilable.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Considering the difference between "abuse" and legitamate criticism is as clear as mud, I'd be happy enough with it.

On what planet is calling someone a c*nt legitimate criticism?

NeedaNewName

Nodin wrote: »

Just to note, He's also said

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71168325&postcount=117


You see Nodin it is all about context. Your quotes if I recall them, were in context to another part of some other argument someone else has approached Darragh with.

Here is the original on that I was referring to.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71141759&postcount=25

yah know the one about Dave McSavage etc.

At this stage quite a lot of quotes can be taken out of context as response are to too many different points.

And lord help us if some of you folks think Darragh is some bad guy.

lulz tbh.

LoLth

@Wolfe Tone: I believe, but I'll have to check, that I was the individual that brought up a concern about legal issues with the McSavage thread. However my concern would not just be with that thread, it would be with the type of posting contained within that thread no matter who it was targetting.

I have said it before, I'm not educated in legal matters (well, maybe a little bit but just a little). From that thread, hte posts that concerned me most were

1. a post suggesting that a group go to a show and egg the comedian on stage as revenge.

2. a follow up post suggesting that they dont need to go to a show, htey can get him on the street.

3. another post suggesting bricks instead of eggs.

If someone, not necessarily the posters of those posts, anyone, had decided to egg/brick/assault the comedian I feel boards would have been involved if it turned out they organised the assault on boards.

More than that, I felt that there was a risk that boards.ie would actually be culpable as not only were the posts left in the thread, there was a sticky post from a mod with a link to the thread stating that DmcS was fair game for abuse and insults. as I have already stated, I do not know if a mod is counted as an authorised agent of boards.ie but I would prefer to err on the side of caution on that score and assume that they would be.

To me and for those reasons I feel that the thread ran the risk of more than just a defamation issue and the thread should be closed and/or heavily pruned.

To address a point you made in another post:
abuse may have gone unpunished in the past. This may have been because the mods were unaware of what constitutes an unacceptable level of abuse, or that the users were unaware and so the post wasnt reported. A clear policy, site wide, would give users and mods a point of reference. Going forward, such a policy could, or at least should, result in less abusive posts being made and any that are posted being dealt with in a more consistent manner. Is this not a good thing? The tricky bit is getting the policy right and setting the level correctly so that users can still give opinion and still have discussion/disagreement while still being effective.

---

@Southsiderosie: if the current AH policy of no celeb abuse is not needed elsewhere, I can only assume you mean that celeb abuse does not happen elsewhere on the site. I think you'll find that it does. maybe not with the frequency or with the same level of vitriol (though thats debatable) but it does. To say abuse is an after hours only issue would be an abuse of the after hours forum and would not be fair on the users and mods of that forum. Check the charter of the Radio forum, I'm sure the abuse section wasnt added just for ****s and giggles. If however, as you assert, the rest of the site doesnt need the policy of non-abuse, then what harm in it being put in place? If its not going to affect anyone because there is no abuse happening, then a rule saying "dont abuse" shouldnt cause any change to the posting styles.

Personally, I think the poicy should be no abuse rather than specifically celeb abuse.

---

mod hat on
@Darragh and TheZohan: accusation was made, refuted, explained and apology made. can we draw a line under that now and leave it as it is.

This thread has evolved from the issue of a single thread to a boards.ie wide policy. Either of these topics are fair grounds for discussion. I would prefer if we get away from dragging in other specific threads/posts from the past as they are just serving to sidetrack the issue (politics threads for example). While they may be useful as reference points to illustrate an argument or explain a position, lets try to focus on the topic at hand.


mod hat off

Sparks

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I didnt say he couldn't cause trouble or hassle, I implied that any action would be unsuccessful.

But you don't know that for sure.
And where there's risk, theres (a) money to be spent on legal costs, and (b) mental stress the likes of which you don't want to experience.

Anyway, this is all rather pointless, not nice to see people threatening to sue one another.

Try being on the receiving end of it!

Sparks

Darragh wrote: »

Have a read of http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/669d0a8da2d31ae2802575a6004e5e63?OpenDocument

The entire most recent judgment from Irish courts is there. Sections 5 and 6 are most relevant.

In short, you can't hide behind your username. You are not anonymous.

Which is such a big deal that it became Rule #5 in the shooting forum:

Anonymity is a social construct.

Anonymity in these forums is a social construct, not a real fact. In the course of day-to-day activity, moderators will not ask for you to disclose your identity, and you do not have to do so if you do not wish to. It is a social faux pas to demand that another poster disclose their identity, and very rude to disclose your guess as to their identity. Posters who own firearms have legitimate reasons for this level of anonymity related to personal security and safe storage of their firearms. We ask you to respect those reasons while posting here. However, this anonymity is a construct, a social nicety. If you abuse it in order to defame someone else and they were to produce a court order, boards.ie will provide them with your real identity, which is far less anonymous than you think. Further, abusing that anonymity to take cheap shots at people is not only utterly rude and obnoxious, it also violates rule number one in the shooting forums - Be Civil to one another - and will get you banned in a hurry.

We do realise there's a fine line there, between honest complaint (which is completely fair game) and baseless defamation. We try our best to walk it honestly. If you want to be absolutely certain you don't cross it when talking about a topic, just stick to the basic facts and don't editorialise them. Or ask one of the mods before posting if you're really stuck.

We should also mention that anonymity can sometimes be the opposite of what is desired by a poster. For example, a club or association may wish to have an "official" account (as several already do), so that other posters know that what is posted from that account is coming from their club or association. For these cases, please refer to the rules governing Verified Representatives and drop a PM to the moderators so we can assist. In the case of clubs or associations, fees for setting up such accounts are waived in light of their not-for-profit basis.

LoLth

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

How can a person be defamed by an annon username? What right thinking person would feel someone was lowered in their estimation based on what an annon username says?

Would it not be covered by innocent publication(from boards side) regardless?

Especially considering posts are not pre moderated?

I take it oyu didnt read the Sheffield wednesday vs Hargreaves document I attached to a post earlier then. The judge clearly allows that several posts, made anonymously, were defamatory and granted a Norwich pharma order for those posts.

TheZohanS

Gordon wrote: »

Not really, no.

This is the information you provided in the initial, erroneous accusation:

If we take this to mean as you have implied after you realised you were wrong:

Then if we are to take your latest quote as true - you weren't correct with all the information provided.

Because: If you thought that company X was going to advertise with boards, why would Darragh pull a thread that was not in favour of their competitor?

Because of this, I believe you to be backtracking by saying that you were correct with all info provided.

I was correct in the information I provided you with to find the deleted thread, however I mistook "an approach by x" to mean an approach to do business with re advertising.

I have held my hands up and said that I misinterpreted the post and have apologised for that, I was wrong. Do you want blood or a scalp?

I have also stated that I am 100% sure that a legal case against me would not be successful regarding defamation in response to Darraghs comments in his post ( Of course there is only one way to prove that) and pointed out that everytime someone mentions the words "legal" or "solicitor" doesn't mean that the person has a valid case.

Have I cleared that up for you?

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

On what planet is calling someone a c*nt legitimate criticism?

That would depend on what they did, however I was speaking generally. I gave a thread earlier as an example.

Wolfe Tone

LoLth wrote: »

I take it oyu didnt read the Sheffield wednesday vs Hargreaves document I attached to a post earlier then. The judge clearly allows that several posts, made anonymously, were defamatory and granted a Norwich pharma order for those posts.

I did, I said I didnt understand.


But I think you and I both know that calling someone a dickhead is not defamatory.


Defamation and abuse are two separate things which in this thread have somehow become combined into a legal issues mess. Defamation wont be combated by stricter rules on abuse.

Sparks

TheZohan wrote: »

I have held my hands up and said that I misinterpreted the post and have apologised for that, I was wrong. Do you want blood or a scalp?

I think the point there is that Darragh wants neither from you; but the Defamation Act allows him to take both. Especially as you've now admitted to error and apologised, which has been taken in the past (granted, the case precedes the new act) as proof of defamation.

Like I said earlier, the Defamation Act isn't even close to fair or nice. Being on the receiving end of it isn't something anyone in this country can take lightly.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

That would depend on what they did...

What would someone have to do to make calling them a c*nt not abusive? Note I'm not talking about whether or not the person who says it feels it's deserved; I don't think that's relevant.

...however I was speaking generally. I gave a thread earlier as an example.

I may have missed it.

Gordon

TheZohan wrote: »

Have I cleared that up for you?

You haven't sufficiently countered the point I made, no. But I'm not wanting a scalp, or blood, I'm just pointing out what I believe to be the truth, from what you've said so far.

TheZohanS

oscarBravo wrote: »

On what planet is calling someone a c*nt legitimate criticism?

Why is this being brought up again and again as if it's commonplace or was commonplace in the deleted thread, it wasn't. Your post is post 164, I posted this in post No.27

C*nts was my doing, I crossed the line with that word and I apologise.

Wolfe Tone

Sparks wrote: »

I think the point there is that Darragh wants neither from you; but the Defamation Act allows him to take both. Especially as you've now admitted to error and apologised, which has been taken in the past (granted, the case precedes the new act) as proof of defamation.

Like I said earlier, the Defamation Act isn't even close to fair or nice. Being on the receiving end of it isn't something anyone in this country can take lightly.

Evidence of an apology made by or on behalf of a person in respect of a statement to which the action relates is not admissible in any civil proceedings as evidence of liability of the defendant.

oscarBravo

TheZohan wrote: »

Why is this being brought up again and again as if it's commonplace or was commonplace in the deleted thread, it wasn't.

I'm talking about abuse, as distinct from criticism. I'm not just talking about the c-word - and even that word (which you feel crosses the line) seems to be considered acceptable under certain circumstances by some people.

Sparks

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Evidence of an apology made by or on behalf of a person in respect of a statement to which the action relates is not admissible in any civil proceedings as evidence of liability of the defendant.

McMahon and Binchy, 3rd Ed, 34.226:

It is not a defence to a defamation suit for the defendant to claim that he made or offered to make an apology to the plaintiff.

It goes on to point out that the apology can be used as evidence in support of mitigating damages but that's after the defendant loses the case. And it has to be to the plaintiff's satisfaction, not the court's. McDaid -v- The Examiner, 1999 is the case reference.

As I said, this precedes the most modern act so it may have been overturned by statute; but it does illustrate nicely how serious a defamation suit can get.

Edit: I see the newer act has overturned that; but I also see that an apology still can't defend against a defamation case...

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

What would someone have to do to make calling them a c*nt not abusive?.......

Well its going to be "legitamate criticism", though still abusive. The perpetrator(s) of this and similar come to mind

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12721170

It's rare if ever I feel the urge to comment in such a manner myself, but I can't blame somebody who did with regards to the like of that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I may have missed it.

Down the bottom of the post
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71146938&postcount=59

LoLth

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I did, I said I didnt understand.


But I think you and I both know that calling someone a dickhead is not defamatory.


Defamation and abuse are two separate things which in this thread have somehow become combined into a legal issues mess. Defamation wont be combated by stricter rules on abuse.

A synopsis: posts made on a fan site for sheffield united run by Hargreaves were considered defamatory by the owner and board of management of Sheffield Wednesday PLC, owning organisation of the football club. They brought the website owner to court to demand a norwich pharma order that would force the website owner to disclose the IP addresses of the anonymous authors of those posts in order to go on to persue legal action action the pesons behind the user accounts. The website owner questioned the scope of the order. In the ruling the judge agreed that while not all of the posts were defamatory, some were (thus a post made by an anonymous account can be considered to be defamatory and damaging ot the reputation of an individual) . The order was granted and the website owner handed over the information. While SOME costs were awarded to the website owner the full amount of his legal bill was not covered so he was ultimately out of pocket.

yes, calling someone a dickhead is not defamation, we can agree on that (though I'm not a lawyer so I allow for the possibility of being wrong) but I would think we could also agree that less abuse will mean defamatory remarks will stand out easier making the mods job easier and result in faster response times and thus less leeway for a claim that a defamatory post was not acted upon within a resonable timeframe.

In this, I would think better safe than sorry is a good thing, however I do agree that it is a policy that would have to be carefully balanced and implemented so as not to damage the sites reputation in another way, that of being a website where discussion can be held and opinion offered.