Freeman Megamerge

jd

I wouldn't interact with those guys (eg on fb) , they are /mod - deletion// liable to do anything

For Forks Sake

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

.
Cannon is on the "Republican" wing of the movement, Doocey seems out of control, and the Greek chorus of nudniks they bring around to Court with them are burdened with delusions of adequacy.
Manning has split from them all, for reasons unknown. The sooner they are all in the big house the better.

The zoo wouldn't have them tbh

nuac

/Mod.//

Buzfuzz and JD


To comply wiht forum rules and ethos I have taken the liberty of amending your recent posts

Serjeant Buzfuz

Gerry "Bmw" OBoyle posting about Kenny canvassers being evicted

For Forks Sake

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Gerry "Bmw" OBoyle posting about Kenny canvassers being evicted

That's Gerry 126 Votes O'Boyle vs Kennys 13,318 in the general election. They really are breeding a rare breed of lunatic out there

makeorbrake

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In the same way as Maurice McCabe shouldn't have recorded a meeting in which two members of AGS would go on to tell blatant lies about details of that interaction - with the distinct purpose of stitching him up?

And those guys - what has happened to them?

What are we afraid of Freddie?:D



(apologies for disturbing the love-in but those of the opposing view are not going anywhere. It's a long road but ultimately, we're taking you down).

Serjeant Buzfuz

makeorbrake wrote: »

In the same way as Maurice McCabe shouldn't have recorded a meeting in which two members of AGS would go on to tell blatant lies about details of that interaction - with the distinct purpose of stitching him up?

And those guys - what has happened to them?

What are we afraid of Freddie?:D



(apologies for disturbing the love-in but those of the opposing view are not going anywhere. It's a long road but ultimately, we're taking you down).

Who are the "we" and the "you"?
Are you one of Gerry "BMW" OBoyle's voters?

Canadel

For Forks Sake wrote: »

:eek:



Really joe, really.....

As for the smattering of pondlife supporting him.......

It does seem a bit suspicious that Facebook have removed his posts, on what is presumably his personal page? Suppression of speech is rarely a good thing. Facebook is a private company so they are not obliged to give him a platform but you would have to wonder why they removed his posts, and on whose orders/request.

For Forks Sake

Canadel wrote: »

It does seem a bit suspicious that Facebook have removed his posts, on what is presumably his personal page? Suppression of speech is rarely a good thing. Facebook is a private company so they are not obliged to give him a platform but you would have to wonder why they removed his posts, and on whose orders/request.

when I posted that last night, his ravings, including the address of a judge were still visible on his page.

Canadel

For Forks Sake wrote: »

when I posted that last night, his ravings, including the address of a judge were still visible on his page.

You can find an address in the phone book.

joe swanson

makeorbrake wrote: »

In the same way as Maurice McCabe shouldn't have recorded a meeting in which two members of AGS would go on to tell blatant lies about details of that interaction - with the distinct purpose of stitching him up?

And those guys - what has happened to them?

What are we afraid of Freddie?:



(apologies for disturbing the love-in but those of the opposing view are not going anywhere. It's a long road but ultimately, we're taking you down).

Lol.,what has mccabe got to do with anything said on the thread . Who is "we" and "you"? And who is taking who down?!

This thread continues to entertain :-)

Serjeant Buzfuz

Canadel wrote: »

It does seem a bit suspicious that Facebook have removed his posts, on what is presumably his personal page? Suppression of speech is rarely a good thing. Facebook is a private company so they are not obliged to give him a platform but you would have to wonder why they removed his posts, and on whose orders/request.

His posts that were taken down were visible to any Facebook member, they were abusive and libellous. If I posted abusive and untruthful posts about you on my Facebook page I doubt you would be very pleased...

Canadel

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

His posts that were taken down were visible to any Facebook member, they were abusive and libellous. If I posted abusive and untruthful posts about you on my Facebook page I doubt you would be very pleased...

You say abusive and libellous. Facebook user says strongly worded and truthful.

I suppose it depends if you had reason or provocation to. Though generally, no, I wouldn't be pleased. But is being displeased reason enough for facebook to remove content?

HamsterFace

Canadel wrote: »

You say abusive and libellous. Facebook user says strongly worded and truthful.

I suppose it depends if you had reason or provocation to. Though generally, no, I wouldn't be pleased. But is being displeased reason enough for facebook to remove content?

What is the intent behind posting someones private address? Even if it is in the phone book, why post it on a Facebook page?
It's, without doubt, suggesting that someone should pay the house a "visit".

Dangerous ground.

Canadel

HamsterFace wrote: »

What is the intent behind posting someones private address? Even if it is in the phone book, why post it on a Facebook page?
It's, without doubt, suggesting that someone should pay the house a "visit".

Dangerous ground.

The intent? I wouldn't know. I can't read minds.

There is no law against visiting an address.

Dangerous ground? Depends. Is protecting the address of a person from being posted on a facebook page more important than protections to freedom of speech? I would argue no.

/Mod//

Because of the nature of her work it was wrong to publish Judge Devin's private address. It is also wrong to attempt to excuse that publication. Please do not do so here again.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Canadel

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who has been harassed? Has it been proved?

/Mod//
Canadel, See my comment on your post just before this one. Pls stop seeking to justify publishing a judge's private address.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Canadel wrote: »

You say abusive and libellous. Facebook user says strongly worded and truthful.

I suppose it depends if you had reason or provocation to. Though generally, no, I wouldn't be pleased. But is being displeased reason enough for facebook to remove content?

Nobody has a absolute right to free speech, it has to be balanced with other rights and obligations. If somebody calls me a thief or a fraudster on Facebook I will be perfectly entitled to demand it be taken down. There is a big difference between opinion and fact. If someone is convicted in Court of a crime I can point that out, but if it's just my opinion I have to prove it or suffer the consequences.

Canadel

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No rights at all unless you're a "member of the judiciary" it seems.

There is still freedom of speech in Ireland.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Canadel wrote: »

No rights at all unless you're a "member of the judiciary" it seems.

There is still freedom of speech in Ireland.

There is no freedom to blacken another persons name, which is what this guy has been doing

Canadel

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Nobody has a absolute right to free speech, it has to be balanced with other rights and obligations. If somebody calls me a thief or a fraudster on Facebook I will be perfectly entitled to demand it be taken down. There is a big difference between opinion and fact. If someone is convicted in Court of a crime I can point that out, but if it's just my opinion I have to prove it or suffer the consequences.

Sure.

At the same time, we have to be careful of a situation whereby only facts can be published and not opinions as people might presume them to be facts. It's tricky territory.

Canadel

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

There is no freedom to blacken another persons name, which is what this guy has been doing

Blackening a person's name does not necessarily entail criticisng their performance in a professional capacity and as a public figure.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Canadel wrote: »

Sure.

At the same time, we have to be careful of a situation whereby only facts can be published and not opinions as people might presume them to be facts. It's tricky territory.

Not really, it's pretty clear cut. When that Facebook poster claimed one person was a thief the post was taken down. When he claimed another was a fraudster likewise. If you're nasty enough to post like that you don't deserve to be treated any differently

Serjeant Buzfuz

Canadel wrote: »

Blackening a person's name does not necessarily entail criticisng their performance in a professional capacity and as a public figure.

Calling one lawyer a thief and another "bent" and involved in "framing" innocent people is not criticising their performance it's blackening their names.

Canadel

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Not really, it's pretty clear cut. When that Facebook poster claimed one person was a thief the post was taken down. When he claimed another was a fraudster likewise. If you're nasty enough to post like that you don't deserve to be treated any differently

If there is no lawful proof or evidence of the claims being true, then they are just an opinion. The problem of course is that the law is based on the preumption that people will view an opinion as fact, without checking if it is indeed a fact.

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Calling one lawyer a thief and another "bent" and involved in "framing" innocent people is not criticising their performance it's blackening their names.

It's an opinion. As you said yourself, there is a difference between a fact and an opinion.

makeorbrake

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

There is no freedom to blacken another persons name, which is what this guy has been doing

Sure there is. Ask the two Gardai who were intent on 'blackening' Maurice McCabes name with their lies.

Just like the last example (when one of you conveniently ignored the fact that a concealed recording of a meeting uncovered the above wrongdoing - and the relevance of that when you claim anyone who takes video in a courtroom should be arrested), you can go ahead and ignore this example too - as it doesn't fit in with your world view.

A member of the judiciary shouldn't have their name blackened (you claim) but not a word when I referred to our two friends from AGS (aside from deflective nonsensical comments).

The selective upholders of the law....

Serjeant Buzfuz

Canadel wrote: »

If there is no lawful proof or evidence of the claims being true, then they are just an opinion. The problem of course is that the law is based on the preumption that people will view an opinion as fact, without checking if it is indeed a fact.

It's an opinion. As you said yourself, there is a difference between a fact and an opinion.

If someone has a criminal conviction that is a fact

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

Sure there is. Ask the two Gardai who were intent on 'blackening' Maurice McCabes name with their lies.

Just like the last example (when one of you conveniently ignored the fact that a concealed recording of a meeting uncovered the above wrongdoing - and the relevance of that when you claim anyone who takes video in a courtroom should be arrested), you can go ahead and ignore this example too - as it doesn't fit in with your world view.

A member of the judiciary shouldn't have their name blackened (you claim) but not a word when I referred to our two friends from AGS (aside from deflective nonsensical comments).

The selective upholders of the law....

If the Gardai were trying to blacken anyone's name they should be held accountable. Nobody would argue otherwise.

If someone records a video in court they are in contempt and should be treated accordingly. Sometimes that's prison, sometimes that's a warning from the judge.

None of those things are the issue here though. You're actually jumping past the issue here. Since Sporting Exchange v Mulvaney websites like Facebook etc take down posts that are defamatory per se because if they do not they open themselves to being held liable IF the statements are held to be defamatory by a court. The website is perfectly entitled to leave them up if they want. Similarly the website may remove them because they think the content is abusive or outside the scope of what they want on their website. That's not an abuse of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not the right to say whatever you want wherever you want. It is the right to say what you will without interference from the government by means of legal reprisal of a criminal or other nature. Giving a civil remedy to a defamed person does not trample on the freedom of expression nor does a website exercising its own freedom to not express a view by hosting the content infringe upon that right. Websites like Facebook are private companies and are entitled to choose what does and does not appear on their service.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Gardai were trying to blacken anyone's name they should be held accountable. Nobody would argue otherwise.

Nobody would argue otherwise but nobody will lift a finger to do anything about it....as it stares the whole country in the face....most especially not here.

Deleted User wrote: »

If someone records a video in court they are in contempt and should be treated accordingly. Sometimes that's prison, sometimes that's a warning from the judge.

What law specifically is being broken? Have you explained that to AGS (as they regularly record in our courts)? You might also ask them why on occasion courts service cctv footage has been erased.
Whether or not there is a law being broken, in the same way as McCabe felt the need to covertly record his meeting, plenty feel the need to record the shenanigans in our courts.
I'm sure he was probably breaking AGS policy in some way or other. I call on him to be disciplined for that action. What's the chances...