That Court Case

mcmoustache

Biggins wrote: »

The REAL chap owned up anyway and admitted who it was.
I won't print his name here. I see its available elsewhere here thru a link.

I would suggest NOT printing it here just to be on the safe legal side.

Was the guilty guy the owner of the phone number from the video? Was it the same guy selling the Honda Integra who lived in Monkstown and whose ad on donedeal contained a picture of his car, his reg and some of the houses in his estate? The same guy whose name used the Irish version of "Eoin" with a "gh"? If so, the media have done a terrible jobe here because after watching the video, I was able to dig up lots of personably identifiable info from a single google search of that phone number. ONE google search.

later12

mcmoustache wrote: »

Was the guilty guy the owner of the phone number from the video? Was it the same guy selling the Honda Integra who lived in Monkstown and whose ad on donedeal contained a picture of his car, his reg and some of the houses in his estate?

Yes, the guilty guy lives in Monkstown/Blackrock. He has already owned up to it.

Unless there is a big coverup by Japanese homeland security, I really don't think Eoin McKeogh's innocence is in question.

DeVore

later10 wrote: »

No Dev, those deal with in camera reporting, or reporting on facts which a judge has otherwise made orders to be with-held.

It does not apply to all court cases. These would be quite exceptional.

We (Boards) are thoroughly in favour of discussion... its kind of "our thing" no?

But we cant expect a moderator to be able to cut finely through the legalese of when a court case is "in camera" or not. They have to make quick fast decisions and quite frankly I wouldnt be comfortable asking anyone to do that. Nor would they be comfortable being part of that process.

But it doesnt matter if they made every decision correctly, we can still be dragged into court and sued. We might win but we'll be broke. So we lose anyway.

I dont think putting ourselves in a Lose-Lose situation is a good plan and while you all might QQ that we dont let you talk about one or two things, you should be happy that we take a huge risk letting you talk about stuff AT ALL.

Ask yerselves this... why isnt there a Ryanair-Boards or an Eircom-Boards? Is it because Mr O'Leary figures he has enough money? That he doesnt want to be rude and compete with us??

Or is it because his lawyers have told him "keep the f*ck away from that mate, its a minefield".


But no.... *we're* the bad guys. :rolleyes:

DeV.

Doc Ruby

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No that was justice administered by AH, not reporting on it.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. There are very good reasons that matters such as this are best left in the hands of the courts, not the hands of the mob. It hardly seems important whether or not it was going to affect an ongoing court case since most of the posters had already elected themselves judge, jury and executioner.

I fully support boards' decision to lock it down in this situation.

Doc Ruby

mcmoustache wrote: »

I was able to dig up lots of personably identifiable info from a single google search of that phone number.

And don't you feel like a boob.

oppenheimer1

DeVore wrote: »

We (Boards) are thoroughly in favour of discussion... its kind of "our thing" no?

But we cant expect a moderator to be able to cut finely through the legalese of when a court case is "in camera" or not. They have to make quick fast decisions and quite frankly I wouldnt be comfortable asking anyone to do that. Nor would they be comfortable being part of that process.

But it doesnt matter if they made every decision correctly, we can still be dragged into court and sued. We might win but we'll be broke. So we lose anyway.

I dont think putting ourselves in a Lose-Lose situation is a good plan and while you all might QQ that we dont let you talk about one or two things, you should be happy that we take a huge risk letting you talk about stuff AT ALL.

Ask yerselves this... why isnt there a Ryanair-Boards or an Eircom-Boards? Is it because Mr O'Leary figures he has enough money? That he doesnt want to be rude and compete with us??

Or is it because his lawyers have told him "keep the f*ck away from that mate, its a minefield".


But no.... *we're* the bad guys. :rolleyes:

DeV.

But thats it exactly. You said you didn't want to allow comment because you feared it was against the law. But what you are actually afraid of is becoming party to the case.

That is of course fair enough, however such a moderating stance risks alienating a huge part of your constituency. This was a case about internet expression, something which would have been of major interest to people using this forum. Yet the topic was closed.

Can we really call it a discussion forum when the thing everyone wanted to talk about was censored? Or maybe we're just happy talking about boobs and bras...

DeVore

Will you pay my legal bill??


You are very brave on my behalf. Go complain to your TD... I've been fighting to have that law changed for a decade.

DeV.

DeVore

Seriously Oppenheimer.... sign a binding contract that you will indemnify Boards against all defamation court cases out of your pocket.


Then we can talk cos its what you are asking me to do.

DeV.

mcmoustache

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And don't you feel like a boob.

Not sure what you mean there.

For the record, I assumed that Injunction Guy was the fare dodger. Thanks to the injunction, there wasn't much to go on. That's the nature of injunctions.

When I did some digging, I pointed out that the phone number was the key to the identity of the real culprit and that's where I left things.

oppenheimer1

DeVore wrote: »

Will you pay my legal bill??


You are very brave on my behalf. Go complain to your TD... I've been fighting to have that law changed for a decade.

DeV.

Absolutely not. Why would I pay your legal bill? I do believe one can buy defamation insurance though

However those that use your forum to be judge, jury and executioner should. The law should be changed to reflect that. Though the onus would be on site providers to be able to tie accounts to people.


The worst kind of censorship is one that is self imposed.

mcmoustache

later10 wrote: »

Yes, the guilty guy lives in Monkstown/Blackrock. He has already owned up to it.

Unless there is a big coverup by Japanese homeland security, I really don't think Eoin McKeogh's innocence is in question.

I'm still baffled about how the finger of the internet ended up pointing at him. The real perp was so easily found. I mean, he read out his phone number and posted ads on gumtree using the same number.

I still think that taking out an injunction was fairly counter-productive. Streisand effect and all that.

starbelgrade

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The worst kind of censorship is one that is self imposed.

No it's not. Self censorship is a good thing - it stops people from saying things inappropriate situations that would otherwise make them look stupid, or get them into trouble... it's the difference between telling a mate that you'd like to pork his wife at their wedding - and stopping yourself from saying it (even though it's the truth).

The worst form of censorship is one that is imposed by other people on you which as Dev explained is the case in situations like these. This form of censorship is worse, because although you may not always wish to partake of the freedom to say what you are thinking, it's nice to have the option.

UglyBolloxFace

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm still baffled about how the finger of the internet ended up pointing at him. The real perp was so easily found. I mean, he read out his phone number and posted ads on gumtree using the same number.

I still think that taking out an injunction was fairly counter-productive. Streisand effect and all that.

It wasn't his number; the girl calls it out for him to dial.

UglyBolloxFace

By the way, the following is an edit which I've added to the OP. I'm putting it here also so people will see it:

Just to clear some things up:
- The lad in the video (the fare dodger) and the lad who went to Court (McKeogh) are two different people. (a lot of people commenting here don't seem to realise that).
- The fare dodger is also called Eoin, and what caused the confusion in the first place was that someone who saw the video on Youtube commented that this fare dodger looked like McKeogh (which, admittedly, he does a little bit). However, this observation/accusation snowballed and it quickly spread across the Internet/Facebook that McKeogh was the dodger. - This is not the case; McKeogh is innocent, and is not the man in the video (the Judge cleared this one up, as did the taxi-man who said that McKeogh was not the one in his taxi that night).
- Apparently McKeogh began getting a ****load of abuse via Facebook etc and it is for this reason that he went to court. He has proof that he was out of the country at the time (Japan as part of his DCU studies), and this shows his innocence.

However, I'm still very, very confused as to why he wanted the video removed? Surely it's useful to have the video still there in order to help catch the fare dodger? (By the way, apparently the dodger has paid the taxi-man the fare). I don't understand why McKeogh went to the bother of all this court stuff with the intention of getting the video removed - it has taken on a Streisand Effect because of his actions. Would it not have made more sense to get Youtube to delete all comments mentioning his name but leave the video? I fully appreciate that everyone has the right to clear their name, of course. But he went about in the completely wrong way.

rubberdiddies

JustAddWater wrote: »

?? Newspapers are seeking costs!!! That's one whopper of a student loan

Even if the newspapers are awarded costs he will get that money back again and more when he sues them for defamation.

At the end if the day if media outlets named him as the person responsible, based on an anonymous online post, then they have left themselves open to be sued. And rightly so.

randylonghorn

And despite the fact that McKeogh has clearly been shown to be innocent, some people on the 'net are still trying to claim that it has to be a cover-up of some sort, and coming up with all sorts of conspiracy theories. Classic case of "give a dog a bad name".

An injunction was probably a silly way of going about it, of course, given the Streisand effect; would have been easier, cheaper and probably more effective to get himself invited on to the Late Late and make a laugh of the whole thing.

Question for everyone to think about though: which of us would be happy to find our name being splashed across the internet accused of theft when we had done nothing of the sort?

A timely reminder imho of the dangers of so-called free speech (without personal responsibility) on the internet. And it's why we have moderators: not just to protect boards.ie but to protect (or try to protect, anyway) us all from the next baying mob.

lemme wrote: »

The plot thickens, that's Fago from after hours :pac:

It *does* look like him!

Spook_ie

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Even if the newspapers are awarded costs he will get that money back again and more when he sues them for defamation.

At the end if the day if media outlets named him as the person responsible, based on an anonymous online post, then they have left themselves open to be sued. And rightly so.

But that's the point the media didn't say he was the culprit, they were reporting factualy that he was taking out the injunction against various internet sites

Jesus Wept

The video from the taxi is on November 13th....
Why is he holding a boarding card from November 21st as proof?

Nodin

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

..............

However, I'm still very, very confused as to why he wanted the video removed? Surely it's useful to have the video still there in order to help catch the fare dodger? (By the way, apparently the dodger has paid the taxi-man the fare). I don't understand why McKeogh went to the bother of all this court stuff with the intention of getting the video removed - it has taken on a Streisand Effect because of his actions. Would it not have made more sense to get Youtube to delete all comments mentioning his name but leave the video? I fully appreciate that everyone has the right to clear their name, of course. But he went about in the completely wrong way.

....either the result of being very, very badly advised, or not listening to advice given, I suspect. Going to cost him now.

Nodin

...and just as an observation, I had no idea any persons (wrongly or otherwise )was named in association with the vid until the case came up in court....

randylonghorn

The-Rigger wrote: »

The video from the taxi is on November 13th....
Why is he holding a boarding card from November 21st as proof?

Probably because it was the next flight he took?

It's been conclusively proven that he's not the culprit, Rig, the court has accepted it, the taxi-driver accepts it, the real culprit has come forward ... the visual evidence of the ticket is just illustrative at most.

_sparkie_

so whats happening? i have been fully detached from irish news for the last few weeks. so somebody hoped out of a taxi without paying and the driver put a video of the person online and then someone said it looked like this lad and it actually wasnt him? whats the big problem with leaving the video up if it wasnt actually him?

randylonghorn

I think a lot of people agree that he shouldn't have concentrated on getting the video taken down but rather on getting his own name disassociated from it.

But it does illustrate a problem with this sort of thing:

1) put a poor quality vid on the 'net of someone doing something pretty low, albeit hardly the crime of the century

2) Someone else wanders along and says "oh, I know him, that's X!"

3) It takes wings and gets splashed all over the internet by the baying mob

4) Someone who wasn't in the country at the time is "convicted" by mob justice of being the culprit


It's a very old story with a modern twist.

At least we don't burn fare-dodgers witches any more!

Sindri

randylonghorn wrote: »

witches!

There are witches?:eek:

randylonghorn

Sindri wrote: »

There are witches?:eek:

And I bet the doctors put a really fancy medical name on it before they prescribed the viagra!

nice_very

why didnt he just sue for defamation in the first instance??

stoneill

nice_very wrote: »

why didnt he just sue for defamation in the first instance??

That's what I was wondering -
sue for defamation - lots of lully lolly, name cleared, all's good in the world again.

Jesus Wept

randylonghorn wrote: »

Probably because it was the next flight he took?

It's been conclusively proven that he's not the culprit, Rig, the court has accepted it, the taxi-driver accepts it, the real culprit has come forward ... the visual evidence of the ticket is just illustrative at most.

I wasn't inferring guilt. I was pointing out how it is semi retarded, it is.

MagicSean

I still don't know how he got the video removed. How did he have the right to censor it if he had no connection to it? I find this very disturbing. Its scary to think you can have something censored without reason. SOPA eat you heart out.

Ellis Dee

I can't help feeling that Eoin McKeogh, or his legal advisers or both, have acted with very poor judgement in this matter. Understandably, given that he was not the person who cheated the taxi driver, he did not wish to be blamed for that despicable act, but he had plenty of ways of informing the media and authorities that he was not the person in the video. That is what makes it seem so strange that he sought to have the video removed from the Internet, thereby making it less likely that the real culprit would be caught.:)

As this report in today's Indo shows, he got some very valuable advice from a judge, and let's hope he finds the good sense to listen to it.;)

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/student-loses-legal-bid-to-gag-newspapers-2996453.html

Noreen1

freeze4real wrote: »

apparently daily mail has printed a story out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090070/Eoin-McKeogh-falsely-branded-thief-worlds-biggest-websites.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

An innocent student who had his name blackened on the internet has comprehensively cleared his name – thanks to the Irish Mail on Sunday.
Dublin student Eoin McKeogh, accused of dodging a €50 taxi fare, has laid bare how the internet can destroy a blameless person's reputation in seconds and put people in the horrifying position of either leaving vile allegations in the public domain or pursuing a difficult and costly legal battle through the courts that will attract more attention from the media.
The entire episode has proven how social media such as Facebook and Twitter constitute something of a Wild West when it comes to laws of defamation, where anonymous users can accuse innocent people of crimes without any proof, in a spiralling nightmare of libel and slander.
Mr McKeogh's ordeal began in December when a taxi driver posted a video taken inside his cab on YouTube of a young man running from his taxi without paying the fare.
The video – dated November 13 – clearly shows the man's face and a friend can be heard calling him 'Eoin'.
Within hours, the video had spread to Facebook, Twitter and other internet forums. One anonymous viewer commented on YouTube – wrongly – that the culprit was Eoin McKeogh.
Soon, his name spread across the internet and social media sites and people began sending vitriolic messages to Mr McKeogh's Facebook page calling him a 'scumbag', a 'thief' and worse.
In January, he went to the gardaí twice to see what could be done, before taking legal advice.
The matter came before the courts for the first time on January 10. During that hearing, Mr McKeogh provided the judge with his passport, which showed he had entered Japan on November 11 and left the Far East on November 22.
The video was filmed on November 13, while Mr McKeogh was studying in Japan.
'I was not and could not have been the person in the video,' he said in his affidavit to the court, where he is seeking an injunction to have the video permanently removed from the web.
Since the case was reported and he was named in certain newspapers, he is now also seeking an injunction to stop them naming him again.
His senior counsel, Pauline Whalley, told the court that on January 13, the taxi driver appeared in court and gave evidence that the taxi fare evader was not Eoin McKeogh and that he didn't even look like the culprit.
The driver apologised to Mr McKeogh for the trouble the video had caused, saying it was a 'terrible thing' to happen to him. 'He shook my hand and apologised,' said Mr McKeogh in his affidavit.
The High Court granted him a temporary injunction on Tuesday against Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo and Google from hosting the video online for a week.
A subsequent full hearing into his effort to gain injunctions against six newspapers began yesterday but was adjourned last night until today.
Mr McKeogh said he thought his nightmare was over but that he was still being accused online following court reports of the case.
'I was shocked to see all the postings [on the internet]. They all presumed I was guilty… and attempting to gag the media. I also had a fake Facebook page created.'
In a desperate attempt to clear his name, he even replied to tormentors online, sending them a photograph of himself and his boarding pass from his flight from Tokyo with his travel dates clearly visible.
One website, Broadsheet.ie, reproduced the photograph and a link to the video and told readers: 'You decide.'
According to his legal team, internet commentators continued to accuse Mr McKeogh and posted: 'Why the f*** do injunctions exist? I hope the f*** it blights his career.'
Yesterday afternoon in Court 45, Mr McKeogh asked for an injunction against several newspapers to stop them from printing his name in relation to the case and the video.
Barrister Miss Whalley was critical of the media for not reporting his innocence in the stories and argued against newspapers naming him again due to the public perception that there is no smoke without fire.
She said: 'People believe on a massive scale that he's guilty.'
In response, Mr Justice Michael Peart said: 'The smoke will remain thick – perhaps diluted, as it could not be and was not him.'
Mr Justice Peart said he would consider his decision overnight and make a ruling today at 2.30pm.
Despite offering incontrovertible proof in court that it wasn't him and successfully getting an injunction against YouTube showing the video, the footage was back on the website last night with users identifying him as the culprit, calling him a 'scumbag' and other highly derogatory comments.
The 22-year-old told the packed court yesterday how malicious allegations has ruined his life and could irreversibly damage his promising academic prospects.
Following the successful injunction, 95 per cent of the material posted online about Mr McKeogh was removed.
However, the following day, media organisations reported the court case and according to Miss Whalley 'it went viral again' with people 'saying he was guilty, he can pay high wages of lawyers but not a taxi fare.'
She said her client was not a Seán Quinn or a Seán FitzPatrick but 'an ordinary kid going through college and getting on with his life.
'With a few key strokes, you can destroy a person's reputation,' the barrister said.
Judge Peart described it as 'strange' that newspaper did not include the proof of his innocence in their reports.


should he sue for defamation ?

This is what bothers me about this case.
This lad had his reputation destroyed, because the newspaper did not include the proof of his innocence in the report.

That being the case, and assuming said proof was available to them, given the comment that it was "strange" - I have to wonder whether the failure to include proof of his innocence was deliberate sensationalism, or just careless reporting?

Either way, some employers will refuse to consider job applications as a result. Gross injustice, since the lad did nothing illegal.
If the media are legally allowed to blacken reputations like this, then it's time to change the law imo.

barbiegirl

When you go for a job you are Googled to see what information there is about you. At it stood before he took legal action the top result would probably have been that video and his name associated with it.
By taking the route he has, he has ensured maximum publicity, thereby ensuring that the same Google search should return the reports of his innocence.
He is working simple Search Engine Optimisation. The more popular a search is, and the more hits a page has the higher it will rank. He understands this and that the only way was to go big to counteract the original video and assocated articles.

pickarooney

I'm bewildered that this whole 'case' seems to have been built on an anonymous youtube comment?

The certifiably least valuable source of information on the planet...

Cuddlesworth

pickarooney wrote: »

The certifiably least valuable source of information on the planet...

Ehh, what about the Daily Mail

lemme

John Doe1 wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/01/20/it-wasnt-me/

apparently he was in japan at the time

lemme wrote: »

The plot thickens, that's Fago from after hours :pac:

randylonghorn wrote: »

It *does* look like him!

LOL no photos from japan .... hmmmmmmm :pac:

Fago!

>_>

<_<

seamus

To be fair, the picture does look a bit like him.

At least now the media have reported the facts of the case. I love how the media blame "the internet" for blackening his name, when it was their ambiguous reporting of the initial injunction which caused the most hassle.
The whole thing has been a complete mess for him from start to finish.

If he had simply done the sensible thing and ignored the comments or said, "That's not me, here's a picture of my ticket to Japan", it would have gone away. Instead he went the legal route (probably on someone's misguided advice) over an extremely minor and relatively invisible comment. It's a little bit like suing someone because they quietly called him a thieving bastard in a crowded pub.

I see he's intent on tracking down the anonymous commentor on Youtube, but considering that person named him, it's probably a friend of his who was taking the piss but is to afraid now to put his hands up.

markpb

seamus wrote: »

If he had simply done the sensible thing and ignored the comments or said, "That's not me, here's a picture of my ticket to Japan", it would have gone away.

It _might_ have gone away. Or there might have been an air of suspicion hanging over him that he couldn't get rid of. Anyone Googling his name would find him accused of being a thief. In your shoes, do you think you could ignore it so easily?

seamus

markpb wrote: »

It _might_ have gone away. Or there might have been an air of suspicion hanging over him that he couldn't get rid of. Anyone Googling his name would find him accused of being a thief. In your shoes, do you think you could ignore it so easily?

Anyone googling his name would find an anonymous comment on Youtube saying that it's someone with a name similar to his.

The scale of the comment has been blown ridiculously out of proportion by himself, assuming that it ever even become an issue.

In my shoes, I've googled my name and found thousands of results with references to my name for things I didn't do. I don't get upset about them.

Orando Broom

markpb wrote: »

It _might_ have gone away. Or there might have been an air of suspicion hanging over him that he couldn't get rid of. Anyone Googling his name would find him accused of being a thief. In your shoes, do you think you could ignore it so easily?

To be honest he'd have been better served using social media to exonerate himself. He and his family were really badly advised. Perhaps they thought there was an opporunity to make some cash.

Had he gone on Ray Darcy and all the big social media sites with his proof of his whereabouts, eventually the tut-tutting media would have latched onto his plight and exonerated him through their desire to excoriate social media.

The law route only suited the solicitor and barrister. Really they should be looked at for their part in stoking the flames.

Also his villification by social media only really came about after he took his action. The Twitter hashtag came about by his actions in taking the case to court. Before that I don't think many people heard about it.