Law Question

TeddyTedson

Are we allowed to discuss topics which are not allowed to be published by the media in the likes of After Hours?

For example the Ryan Giggs case a while back when everyone knew the story, but the newspapers weren't allowed to publish it.

There's a few things now about other people linked to that filthy Jimmy Saville that I'm wondering if they can they be discussed? If we use the word "alleged" perhaps?

Thank you.

Victor

I wouldn't go naming anyone who hasn't been mentioned by reputable news organisations. And even then, I'd be careful.

Morag

Every page loaded on a browsers to a pc/mac/phone/tablet/device is considered published the exact same way as a newspaper page is under the current law.
So this site can be sued and held accountable as as a result has to abide by the same rules.

TeddyTedson

Should they not be suing the posters rather than the actual website?

I never quite understood why it's the website getting sued rather than the individuals.

Ken.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Should they not be suing the posters rather than the actual website?

I never quite understood why it's the website getting sued rather than the individuals.

I would imagine its for the same reason's someone sues a newspaper over a story rather than the journalist that wrote the piece.
1. The journalist/poster wouldn't have a platform without the paper/site.
2. Money, Why sue a poor journalist/poster when you can sue the rich paper/site.

TeddyTedson

ken wrote: »

I would imagine its for the same reason's someone sues a newspaper over a story rather than the journalist that wrote the piece.
1. The journalist/poster wouldn't have a platform without the paper/site.
2. Money, Why sue a poor journalist/poster when you can sue the rich paper/site.

Yea that makes sense actually.

Logical_Bear

Sharrow wrote: »

Every page loaded on a browsers to a pc/mac/phone/tablet/device is considered published the exact same way as a newspaper page is under the current law.
So this site can be sued and held accountable as as a result has to abide by the same rules.

I undestand that but surely there's some lee way,as posts can only be acted on AFTER they have been posted and some one reports the post or a mod deletes it.

A newspaper reads a letter or an article and publishes it intentionaly.

Ares

What about the scenario's whereby injunctions and the like are taken out in foreign duristictions yet the members of boards.ie aren't allowed post about it. Surely unless the legal action has been taken in Ireland then an Irish website is under no obligation to heed foreign rulings?

Or is this still a hangover from the MCD dispute years ago?

Tom Young

No actually that's not quite right. Proceedings can effect persons and undertakings here, especially defamation/libel actions.

Be extraordinarily careful.

My name is URL

What if someone links to or quotes another source which incriminates a person?

Tom Young

The republisher steps into the shoes of the original publisher at common law, and is also potentially liable. Thing retweets in twitter for example.

Boards has limited host protections, though those protections are strained.

CruelCoin

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Should they not be suing the posters rather than the actual website?

I never quite understood why it's the website getting sued rather than the individuals.

If the website does not control it, then it is facilitating a crime.

By the same logic, you cannot innocently give a gun to someone in the knowledge they intend to use it to kill someone.

It has to be enforced, or yes the site could get sued. But then again, who'd bother?

Morag

CruelCoin wrote: »

But then again, who'd bother?

People who think they can get money, or feel they want to punish some one.

Boards.ie: Neil

CruelCoin wrote: »

It has to be enforced, or yes the site could get sued. But then again, who'd bother?

Believe us when we say it, a lot of people.

CruelCoin

Boards.ie: Neil wrote: »

Believe us when we say it, a lot of people.

Without going into specifics (i know you can't), mind giving an example?

Unhappy celebrity?
Outraged granny?

Boards.ie: Neil

CruelCoin wrote: »

Without going into specifics (i know you can't), mind giving an example?

Unhappy celebrity?
Outraged granny?

usually companies or entities with more than one person and not celebrities or outraged grannies.

CruelCoin

Boards.ie: Neil wrote: »

usually companies or entities with more than one person and not celebrities or outraged grannies.

I'm guessing PCworld, vodaphone etc, giving out at all the complaints threads.

It's ok, no need to confirm.

Boards.ie: Neil

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'm guessing PCworld, vodaphone etc, giving out at all the complaints threads.

It's ok, no need to confirm.

the two you mentioned there we actually get on with, hence the talk to forums :pac:

Boards.ie: Nicola

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'm guessing PCworld, vodaphone etc, giving out at all the complaints threads.

It's ok, no need to confirm.

Funnily enough, Dav, Gordon and I spent this morning going through a pretty tricky legal issue.

We're more likely to be contacted by smaller companies, Google ranks us pretty highly so if they search for themselves and see posts on Boards they will get in touch. As Dav puts it here

As we say in our Terms of Use, we operate on a 'notice and takedown' basis, i.e we need to be notified of objectionable content in order to take action. It's not fool proof and sometimes it might seem like we are taking an overly cautious approach especially given a lot of people don't understand defamation.

I can't stress enough how much we encourage people to think about what they are posting, the members who sign up purely to badmouth other companies don't seem to realise they are putting both themselves and us at risk.