Judge wants Facebook shut down over houseparty

Sofiztikated

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-says-intimidating-facebook-should-be-shut-29396729.html

Is Facebook that intimidating that it should be shut down?

Chattastrophe!

Yeah ... Or, people should stop being idiotic fools and making details of private house parties publicly available on the internet. Whether on Facebook or on any other site.

Toby Take a Bow

That judge shows a wonderful understanding of how the internet works, no, of how everything in general works.

Sofiztikated

I'm still confused.

Were they accused of crashing a party?

electrobanana

Go home judge you are drunk.

Cee-Jay-Cee

That article serves more purpose showing how detached judges are from real life than anything else. They live in their silly little pampered bubbles and have no grasp on reality.

Sierra 117

We should also ban all mobile phones as they too can be used to intimidate.

"It should be closed down. Facebook is a type of tool young people can use to intimidate others."

I think we should ban young people.

And judges.

camel jockey

Party at Tizers gaff!!!

camel jockey

CJC999 wrote: »

That article serves more purpose showing how detached judges are from real life than anything else. They live in their silly little pampered bubbles and have no grasp on reality.

Indeed. They really do seem to live in another world. Facebook should be shutdown but another judge will give someone with a hundred convictions bail then a suspended sentence.

Fukuyama

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/halloween-drunk-could-have-died-28961839.html

It appears one of the culprits has no bother getting into trouble without Facebook.

The caliber of Irish judges never ceases to amaze me.

Duggy747

Congratulations Anthony Halpin, you have collected 25 Tayto Cheese & Onion potato crisp wrappers and are now eligable to be a judge.

Text TASTYTAYTO to 50226 to claim your prize

Pro Hoc Vice

camel jockey wrote: »

Indeed. They really do seem to live in another world. Facebook should be shutdown but another judge will give someone with a hundred convictions bail then a suspended sentence.

The judge is only saying what any person with half a mind knows, Facebook is dangerous, what the judge actually said, "He told Tallaght District Court: "In relation to Facebook, I think it should be closed down.

"Young people spill their thoughts on it and then in one click of a button it is there permanently."

People do not know how damaging this can be, from very minor issues I know of at least two personal injury cases that have been lost because of Facebook posts, to criminal cases where evidence was gathered from Facebook posts. Add to that stories I have heard from employers who routinely search for job applicants social media postings from and about them. That funny post of you spewing up will cost you a job.

SpaceTime

Great!
All that does is land Ireland into the 'and finally...' section of various news programmes and make us look completely backwards and prone to bouts of extreme censorship.

Does he suggested banning the telephone or maybe pens? They could be used similarly!

Pro Hoc Vice

SpaceTime wrote: »

Great!
All that does is land Ireland into the 'and finally...' section of various news programmes and make us look completely backwards and prone to bouts of extreme censorship.

Does he suggested banning the telephone or maybe pens? They could be used similarly!

If a person makes a stupid comment on the phone or writes something stupid on his copybook it is doubtful that a Australia will read or hear it it not to mind be a permanent record. I think Facebook should not be closed, but I do think people should be warned of its dangers.

up for anything

infosys wrote: »

I think Facebook should not be closed, but I do think people should be warned of its dangers.

Jesus, I doubt there is anybody out there who does not know of the dangers of social networking at this stage unless they live in complete seclusion. :rolleyes: It's whether they have the wit to comprehend it. If they don't, tough. Why should the world be run according to the lowest common denominator?. Can't we go for a happy medium.

It's easy enough to drum into a toddler the dangers of crossing the road without looking - sure it takes a bit of work and repetition but doesn't teaching people most things.

It's great for Human Resources that they don't have to trudge through boring CVs in order to sort the wheat from the chaff.


ETA:

What's this may have? It's not even a sure thing.

udge Anthony Halpin was hearing the case of two youths found in a house where a party that may have been organised through social media had been on.

SpaceTime

I suppose one could follow a similar logic and demand the immediate closure of all roads - lethal things, those cars!

Also electricity. I mean just think how easy it is to get terrible shock.

You have to learn how to use these things safely rather than ban everything that might be slightly dangerous.

Pro Hoc Vice

up for anything wrote: »

Jesus, I doubt there is anybody out there who does not know of the dangers of social networking at this stage unless they live in complete seclusion. :rolleyes: It's whether they have the wit to comprehend it. If they don't, tough. Why should the world be run according to the lowest common denominator?. Can't we go for a happy medium.

It's easy enough to drum into a toddler the dangers of crossing the road without looking - sure it takes a bit of work and repetition but doesn't teaching people most things.

It's great for Human Resources that they don't have to trudge through boring CVs in order to sort the wheat from the chaff.


ETA:

What's this may have? It's not even a sure thing.[/QUOTE]


Its not a sure thing because the case has not finished yet he kinda has to decide in the evidence.

To follow the logic of your post judges or the media should not restate that drink driving is dangerous or driving at speed is dangerous, or crossing the road without looking. It is the function of a judge when he sees people before him who are damaging themselves or others to say clearly what is happening. I personally hate Facebook I hate what it stands for, I hate what people do with it I hate the damage people do with it every day, will I stop saying that because people won't listen no I will say it every opportunity I have.

Just a few dangers http://youngadults.about.com/od/legalissues/a/facebookcaveat.htm

Jimminy Mc Fukhead

This judge stuck to bebo and still uses it. Even after he started to look foolish years ago he decided to tough it out Or hoping that one day an opportunity would come. An opportunity to ban facebook. Now sitting in his judges chambers how he cackles manically. Now whose laughing

Pro Hoc Vice

Jimminy Mc Fukhead wrote: »

This judge stuck to bebo and still uses it. Even after he started to look foolish years ago he decided to tough it out Or hoping that one day an opportunity would come. An opportunity to ban facebook. Now sitting in his judges chambers how he cackles manically. Now whose laughing

Lol you have now put a weird image of a DJ in his chambers updating his bebo page.

No Pants

infosys wrote: »

I know of at least two personal injury cases that have been lost because of Facebook posts, to criminal cases where evidence was gathered from Facebook posts. Add to that stories I have heard from employers who routinely search for job applicants social media postings from and about them. That funny post of you spewing up will cost you a job.

Not seeing a problem here.

Pro Hoc Vice

No Pants wrote: »

Not seeing a problem here.

You could be very right there may be no problem for society in those examples but for the person it could cause problems. The real problems are when it effects job applications etc.

No Pants

infosys wrote: »

You could be very right there may be no problem for society in those examples but for the person it could cause problems. The real problems are when it effects job applications etc.

Who wants to hire someone that doesn't understand that putting something in writing and then making it public could be problematic?

Pro Hoc Vice

No Pants wrote: »

Who wants to hire someone that doesn't understand that putting something in writing and then making it public could be problematic?

Again I agree, and I also agree that a person who is so stupid to use such social media deserves what they get, but I also believe young people should be warned at the very least. I think a drink driver deserves to be banned that does not mean I won't try and warn him, I also believe I would not like to hire a person with addiction problems but again I would warn them of the risks they take. This is the judge simply warning people of what is and can be dangerous,

I am not on face book, recently got a call from a mate saying XY and Z about me, I said ??? My friend said O Mr. x posted it on his Facebook page, it was nothing problematic but shows how permeant information can be posted, that can cause issues, I agree this can happen in a lot of media but most media does not have a billion users.

SparkySpitfire

infosys wrote: »

You could be very right there may be no problem for society in those examples but for the person it could cause problems. The real problems are when it effects job applications etc.

Why does someone who's stupid enough to:

A. Have incriminating photos/posts/videos etc. on Facebook
B. Have their profile "searchable"
C. Have all their fb activity for all the world to see with no security settings

deserve a job over someone who's smart enough to hide/not put up all of that undesirable content?

It's a good weeding process.

Maybe it's not Facebook that's the problem, but the people that use it?

No Pants

Good points. Employers should use discretion.

Unsurprising.

Pro Hoc Vice

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Why does someone who's stupid enough to:

A. Have incriminating photos/posts/videos etc. on Facebook
B. Have their profile "searchable"
C. Have all their fb activity for all the world to see with no security settings

deserve a job over someone who's smart enough to hide/not put up all of that undesirable content?

It's a good weeding process.

Maybe it's not Facebook that's the problem, but the people that use it?

I agree but what about the 15 or 16 year old who ten years later after hard work and a degree still has that stuff on the Internet, even though they have removed it, once up it stays somewhere.

Weevil

Stories like this always remind e of this short sketch from Not The Nine O'Clock News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VgwxKW0J6I

Renegade Mechanic

CJC999 wrote: »

That article serves more purpose showing how detached judges are from real life than anything else. They live in their silly little pampered bubbles and have no grasp on reality.

Tell me about it... Well said.

Pro Hoc Vice

Weevil wrote: »

Stories like this always remind e of this short sketch from Not The Nine O'Clock News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VgwxKW0J6I

I have never seen that clip, very funny.

Weevil

infosys wrote: »

Its not a sure thing because the case has not finished yet he kinda has to decide in the evidence.

To follow the logic of your post judges or the media should not restate that drink driving is dangerous or driving at speed is dangerous, or crossing the road without looking. It is the function of a judge when he sees people before him who are damaging themselves or others to say clearly what is happening. I personally hate Facebook I hate what it stands for, I hate what people do with it I hate the damage people do with it every day, will I stop saying that because people won't listen no I will say it every opportunity I have.

Just a few dangers http://youngadults.about.com/od/legalissues/a/facebookcaveat.htm

Let's change the world with hate. It has worked in the past.

looking_around

infosys wrote: »

The judge is only saying what any person with half a mind knows, Facebook is dangerous, what the judge actually said, "He told Tallaght District Court: "In relation to Facebook, I think it should be closed down.

"Young people spill their thoughts on it and then in one click of a button it is there permanently."

It's not permanent...can be deleted :pac:

I think instead of continuing this ban culture..shouldn't we increase awareness and teach people about the risks?? :rolleyes:

infosys wrote: »

I agree but what about the 15 or 16 year old who ten years later after hard work and a degree still has that stuff on the Internet, even though they have removed it, once up it stays somewhere.

You really think ALL employers are that tech savvy or that interested in searching back ten years of stuff you may have posted??

No they just want to see what you're like at the moment.

Pro Hoc Vice

looking_around wrote: »

It's not permanent...can be deleted :pac:

I think instead of continuing this ban culture..shouldn't we increase awareness and teach people about the risks?? :rolleyes:



You really think ALL employers are that tech savvy or that interested in searching back ten years of stuff you may have posted??

No they just want to see what you're like at the moment.

I think Google CEO said it better than me,

"He predicts, apparently seriously, that every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends' social media sites."

http://readwrite.com/2010/08/16/google_ceo_suggests_you_change_your_name_to_escape#awesm=~oaPZQM0WqkAfRi

BTW I have only advocated education and not banning, in fact if you read what the judge said you will see that is what he also believes.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/careers/item/32880-1-in-10-young-people-losing

Specialun

Sofiztikated wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-says-intimidating-facebook-should-be-shut-29396729.html

Is Facebook that intimidating that it should be shut down?

Is he related to td fidelma healy

Mariasofia

camel jockey wrote: »

Party at Tizers gaff!!!

Change of plan.....party now at Halpins gaff .