Blasphemy law.

Turtwig

Trolls are common everywhere but I still don't get the justification or reasoning behind the specifics of this.

Dav wrote: »

I don't know why a very small number of members here chose to ignore my warning, but it is my responsibility to this site to ensure that when notified of potentially illegal content on it, that I must remove it.

I made a pretty clear warning about what I would do should such nonsense continue but that was ignored, so I'm not going to be permanently banning the parties involved for a week and I have removed the offending thread in it's entirety.

This is my job and I simply will not entertain being questioned about how it's done - my word on this site is, if you'll pardon the expression, law and whilst most of you will never have seen me stepping in anywhere on Boards taking this sort of action, I'm left with little choice in this particular instance.

The Blasphemy law in Ireland is a load of nonsense. No one wanted it, no one needed it and in my personal opinion it was little more than political smokescreen at a time when Ireland has real problems that need real solutions. As was mentioned in the thread, even the law makers themselves claim that it's unworkable. This is the sort of thing that's bound to make you feel anything but confident about your elected representatives.

The Defamation law in Ireland is equally a load of nonsense, it takes the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" and turns it completely on it's head and punishes anyone who would dare speak up about something negative and tells them that unless they have exceptionally deep pockets to pay their way to a high court victory, they have no entitlement to voice and anyone who helps them have a voice is just as guilty as they are despite having nothing to do with whatever issue is at hand.

Both of these *ARE* the law of this land and as a business that has its offices in the Republic of Ireland, Boards.ie Ltd is bound by these and every other law in the Irish statue. I as an employee of Boards.ie Ltd have an obligation to act in the company's best interests and keep us on the side of the law. Being compliant with this law is not up for discussion. When the company is officially notified about something that is in breach of the law (as we were by an email earlier today), we have to act or we become responsible for it and we are not going to court for your ignorance (I'm speaking directly to you valknut).

It's been a very long time since I've had to step in to After Hours to deal with this sort of thing - that's a credit to the community here and especially to the mods who've worked exceptionally hard to turn this forum from the downward spiral it was on, so I sincerely thank you all for collectively agreeing that this should be a place of sometimes serious and sometimes frivolous discussions of all kinds, but that there are ways and means to talk to to one another and about any given subject that keeps everything civil, legal and above all fun. AH used to cause us one serious legal threat a week, but now I really cannot remember the last time anything here caused us any bother, so if it seems like I'm coming down on this particular issues extremely hard, I am because I am not prepared to let the forum slip and let all your hard work start to come undone.

Thank you all for your time and whether you're happy about my actions or not, I do hope you can at least respect that 1) I have no choice and 2) I'm far more interested in seeing your community thrive rather than having its members (and by extension this entire site) once again branded as ignorant and petulant children because of a few bad eggs with some sort of axe to grind.

Regarding the bolded and underlined bits did you actually check with the boards legal team? It is rather odd that given the publications of blasphemy that were made by Atheist Ireland and others in attempts to be charged and punished under the law no such charges were brought. So I find myself confused here a lot. I'm just saying I think you made an error of judgement on the actual power of the law in question. Can we please have a clarification as to whether this was your own personal opinion or you have indeed made this decision in consultation with others?

I understand whatever you says goes, but I think we as members are entitled to a justification and, of course, to know where exactly the line is for what's acceptable?

Thanks,

Dades

Personally, I think there were was enough vitriol in that thread to warrant closing it without having to resort to referencing that sham blasphemy law. Sure, we have to ensure we don't facilitate the law being broken, but we can close threads here on the back of our own judgement.

Anything that suggests we should take that thing seriously make me a bit mad.

RDM_83 again

I agree completely and am unsure what has changed that has made this law suddenly of issue to the site considering its been in force for a number of years now and it was never used as a justification to restrict the more blatent CC bashing posters/threads. Additionally since this is clearly a sitewide not AH issue how does it apply to AA for example.

PS I am in favour of restriciton to some extent on this type of posting but fail to see the current justification as particularly valid and what triggered it given the behaviour that has been tolerated on this site in relation to other religions

Nodin

Dades wrote: »

Personally, I think there were was enough vitriol in that thread to warrant closing it without having to resort to referencing that sham blasphemy law. Sure, we have to ensure we don't facilitate the law being broken, but we can close threads here on the back of our own judgement.

Anything that suggests we should take that thing seriously make me a bit mad.

The thread wasn't just locked, it was deleted. Given the small number of posts that could be considered to have 'transgressed' I presume that was done to show who is "the law" and make an example.

Nodin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I agree completely and am unsure what has changed that has made this law suddenly of issue to the site considering its been in force for a number of years now and it was never used as a justification to restrict the more blatent CC bashing posters/threads. Additionally since this is clearly a sitewide not AH issue how does it apply to AA for example.

PS I am in favour of restriciton to some extent on this type of posting but fail to see the current justification as particularly valid and what triggered it given the behaviour that has been tolerated on this site in relation to other religions

I'd suggest its down to the personal bias of the Admin rather than a real concern for the law, myself.

Wibbs

Jernal wrote: »

Trolls are common everywhere but I still don't get the justification or reasoning behind the specifics of this.

You and me and many others both J. If gobshítes are posting trolling guff then infract/ban them as per usual, but a blanket ban on such discussion? As I said in the AH thread one could have a theological and moral debate on the subject that could easily point out with solid theological backing that yes in our terms such things would be considered moral abominations and one could have an opposing side that could show with similar theological backing that this was a wrong/inaccurate take on things.

So Islam and some of the morality, particularly of it's founder are out of bounds. OK, then what about kiddie fiddler Catholic priest comments? Are they OK? Are they OK if backed up by stats that suggest there may be something to this? (ditto if one shows that well repugnant guff is going on today under the guise of medieval "truth" and "mores" in other faiths?) What about the Catholic church royally screwed up a nascent independent Ireland, with women being second class citizens and gay folks being oppressed and all that. Is that OK or will an email from the official clergy cut that down to size too? Or is it just the more exotic faiths that are sacred(no pun)?

I'm saying this as a card carrying, full on, unrepentant agnostic, the most hated of all points of view, both atheists and theists hate us equally for being lazy, sit on the fence cowardly bastards(with pretty good reason on both sides) , but what the ever living fcuk?

Dades

Nodin wrote: »

I'd suggest its down to the personal bias of the Admin rather than a real concern for the law, myself.

Small point - but Dav isn't an admin - he's the Community Manager. This distinction is why he sees the need to make a Big Deal out of this, for better or for worse.

Sarky

I hope tomorrow brings more clarity. Blasphemy is, like, 95% of what I do.

Cody Pomeray

Can I just aska question about reporting.

It seems to me that if nobody reported legally dubious posts, or if the report post function did not exist, a lot of the site's legal problems would disappear.

I have reported posts myself in the past which I thought were on legally shaky ground. But, upon reflection, if nobody had reported it, the likelihood of it becoming legally troublesome for the site would have diminished enormously.

On the other hand, if a post is reported and (erroneously, of through forgetfulness) no action is taken where it ought to have been taken, a liability may arise for the website.

So is the report post function a hindrance or a help?

Would your legal concerns not be diminished by ridding yourselves of it, or discretely discouraging it in relation to issues like blasphemy?

P_1

Sarky wrote: »

I hope tomorrow brings more clarity. Blasphemy is, like, 95% of what I do.

Yeah, not much we can really be told at a few minutes to midnight to be fair. I can imagine this being a major headache for the lads in the office tomorrow morning judging by the reactions in a few forums this evening.

BonsaiKitten

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Can I just aska question about reporting.

It seems to me that if nobody reported legally dubious posts, or if the report post function did not exist, a lot of the site's legal problems would disappear.

I have reported posts myself in the past which I thought were on legally shaky ground. But, upon reflection, if nobody had reported it, the likelihood of it becoming legally troublesome for the site would have diminished enormously.

On the other hand, if a post is reported and (erroneously, of through forgetfulness) no action is taken where it ought to have been taken, a liability may arise for the website.

So is the report post function a hindrance or a help?

Would your legal concerns not be diminished by ridding yourselves of it, or discretely discouraging it in relation to issues like blasphemy?

If the report the post function didn't exist, it would be much harder for the site to catch troublesome posts surely? Mods can't read every post, it'd be an impossible job.

I assume most legal threats don't come in in reported posts, they're letters or emails based on posts still hosted on the site.

P_1

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Can I just aska question about reporting.

It seems to me that if nobody reported legally dubious posts, or if the report post function did not exist, a lot of the site's legal problems would disappear.

I have reported posts myself in the past which I thought were on legally shaky ground. But, upon reflection, if nobody had reported it, the likelihood of it becoming legally troublesome for the site would have diminished enormously.

On the other hand, if a post is reported and (erroneously, of through forgetfulness) no action is taken where it ought to have been taken, a liability may arise for the website.

So is the report post function a hindrance or a help?

Would your legal concerns not be diminished by ridding yourselves of it, or discretely discouraging it in relation to issues like blasphemy?

I can't see that working. Take Last.fm as an example, one of the things it was criticized for (aside from the whole anonymous posting thing) was the fact that there was no mechanism on the site for reporting troublesome posts.

Dades

The reported post function has no bearing whatsoever on boards' liability in legal scenarios. Something is either posted or not.

What the removal of the RP system would do would make it harder to find and remove legally dubious content.

wes

I think the decision will have a chilling effect on discussions on the site, and I was rather surprised by the whole thing, as much the same sort of thing has been said on boards in the past, and it was not handled in this manner.

Now of course, I am not fully privy to boards legal concerns in this instance, and ultimately I respect that the management have made there decision on the basis of there own best interests, but I do find the whole situation to be rather odd.

Cody Pomeray

BonsaiKitten wrote: »

If the report the post function didn't exist, it would be much harder for the site to catch troublesome posts surely? Mods can't read every post, it'd be an impossible job.

It would be harder to catch troublesome posts, yes. It would be a balancing exercise between quality and liability.

I don't know what the current reliance is on reported posts. Maybe this site is too big.

I was just thinking of my own reporting history. If I saw something that appeared defamatory, for example, my instinct would be to press 'report'. In hindsight, that's in fact likely to increase the site's liability, in the event of the reported post being overlooked or erroneously given the all clear (which could easily happen, you can't expect that everyone reading those reports will be authorities on the complex maze of rules, legitimate defences and precedent in what Tennyson called the lawless science of our law.

Cody Pomeray

Dades wrote: »

The reported post function has no bearing whatsoever on boards' liability in legal scenarios. Something is either posted or not.

The e-commerce directive...??

Karl Stein

Can the Flying Spaghetti Monster be blasphemed?

Howard Juneau

In hindsight, if an email from a solicitor has been sent, the thread should have been locked until boards own legal team had been consulted. Then a decision made as to whether it should be deleted or reopened.

MagicMarker

I find it very hard to believe that, after in depth legal counsel, it was considered necessary to highlight this monumentally retarded law in such a way. If this is genuinely a concern for boards.ie then I may as well get to work on constructing that nuclear fall out shelter in me back garden, because it seems anything is possible now.

Filibuster

That was a weird post on AH. If boards.ie only allow nanny state approved discussion they might as well close up shop.

Sarky

Sarky wrote: »

I hope tomorrow brings more clarity. Blasphemy is, like, 95% of what I do.

Is the Esoteric Order of Dagon covered by the blasphemy laws? if not, you're all a bunch of.. er .. meanie faces.

Filibuster wrote: »

That was a weird post on AH. If boards.ie only allow nanny state approved discussion they might as well close up shop.

So are you going to put money forward to pay for all the fines and legal fees that boards.ie will accumulate?

Sarky

Deleted User wrote: »

Is the Esoteric Order of Dagon covered by the blasphemy laws? if not, you're all a bunch of.. er .. meanie faces.

Why bother with the legal route when the Deep Ones can come round to your house and smash your windows in? :pac:

Cookie_Monster

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Can the Flying Spaghetti Monster be blasphemed?

well he's just as real as god or any of the rest of them.

Overheal

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Can the Flying Spaghetti Monster be blasphemed?

Only when eaten. But even at that the FSM is kind of like the God Emperor of Dune in that its state of existences is infinitely divisible, yet also delicious.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

Only when eaten. But even at that the FSM is kind of like the God Emperor of Dune in that its state of existences is infinitely divisible, yet also delicious.

You ate the God Emperor? Ye dirty fecker ye.....

clairefontaine

I'm utterly baffled by this. Is this illegal as in J walking illegal or as in murder illegal?

I regularly make disparaging comments about nearly every religious figure there is, aside from the Quakers.

Seriously, how illegal is it? And who is responsible, the user or boards? Can't you guys get insurance and or get users to sign some kind of waiver?

And what the hell are you guys going to do when this stuff comes in?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

Penn

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Can I just aska question about reporting.

It seems to me that if nobody reported legally dubious posts, or if the report post function did not exist, a lot of the site's legal problems would disappear.

I have reported posts myself in the past which I thought were on legally shaky ground. But, upon reflection, if nobody had reported it, the likelihood of it becoming legally troublesome for the site would have diminished enormously.

On the other hand, if a post is reported and (erroneously, of through forgetfulness) no action is taken where it ought to have been taken, a liability may arise for the website.

So is the report post function a hindrance or a help?

Would your legal concerns not be diminished by ridding yourselves of it, or discretely discouraging it in relation to issues like blasphemy?

As per Dav's post:

Being compliant with this law is not up for discussion. When the company is officially notified about something that is in breach of the law (as we were by an email earlier today)

The posts in question were reported and dealt with by the mods as per usual. But if an email was sent to Boards HQ, that's completely separate and has no bearing on the normal Report function.

Cody Pomeray

Penn wrote: »

The posts in question were reported and dealt with by the mods as per usual. But if an email was sent to Boards HQ, that's completely separate and has no bearing on the normal Report function.

I know, but I would just assume that reported posts with a litigious character cause more mod/admin headaches than emails to the site.

I'm not necessarily suggesting the report post function be abandoned, although it depends how useful it is.

No, I'm mainly asking whether it is not the case that the site's owners would prefer us not to report defamatory and blasphemous concerns. Boards.ie is protected so long as it is unaware of an illegal publication by a user.

Since Dav has made clear his opinions on blasphemy and defamation law in this country, the natural response is possibly not to report blasphemous and defamatory content, so it just doesn't become an issue for the site.

Because the consequence of defamatory or blasphemous content being made known to the site, and (for whatever reason, including oversight) no action being taken, are that a criminal/ civil liability will accrue to the site directly.

Protection is taken away when the site is made aware.

dr.bollocko

Dades wrote: »

Small point - but Dav isn't an admin - he's the Community Manager. This distinction is why he sees the need to make a Big Deal out of this, for better or for worse.

I have an issue with taking a community to task for the posts of one of its less regular and obviously more troublesome, newer, agenda driven members. We're not all collectively responsible for the outlying ranting of a few idiots drooling on their keyboards.

Dav

If you see it that way Dr B, then I'm really sorry, that wasn't the intention at all. However, when I say that something is to be done on this site, it's not up for discussion and the drooling idiots need to have that made clear. I don't want to be some sort of authoritarian overlord, but the blatant and deliberate way this was ignored actually made me cross. The AH Community hasn't done anything wrong here, I think I made that abundantly clear in my post last night (but I guess I didn't since no one seems to have got that) and I don't know how my enforcing Irish law is "taking them to task."

I don't know why "Boards.ie in complying with the law shocker" seems to be news to so many people. Compliance with the law (no matter how bloody stupid and unworkable it may seem) is not up for discussion. At all. I'm not going to be "nice" to an idiot because someone might take offence - the internet and especially this site, was a much, much nicer place when we didn't have to be nice or fair to idiots.

To clarify, reporting a post is still vital to this site running the way we want it. If we had no moderation and no means of reporting post, legally speaking, we'd probably be a lot better off, but all you have to do is look at places like YouTube's comments section to see how well that works out.

Reporting a post is not the same thing as notifying the office. We even say in our Legal Guidelines that if you find something that potentially breaches the law, you have to tell us directly as we would never ask volunteers to deal with it directly.

Dades

Over the years, I've sanctioned many posters and removed many posts from posters such as the one that kicked this off. The reasons given were for trolling, flaming, going off topic, being a dick - or any combination of same. We already have enough tools at our disposal to keep our house in order, and close any such thread and delete any 'issue' posts.

I understand it was an email regarding the legality that prompted the mention of it, but I figure we can look after our own house using our own rules, and not publicly cow to a law we all know to be offensive to free-speech and to those who've suffered at the hands of the religions who would benefit from its protection.