Blasphemy law.

Myrddin

enda1 wrote: »

The dictionary and legal definitions are two entirely separate things.

Does the legal definition preclude any of the traditional definitions? Is it specific enough, or is the part I quoted further down the basic jist of it?

Bobeagleburger

A blasphemy law in this day and age, ridiculous stuff.

enda1

Myrddin wrote: »

Does the legal definition preclude any of the traditional definitions? Is it specific enough, or is the part I quoted further down the basic jist of it?

Sorry you're right. But I think it's only the meaning as defined in law that has relevance. Any other bias brought in from the vernacular would be irrelevant.

KERSPLAT!

Boards.ie: Nicola wrote: »

The distinction that people seem to be missing is this: we operate on a notice and takedown basis, once notified of objectionable content we HAVE to take action.

This might be grossly oversimplifying things but if we don't know officially (ie through official channels) about objectionable content then we can't take action. There are over 36 million posts on the site, as employees it is simply not feasible for us to go around looking for stuff to remove but when it is reported to us we are, as employees of Boards.ie Limited, obliged to act promptly and in the best interests of the company.

Thanks for the reply

I just hope this hasn't opened the gates for every Tom, Dick and Harry to fire e-mails into boards complaining about posts. Regular re-regs, trolls and Boards haters are gonna have a field day with this

LeinsterDub

Boards.ie: Nicola wrote: »

The distinction that people seem to be missing is this: we operate on a notice and takedown basis, once notified of objectionable content we HAVE to take action.

This might be grossly oversimplifying things but if we don't know officially (ie through official channels) about objectionable content then we can't take action. There are over 36 million posts on the site, as employees it is simply not feasible for us to go around looking for stuff to remove but when it is reported to us we are, as employees of Boards.ie Limited, obliged to act promptly and in the best interests of the company.

Sorry for the hyperbole but what if the entire site offends or is objectionable to me?

Boards.ie: Nicola

drkpower wrote: »

You are hereby notified of content in the following forums that is arguably as objectionable as what appeared in AH yesterday:

1. the A&A forum
2. Cool Vids and Pics and Links

What happens next?

As per as per our legal guidelines, you will need to email us with a link to the specific posts you find objectionable.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Sorry for the hyperbole but what if the entire site offends or is objectionable to me?

See above.

Myrddin

enda1 wrote: »

Sorry you're right. But I think it's only the meaning as defined in law that has relevance. Any other bias brought in from the vernacular would be irrelevant.

Ok, so theoretically if I were to say, "I don't believe in God or the Bible. It is a man-made scripture, written over thousands of years...& in fact it's no different than any other religious text, from any other culture or any other civilization form any time period. It's all written by man."

How do we define 'grossly insulting'? Would the above cause insult to Christians or the faithful? I'm sure it would. What if HQ were notified officially about such a post, would it then have to be deleted? Given how vague the law actually is, I really don't know...

As Dav said, we really should take a common sense approach to this. But the law is the law, & sometimes the law & common sense contradict each other

enda1

Myrddin wrote: »

Ok, so theoretically if I were to say, "I don't believe in God or the Bible. It is a man-made scripture, written over thousands of years...& in fact it's no different than any other religious text, from any other culture or any other civilization form any time period. It's all written by man."

How do we define 'grossly insulting'? Would the above cause insult to Christians or the faithful? I'm sure it would. What if HQ were notified officially about such a post, would it then have to be deleted? Given how vague the law actually is, I really don't know...

As Dav said, we really should take a common sense approach to this. But the law is the law, & sometimes the law & common sense contradict each other

I agree it's nonsense, but in your example your intention would not have been to offend. So legally it'd be ok.

Penn

drkpower wrote: »

You are hereby notified of content in the following forums that is arguably as objectionable as what appeared in AH yesterday:

1. the A&A forum
2. Cool Vids and Pics and Links

What happens next?

Why feel the need to try and push the boundaries just to prove a point? Nobody wanted any of this to happen, and it was the actions of a few which led to it. But legally, to protect the site, the actions taken had to be taken.

Why try and stir more sh*t up just to prove a point? Let it go.

enda1

Penn wrote: »

Why feel the need to try and push the boundaries just to prove a point? Nobody wanted any of this to happen, and it was the actions of a few which led to it. But legally, to protect the site, the actions taken had to be taken.

Why try and stir more sh*t up just to prove a point? Let it go.

Otherwise you end up with the "outraged" minority controlling the majority. Same rules for every religion and every deity thanks.

drkpower

Boards.ie: Nicola wrote: »

As per as per our legal guidelines, you will need to email us with a link to the specific posts you find objectionable.

Ho ho!

But you see the point i (and many others are making). If those with a grudge - or with time on their hands - decide to do just that, and if you apply the same standard as Dav did on AH, it has the potential to hobble the A&A and other fora.

By setting out Boards stance on what is an undefinable law, you have caused this problem.

drkpower

Penn wrote: »

Why try and stir more sh*t up just to prove a point? Let it go.

Jaysus, i have no intention of going down that road. I was trying to illustrate a point. Everbody takes things so literally around here!

o1s1n

I'll echo a previous statement which would have made this whole thing very straight forward to solve.

Someone was being a dick? You ban him for those actions. Someone has an issue with the posts? You delete the posts.Those systems have been in place for years - and for good reason, they work.

Why invoke this whole blasphemy law can of worms when it was completely unnecessary? The can has now exploded, and I believe folks will be picking the worms out of their hair and food for some time to come.

A simple nip in the bud, ban/delete would have sufficed. But instead, we've for some unknown reason pressed the big red button.

Mind boggling stuff, I still can't get my head around why the standard moderation actions were not simply followed

Boards.ie: Nicola

drkpower wrote: »

Ho ho!

But you see the point i (and many others are making). If those with a grudge - or with time on their hands - decide to do just that, and if you apply the same standard as Dav did on AH, it has the potential to hobble the A&A and other fora.

By setting out Boards stance on what is an undefinable law, you have caused this problem.

Nothing has changed, this has always been our stance, indeed I have stated it numerous times in this very forum over the last 2 years.

The only problem lies with the individuals who feel they can get away with using Boards as a platform and place us in a risky legal situation.

drkpower

Boards.ie: Nicola wrote: »

Nothing has changed, this has always been our stance, indeed I have stated it numerous times in this very forum over the last 2 years.

The only problem lies with the individuals who feel they can get away with using Boards as a platform and place us in a risky legal situation.

Really? When did you define or give examples as to what constituted a criminal breach of the blasphemy law?

Amirani

o1s1n wrote: »

I'll echo a previous statement which would have made this whole thing very straight forward to solve.

Someone was being a dick? You ban him for those actions. Someone has an issue with the posts? You delete the posts.Those systems have been in place for years - and for good reason, they work.

Why invoke this whole blasphemy law can of worms when it was completely unnecessary? The can has now exploded, and I believe folks will be picking the worms out of their hair and food for some time to come.

A simple nip in the bud, ban/delete would have sufficed. But instead, we've for some unknown reason pressed the big red button.

Mind boggling stuff, I still can't get my head around why the standard moderation actions were not simply followed

This is the bit I don't understand. Banning the poster, deleting the posts and posting some warning in the thread in question about the inflammatory and over the top language surely would've been the optimal solution?

Alerting a wider audience I think will raise more issues than it solves. The majority of posters don't use the sort of language that the poster in question was using, so why do they need to be warned? I appreciate it looks good from a legal and public relations standpoint, but I'm not sure it's really worth it.

nesf

drkpower wrote: »

Really? When did you define or give examples as to what constituted a criminal breach of the blasphemy law?

Do you not realise that's the whole bloody problem here? The law hasn't been dragged through the courts a few times, no one quite knows where the lines are but being the first person to find out will be rather expensive.

Calhoun

o1s1n wrote: »

I'll echo a previous statement which would have made this whole thing very straight forward to solve.

Someone was being a dick? You ban him for those actions. Someone has an issue with the posts? You delete the posts.Those systems have been in place for years - and for good reason, they work.

Why invoke this whole blasphemy law can of worms when it was completely unnecessary? The can has now exploded, and I believe folks will be picking the worms out of their hair and food for some time to come.

A simple nip in the bud, ban/delete would have sufficed. But instead, we've for some unknown reason pressed the big red button.

Mind boggling stuff, I still can't get my head around why the standard moderation actions were not simply followed

It was actually the approach from Dav that got me interested in this whole topic, normally i don't post on the topic or have little interest but the pushing the red button and the approach has got my back up.

Some may say this is a free service and we may all stfu and do whatever but lets get real boards in ways is a business like facebook and we the users are its product. You only have to look at the talk-to forums or the use of some of the forums as a platform for change around mental health ect.

This doesn't entitle people to act like a dick but i expect a little better when communicating with the community. As many have said the approach would have been much better if handled in a different manner but even if communicated correctly it could have worked.

Femme_Fatale

I don't envy Boards - it's an extremely difficult one. There are people pretending Boards are just out to ruin their fun for the craic too, which must be very frustrating for Boards.

But it's pretty unpalatable also that there could be a huge clampdown on criticism of religion or things related to religion at all (and I'm not a fan of people blindly church-bashing - no matter what religion; islamophobia is uncalled for too but there are also aspects of extreme Islam that deserve criticism).
Initially I thought this would be pretty easy - reasonably criticise religion if you like, just don't be saying hateful, inflammatory stuff. But as can be seen already with that communion/One Direction thread being closed (it wasn't even just a religion thread) it looks like it could be stricter than that.

drkpower

nesf wrote: »

Do you not realise that's the whole bloody problem here? The law hasn't been dragged through the courts a few times, no one quite knows where the lines are but being the first person to find out will be rather expensive.

Its a problem alright, but its not really the problem here.

The problem here is that Boards decided, in one forum, in one thread, on one occasion, to define what criminal blasphemy is. I suspect they did so without taking any adice on what the precise ingredients of the offence need to be. By doing so, they have created a rod for their own back. They did not need to. They chose to.

oscarBravo

drkpower wrote: »

The problem here is that Boards decided, in one forum, in one thread, on one occasion, to define what criminal blasphemy is.

Well, no. Boards decided that that some posts in that one thread were likely to put the website in a position of falling foul of the blashpemy law. That doesn't constitute a definition of criminal blasphemy. It's basically saying: see what that guy did? Don't do it.

Now, the message seems to be that it's OK to do that on the basis of an AH charter, but if they do it on the basis of an unpopular (and, frankly, stupid) law, expect all hell to break loose. I'm not sure why all the outrage, to be honest.

coffee_cake

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, no. Boards decided that that some posts in that one thread were likely to put the website in a position of falling foul of the blashpemy law. That doesn't constitute a definition of criminal blasphemy. It's basically saying: see what that guy did? Don't do it.

Now, the message seems to be that it's OK to do that on the basis of an AH charter, but if they do it on the basis of an unpopular (and, frankly, stupid) law, expect all hell to break loose. I'm not sure why all the outrage, to be honest.

Except nobody actually could see what the guy did anyway?

I think standard mod actions should have been fine, there was no need whatsoever to make a big mad thread about the blasphemy law about it and now the ramifications are going to go on and on and on
Especially considering nobody seems to be able to pin down the law in the first place
Notice and takedown? - that's fine so take it down and ban the guy, job done

nesf

Calhoun wrote: »

It was actually the approach from Dav that got me interested in this whole topic, normally i don't post on the topic or have little interest but the pushing the red button and the approach has got my back up.

Some may say this is a free service and we may all stfu and do whatever but lets get real boards in ways is a business like facebook and we the users are its product. You only have to look at the talk-to forums or the use of some of the forums as a platform for change around mental health ect.

This doesn't entitle people to act like a dick but i expect a little better when communicating with the community. As many have said the approach would have been much better if handled in a different manner but even if communicated correctly it could have worked.

It's not even that it's a business. It's that people other than you are legally liable for what you post on here. Unless Irish law changes (or is reinterpreted or whatever) and this is no longer the case then any Irish website has this issue. It doesn't matter if I run a forum out of my pocket as a hobby, I've the same problem.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

drkpower wrote: »

Its a problem alright, but its not really the problem here.

The problem here is that Boards decided, in one forum, in one thread, on one occasion, to define what criminal blasphemy is. I suspect they did so without taking any adice on what the precise ingredients of the offence need to be. By doing so, they have created a rod for their own back. They did not need to. They chose to.

Actually Boards didn't choose to define it, Section 36 of the Defamation Act 2009 defined it.
Seems to me that some people feel that Boards unlike the real world, should be a place where unfettered freedom of speech should be allowed, regardless of how vile, offensive, or indeed illegal such speech is.
If you cannot write it on a poster and march down the street with it for fear of being arrested, then realistically you shouldn't post it on the net either.

drkpower

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, no. Boards decided that that some posts in that one thread were likely to put the website in a position of falling foul of the blashpemy law. That doesn't constitute a definition of criminal blasphemy. It's basically saying: see what that guy did? Don't do it..

Really? This is what Dav said:

I think this was one of the few clear cut cases of a breach of law for me.

nesf

drkpower wrote: »

Its a problem alright, but its not really the problem here.

The problem here is that Boards decided, in one forum, in one thread, on one occasion, to define what criminal blasphemy is. I suspect they did so without taking any adice on what the precise ingredients of the offence need to be. By doing so, they have created a rod for their own back. They did not need to. They chose to.

They didn't define it. They basically said, look, bluntly the content of the post is not something we're willing to go to court over so we're going to remove it, and really, if I personally was going to be paying to go to court it wouldn't be over some numpty making a post like that, it'd be over some reasoned criticism of religion being the subject of "silencing by solicitor."

Calhoun

nesf wrote: »

It's not even that it's a business. It's that people other than you are legally liable for what you post on here. Unless Irish law changes (or is reinterpreted or whatever) and this is no longer the case then any Irish website has this issue. It doesn't matter if I run a forum out of my pocket as a hobby, I've the same problem.

I know and i appreciate that, i was trying to point out that the tone and approach taken is probably a key contributer to people getting their back's up.

oscarBravo

bluewolf wrote: »

Notice and takedown? - that's fine so take it down and ban the guy, job done

So the mistake was telling people why it was taken down, rather than taking it down? We'll be fine as long as we keep people in the dark?

drkpower wrote: »

Really? This is what Dav said:

I know what he said. That's not a definition.

drkpower

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Actually Boards didn't choose to define it, Section 36 of the Defamation Act 2009 defined it.
Seems to me that some people feel that Boards unlike the real world, should be a place where unfettered freedom of speech should be allowed, regardless of how vile, offensive, or indeed illegal such speech is.
If you cannot write it on a poster and march down the street with it for fear of being arrested, then realistically you shouldn't post it on the net either.

The Defamation Act defined it in a suitably vague way, proibably on purpose.

Boards defined it with reference to a real life example; one which was nasty, no doubt, but also one which shared many charahcteristoics with posts that are robust critical of religon in a constructive way.

And noone is arguiing that the post shouldnt have been actioned; th eproblem was how it was actioned.

P_1

Like others have said here, I would be very concerned that you have opened a can of worms here and left yourselves vulnerable to anybody with a grudge acting as both a timesink and a moneysink (in lawyer's billables) with the decision to so publicly explain that the posts in question broke the blasphemy law. While I applaud the transparency of the explanation it does strike me as potentially causing more harm than good.