Blasphemy law.

drkpower

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

I think you know you are just playing with words here. He gave a concrete example of what he/boards believes to be criminal blasphemy. In many ways it is worse than had he actually defined it (in the sense if the way you are using that word).

Cienciano

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.

No, boards shít their pants because someone sent them an email. Over a law that is so vague it's impossible to enforce. A complete knee jerk reaction, especially since the post was deleted.

nesf

Cienciano wrote: »

No, boards shít their pants because someone sent them an email. Over a law that is so vague it's impossible to enforce. A complete knee jerk reaction, especially since the post was deleted.

You're absolutely correct! Boards should be totally willing to pay to go to court so you can call Mohammad a pedophile. I mean, really, what reasonable person wouldn't put their own money at risk for that.

Sarky

Out of curiosity, could anyone hazard a guess as to how much legal fees would cost? I have little doubt that an offended religious party would easily be able to afford to bring things all the way up through every level of court to the top, and I have no doubt that it costs a small fortune each step of the way. Any idea of the cumulative costs of defending yourself from such lunacy?

KERSPLAT!

nesf wrote: »

You're absolutely correct! Boards should be totally willing to pay to go to court so you can call Mohammad a pedophile. I mean, really, what reasonable person wouldn't put their own money at risk for that.

I don't think anyone is saying the post should have been left, people are asking why it wasn't dealt with in the normal fashion, as Bluewolf said above. Delete the post, ban the user.

This has opened a can of worms, anyone with a dislike of boards will be spamming the HQ with emails saying this and that post is breaking the blasphemy law

o1s1n

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?
.

I read the post and it could have been removed for trolling reasons. We didn't need to enter the 'define what blasphemy is' arena is at all - it was completely unnecessary and could have been dealt with as per the norm.

People are kept in the dark quite a lot when it comes to moderation decisions. (not out of malice, but purely because it's mundane, clean up crap that they don't care to know about)

Why did a big announcement need to be made on this occasion?

Scofflaw

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 don't think the issue is with removing the post, everyone is fine with that. The issue is with the publication of the reasons for doing so, when all of us have probably removed similar posts without pulling the legal card out.

We regularly deal with posts intended to cause offence, and we deal with them as trolling. While 'religious trolling' is effectively now a possible offence under Irish law, that doesn't change the fact that such posts have always been dealt with.

I don't see that there was any need to highlight the blasphemy law aspect of this post to the wider community, but that's the only issue I see here. Nobody is arguing that Boards.ie should not act on receipt of notice, and I don't see anyone arguing that the post should have been left.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hullaballoo

Sarky wrote: »

Out of curiosity, could anyone hazard a guess as to how much legal fees would cost? I have little doubt that an offended religious party would easily be able to afford to bring things all the way up through every level of court to the top, and I have no doubt that it costs a small fortune each step of the way. Any idea of the cumulative costs of defending yourself from such lunacy?

No, there are no legal costs for the offended person. It is a criminal offence and it is prosecuted by the DPP, the Gardaí having received, investigated and filed a complaint (from the offended person) with the DPP.

The accused person can opt for legal representation. The costs are a matter to be agreed between the client and solicitor in that case. It is a jury trial. The maximum fine is €25,000.

I don't know if there could be any more variables in there, and that's just the procedure side. Looking at the so-called "definition" of the offence, I'd not want to have a vested interest in a successful prosecution.

nesf

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying the post should have been left, people are asking why it wasn't dealt with in the normal fashion, as Bluewolf said above. Delete the post, ban the user.

This has opened a can of worms, anyone with a dislike of boards will be spamming the HQ with emails saying this and that post is breaking the blasphemy law

Meh, if the posters can't grasp that the site has to draw lines it disagrees with because it doesn't want to go to potentially go to court over something they are are wonderfully naive about how the world works.

5starpool

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

No, the mistake was the heavy handed approach to it. If that user was perm banned for trolling and his post(s) deleted with a mod warning that OTT abusive posts towards an entire religion or section of people are not tolerated, I doubt there would have been any furore.

The number of posters likely to post remarks of a similarly inflammatory nature to the poster who made the one in question is probably very small. If it were a case where a significant number of posters were at fault then a bit "RAWWWWRRR I don't like being ignored - here is what ye all have to do" thread would have been justified, but it seems like on the back of one (or a small number anyhow) idiot making an OTT abusive post, this blasphemy vague rubbish was dragged up unnecessarily. I know Dav said that AH as a community was not blamed for it, but the fact that the thread existed in AH, and the somewhat scolding nature of it, would contradict that somewhat.

I don't think anyone has any issues with boards taking steps to protect themselves from legal issues, no matter how unlikely the issue is to actually become an actual legal issue, but it is the approach is which it was handled, and the possibly inconsistent nature of this considering what others have said exists in other forums like A&A (which I don't read so can't comment). Is this the start of a retrospective clampdown on some of this other possibly blasphemous posts? Would that be as publicly scolding as this time?

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think the issue is with removing the post, everyone is fine with that. The issue is with the publication of the reasons for doing so, when all of us have probably removed similar posts without pulling the legal card out.

We regularly deal with posts intended to cause offence, and we deal with them as trolling. While 'religious trolling' is effectively now a possible offence under Irish law, that doesn't change the fact that such posts have always been dealt with.

I don't see that there was any need to highlight the blasphemy law aspect of this post to the wider community, but that's the only issue I see here. Nobody is arguing that Boards.ie should not act on receipt of notice, and I don't see anyone arguing that the post should have been left.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've done what you describe, I've also locked threads and explained why they couldn't be for legal reasons because needed to know this was a no-go zone.

Remember during the Tribunals? We weren't coy about the legal card being played there.

coffee_cake

nesf wrote: »

Meh, if the posters can't grasp that the site has to draw lines it disagrees with because it doesn't want to go to potentially go to court over something they are are wonderfully naive about how the world works.

We draw lines all the time by infracting banning deleting etc, not a scolding thread bringing up legal stuff aimed at a bunch of posters who 1/ had no idea what it was even about and 2/ weren't in any way involved anyway

o1s1n

nesf wrote: »

Meh, if the posters can't grasp that the site has to draw lines it disagrees with because it doesn't want to go to potentially go to court over something they are are wonderfully naive about how the world works.

Posters are grasping that boards is trying to draw the line - but annoyed because;

• The line was not defined in Dav's post, but instead came across as his own opinion of what he viewed blasphemy to be.
• The line didn't need to be defined at all, the offending posts could have been dealt with in the exact same way all other trolling posts are.
• The line is trying to define something which is extremely personal, close to the hearts of many and one of the biggest reasons for conflict in the history of humanity. Basically a can o' worms which should be avoided at all costs. One which could have easily been avoided if certain folks adhered to the point above.

In other words, it should have been a case of delete the posts, ban the user - 'move along, nothing to see here folks'

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Sarky wrote: »

Out of curiosity, could anyone hazard a guess as to how much legal fees would cost? I have little doubt that an offended religious party would easily be able to afford to bring things all the way up through every level of court to the top, and I have no doubt that it costs a small fortune each step of the way. Any idea of the cumulative costs of defending yourself from such lunacy?

It wouldn't cost the offended religious party a cent, it is a criminal matter, the state would be the prosecuting authority.
This is not about being sued, it is about being prosecuted, if not under the Blasphemy law then possibly also under the Incitement to Hatred Act.

28064212

nesf wrote: »

Meh, if the posters can't grasp that the site has to draw lines it disagrees with because it doesn't want to go to potentially go to court over something they are are wonderfully naive about how the world works.

But a line hasn't been drawn. One single data-point was selected, in a largely arbitrary fashion (because someone complained in a particular way), and this single point was announced to be unacceptable. There are numerous points which are 'beyond' this point, and there are numerous points which are near this point, but there is no way to know which ones are actionable.

If Boards.ie receive an email about the A&A forum, will it be closed down? Based on the official posts in this thread, I'm not feeling very hopeful.

nesf

You guys do realise that if it wasn't "the Blasphemy Law" we wouldn't be having this thread right and that arguing we shouldn't be warning people not to post defamatory comments but just ban them and delete posts instead would sound rather insane no? Like saying "you're trolling" to someone posting about an on-going court case and locking the thread wouldn't just create more confusion than it solved.


I detest this law too, I think it is bull****. I don't see why people are getting so worked up about it though. We, the users, have never had a say in legal issues for the site and this is a horribly messy call for Dav and the others to make because the law (amongst its many other problems) is very poorly defined.

KERSPLAT!

Do what's normally done, user banned for trolling, banned for being a dick, banned for being offensive.

o1s1n

nesf wrote: »

You guys do realise that if it wasn't "the Blasphemy Law" we wouldn't be having this thread right and that arguing we shouldn't be warning people not to post defamatory comments but just ban them and delete posts instead would sound rather insane no? Like saying "you're trolling" to someone posting about an on-going court case and locking the thread wouldn't just create more confusion than it solved.


I detest this law too, I think it is bull****. I don't see why people are getting so worked up about it though. We, the users, have never had a say in legal issues for the site and this is a horribly messy call for Dav and the others to make because the law (amongst its many other problems) is very poorly defined.

The comparison does not hold weight. Most legal issues for the site are based on something well defined in law. (or at least they can be defined through extensive analysis of the subject, ie - defamation, safety issues etc)

You can not equate this to the blasphemy law.

Why? Because this comes down to personal interpretation of a law which is already badly defined (for good reason, it's impossible to define in the modern age)

Fair enough, boards can chose to interpret it as X. However it then needs to be applied sitewide, and encompass many belief systems (and how those belief systems interpret blasphemy). An impossible task.

Why bother will all that crap when there's already a perfectly workable system in place - 'don't be a dick'.

Someone being a dick - banned
Someone posting highly offensive material - posts deleted, moderator includes brief description if necessary.

5starpool

nesf wrote: »

You guys do realise that if it wasn't "the Blasphemy Law" we wouldn't be having this thread right and that arguing we shouldn't be warning people not to post defamatory comments but just ban them and delete posts instead would sound rather insane no? Like saying "you're trolling" to someone posting about an on-going court case and locking the thread wouldn't just create more confusion than it solved.


I detest this law too, I think it is bull****. I don't see why people are getting so worked up about it though. We, the users, have never had a say in legal issues for the site and this is a horribly messy call for Dav and the others to make because the law (amongst its many other problems) is very poorly defined.

Have you not read any of the above posts? People aren't complaining because boards.ie ltd are protecting themselves, people are complaining that it was done in an OTT/scolding and possibly inconsistent manner.

Sarky

I thought it was more concern over what happens to the rest of the blasphemy we all normally engage in. Dav's post was hardly OTT or scolding to anyone who didn't deserve it. He did make a point of praising AH and its regulars.

Scofflaw

Sarky wrote: »

I thought it was more concern over what happens to the rest of the blasphemy we all normally engage in. Dav's post was hardly OTT or scolding to anyone who didn't deserve it. He did make a point of praising AH and its regulars.

It was unnecessary, and makes things more difficult for the Mods. There was no obvious reason not to handle it quietly, which is the issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Dav wrote: »

Had the post said "Muhammed was married to several women including a 9 year old girl" or indeed "Muhammed was a polygamist" there'd have been no problem and the post the OP made would have remained, but he deliberately chose his words to cause offence. If some people choose to be offended my making those factual statements, then they can take a running jump as far as I'm concerned.

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

You do realise its possible to make a post in regard to this without reference to your position and powers in the matter? I would have thought the thread in AH contained sufficient braggadocio and swagger to suffice.

The fact of the matter is that your interpretation of the law and your person feelings in the matter seem to run so parallel to one another that it's hard to tell one from the other. As a result I question the motives behind your intervention.

Dav

o1s1n wrote: »

Why did a big announcement need to be made on this occasion?

Because my very clear instructions were blatantly ignored.

I have, over the course of the morning consulted with my boss Gordon who has said the following:

Boards.ie's COO wrote:

1. We are responsible for acting when content is reported to us. If we don't act we potentially open ourselves up to legal action.

2. We don't condone hatred. The post was distasteful and offensive to many (including the member who reported it), so we removed it. The fact that it violated the blasphemy laws was almost a side issue - we don't want to be associated with, or host, this kind of material.

Regardless though, with regard to the post being blasphemous, as a small private company, why should/would we even take the risk of leaving it online? We have been caught up in an alleged defamation case for the last ten months, over something that one of our members posted. We acted quickly to take it down, but that means nothing if someone decides to take a High Court case against us. Net result for us was €15,000 legal fees and countless hours of time.

He also told me to leave this alone and get back to work As far as Boards.ie Ltd is concerned the legal issue that was reported to it has been dealt with. If I have to remove legally questionable content on other forums, I usually don't have to follow up on my warning to cut it out. It seems like the very tiny minority on that thread in AH didn't want to listen. So I made a big, loud post to hit the message home - when I act on this site, it's not because I want to, but because I have to and when that gets ignored, I will not be happy.

Now I am calling this done. If you're all unhappy, I'm sorry, but this is my job, this is how I do it and when it gets ignored I will not be happy and will be blunt - especially when it's 10pm at night when I'm thinking about going to bed. If there's anything I regret about this whole thing it's giving the eejit who started all this benefit of the doubt and expecting them to listen.

LoLth

Closing thread because it is no longer an issue that is open for discussion.

Original question has been asked and answered with additional details given. Everyone has a right to their opinion on the matter and most have had a chance to have that opinion heard and addressed. Anything else at this stage is semantics.

If you wish to discuss the blasphemy law etc please do so in the appropriate forum.