Radio Forum: thinly-masked defamatory post

P. Breathnach

I reported this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88424556&postcount=2732.

Even without context, I think most Irish people would think of only person to whom it might refer, and some would interpret it as an allegation that the person was involved in a scam. The context makes it even more obvious who is targeted.

Several hours after I reported the post I became aware that at least two of the forum's three mods had been online, and there was no sign of mod action. I reported again, expressing disappointment that no action had been taken. Two mods acknowledged my report and indicated that the post would be considered. The conclusion of that consideration seems to be that no action is warranted.

I am very surprised that a post that seems to me to be so clearly defamatory merits no action.

Cookie_Monster

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am very surprised that a post that seems to me to be so clearly defamatory merits no action.

defamatory to who, no names are mentioned.

Even without context, I think most Irish people would think of only person to whom it might refer, and some would interpret it as an allegation that the person was involved in a scam. The context makes it even more obvious who is targeted.

if could apply to any politician or developer if you want to be flippant about it but other than that I don't see it applying to anyone in particular.

nesf

I don't recognise a specific individual in that. Then, I did grow tired of the non-stop revealing of dodgy developers so I don't keep up-to-date with the stories anymore. There probably is a specific individual there identifiable if you're familiar with a specific case but this specific case might not be as well known as you think perhaps?

The Hill Billy

Your next step should be to PM the CMods for their opinion.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

I would automatically associate that post as referring to a very specific person, who set up a trust to build houses in South Africa, I won't name him in my post, but it certainly does seem to accuse him of serious charges.

P. Breathnach

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

defamatory to who, no names are mentioned....

You can defame without mentioning names, if the target is clearly identifiable.

nesf wrote: »

I don't recognise a specific individual in that. Then, I did grow tired of the non-stop revealing of dodgy developers so I don't keep up-to-date with the stories anymore. There probably is a specific individual there identifiable if you're familiar with a specific case but this specific case might not be as well known as you think perhaps?

I'm surprised that you, who I know to take an interest in public affairs, do not know who is referenced in the post. But if you read the preceding discussion in the thread, I am sure that you would agree that there is no doubt who the target is.

Dades

I agree it's pretty obvious who's that post is targeted at.

However my own feeling is that it's vague enough and buried deep enough in a huge thread as to not initially be a problem. But now you've brought it to everybody's attention best let Dav cast his eye over it.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm surprised that you, who I know to take an interest in public affairs, do not know who is referenced in the post. But if you read the preceding discussion in the thread, I am sure that you would agree that there is no doubt who the target is.

I've been ignoring a lot of the developer stuff for a good while now. I'm just sick of it and nothing fails to surprise me anymore.

Dav

I have absolutely zero idea who the post is about, but if it is clear to many people then it should be removed and I have done so now.

To give the radio mods their dues, it's a very, very tricky one in this case. First of all, there are the people like me who simply have no idea who it's referencing, maybe they fall into that camp. Secondly, the poster thought they were being clever in not naming names, but as I understand it, a specific name isn't needed if the circumstance around the statement make it clear who it is.

Skid X

If you read the post in the context of the thread in which it is posted, it is blindingly obvious who 'a certain person' was.

It was an ongoing discussion in the Marian Finucane show thread while the developer was being interviewed. He had been named in several posts prior to the contentious post.

It is naive to read a reported post in isolation, and say no-one named, so no problem here. I agree with the OP, this should have been deleted sooner - it was clearly defamatory and it is the kind of post which could have serious consequences for Boards (and the poster).

IvyTheTerrible

Dades wrote: »

I agree it's pretty obvious who's that post is targeted at.

However my own feeling is that it's vague enough and buried deep enough in a huge thread as to not initially be a problem. But now you've brought it to everybody's attention best let Dav cast his eye over it.

In fairness, the powers that be on Boards are always encourage posters to be good users and report offending posts to bring them to the attention of the authorities.

And I was reading the thread in question and you'd have to be pretty obtuse not to realise who the post was about.

And as for being buried deep in a thread, sure the person in question would only have to google his name, find the thread and read a couple of posts ahead. Not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Dades

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Dades wrote: »

I agree it's pretty obvious who's that post is targeted at.

In fairness, the powers that be on Boards are always encourage posters to be good users and report offending posts to bring them to the attention of the authorities.

Feedback is not a tool for bringing legal issues to the attention of HQ. Reported posts can get overlooked, but when this happens a PM to the CMods or to an admin is the best approach.

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

And as for being buried deep in a thread, sure the person in question would only have to google his name, find the thread and read a couple of posts ahead. Not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Indeed that's true. Feckin' self-googlers.

Eeden

RopeDrink wrote: »

You won't need to have to repeatedly report a post, unless something else happens to which alter the perspective/reasons for reporting it in the first place, otherwise if a decision is made on that report, it'll more often than not stay that way unless circumstances or situations change, such as this. Instead of re-reporting the same post, as said above, feel free to send over a PM to either the Mods or myself (To which I'll have to PM the Mods... But same result, really)

Sorry, but I couldn't understand what this post was saying at all... ??

Not having followed the thread in question, I still figured out who was being referred to immediately just by reading the reported post.

It's a bit bewildering that so many people would know who was being referred to straight away, and yet so many others wouldn't have a clue??

nesf

Eeden wrote: »

It's a bit bewildering that so many people would know who was being referred to straight away, and yet so many others wouldn't have a clue??

This is pretty normal actually. If I made a "Socialists love the odd tipple" remark most people would know exactly who I was talking about but a lot of people wouldn't have a clue.

Dades

Eeden wrote: »

It's a bit bewildering that so many people would know who was being referred to straight away, and yet so many others wouldn't have a clue??

The people who didn't have a clue reading the post in question fall into two categories - those who checked a page back to see who was bring talked about, and those that didn't.

I fall into the former category. If I wasn't arsed knowing who it was and didn't read back I'd have been in in the latter.

Skid X

The person to whom the post was referring would have known that he was being defamed. As would anyone who had read the thread (he was named several times in other posts). If he (or someone who knows him) had read the post there may well have been legal action taken. That should be the key factor in judging a post.

Even if the Moderators felt the post in isolation did not identify anyone (which I would disagree with), they could not possibly have held the same opinion if they have read the post in the context of the thread.

nesf

Skid X wrote: »

If he (or someone who knows him) had read the post there may well have been legal action taken. That should be the key factor in judging a post.

It is and Mods do not make the final call on this, the Office does. If someone is worried about a Mod call regarding a legal matter they can always ask someone more senior to look at it and it always taken very seriously.

P. Breathnach

It would be unduly optimistic to expect all mods to be legal experts, but it would be good if they recognised that some decisions are above their pay-grade (and yes, I do know they are unpaid) and referred those problems up the line.

In my opinion, if a mod is looking at a post that might be construed as defamatory the mod should delete or edit it (whatever suits) or refer it up the line. It's dangerous for a mod to judge that a possible defamation is not serious business.

Dav

This is why our Terms of Use specify that if someone has a legal issue with something on the site, they refer it directly to the office.