Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SoundsRight wrote: »Delighted they cleared that guy over the Grenfell tower effigy thing. We're starting to see a pushback against this idea that everything is racist if they say it's racist.
He's being cleared had absolutely nothing to do with whatever he did being racist. Its not part of a pushback against anything.
It was due to massive procedural errors on the part of the prosecution.
Now further to that, in my own modest opinion the case against this defendent should never have seen court.
The actions taken by the defendent, whilst plainly wrong were not for public desemination. It was originally shared by him to a private and encrypted whatsapp group.
The broadcast aspect of this case, should have seen the person who subsequently shared the private communication to public platforms prosecuted for any inferred offence.
Its going to be an interesting one for legal scholars I think
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
He's being cleared had absolutely nothing to do with whatever he did being racist. Its not part of a pushback against anything.
It was due to massive procedural errors on the part of the prosecution.
Now further to that, in my own modest opinion the case against this defendent should never have seen court.
The actions taken by the defendent, whilst plainly wrong were not for public desemination. It was originally shared by him to a private and encrypted whatsapp group.
The broadcast aspect of this case, should have seen the person who subsequently shared the private communication to public platforms prosecuted for any inferred offence.
Its going to be an interesting one for legal scholars I think
I am not sure it’s that legally interesting: unless it falls under a wiretap law, you aren’t legally protected from others repeating your speech. Bit like the CBP in the US, who had a private Facebook group where they shared disparaging memes about migrants and detainees: they don’t have any right to say the communication is privileged or inadmissible.0 -
-
He's being cleared had absolutely nothing to do with whatever he did being racist. Its not part of a pushback against anything.
It was due to massive procedural errors on the part of the prosecution.
Now further to that, in my own modest opinion the case against this defendent should never have seen court.
The actions taken by the defendent, whilst plainly wrong were not for public desemination. It was originally shared by him to a private and encrypted whatsapp group.
The broadcast aspect of this case, should have seen the person who subsequently shared the private communication to public platforms prosecuted for any inferred offence.
Its going to be an interesting one for legal scholars I think
there is no offence of that nature.0 -
-
-
-
-
And in fact more often than not there would be whistleblower protections, to the contrary.
as you said yourself there is no law againt repeating what others have told you. Otherwise my mother would currently be doing life
Of course there may be contractual concerns dependent on the situation but that wouldn't apply to personal communications between individuals.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »as you said yourself there is no law againt repeating what others have told you. Otherwise my mother would currently be doing life
Of course there may be contractual concerns dependent on the situation but that wouldn't apply to personal communications between individuals.
Spittled my coffee thank your mum for me0 -
Advertisement
-
ohnonotgmail wrote: »there is no offence of that nature.
Which is the point I was trying to lead others to
There is of course no offence of that nature.
The offensive action that this particular case was taken for was a private communication.
The widespread outrage caused by the publication of that private communication is where the action should lie.
The publisher, rather than the author.
It's a good study imo of where an offence occurs.
Is bad taste racist banter on private property and amongst "friends" prosecutable without a victim?
Or is it only when that behaviour harms another?
In which case culpability lies with the publisher IMO.
It gives rise to what could be a very interesting discussion on when the harm from such action occurs and where the liability for that harm lies.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement