Libel/Defamatory Laws

Stevieluvsye

Serious question and maybe one that a moderator is best placed to answer. But join in everyone

There are some threads on-going at the moment where some posters are being branded as a "Racist"

Is this open to Libel laws?

*Peoplenowsweatingfortheresponse

Boggles

It's not libel if it is true.

Stevieluvsye

Boggles wrote: »

It's not libel if it is true.

Who called your on BS Stevie?

No, not me, i'm no racist. Deal with facts generally.

But i see the term racist being bandied about quite a bit. I think that is defamatory

Boggles

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

No, not me, i'm no racist. Deal with facts generally.

But i see the term racist being bandied about quite a bit. I think that is defamatory

Sure lots of "terms" get bandied about, what is it with that particular one that made you start a thread asking about libel?

Stevieluvsye

Boggles wrote: »

Sure lots of "terms" get bandied about, what is it with that particular one that made you start a thread asking about libel?

It's is a serious word to be accused of being if not factually or proven accurate.

I just want clarification to my question.

Nothing to do with anyone responding to me FYI

Il Fascista

Boggles wrote: »

It's not libel if it is true.

No court of law would concluded that most of the posters that you deem to be racist are actually racist. You need actual evidence, not just pointing out that someone is against mass immigration.

hetuzozaho

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Serious question and maybe one that a moderator is best placed to answer. But join in everyone

There are some threads on-going at the moment where some posters are being branded as a "Racist"

Can it be libel if they are anonymous posters? (and I mean the person being branded Racist)

jam_mac_jam

No you have a fake name on boards so you haven't been libeled or defamed in real life. So I doubt libel laws would apply

Stevieluvsye

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Can it be libel if they are anonymous posters? (and I mean the person being branded Racist)

i'm asking the question plus i would have thought nobody is anonymous

Allinall

If you call someone racist, and are sued for defamation, you don't have to prove it's true.

The sue'er (sic) has to prove that their good name has been defamed.

In other words, they would have to prove that they are not a racist, and have suffered as a result of the allegation.

Good luck with that.

hetuzozaho

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No you have a fake name on boards so you haven't been libeled or defamed in real life. So I doubt libel laws would apply

That's what I thought. Like if we said something to defame a real person or entity boards.ie's mods would take care of it.
Within the "world" of the forum I guess it's all fair game

jam_mac_jam

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

i'm asking the question plus i would have thought nobody is anonymous

You are using a fake name, if I read somebody calling you something on boards I can't see your real name so your good name has been defamed or libeled.

Varik

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Can it be libel if they are anonymous posters? (and I mean the person being branded Racist)

Posters wouldn't be anonymous to everyone.

Stevieluvsye

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

You are using a fake name, if I read somebody calling you something on boards I can't see your real name so your good name has been defamed or libeled.

I'm sure a mod will clarify this

Boggles

Would the person suing for libel have to declare all their user profiles?

hetuzozaho

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

i'm asking the question plus i would have thought nobody is anonymous

Yeah sorry. Just did a quick google around defamation and looks like you'd be safe enough calling me "hetuzozaho" a racist - so carry on!

(not a lawyer)

Stevieluvsye

Boggles wrote: »

Would the person suing for libel have to declare all their user profiles?

Exactly! The hornets nest is awake

hetuzozaho

Boggles wrote: »

Would the person suing for libel have to declare all their user profiles?

Haha - well look my troll account was quite racist - but I was defamed on my nice one

jam_mac_jam

All for free speech until somebody uses the R word.

Stevieluvsye

Found this online

Libel Nature of Forums
A forum is a platform created for the exchange of information and opinions. Disagreements are common. Whereas people in a face-to-face discussion will generally act maturely when disagreeing about a topic, forum members act differently.

The design of most forums is such that “artificial bravery” is a serious problem and libel the result. This artificial bravery comes in the form of anonymity. Just as catnip may remove any inhibitions on the part of a cat, anonymity seems to remove any sniff of maturity from many forum members. An otherwise respectable member of society will post the most outlandish of statements without a second thought.

The tendency to make wild, unsubstantiated statements on Internet forums often introduces an element of defamation to the equation. Defamation occurs in the form of libel since it is a written claim, and members tend to get their money worth when blasting another member. These same members then appear shocked to learn liability could arise from their defamatory statements. The question is whether the same is true for the forum.

Sir Oxman

You might find a better answer in the legal forum?

Stevieluvsye

Sir Oxman wrote: »

You might find a better answer in the legal forum?

I think it's important that the majority of users that participate in threads that cause radically diverse opinions are aware of potentially defaming another user.

Current Affairs it seems is where this occurs most often

Instead of billy and his big banger over in after hours

Sir Oxman

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

I think it's important that the majority of users that participate in threads that cause radically diverse opinions are aware of potentially defaming another user.

Current Affairs it seems is where this occurs most often

Instead of billy and his big banger over in after hours

For sure but unless someone with knowledge of it bothers posting in here then it's doomed to BS answers!
More likely someone in Legal would know.

jam_mac_jam

https://www.defamationireland.com/defamation-on-the-internet/
From reading the above I say no due to the fact its anonymous, you have to prove you have suffered damage from it. So I cannot see how you would suffer damage unless it was your real name.

Also from the following website - http://kellywarnerlaw.com/defamation-laws-in-ireland/

Elements of Defamation in Ireland

In Ireland, plaintiffs must prove three things:
1.That the statement in question was widely heard or read. Personal comments made between two people are not considered defamatory.
2.That the statement in question is false.
3.That the statement was about the plaintiff.

Stevieluvsye

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

https://www.defamationireland.com/defamation-on-the-internet/
From reading the above I say no due to the fact its anonymous, you have to prove you have suffered damage from it. So I cannot see how you would suffer damage unless it was your real name.

Has this thread slightly stressed you out? :P

jam_mac_jam

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Has this thread slightly stressed you out? :P

No, I find it a genuinely interesting question and wanted to see if I was right. I don't call anyone names even if they are racist. I think the word has lost all meaning as its used so widely. Its lost its sting.

Stevieluvsye

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No, I find it a genuinely interesting question and wanted to see if I was right. I don't call anyone names even if they are racist. I think the word has lost all meaning as its used so widely. Its lost its sting.

I'm sure someone will clarify where exactly this sits

28064212

Allinall wrote: »

If you call someone racist, and are sued for defamation, you don't have to prove it's true.

That's incorrect. The burden of proof is on the defendant. Which is as it should be: how on earth could I prove that I'm (for example) not a paedophile. It's impossible. The person making the claim is the one who has to prove it
Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/section/16/enacted/en/html

16.— (1) It shall be a defence (to be known and in this Act referred to as the “ defence of truth ”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought is true in all material respects.

Allinall wrote: »

The sue'er (sic) has to prove that their good name has been defamed.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/print#sec2

“defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, and “defamatory” shall be construed accordingly;

Being called a racist would most definitely be a statement that injured a "regular" person's reputation

Boggles

Sir Oxman wrote: »

You might find a better answer in the legal forum?

If this is a serious thread (it isn't).

Then above is the best answer the OP could get.

Stevieluvsye

Boggles wrote: »

If this is a serious thread (it isn't).

Then above is the best answer the OP could get.

Who are you to question my integrity?

notobtuse

Calling someone racist, willy-nilly, should be libel and/or slander, but who would spend the amount of money needed to prosecute for little-to-no damages earned?

And those that bandy about claims of racism for anything and everything diminish real racism. Shame on them!

Philosopher, Sidney Hook, who wrote about the danger of spurious charges of “racism” and kindred epithets, noted…

"as morally offensive as is the expression of racism wherever it is found, a false charge of racism is equally offensive, perhaps even more so, because the consequences of a false charge of racism enable an authentic racist to conceal his racism by exploiting the loose way the term is used to cover up his actions. The same is true of a false charge of sexism or anti-Semitism. This is the lesson we should all have learned from the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Because of his false and irresponsible charges of communism against liberals, socialists, and others among his critics, many communists and agents of communist influence sought to pass themselves off as Jeffersonian democrats or merely idealistic reformers. They would all complain they were victims of red-baiting to prevent criticism and exposure."
[Emphasis added.]