Defamation

Donald Trump · 09-02-2022 5:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606644#Comment_118606644

Yes it does. That is the point of defamation - lowering your reputation in the eyes of the reasonable person

"Johnny was arrested after being found with a large amount of cocaine"

"Jimmy was arrested for fighting outside the nightclub after consuming a large amount of cocaine"

What is the minimum amount of cocaine that Jimmy must have consumed for it to be legitimate for it to be described as a "large amount"?

Now if the person is caught with 10g and the article says he was caught with 20kg, then there is a far stronger case. Otherwise you will be debating language of semantics and the ordinary meaning of words

ohnonotgmail · 09-02-2022 6:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606666#Comment_118606666

well no, it doesn't matter how it appears to you personally. you seem to have taken a very contrarian attitude. and arguing semantics is the stock in trade of lawyers.

Donald Trump · 09-02-2022 6:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606763#Comment_118606763

So give us your number that constitutes the minimum for "large"?

Jimmy got into a fight after consuming a large amount of cocaine?

What does that mean to you? What do you think it means to the reasonable person?

ohnonotgmail · 09-02-2022 6:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606782#Comment_118606782

you're clearly looking to go back and forth on this for a while and all because I told you were wrong. no interest in that.

Donald Trump · 09-02-2022 6:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606791#Comment_118606791

Nope. You were the only person who said something wrong. I corrected you over the jury/defamation trial issue.

I wouldn't like to have you advising me to take the hypothetical case with all the associated risks when you can't:

A) give a definition of what constitutes "large"

B) give a coherent reason why describing something as "large" would diminish further the reputation of a person convicted of possession compared to not describing it as such.

Peregrinus · 10-02-2022 2:37am

Well, you wouldn't look at the headline alone; you'd have to look at the story beneath where, unless the newspaper editor is suicidally stupid, the actual amount of cocaine will be stated.

But you might still have a case. Suppose the actual amount of cocaine was in fact relatively small - a single dose for one person. I could then argue that the headline was misleading in a defamatory way - it implies that I have quantities of cocaine that suggest large-scale or systematic use, or even dealing/supply, implications which are not warranted by the facts. And the fact that this misrepresentation was corrected in the article will not necessarily be a defence, since many people will see the headline who do not read the article, and newspaper editors know this when they are writing their headlines.

Donald Trump keeps banging on about defining "large". The plaintiff in these proceedings doesn't have to define "large"; he just has to persuade a jury that the use of the term, in this context, creates a false impression which is damaging to his reputation.

10-02-2022 9:55am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118608923#Comment_118608923

You see these type of headlines all the time (misleading ones)- After Hours used to call these type of headlines “click bait” - essentially the headline and sub level wording doesn’t really have a bearing to the content of the news article itself -

Peregrinus · 10-02-2022 10:05am

Clickbait headline: "You won't believe how much cocaine this man was carrying!"

10-02-2022 3:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118609332#Comment_118609332

Sometimes asked as a question-“Is this the biggest drug dealer in Ireland?” 😜

When you read the article, Usually the answer is, eh no he’s not.

L1011 · 12-02-2022 10:30am

If there's a question mark on the headline, the answer is no. Betteridges Law

joeguevara · 12-02-2022 11:01am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606594#Comment_118606594

While the op(as far as I remember) didn’t state that the alleged crime was a drugs offence.

But if it was then there are three main and separate charges.

Possession of a controlled substance

posession of a controlled substance with intent for sale and supply

Possession of a controlled substance subject to 15a.

Taking that into account if the paper said X was in possession of a large amount and was charged for possession. It may be difficult to say that a quarter of weed or Charlie isn’t large. But the fact that it’s simple possession and not selling it is the crux.

Now if the charge was intent for sale and supply it wouldn’t make a difference if it was 1k or 5k. To the eyes of the public it’s the fact was being supplied is the issue and the amount is secondary.

if it’s section 15a if it’s 20k or 100k it’s still the same.

so unless it was a completely different charge then semantics about what constitutes large wouldn’t be a great defamation case.

Just my thoughts. Defamation is not something I have litigated and mainly from academic study. But again it’s not clear if this is the type of charge alluded to in the OP.

joeguevara · 12-02-2022 11:47am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606666#Comment_118606666

It does say in the op that the charges were simply read out and no details were given to which he plead guilty.

Again we do not know the charge so difficult to discuss.

But taking your examples as a discussion point

(1) Large amount of cocaine. As no details of the case were given it can only fall into three categories. Possession, sale and supply and section 15 a. Unlikely that the word large would have been written unless went completely off piste. But that goes back to my post above. If the correct charge was reported then an amount is unlikely to be a deciding factor.

(2) there is no charge of assault after consuming cocaine. So as no details were provided and only the charge it’s unlikely to be this. Unless they went off piste as above. In any event, to the eyes of the public if you break someone’s jaw sober or if you break it after a gram of coke, the fact you broke their jaw Is the issue.

Unless other facts were offered to the court during sentencing (which as far as the OP states they don’t appear to be) then I think the above stands.

Donald Trump · 12-02-2022 1:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619956#Comment_118619956

My points were only related to trying to claim defamation on a descriptive term such as "large" when the substantive issue is proven (be that possession of drugs, assault etc). The OP didn't say what their offence was so I made up one to illustrate my point.

In the other scenario, I wasn't talking about there being a specific charge - just asking what a person might understand from the word "large" from a statement that a person assaulted someone after consuming a "large amount of cocaine". It was an example of the ambiguity of the word "large".

(It isn't the point I was making, but while the charge would not be different, it would not be uncommon to read a report that someone committed a crime after ingesting some substance. It might be given in evidence - e.g. as an excuse for a person for acting "out of character". - "my client only did this as he was going through a tough period and had consumed a large amount of cocaine and alcohol on the night in question. He has now taken measures to address that to make sure it won't happen again")

joeguevara · 12-02-2022 2:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118620399#Comment_118620399

In that scenario I completely agree. If untruths were fabricated or adversely ambiguous that would make a relatively minor infractions seem way more heinous then there is an arguable case.

I didn’t intend to make it look like I was disagreeing with you. I meant to just point out that based on the information in the OP that if it was just a charge that was reported without saying the level of scale that this charge encompasses, then it more than likely wouldn’t fall under the definition of defamation.

Defamation

Comments