Defamation

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-01-2014 2:12am #1

If someone were to make a blog about another person, and the blog obviously contained tags which would lead google to the blog in question, therefore hindering chances of employment or ruining a reputation - although what the blog contained was true, can the person have the blog removed?

Also, if a person is recorded without knowing they're recorded, can the recording be used as evidence in a court case?

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:14am

If the poster can prove that what they say is true they can say it all they like.

No, it couldn't be used as evidence.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-01-2014 2:21am

I realise that sounds very cryptic, ill try explain better.

Person A borrows 4k off person B. Person B is elderly. Person A gets the money in cash, and tells B that the money will be returned in 3 months.

3 months later, person A tells B that she doesn't have the money right now and will repay in 6 months. 6 months pass by and A does not make any contact at all with B.

B is now seriously ill with a terminal illness. So, 2 months later C and D (b's adult children) send a text message which was not replied to, giving person A 30 days to get the money together and repay the debt. (A is on holiday in France when message was sent. She did not reply to the message.) During the 30 days she had to gather the money, C recieves abusive messages from her regarding something trivial (not related to issue at hand, but proves she was recieving the messages to that number) so C asks about the money again that is due in 4 days, and no more messages are recieved, (no confirmation it would be paid and no denial it was recieved).

A approaches B the night the money was due, while he was very ill in hospital to cry about her not having the money to pay back yet.

1 month later, D approaches and asks when the money will be repaid. A tells D there is no legal agreement and nothing on paper. D gets this on his phone as a recording.

C in the meantime makes a blog, stating exactly what's in this post, but tags A's name and other identifying info so the results come up on google.

A goes to the guards who obviously tell her to see a solicitor and A has her solicitor send a letter to C requesting that she remove the blog straight away or go to court.

C tells A in the blog the blog will only be removed when the content becomes false, ie, when the debt is repaid.

Could C post the clip on the blog without repercussions?

billie1b · 07-01-2014 2:25am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I realise that sounds very cryptic, ill try explain better.

Person A borrows 4k off person B. Person B is elderly. Person A gets the money in cash, and tells B that the money will be returned in 3 months.

3 months later, person A tells B that she doesn't have the money right now and will repay in 6 months. 6 months pass by and A does not make any contact at all with B.

B is now seriously ill with a terminal illness. So, 2 months later C and D (b's adult children) send a text message which was not replied to, giving person A 30 days to get the money together and repay the debt. (A is on holiday in France when message was sent. She did not reply to the message.) During the 30 days she had to gather the money, C recieves abusive messages from her regarding something trivial (not related to issue at hand, but proves she was recieving the messages to that number) so C asks about the money again that is due in 4 days, and no more messages are recieved, (no confirmation it would be paid and no denial it was recieved).

A approaches B the night the money was due, while he was very ill in hospital to cry about her not having the money to pay back yet.

1 month later, D approaches and asks when the money will be repaid. A tells D there is no legal agreement and nothing on paper. D gets this on his phone as a recording.

C in the meantime makes a bl

Yes the recording can be used as its not a 3rd party recording it

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:28am

Once whatever was said is factual it's not a problem.

On a side note one cant just decide on a time frame for a debt to be paid. If a payment schedule is agreed before the loan is made and that schedule is not followed, the person owed the money can do three things, make an agreement between both parties, wait, or take it to court. They cannot make demands.

Also someone who the debt is not owed to getting involved could land themselves in serious trouble.

A is somewhat right in what they have said by the way. The money is owed but outside of a court they can't be forced to repay it.

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:29am

billie1b wrote: »

Yes the recording can be used as its not a 3rd party recording it

I was pretty sure you can't do that.

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:31am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Could C post the clip on the blog without repercussions?

Posting a clip on a blog and using it in court are very different things.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-01-2014 2:33am

GarIT wrote: »

Once whatever was said is factual it's not a problem.

On a side note one cant just decide on a time frame for a debt to be paid. If a payment schedule is agreed before the loan is made and that schedule is not followed, the person owed the money can do three things, make an agreement between both parties, wait, or take it to court. They cannot make demands.

Also someone who the debt is not owed to getting involved could land themselves in serious trouble.

A is right in what they have said by the way.

It is not making demands.
A agreed to have the money paid back within 3 months.
On the 3rd month she said she didn't have it and she would repay it in 6 months.
6 months passed and she did not approach or enter into conversation with B when she would pay it, so as the money was 60 days overdue, she was given 30 days notice to have the money.

There is no problem bringing her to court, as there is lots of proof that she got the money, including the recording. Her own mother is going to vouch that she got the money. There is evidence from the credit union showing a withdrawal for the price she paid for a car, and say that was on the 1st jan, then the car was in her name literally 2 days later.

Edit: B has since passed away, so the money is now owed to C + D

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-01-2014 2:35am

GarIT wrote: »

Posting a clip on a blog and using it in court are very different things.

Am doing both, obviously if it can be used in court it will not be published on the blog. If it is inadmissable in court, I will publish on the blog

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:36am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It is not making demands.
A agreed to have the money paid back within 3 months.
On the 3rd month she said she didn't have it and she would repay it in 6 months.
6 months passed and she did not approach or enter into conversation with B when she would pay it, so as the money was 60 days overdue, she was given 30 days notice to have the money.

There is no problem bringing her to court, as there is lots of proof that she got the money, including the recording. Her own mother is going to vouch that she got the money. There is evidence from the credit union showing a withdrawal for the price she paid for a car, and say that was on the 1st jan, then the car was in her name literally 2 days later.

A time period was agreed before the loan was made, after that the time period can't be changed or extended or anything unless both parties agree to it. Giving someone 30 days notice to have money could land you in trouble, you just cant do that.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-01-2014 2:39am

GarIT wrote: »

A time period was agreed before the loan was made, after that the time period can't be changed or extended or anything unless both parties agree to it. Giving someone 30 days notice to have money could land you in trouble, you just cant do that.

Person A would not respond to any contact, so she did miss what she agreed to, as there was no other date agreed. The money was to be paid in June and she did not approach B to agree on another date, she just didn't bother paying him. Asking someone for the money they owed and was 2 months late paying isn't all that outrageous, one would hope

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:41am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Person A would not respond to any contact, so she did miss what she agreed to, as there was no other date agreed. The money was to be paid in June and she did not approach B to agree on another date, she just didn't bother paying him. Asking someone for the money they owed and was 2 months late paying isn't all that outrageous, one would hope

Asking and giving notice are also very different things. A third party "giving notice" could easily be seen as harassment. Asking for it isn't a problem at all.
C and D should no be dealing with this on B's behalf outside of a court.

billie1b · 07-01-2014 2:42am

GarIT wrote: »

I was pretty sure you can't do that.

Is it legal to covertly record private conversations without prior consent in Ireland? Yes it is, and no it isn't. If a person or any other entity records a conversation or telephone call and they are not a party to that conversation it is illegal. The only exception to this is when the third party is authorised by the government and obtains a legal and valid warrant. As say, during an investigation by the Gardai.

If a person is a party to the conversation or phone call then it is legal to record it with or without prior consent of the other parties. For telephone calls specifically, it became legal to do so in 1993.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-01-2014 2:44am

GarIT wrote: »

Asking and giving notice are also very different things. A third party "giving notice" could easily be seen as harassment.

I thought we were being nice about it.

Hi *name*, just texting on behalf of dad. Just about the 4K that was borrowed last year, just hoping that you can have it paid back by the end of september it's just that it was supposed to be paid back by December, and then June, and things are hectic at home here so if you could drop it down that'd be great.

Is exactly what was sent two months after the agreed date was missed

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:44am

billie1b wrote: »

Is it legal to covertly record private conversations without prior consent in Ireland? Yes it is, and no it isn't. If a person or any other entity records a conversation or telephone call and they are not a party to that conversation it is illegal. The only exception to this is when the third party is authorised by the government and obtains a legal and valid warrant. As say, during an investigation by the Gardai.

If a person is a party to the conversation or phone call then it is legal to record it with or without prior consent of the other parties. For telephone calls specifically, it became legal to do so in 1993.

Is being allowed record and being allowed use it the same thing though?

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:46am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I thought we were being nice about it.

Hi *name*, just texting on behalf of dad. Just about the 4K that was borrowed last year, just hoping that you can have it paid back by the end of september it's just that it was supposed to be paid back by December, and then June, and things are hectic at home here so if you could drop it down that'd be great.

Is exactly what was sent two months after the agreed date was missed

If that is exactly what is said it should be fine, take out "just hoping" and you have trouble. Just be careful not to be too, pushy, contact too frequently or make demands.

billie1b · 07-01-2014 2:46am

GarIT wrote: »

Is being allowed record and being allowed use it the same thing though?

Yea it can be used, has been used for 2 cases that I know of in Ireland already

Bepolite · 07-01-2014 2:46am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If someone were to make a blog about another person, and the blog obviously contained tags which would lead google to the blog in question, therefore hindering chances of employment or ruining a reputation - although what the blog contained was true, can the person have the blog removed?

Also, if a person is recorded without knowing they're recorded, can the recording be used as evidence in a court case?

This is a different question to is this defamation. Defamation requires an untrue, damaging statement to be published to a third party (this can be as little as 1 person, google not required).

You're asking can the blog be taken down, the answer to that question is most certainly yes. Read the T&Cs associated with any contract you have with any service provider. Also bear in mind the blog may not be under the jurisdiction of Irish Law.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-01-2014 2:47am

GarIT wrote: »

C and D should no be dealing with this on B's behalf outside of a court.

B was terminally ill bedridden and In hospital, so he was not in a position to act himself so he asked C and D to.

B has since passed away so C and D are owed the money now

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:48am

On the assumption that you are C the wise thing to do would be to take down the blog and let everything be settled in court.

Bepolite · 07-01-2014 2:48am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

B has since passed away so C and D are owed the money now

B's estate is owed surely?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-01-2014 2:50am

Bepolite wrote: »

This is a different question to is this defamation. Defamation requires an untrue, damaging statement to be published to a third party (this can be as little as 1 person, google not required).

You're asking can the blog be taken down, the answer to that question is most certainly yes. Read the T&Cs associated with any contract you have with any service provider. Also bear in mind the blog may not be under the jurisdiction of Irish Law.

So it's untrue damaging statements, so are true damaging statements ok?

I do not mind if the service provider removes the blog, if she wants to go to court and get an order for google to remove the blogspot dedicated to her she is more than welcome.
Just her solicitor is telling me to remove it, or go to court.

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:50am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

B was terminally ill bedridden and In hospital, so he was not in a position to act himself so he asked C and D to.

B has since passed away so C and D are owed the money now

The first part is completely irrelevant. C and D still wouldn't have had the same position as B, debt collectors have to be very careful.

The second part is relevant. You may need confirmation that a loan was made though as B can't say that there was a verbal agreement.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-01-2014 2:51am

Bepolite wrote: »

B's estate is owed surely?

Same thing, there are only two benefactors of bs estate

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:51am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Same thing, there are only two benefactors of bs estate

Not exactly, it would be up to the executor to get the money back not the benefactors (I think). My last post #23 assumes C or D was the executor.

Bepolite · 07-01-2014 2:52am

Defamation Act 2009

Truth.

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.

(2) In a defamation action in respect of a statement containing 2 or more distinct allegations against the plaintiff, the defence of truth shall not fail by reason only of the truth of every allegation not being proved, if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining allegations.

That's not to say airing one's dirty laundry in public is not going to have unforeseen effects or impress an Judge.

Bepolite · 07-01-2014 2:53am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Same thing, there are only two benefactors of bs estate

It's not I'm afraid. You need to engage a solicitor. Privity is just one of your issues.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-01-2014 2:55am

GarIT wrote: »

The first part is completely irrelevant. C and D still wouldn't have had the same position as B, debt collectors have to be very careful.

The second part is relevant. You may need confirmation that a loan was made though as B can't say that there was a verbal agreement.

There is proof from
- credit union statements
My dad withdrew the 4k that she used to pay for a car 2 days later.
- Facebook snapshots of her posts about buying the car and a picture from donedeal with the previous owners contact details on it. The previous owner will provide a written statement to produce in court stating how much she recieved from person A.
- person C (me) physically handed the money over to her, in her house, as B wanted someone else to be involved so it wasn't just hearsey. She told me that night there would be no problem having the money back by December.

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:56am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

So it's untrue damaging statements, so are true damaging statements ok?

I do not mind if the service provider removes the blog, if she wants to go to court and get an order for google to remove the blogspot dedicated to her she is more than welcome.
Just her solicitor is telling me to remove it, or go to court.

You can say anything you want if you can prove it to be true. If you know it to be true but you cannot prove it to be true it is defamation.

To be honest removing it is probably in your best interests. Or maybe even try to work out a deal with the solicitor. A pays X amount per month and you remove the blog immediately.

I also wouldn't advise trying to use the internet as a defence against a solicitor.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-01-2014 2:56am

GarIT wrote: »

Not exactly, it would be up to the executor to get the money back not the benefactors (I think). My last post #23 assumes C or D was the executor.

Yes, C is.

GarIT · 07-01-2014 2:58am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

There is proof from
- credit union statements
My dad withdrew the 4k that she used to pay for a car 2 days later.
- Facebook snapshots of her posts about buying the car and a picture from donedeal with the previous owners contact details on it. The previous owner will provide a written statement to produce in court stating how much she recieved from person A.
- person C (me) physically handed the money over to her, in her house, as B wanted someone else to be involved so it wasn't just hearsey. She told me that night there would be no problem having the money back by December.

Only the last one can actually be used as proof. The rest are suggestions that you are right.

Defamation

Comments