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

Iona vs Panti

Options
13567…82

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    SW wrote: »
    @BB Jernal nails it.

    And at no point did BBC Newsnight mention Lord McAlpine by name either, it was "Senior Tory MP" or something like that.

    BBC still payed out, RTE payed out. No point blaming the wronged party if national broadcasters are going to be making false allegations and then having to pay the price.


  • Options
    #63
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Allegations were made against persons by people who can't prove their allegations.

    The Iona institute and John Waters believe and argue that gay people should be treated less than everyone else, its all throughout their website and it's in Water's articles and interviews. So what's to prove? They are homophobes.


  • Options
    #64
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Dave! wrote: »
    I dunno who/what McAlpine is

    Rich, fat bloke, died recently. Got a pay-off from the BBC (public money) for a program that wrongly linked him to abuse at a Welsh children's home.


  • Options
    #65
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    No point blaming the wronged party if national broadcasters are going to be making false allegations and then having to pay the price.

    The national broadcaster didn't make any allegations, a guest on a talk show did, so the lawsuits should have been directed at him, no?


  • Options
    #66
    vitani
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,824 ✭✭✭vitani


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The national broadcaster didn't make any allegations, a guest on a talk show did, so the lawsuits should have been directed at him, no?

    And whether they're actually false or not is open to interpretation. Quite a number of people would find the individuals mentioned to be homophobic. The Lord McAlpine case was completely different as it was about a physical act he may have done or not done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    vitani wrote: »
    And whether they're actually false or not is open to interpretation. Quite a number of people would find the individuals mentioned to be homophobic. The Lord McAlpine case was completely different as it was about a physical act he may have done or not done.
    And what is common, as is common in all cases of defamation is the allegations would have damaged the victims reputation.

    Do you deny this?

    Also, as RTE have apologised and paid out they obviously didn't agree with you that the allegation "was open to interpretation".


  • Options
    #68
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The national broadcaster didn't make any allegations, a guest on a talk show did, so the lawsuits should have been directed at him, no?
    He/they would have been within their rights to sue both the broadcaster and the person making the allegation.

    Though if it was me personally and a damaging and false accusation was made against me I would be less concerned about the loose lips of a "celebrity" drag queen and more concerned about these allegations being broadcast on national TV.


  • Options
    #69
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I don't know who Iona are or who John Waters is for that matter, nor do I care what drag queens say on what looks like an awful tv program but I do know you can't make allegations of homophobia on national TV.

    I can only assume that they are false allegations seeing as RTE has agreed to settle the case.
    Yeah, the guy who referred to lesbian couples with children as "lesbians playing house" is in no way homophobic.
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Drunk with liberal hubris, have we reinvented the wheel of life, deciding that two lesbians playing House can trump the claims of the forces that create human life?[/FONT]
    (Irish Times, April 2008, reproduced at amen.ie)


  • Options
    #70
    vitani
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,824 ✭✭✭vitani


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And what is common, as is common in all cases of defamation is the allegations would have damaged the victims reputation.

    Do you deny this?

    Also, as RTE have apologised and paid out they obviously didn't agree with you that the allegation "was open to interpretation".

    Truth is a defense against defamation, as is what used to be known as fair comment. If you go around arguing that jealous gay people are trying to destroy the institute of marriage, and by extension, society itself, then you can't whinge about somebody thinking you're homophobic.

    I can't adequately explain RTE's actions in either case, but I'm willing to bet that this isn't the last we'll hear about it.


  • Options
    #71
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    vitani wrote: »
    Truth is a defense against defamation, as is what used to be known as fair comment. If you go around arguing that jealous gay people are trying to destroy the institute of marriage, and by extension, society itself, then you can't whinge about somebody thinking you're homophobic.
    .
    You think that RTE's legal department aren't aware of the above?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,216 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The national broadcaster didn't make any allegations, a guest on a talk show did, so the lawsuits should have been directed at him, no?
    RTE broadcast the allegations to millions. To be liable in defamation you don't have to originate a defamatory comment; just to publish it. Nearly all factual claims which newspapers, broadcasters, etc publish is material that they have not originated, but they are still liable for publishing those allegations, if they are defamatory.


  • Options
    #73
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    RTE broadcast the allegations to millions. To be liable in defamation you don't have to originate a defamatory comment; just to publish it. Nearly all factual claims which newspapers, broadcasters, etc publish is material that they have not originated, but they are still liable for publishing those allegations, if they are defamatory.

    So eloquently put.
    Can I get you to reply my PM's that ask why comments are deleted? :D
    Or can I just like, maybe, uh, copy this for, um, future use?


  • Options
    #74
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,216 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Jernal wrote: »
    Or can I just like, maybe, uh, copy this for, um, future use?
    You mean you want to publish material that you haven't originated?;)

    Be my guest!


  • Options
    #75
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You mean you want to publish material that you haven't originated?;)

    Be my guest!

    I promise to fully quote the post, like so.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    To be liable in defamation you don't have to originate a defamatory comment; just to publish it. Nearly all factual claims which newspapers, broadcasters, etc publish is material that they have not originated, but they are still liable for publishing those allegations, if they are defamatory.

    Then follow it up with something like boards could be sued by the post the user published.:)


  • Options
    #76
    extra gravy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,624 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    Brown Bomber wrote: »

    I don't know who Iona are or who John Waters is for that matter, nor do I care what drag queens say on what looks like an awful tv program but I do know you can't make allegations of homophobia on national TV.

    I can only assume that they are false allegations seeing as RTE has agreed to settle the case.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    He/they would have been within their rights to sue both the broadcaster and the person making the allegation.

    Though if it was me personally and a damaging and false accusation was made against me I would be less concerned about the loose lips of a "celebrity" drag queen and more concerned about these allegations being broadcast on national TV.

    He has a name. You addressed John Waters by his proper name so why can't you extend the same courtesy to Rory O'Neill?


  • Options
    #77
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    I'm sure the name calling and carrying on will boost Rorys career no end. For a while I wasn't sure if this was some father ted style joke or whether that lad was for real.
    We have our answer. .


  • Options
    #78
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm sure the name calling and carrying on will boost Rorys career no end. For a while I wasn't sure if this was some father ted style joke or whether that lad was for real.
    We have our answer. .

    Considering he went out of his way to try to avoid name calling anyone it seems highly unlikely this was a cheap career stunt. Now, of course by your cynicism, there is another consideration that of Waters et al. they must have known the publicity their actions would garner.


  • Options
    #79
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Jernal wrote: »
    Considering he went out of his way to try to avoid name calling.


    Ah now. Thats hardly true. But shure. Thats showbiz.


  • Options
    #80
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Ah now. Thats hardly true. But shure. Thats showbiz.

    For what you're saying to have a semblance of sense you must explain why he wasn't blunt and just said something like
    "John waters, Breda, David Quinn are homophobes." Instead he was very long winded about it and directed by the talk show host.


  • Options
    #81
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,216 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Yup. He wouldn’t name names until O’Connor invited him to. Nor did he use the word “homophobe” until O’Connor asked him whether he would, and even then he prefaced his comments with a lengthy “talking-down” of what the concept entails - homophobes are not “horrible monsters”; they don’t “go around beating up gays”; homophobia is basically a good impulse (to benefit society) which has been misdirected. What O’Neill basically says comes down to this; homophobia is not hatred of or violence towards gays; it’s the failure to recognise the detriment to gays that your positions and beliefs and basically good impulses are causing. And in that rather limited sense O’Neill implicitly implicitly accepts the suggestion that Waters and the “Iona Institute crowd” are homophobes.

    The practical legal problem for RTE is this: read as a whole, the comments do involve calling Waters, etc, homophobes. And calling someone a homophobe does, generally, tend to lower them in the eyes of your average right-thinking citizen, so it is prima facie defamatory. And if RTE were sued on this by, say, Waters, there are two main possible lines of defence.

    Justification: “Yes, he’s a homophobe, and here’s the proof”. If you run this defence, the onus is on you to show that what you have said is true. You’ve got to bring in the evidence, and you’ve got to prove your claims to a fairly high standard, and to the satisfaction of a jury. And it’s a high-risk strategy because, if you fail to discharge the onus of proof, your attempt to do so will go very badly against you when it comes to measuring damages.

    And I think we can probably agree that, for at least the sense of “homophobe” which implies motivation by hatred, violent attitudes and behaviour, being a “horrible monster”, etc, it would not be easy to produce hard evidence to pin that on John Waters. “I strongly disagree with what he writes” just doesn’t cut it.

    Fair comment on a matter of public interest: “Yes, I called him a homophobe, but I meant it in the nicest possible sense - I meant that he advocated policies and positions which, in practice, are disadvantageous to gays, that those policies and principles are unjustified, and that he failed either to recognise this or to accept responsibility for it”. The problem here is that the “nicest possible sense” argument does not play well in a defamation trial. You don’t get to redefine words in a defamation trial; if you use the word “homophobe” what matters is not what you meant by it, but what the jury thinks people would ordinarily understand by it. So if you called Waters a homophobe and the jury thought that that ordinarily implied certain attitudes and certain behaviours that you haven’t proved Waters to be guilty of, well, you’re in a sticky position.

    Sure, you can point to the context, and you can say you explained clearly the very limited sense in which it was alleged that Waters could be regarded as a homophobe, and you could invite the jury to consider all that and take the comments in totality and not focus on the word “homophobe”. And if you got the right jury you might be OK. But it’s not a risk-free strategy.

    Plus - licence-fee payers please bear in mind - defamation trials are hugely expensive. Pick a figure of what you think they might cost. Now double it. Now treble that again. Now add the number you first thought of. Now you’re getting close.

    So I can see RTE making a calculation here - we can run this, and we have an arguable case, and may very well win. But we may lose and, if we do lose, it will cost us large numbers of squillions. (And even if we win it will cost us small numbers of squillions.) And that’s a kind of cost we might be prepared to bear to defend investigative journalism. But an entertainment-based chat show? Nah, not a chance. Throw a few shillings at the complainants and move on.

    Don’t get me wrong. I wish to God RTE had fought this one, but I’m not amazed that they didn’t. And I don’t honestly think their calculation here had anything to do with the power of vested conservative interests.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    From everything I've read of his, Seamus seems to be a thoroughly decent chap.

    Last time I heard of Seamus, he was working as an election overseer in the disputed (and sniper-fire-level dangerous) Azerbaijani/Armenian territory of Nagorno-Karabakh a few months back - I can't imagine somebody of Waters stature being similarly willing to going out and doing something positive to uphold democracy.

    I agree. A person should not be judged inadvertently or negatively just because they have a close relation who happens to be a priest/bishop/politician. That’s a dangerous game in itself.


  • Options
    #83
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The national broadcaster didn't make any allegations, a guest on a talk show did, so the lawsuits should have been directed at him, no?

    As it was aired on RTE they are responsible soley for it.


  • Options
    #84
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    vitani wrote: »
    And whether they're actually false or not is open to interpretation. Quite a number of people would find the individuals mentioned to be homophobic. The Lord McAlpine case was completely different as it was about a physical act he may have done or not done.

    The trouble is proving it in a court of law. Easier said than done and RTE were never going to fight that battle. The issue isnt with RTE or this case specificly, the issue is with the strong libel laws in Ireland.


  • Options
    #85
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    vitani wrote: »
    It probably won't make a difference but I've just sent a complaint to RTÉ as well.

    I was nearly sick when I heard the story about damages being paid this morning. It frustrates me that everyone I know agrees that there's nothing defamatory about what Rory said. It seems that RTÉ just can't be arsed standing up to the Iona Institute.

    Here is my response:
    RTE wrote:
    Dear Chris,

    Thank you for your mail.

    The Saturday Night Show in question is the subject of a legal complaint and we regret that for that reason we are unable to comment any further on the programme, or matters relating to it. For this reason RTÉ is not in a position to respond substantively to your mail.

    However we would like to assure you that your correspondence and that of others on this topic will be circulated to senior editorial management and that RTÉ takes audience feedback very seriously.

    Yours sincerely,

    Maria Doogan
    RTÉ Broadcast Compliance

    MrP


  • Options
    #86
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    extra gravy wrote: »
    He has a name. You addressed John Waters by his proper name so why can't you extend the same courtesy to Rory O'Neill?

    I imagine because BB thinks there's something wrong with being a drag queen, and by pointing out that Rory performs as a drag queen, he can sway debate, but doesn't realize that people just don't share his prejudices. Bit of a useless ad hominem.


  • Options
    #87
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,733 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Column: Panti Bliss controversy raises major questions about RTE’s role in public discourse
    If the public service broadcaster is to capitulate every time someone cries foul when a well-founded and fair opinion is expressed about them, then they will find that the budget very quickly runs dry but – more importantly – so too does public discourse. For example, I am always introduced as an Independent TD. This is, by dictionary definition, correct. Now suppose I decide I’m not happy with that label despite the fact that it is accurate. Should I write a letter to RTE and expect a cheque by return? Where does it end?

    You cannot openly espouse a belief then decide to be offended when the appropriate label for that belief is applied to you. The public service broadcaster has a duty here to exercise discretion, common sense and most importantly, to provide an equal platform where one side, or the other, is not afraid to openly address an issue using appropriate wording, not slurs, but actual dictionary definitions that are not open to dispute by pedants with well-paid solicitors behind them.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #88
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Jernal wrote: »
    For what you're saying to have a semblance of sense you must explain why he wasn't blunt and just said something like
    "John waters, Breda, David Quinn are homophobes." Instead he was very long winded about it and directed by the talk show host.

    The direction given by Brendan ( he has a name) is irrelevant. Unless you're suggesting the two had aready discussed the discussion before the show?

    Rory went on a boards/twitter style rant with nothing but his own "world view" (possile misanthropy) to back up his claims. Thats fairly poor form. I feel sorry for him if you're telling me he was lead to doing this. But I don't know that.


  • Options
    #89
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    The direction given by Brendan ( he has a name) is irrelevant. Unless you're suggesting the two had aready discussed the discussion before the show?

    Rory went on a boards/twitter style rant with nothing but his own "world view" (possile misanthropy) to back up his claims. Thats fairly poor form. I feel sorry for him if you're telling me he was lead to doing this. But I don't know that.

    Ah Phill. You've transferred from AH I see.


    Why can't gay people get married?


  • Options
    #90
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    lazygal wrote: »
    Ah Phill. You've transferred from AH I see.


    Why can't gay people get married?

    Of course. You should ask me that question as I am the official king of Ireland with all authoritive power to decide these issues. Interesting you should ask me. I can assjre you I have no more power in this democracy than you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Of course. You should ask me that question as I am the official king of Ireland with all authoritive power to decide these issues. Interesting you should ask me. I can assjre you I have no more power in this democracy than you.

    It's a wonder you're bothering to post on boards at all if it's just full of rants.

    Why can't gay people get married?


Advertisement