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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Removing the MCD stickies...

  • 30-05-2009 12:52pm
    #1
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Due to recent High Court rulings, http://bit.ly/13hkfh , we are removing the MCD stickies and allowing discussion of MCD events.

    There still exists a pending court case between MCD and Boards.ie and
    I would like to remind you all that it is a contempt to court to discuss any current case (MCD related or otherwise) so please do NOT do that.

    Normal libel laws still apply and we will remove that which is brought to our attention as per our requirements under that ruling. Please do not libel anyone.

    Thanks for your time and attention

    DeV.
    Post edited by Shield on


«1

Comments

  • #2
    tribulus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,635 ✭✭✭tribulus


    Thanks for the update.


  • #3
    Captain Darling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    Excellent, that was making discussion in the music forums difficult at times.


  • #4
    AckwelFoley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    MC who? Wut?

    never noticed the stickies.

    :pac:


  • #5
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    Stick...Ies...?

    *shrug*


  • #6
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Should keep it against the rules lol


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Blowfish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    Excellent, common sense prevails with that ruling :)


  • #8
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Could someone give me a one sentence precis of that ruling?


  • #9
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Judge - "Cop yerselfs on"


  • #10
    Captain Darling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    mike65 wrote: »
    Could someone give me a one sentence precis of that ruling?

    MCD

    ;)


  • #11
    Blowfish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    mike65 wrote: »
    Could someone give me a one sentence precis of that ruling?
    Betfair are counted as an intermediate service provider when it comes to their chatroom, hence come under protection of the E-Commerce Directive.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Random
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,080 ✭✭✭✭Random


    Not really into that whole legal jargon but it's nice to see things coming together for Boards :)


  • #13
    Captain Darling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    DeVore wrote: »
    Normal libel laws still apply and we will remove that which is brought to our attention as per our requirements under that ruling. Please do not libel anyone.
    I havent gone through the ruling, nor do i intend to, but in terms of libelling an artist promoted by MCD how will this be moderated?

    If an artist performs and suck majors balls, and there is a thread in relation to this, the lilkelihood is that this artist, (not MCD) will be subject to alot of abuse.

    Does this count as libel? Does this actually require moderation? :confused:


  • #14
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Opinion is not libel (allegedly).


  • #15
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    mike65 wrote: »
    Opinion is not libel (allegedly).

    Neither is truth


  • #16
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    So I've picked my way through the judgment and as far as I can tell it means that boards has the protection of the E-Commerce Directive. However I'm uncertain as to what this means for boards, and more specifically why where allowed to discuss MCD events now and not before.


  • #17
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Neither is truth

    Without getting into it, the onus of proof is on you.


  • #18
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Boston wrote: »
    Without getting into it, the onus of proof is on you.

    On a public forum it wouldn't be too hard to prove, once theres agreement on the issue.

    I don't see the point in allowing discussion simply because of a precedent being set in another case though. If MCD were so adamant about not wanting any negative discussion about them, then Boards should be equally as adamant to not allow any advertising for them, imO


  • #19
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Kind of going on from Captain Darling's question, if MCD puts on a show and the whole thing is badly organised, are we still not to discuss it?


  • #20
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    My name is URL wrote: »
    On a public forum it wouldn't be too hard to prove, once theres agreement on the issue.

    I'm having a hard time understanding your point. I think you may have a specific scenario in mind. You may be able to "prove" to my mind something, that doesn't mean you'll do the same with a judge. I don't think you fully understand what level of proof would be required.
    My name is URL wrote: »
    I don't see the point in allowing discussion simply because of a precedent being set in another case though. If MCD were so adamant about not wanting any negative discussion about them, then Boards should be equally as adamant to not allow any advertising for them, imO

    Good question, which is basically my question. I thought the reason for the stickies was to prevent negative comment about MCD. How does this ruling afford boards-LTD with protection against that?
    humanji wrote: »
    Kind of going on from Captain Darling's question, if MCD puts on a show and the whole thing is badly organised, are we still not to discuss it?

    Use as little censorship as possible. Fair enough to remove topics from discussion if they damage the site, but to do it out of spite and malice is just petty and small.


  • #21
    Basq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,028 ✭✭✭✭Basq


    Useful to know..

    Awwwww... Reported Posts in the Music forum will be non-existant!


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Boston wrote: »
    So I've picked my way through the judgment and as far as I can tell it means that boards has the protection of the E-Commerce Directive. However I'm uncertain as to what this means for boards, and more specifically why where allowed to discuss MCD events now and not before.

    It means that if a hypothetical website such as a chatroom has information posted by users, the website owners are not liable in law for, among other things, defamatory comments, provided that:

    a) the website owners were not aware of the defamatory comments,
    b) when they do become aware of the defamatory comments they act quickly to remove those comments.

    So in our hypothetical website, if there are supervisors, moderators for example, who view all or most posts and if they come across a defamatory comment they delete the post, close the thread and/or punish the poster as quickly as possible, the website will not be liable for defamation.

    As to what it means for boards, who knows? Who says it means anything for boards? Who says there is anything going on between boards and....


  • #23
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    It means that if a hypothetical website such as a chatroom has information posted by users, the website owners are not liable in law for, among other things, defamatory comments, provided that:

    a) the website owners were not aware of the defamatory comments,
    b) when they do become aware of the defamatory comments they act quickly to remove those comments.

    So in our hypothetical website, if there are supervisors, moderators for example, who view all or most posts and if they come across a defamatory comment they delete the post, close the thread and/or punish the poster as quickly as possible, the website will not be liable for defamation.

    As to what it means for boards, who knows? Who says it means anything for boards? Who says there is anything going on between boards and....

    Hold on a second, if I take you up correctly, posts which present MCD in a negative light would have to be removed?


  • #24
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Boston wrote: »
    Hold on a second, if I take you up correctly, posts which present MCD in a negative light would have to be removed?

    I don't know what you're talking about I'm sure, but in the general scheme of things it's a big thumbs up from Judge Clarke for any internet forum that has a good moderation policy.

    Defamatory comments of any party were never allowed on boards, and still aren't. But so long as the moderation is done expeditiously, boards.ie aren't liable.


  • #25
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I don't know what you're talking about I'm sure, but in the general scheme of things it's a big thumbs up from Judge Clarke for any internet forum that has a good moderation policy.

    Defamatory comments of any party were never allowed on boards, and still aren't. But so long as the moderation is done expeditiously, boards.ie aren't liable.


    That's stupid though, really

    Why the need for difficult decisions regarding what is defamatory (negative) from complimentary..? It adds a workload for mods I'm sure and to be blatantly honest, is a slap in the face for anyone that wishes to convey their own experience of MCD


  • #26
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    My name is URL wrote: »
    That's stupid though, really

    Why the need for difficult decisions regarding what is defamatory (negative) from complimentary..? It adds a workload for mods I'm sure and to be blatantly honest, is a slap in the face for anyone that wishes to convey their own experience of MCD

    Well mods already have the task of weeding out any potentially defamatory comments.


  • #27
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Well mods already have the task of weeding out any potentially defamatory comments.


    Yeah but when the comments are made against a corporation it doesn't seem to be as big of a deal, look at all the Eircom bashing that goes on..

    My point is that reversing the stance about MCD might seem like raising a visible barrier, but really it's adding more invisible ones.

    What constitutes defamation in this case..? bad reviews...and negativity towards the company?

    Who's making the call..? Mods..? ..NO!

    Ultimately it will be MCD that decide what is acceptable discussion, and that imho is unacceptable


  • #28
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I don't know what you're talking about I'm sure, but in the general scheme of things it's a big thumbs up from Judge Clarke for any internet forum that has a good moderation policy.

    Defamatory comments of any party were never allowed on boards, and still aren't. But so long as the moderation is done expeditiously, boards.ie aren't liable.

    Please less of the obfuscation, its naturally quiet confusing. I'm not discussing the case, I'm discussing the boards.ie policy on topics relating to the MCD events. I think i get where you're coming from now, you're taking the definition of Defamatory as being negative and false. Once it's defined that way and the moderators know it, grand.


  • #29
    Richard Dower
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,634 ✭✭✭✭Richard Dower


    DeVore wrote: »
    Due to recent High Court rulings, http://bit.ly/13hkfh , we are removing the MCD stickies and allowing discussion of MCD events.

    There still exists a pending court case between MCD and Boards.ie and
    I would like to remind you all that it is a contempt to court to discuss any current case (MCD related or otherwise) so please do NOT do that.

    Normal libel laws still apply and we will remove that which is brought to our attention as per our requirements under that ruling. Please do not libel anyone.

    Thanks for your time and attention

    DeV.

    So it's now OK to say that MCD are scumbags...right?, or is that libel?


  • #30
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Boston wrote: »
    Please less of the obfuscation, its naturally quiet confusing. I'm not discussing the case, I'm discussing the boards.ie policy on topics relating to the MCD events. I think i get where you're coming from now, you're taking the definition of Defamatory as being negative and false. Once it's defined that way and the moderators know it, grand.

    I've nothing to do with boards.ie policy. If you don't understand what defamatory means, look it up in wikipedia. Most if not all fora already have rules on defamation, so it should not be a large strech for them to apply the same to MCD, now that the blanket ban has been removed.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I don't know what you're talking about I'm sure, but in the general scheme of things it's a big thumbs up from Judge Clarke for any internet forum that has a good moderation policy.

    Defamatory comments of any party were never allowed on boards, and still aren't. But so long as the moderation is done expeditiously, boards.ie aren't liable.
    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I've nothing to do with boards.ie policy. If you don't understand what defamatory means, look it up in wikipedia. Most if not all fora already have rules on defamation, so it should not be a large strech for them to apply the same to MCD, now that the blanket ban has been removed.

    Maybe instead of being flippant, you should look it up yourself.
    In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false

    I think a lot of people would take defamation to mean any negative comment. I understood it to mean negative and false, however your post suggested you where referring to any simply negative comment. I also fail to see how this isn't related to the MCD-events policy, since that is the subject of the topic. Perhaps you'd care to explain yourself more fully?


  • #32
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Boston wrote: »
    I think a lot of people would take defamation to mean any negative comment. I understood it to mean negative and false, however your post suggested you where referring to any simply negative comment. I also fail to see how this isn't related to the MCD-events policy, since that is the subject of the topic. Perhaps you'd care to explain yourself more fully?

    Where in my post did I suggest that I was referring to any simply negative comment. I think you were reading something into my words which was not there.

    Equally I never said that it wasn't related to the MCD policy, my point was that even though the blanket ban on mentioning MCD has been removed, that should not prevent the general rules of the various fora from being enforced. Most fora don't allow defamatory comments, and this would apply irrespective of who is being talked about.


  • #33
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Where in my post did I suggest that I was referring to any simply negative comment. I think you were reading something into my words which was not there.

    Take my post as more of a question asking in what sense you meant the word. I admitted I found your post confusing.
    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Equally I never said that it wasn't related to the MCD policy, my point was that even though the blanket ban on mentioning MCD has been removed, that should not prevent the general rules of the various fora from being enforced. Most fora don't allow defamatory comments, and this would apply irrespective of who is being talked about.

    As per post 28, I agree with your sentiment. Can we drop this debate on the semantics of defamation now that we appear to be in agreement? I find it terribly trying.


  • #34
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Where in my post did I suggest that I was referring to any simply negative comment. I think you were reading something into my words which was not there.

    Equally I never said that it wasn't related to the MCD policy, my point was that even though the blanket ban on mentioning MCD has been removed, that should not prevent the general rules of the various fora from being enforced. Most fora don't allow defamatory comments, and this would apply irrespective of who is being talked about.

    So what's defamation in regards to a company like MCD, which is diverse to say the least?

    If I decide to post a negative review or complaint about an MCD event will it be deemed as libelous?

    Will it then be up to a mod to decide whether or not it is, or will be be MCD (which has already proven itself to be a litigious conglomerate) that dictates what is fair discussion?

    This is a forum, where many people express individual views on things.

    It seems more appropriate and fairer to members to set out clear definitions as to what the change in rules means for a poster on this board (or ban outright the discussion of MCD), rather than use a loose rule-set which favors positive discussion


  • #35
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Well from a user prospective, start by not posting anything which is false. You're not going to get ridged definition of what will be censored, it has to be a judgment call. The question is, it be a strict policy of will the user be given the benefit of the doubt?


  • #36
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    I'd have assumed if you post a negative comment as an opinion, rather then a fact, its not libel. Libel seems to be for factual negative remarks.

    The point is, while the blanket ban on MCD is lifted, you now treat them like any other group when posting about them. There is no difference, the only change is you can discuss MCD related events now.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Tbh if you want to play is safe just throw in "allegedly" and "apparently" every now and again.


  • #38
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    My name is URL wrote: »
    So what's defamation in regards to a company like MCD, which is diverse to say the least?

    Saying that Pope Benedict was a nazi and he murdered millions of Jews would be defamation. Saying that in 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps is not defamation.

    For a business saying that they sell shoddy goods (without good cause) would be defamation. Saying that you bought some shoes from a shop and they fell apart after a week of normal use, is not defamation (assuming they they fell apart after a week of normal use).

    Stick to the facts.


  • #39
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Victor wrote: »
    Stick to the facts.

    And be wary of that too.

    Truth is a defence, not an absolute out. If you say "XYZ ate my babies" then they can still take you to court and you then have to use evidence that they did eat your babies to avoid losing the case. That's not really a great option if you can't afford a High Court case.


  • #40
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Richard Dower wrote: »
    So it's now OK to say that MCD are scumbags...right?, or is that libel?
    That could very well be construed as libel as there is no premise behind it.
    That is also my entire knowledge of these laws and is something I will act immediately on if it pops up in AH.

    turgon wrote: »
    Tbh if you want to play is safe just throw in "allegedly" and "apparently" every now and again.

    Doesn't work.
    I got pulled up on that a few years back.

    Don't ask me to explain how it doesn't work because I don't fully understand it, but all I know is that it doesn't cover you.


  • #41
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    My name is URL wrote:
    Will it then be up to a mod to decide whether or not it is, or will be be MCD (which has already proven itself to be a litigious conglomerate) that dictates what is fair discussion?

    Yes, a mod. Bear in mind that if a mod, for whatever reason, decides that there should be no discussion of anything in a fora, then you, as a user, must either abide by that rule or not post there.
    My name is URL wrote:
    This is a forum, where many people express individual views on things.

    It's their site, not ours, and we must abide by their rules.
    My name is URL wrote:
    It seems more appropriate and fairer to members to set out clear definitions as to what the change in rules means for a poster on this board (or ban outright the discussion of MCD), rather than use a loose rule-set which favors positive discussion

    Well look, you either abide by the Irish laws as regards defamation or you don't. It's that simple.
    Victor wrote: »
    Saying that Pope Benedict was a nazi and he murdered millions of Jews would be defamation. Saying that in 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps is not defamation.

    For a business saying that they sell shoddy goods (without good cause) would be defamation. Saying that you bought some shoes from a shop and they fell apart after a week of normal use, is not defamation (assuming they they fell apart after a week of normal use).

    Stick to the facts.

    Exactly, with the caveat that it is up to each individual moderator to say what is potentially defamatory and what is not. I think moderators should err on the side of removing anything that is potentially defamatory if in any doubt, as it is the only way to run a site like this.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Irish Halo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,445 ✭✭✭Irish Halo


    So MCD are still taking Boards to court and Boards is again giving them free advertising/promotion?

    I understand that MCD dominate the promotions scene in Ireland and not being able to discuss events promoted by them makes things hard for users but they are in the process of trying to hurt the community with a court case that could potentially see Boards and the community disappear so why should we discuss their events?

    Just me 2 cent.


  • #43
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Asfaik in common law systems, one case sets a precedents for the next. So in deciding verdicts judges will often go back to previous cases and see what happened there. You might be able to refer to previous cases in your defence I think.

    So the case DeVore refered to might set a precedent for the MCD vs Boards one. I didnt go through it but theres probably something in there that could be used to defend Boards.

    Maybe someone with legal know-how could clarify/dismiss that as necessary.


  • #44
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    Hi all

    Thanks for all the questions and feedback.

    My understanding of this whole MCD ban-lift is this:

    Talk about the gigs. If a gig is bad, say why the gig was bad, but as was said earlier, stick to the facts.

    Here are our legal and defamation guidelines. They apply to every person/company/event/organisation/charity/official body and so on that is discussed on Boards.ie

    If anyone comes to us and says "This post is a problem and here's why", we have a set process of dealing with it. People can use the "Report a post" function or the Contact Page to bring it to the attention of the moderators, who will then escalate it to the admins if necessary.

    We look at the post, judge whether it's (excuse my phrasing) "fair comment" or a post that is written to cause trouble, with clearly wrong or unprovable facts or something more serious, and what action needs to be taken.

    If the subject of the post can say "Here's what's said on Boards.ie and here's the truth of the matter", then it's only fair that we do what we can to ensure the truth of the situation is known.

    There are rules and guidelines on Boards.ie. We fully reserve the right to implement those rules as and how we see fit.

    Re MCD, as Sully said below:
    The point is, while the blanket ban on MCD is lifted, you now treat them like any other group when posting about them. There is no difference, the only change is you can discuss MCD related events now.

    I hope that helps. If there are any questions we can answer (once we're back in the office) please let us know.

    Thanks

    Darragh


  • #45
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Yeah! Take that McDonalds.


  • #46
    Slutmonkey57b
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,574 ✭✭✭Slutmonkey57b


    On the one hand I'm a little bit glad to see the lift on discussion of MCD events but equally I'm slightly in favour of leaving them out in the cold with no free promotion or word of mouth. I'm also wary about the massive increase in the number of posts about Britney Spears and other such musical garbage (garbage in my opinion.)


  • #47
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,750 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Ok, the issue is slightly conflated and I want to clear something up.

    On the one hand, there has been a decision in the High Court that is very very positive for the digital rights movement in Ireland. Particularly, it means that the discussion forum/chat room format is shielded (note: not immune) from anti-freedom of speech attacks.


    On the other hand, as an almost entirely separate issue, boards.ie has re-considered its position in relation to the MCD issue. They are now simply being treated as any other company on this site would be treated. Their pedestal has been taken from under them. Basically, the publicity boards.ie was giving MCD as a result of the ban was far more than they would have gotten had this all happened quietly. Now, we can just go back to the default position in relation to all companies. That is discussion = good. Defamation = bad (at least, it will be removed where it's brought to our attention).



    One other thing I want to clear up and I've been at the head of a one-man campaign on boards in relation to this issue: fair comment/truth/justification/opinion are defences in a court case against a claim of defamation. Successfully pleading a defence doesn't necessarily mean that the words complained of are not defamatory. They're separate issues for the jury to decide (yes, jury, not judge).


  • #48
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    One other thing I want to clear up and I've been at the head of a one-man campaign on boards in relation to this issue: fair comment/truth/justification/opinion are defences in a court case against a claim of defamation. Successfully pleading a defence doesn't necessarily mean that the words complained of are not defamatory. They're separate issues for the jury to decide (yes, jury, not judge).

    So negative comment can be defamation, even if its the truth?


  • #49
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,750 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Boston wrote: »
    So negative comment can be defamation, even if its the truth?
    Very much so.


  • #50
    5starpool
    Subscribers Posts: 32,855 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    As someone said:

    The law is an ass.


  • #51
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    5starpool wrote: »
    As someone said:

    The law is an ass.

    I own the rights to that phrase, I'm suing you for trademark infringement.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement