Online defamation?

FullblownRose · 17-09-2014 8:29pm #1

Hi all!,
I hesitate to call this cyber-bullying considering that I'm a grown adult, but I've become aware that a certain amount of slander has been spread about me online, on a particular site. I have some proof, though not a lot, but I'm wondering, in principle, how much can be done about this kind of thing? I just feel that it is too easy to badmouth and lie about people on the internet without fear of repercussions.

I also have a bit of proof to show that the person responsible has slandered at least one other person.

Mr. Incognito · 17-09-2014 8:32pm

Slander is spoken. Libel is written. Both are abolished and are known collectively as defamation.

You can google the defamation act and see if you think it applies

FullblownRose · 17-09-2014 8:35pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Slander is spoken. Libel is written. Both are abolished and are known collectively as defamation.

You can google the defamation act and see if you think it applies

Thanks..I meant Libel, but I typed it in too much of a rush, excuse me

Thanks, I will see if there's anything online, but it can be helpful to have interaction and input from people, too.

Bepolite · 17-09-2014 9:15pm

FullblownRose wrote: »

I have some proof, though not a lot, but I'm wondering, in principle, how much can be done about this kind of thing? I just feel that it is too easy to badmouth and lie about people on the internet without fear of repercussions.

An interim solution is an injunction preventing the defamation continuing or having it removed. You can also sue for damages, the Circuit Court has a jurisdiction to €100,000 IIRC so it can be handled there. You ideally need to engage the services of a solicitor.

There is also the possibility that it's harassment, that could be reported to the Gardai.

In all honesty, unless it's particularly egregious, sticks and stones.

Manach · 17-09-2014 9:23pm

Offhand, there might be an issue if the online site is not based in this jurisdiction? Perhaps might be an option to contact the site's admin and raise an objection there.

dukeraoul · 17-09-2014 9:26pm

FullblownRose wrote: »

Hi all!,
I hesitate to call this cyber-bullying considering that I'm a grown adult, but I've become aware that a certain amount of slander has been spread about me online, on a particular site. I have some proof, though not a lot, but I'm wondering, in principle, how much can be done about this kind of thing? I just feel that it is too easy to badmouth and lie about people on the internet without fear of repercussions.

I also have a bit of proof to show that the person responsible has slandered at least one other person.

Cop on. Grow up. Ireland's defamation laws are a refuge for cowards and a pathetic indictment of a failed republic. Why not use your own freedom of speech to set the record straight?

Bepolite · 17-09-2014 9:28pm

dukeraoul wrote: »

Cop on. Grow up. Ireland's defamation laws are a refuge for cowards and a pathetic indictment of a failed republic. Why not use your own freedom of speech to set the record straight?

What an absolute bunch of rubbish.

Pro Hoc Vice · 17-09-2014 9:29pm

Bepolite wrote: »

An interim solution is an injunction preventing the defamation continuing or having it removed. You can also sue for damages, the Circuit Court has a jurisdiction to €100,000 IIRC so it can be handled there. You ideally need to engage the services of a solicitor.

There is also the possibility that it's harassment, that could be reported to the Gardai.

In all honesty, unless it's particularly egregious, sticks and stones.

Circuit Court jurisdiction is 75,000 but for personal injuries 60,000 the 2009act amended a courts act to set the limit at 50,000 for defamation but that was amended by the recent act setting out the new jurisdiction of the Circuit Court I believe.

FullblownRose · 17-09-2014 9:31pm

dukeraoul wrote: »

Cop on. Grow up. Ireland's defamation laws are a refuge for cowards and a pathetic indictment of a failed republic. Why not use your own freedom of speech to set the record straight?

Thank you for your comment. I don't think you really understand the psychology behind these things, or how they work, though. As it happens, I have and do excercise my freedom of speech in my own defense as and when it has been possible- this is not always particularly useful if there has been an ongoing issue and the damage has been done already. A damaged reputation isn't always straightforward to fix.

As for the ''grow up'' remark, I am asking out of interest..I don't think I have said anything particularly childish.

Pro Hoc Vice · 17-09-2014 9:36pm

dukeraoul wrote: »

Cop on. Grow up. Ireland's defamation laws are a refuge for cowards and a pathetic indictment of a failed republic. Why not use your own freedom of speech to set the record straight?

The Republic that the people gave themselves a constitution it's an interesting read.

3 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

And

6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –

i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

While I have issues with the constitution of this Republic it is the basic law as decided by the people.

Bepolite · 17-09-2014 9:39pm

Sorry I forgot to mention the practical solution to your problem is probably to contact the site in question and make a polite request to have the defamatory statements removed.

Pat Mustard · 17-09-2014 9:46pm

dukeraoul wrote: »

Cop on. Grow up. Ireland's defamation laws are a refuge for cowards and a pathetic indictment of a failed republic. Why not use your own freedom of speech to set the record straight?

Mod:

Attack the post, not the poster.

Please improve the quality of your posts in this forum.

dukeraoul · 17-09-2014 10:07pm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The Republic that the people gave themselves a constitution it's an interesting read.

3 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

And

6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –

i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

While I have issues with the constitution of this Republic it is the basic law as decided by the people.

Nope it was decided by bishop McQuaid and a fascist dictator (dev)

dukeraoul · 17-09-2014 10:09pm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The Republic that the people gave themselves a constitution it's an interesting read.

3 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

And

6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –

i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

While I have issues with the constitution of this Republic it is the basic law as decided by the people.

It really is a pathetic constitution- almost dictated from Rome - laughable really ... Banana "republic"

Shakespeare's Sister · 17-09-2014 10:32pm

dukeraoul wrote: »

Why not use your own freedom of speech to set the record straight?

The fact there's a defamation law in the first place means there is no freedom of speech.

OP, is it untrue and would it reduce your credibility in the eyes of right-thinking members of society (that old chestnut from studying media law modules will never leave me :pac:).

Bepolite · 17-09-2014 11:01pm

dukeraoul wrote: »

Nope it was decided by bishop McQuaid and a fascist dictator (dev)

And voted on by the people of Ireland.

dukeraoul wrote: »

It really is a pathetic constitution- almost dictated from Rome - laughable really ... Banana "republic"

It's been used as a model for various other states. I get the impression you've never actually read or understood the document. What are your issues with it exactly? I'm also interested to know what your issue with defamation law is.

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

The fact there's a defamation law in the first place means there is no freedom of speech.

With respect that's absolute nonsense. No state has unfettered freedom of speech. To allow that would lead to someone being allowed to stand on O'Connell Street calling for people to kill black people and rape children.

Grolschevik · 17-09-2014 11:08pm

dukeraoul wrote: »

It really is a pathetic constitution- almost dictated from Rome - laughable really ... Banana "republic"

In reality, the archbishop had very little to do with it. In fact, it was almost entirely drafted by a civil servant whose name escapes me at the moment.

It was heavily derivative of the very liberal inter-war Weimar Republic constitution. Although DeValera tweaked it a bit, the "dictated by Rome" thing really is a tiresome cliched canard...

Pro Hoc Vice · 17-09-2014 11:21pm

dukeraoul wrote: »

Nope it was decided by bishop McQuaid and a fascist dictator (dev)

You must have forgot the vote but it's the joy of a democratic Republic.

Shakespeare's Sister · 17-09-2014 11:22pm

Bepolite wrote: »

that's absolute nonsense. No state has unfettered freedom of speech. To allow that would lead to someone being allowed to stand on O'Connell Street calling for people to kill black people and rape children.

What's nonsense about it? I simply said there isn't free speech, which there isn't. It wasn't a criticism, I'm glad there isn't. Otherwise people could say abysmal things to others.
We can never really say absolutely anything.

BornToKill · 18-09-2014 12:08am

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

OP, is it untrue and would it reduce your credibility in the eyes of right-thinking members of society (that old chestnut from studying media law modules will never leave me :pac:).

The updated definition from the 2009 Act :

“ 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;

conorh91 · 18-09-2014 4:02pm

dukeraoul wrote: »

It really is a pathetic constitution- almost dictated from Rome

dukeraoul wrote: »

Nope it was decided by bishop McQuaid...

This theory has very limited factual basis, and yet seems to have gained popular acceptance, a bit like the myth of the Great Wall of China being viewable from space, or humans only using 10% of their brains.

As usual I blame Fintan O'Toole for this.

18-09-2014 4:07pm

conorh91 wrote: »

This theory has very limited factual basis, and yet seems to have gained popular acceptance, a bit like the myth of the Great Wall of China being viewable from space, or humans only using 10% of their brains.

As usual I blame Fintan O'Toole for this.

TBH this is what was taught in secondary schools when I was there.

conorh91 · 18-09-2014 4:10pm

234 wrote: »

TBH this is what was taught in secondary schools when I was there.

Yeah, I accept that, so were a lot of people.

My school banned fizzy drinks because it supposedly made students inattentive and excitable. Turns out that belief is factually incorrect too. Even schoolteachers are fallible.

Grolschevik · 18-09-2014 4:13pm

234 wrote: »

TBH this is what was taught in secondary schools when I was there.

conorh91 wrote: »

Yeah, I accept that, so were a lot of people.

In retrospect, I reckon a case could be made that the church (through the education system) was trying retrospectively to 'big up' its actual influence...

hullaballoo · 18-09-2014 4:29pm

What in the hell is a Fintan O'Toole now?

Pro Hoc Vice · 18-09-2014 5:50pm

234 wrote: »

TBH this is what was taught in secondary schools when I was there.

I was taught in school that the flag was green white and gold.

Tom Young · 18-09-2014 6:02pm

The profits of thoughtology are in our mist.

Oh wait.

The prophets of tautology are in our midst.

How's that water meter malarky going for ye all?

18-09-2014 7:41pm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I was taught in school that the flag was green white and gold.

I know. Despite the Constitution clearly stating otherwise.

Online defamation?

Comments