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

Online defamation?

  • 17-09-2014 8:29pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭


    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.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 347 ✭✭dukeraoul


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 347 ✭✭dukeraoul


    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)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 347 ✭✭dukeraoul


    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"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    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:).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    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...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭BornToKill


    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;


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    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...


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


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    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.


  • Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tom Young


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


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

    I know. Despite the Constitution clearly stating otherwise.


Advertisement