Suppression of free speech in Galway, Ireland

lugha wrote: »

It would be interesting to here if someone has the definitive word on what you can and cannot do re recording people. My understanding is that the broadcast / print media must get your permission if they are to broadcast your image or alternatively make an argument that the public interest is served by so doing. Whatever about the law it is pretty rude to stick a camera in someones face especially if they ask you not to.

Not sure about this, I recently had a camera crew push camera and micrphone into my car while stopped at traffic lights. And without my permission been asked, I found myself on the TV3 news.

1) A public place according to the Public Order act 1994 is:

3.—In this Part, except where the context otherwise requires—
"dwelling" includes a building, vehicle or vessel ordinarily used for habitation;
"private place" means a place that is not a public place;
"public place" includes—
( a ) any highway,
( b ) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,
( c ) any cemetery or churchyard,
( d ) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and
( e ) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.

So to answer someones question about the bank, yes it is a public place.

2) He was not arrested for a breach of the peace, he was arrested for failing to comply with the directions of a member of an Garda Siochana.

3) Anybody can protest against anything they like in a peaceful manner on a public street, the issue is when that protest causes offence to others sharing said public place, while yes there is a right to free speech in this country, it is conditional, ie that you observe the laws of the state in doing so.

4) The point of filming on a public street, If in a public place, it is perfectly legal to film anyTHING in a public place, however if filming a person, and said person asks you to stop filming them, you must or it can be construed as an invasion of privacy. You most certainly don't film a Garda who is talking to the witness of an incident you are involved in. How can somebody be expected to give a full and frank account of what happened if one of the main people involved in the incident is filming them.

5) The Garda was correct in what he did, he received a complaint and attempted to investigate it, only to be shouted down by the protester, he then issued a direction under Section 8 for the protester to desist what he was doing and to leave the area,or he would be arrested which the protester refused to do. Now desisting what he was doing in this instance would include filming. He completely ignored the direction of the Garda and from what i can see from the video i agree with a number of other posters that he only wanted to be arrested.

foinse wrote: »

The Garda [...]issued a direction under Section 8 for the protester to desist what he was doing and to leave the area,or he would be arrested

So could he have left the area and returned 5 minutes later and set up his stall again?

RedPlanet wrote: »

Since when is the inside of a bank the same as a public road?

If you're refering to the part of the bank to which someone can walk into from the street without any restrictions you would be talking about a public place or a place to which the public has access.

kmick wrote: »

"Actually there is" is not very convincing Im afraid.
If you can point me in the direction of the laws you talk of then great.

Article 8 ECHR, and various case law regarding same.


This outlines what you can and cannot do.
http://www.digitalrights.ie/category/pamphlets/[/quote]

Up to now, the right to privacy has been largely determined by a mixture of Constitutional rights, and ECHR caselaw - the Minister for Justice has previously said that the private interactions of a person - even in a public place - may be covered by the right to privacy -

it is generally safe to presume that you can publish your photographs, unless your subject was in a situation where a reasonable person would believe that they’d brought their ‘portable sphere of privacy’ out with them

Taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed - however, an exception is made where the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Important to note all these relate to photographers. I would argue that repeatedly asking someone not to record / photograph you establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also dealing with a member of the gardai IMO also establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy not to have our conversation recorded and put on Youtube.

http://www.mop.ie/dynamic/files/IP%20Ezine%20-%20Ireland%20Considering%20Statutory%20Right%20of%20Privacy%20-%20G%20Kelly%20-%20Sept%202006.pdf

This relates to the mentioned Privacy Bill, which is yet to be passed.


Privacy LawAlthough the Irish Constitution of 1937 does not contain an explicit right to privacy, its existence has been recognised by the Irish courts, notably by the High Court in Kennedy & Arnold v Ireland [1987] IR 587. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that: “(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence.
http://www.ictlaw.com/dp.htm

Article 40.3.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann 1937 is the section normally used to guarantee the right to privacy in this jurisdiction.

kmick wrote: »

A bank is private property not a public place.

Its private property AND a public place

kmick wrote: »

All of this and it still comes back to the same point. There is no specific Irish law that can stop you taking pictures in public. All you have mentioned there is a bill that has not been passed and some waffle from a minister who thinks it 'may be covered by the right to privacy.' ....

(a) The quotes from digital rights relate to photographers

(b) Taking a picture of someone walking down the street, i.e. bystanders at a monument etc is not comparable to making a video with picture and audio of a specific member of the public dealing with a garda. "a reasonable expectation of privacy" are the key words. I'm talking to a friend and some lula sticks a microphone on our table in a restaurant, and says don't mind me I'm within my rights Well I'm perfectly within my rights under Irish and international law to tell him to f*** off and get that camera/microphone/video out of my face, and have a garda enforce my wishes if I so choose.

As an aside having just watched it again and taken it all in our man Tommy needs to learn a lot of things, starting with what a zionist is.

prinz wrote: »

As an aside having just watched it again and taken it all in our man Tommy needs to learn a lot of things, starting with what a zionist is.

You should teach him, you appear to have most of the attributes.

Miya Powerful Searchlight wrote: »

Galway would be a great location to use if you wish to highlight the case of Private Kevin Joyce who was kidnappened (and presumed murdered) by Palestinians (The PLO) in South Lebanon in 1980.

He's officially considered the longest held hostage in Lebanon.

Pte Joyce was only 18 yrs old and a native of Inisheer (Aran Islands).

.

Yes, it is believed that Private Joyce was kidnapped by a PLO faction that wanted to embarrass Arafat who had good relations with UNIFIL at the time. Most of the dificulties the Irish Army had during peacekeeping in Lebanon were at the hands of Israel and militia supported by Israel. The murders of Privates Derek Smallhorn and Justin Barrett and shooting of John O'Mahony at the hands of Saad Haddads men was a case in point. The Israelis refused to hand over the two suspects for questioning and later assisted them to leave the area, through Israel, and settle in Detroit. The Irish Army also had intelligence which suggested a Shin Bet officer had been present at those murders. Private Stephen Griffin was another Irish soldier shot dead by Haddads men. Irish officers believed Israel was complicit in all these killings.

chalkitdown wrote: »

You should teach him, you appear to have most of the attributes.

Such as...?

the_syco wrote: »

What a heavily edited load of sh|te. And he still acts like an ignorant pr|ck. He talks over the Garda on multiple occasions, and still thinks he should get away scot free?


I wonder does this pamphlet get updated? Or does he get people to boycott stores wen when they have stopped selling such goods? In these times, when shops are closing, his efforts are no doubt putting innocent people out of a job.

Boycotting Israeli goods is an excellent non violent means of protesting. It's just a shame the EU don't join in as they did with South Africa. Before the anti-semitism charges are made I am also in favour of economic sanctions on countries which conduct gender apartheid like Saudi Arabia, especially wealthy ones.

wes wrote: »

Arabs are Semites too :P.

Joking aside, boycotts against regimes like the Israeli and Saudi ones are perfectly legitimate.

What about regimes that seek to annihilate another state?

Let me get this straight...

If I dont buy avocados, Iran will stop supplying weapons to Hizbollah and Hamas?

I do like avocados though.