A discussion on the rules.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Pages as you know depend on how you have the forum set up...it's 3 pages on my set-up and roughly 18 different people have contributed since Godge's post here,

The very reason why so many threads go off topic on here, unnecessarily imo.

Yes. Ignore the point made, pick on some minor issue of absolutely no importance whatsoever and make that topic instead. That is why many threads go off topic on here.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You made the point about 9 pages of tediousness. I merely clarified that 'pages' really means nothing, depends on how you have the forum set up.
18 different people thought the topic important enough to post.
If it is tedious to you, there are plenty of other threads to interest you I'm sure.

I made the point that you asked for a point on the rules to be considered and you were told no, many, many times over the past 5 days. That was the point being made. Which you have ignored. And continue to ignore.

Honestly, at what point do you think you will get a different answer?

Happyman42 wrote: »

conorh91 has introduced a new angle, I am awaiting his reply to Scofflaw.

Not the angle you want though - conorh91 has indicated usage of "SF/IRA" is fine in his considered legal opinion.

Topic is still under discussion imo.
And I haven't ignored anything, I'm merely seeking clarification on a thread entitled 'a discussion on the rules'.
When where you appointed as the person to call an end to that 'discussion'?

Oh, I'm just another participant in the discussion, pointing out its going round in circles and not achieving anything. By all means, please continue to ask the same question for another 5 days and 50 odd posts.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The fact that mods don't even consider a slight issue with this and what it does to threads

We do recognise it can cause bother on threads, 2 sides at it.

does sort of point that maybe its time a mod that would at least consider voting for SF be considered, I have made this point before but there definitely isn't one now and AFAIK there never has been one.
SF aren't a fringe party anymore no matter how much people would wish that to be the case. They have been higher than 10% for the last 5 years among the general population, and much higher in age group that boards.ie draws its main user base from the fact that this has never been reflected in the moderation team says something where as there has been numerous mods extremely hostile to SF over the years.
Note: I am not arguing for a mod to be a default voice for SF, simply one that can understand the concerns and be aware of the double standards that operate

I don't really see how it would add anything, FG and FF probably get as much if not more abuse than SF on here!

conorh91 wrote: »

A defamatory statement is one which "tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society".

In other words, the test is whether IRA membership, for example, would tend to injure any person's reputation, and that test is objective, not subjective. Actual injury need not be proved.

Furthermore, there is a presumption of falsity.

It would make a mockery of the presumption of falsity if the prevalence of belief in the defamatory statement were a legal defence.

There is a significant number of problems with your logic, which is probably why there has never been a successful case taken for use of the "SF/IRA" phrase to my knowledge despite it being in widespread, public use. It's also probably why someone cant come on boards, make a series of racist posts and then sue boards.ie for defamation when they are banned with at least one reason offered being that they are racist.

Is "member of SF/IRA" interchangeable with "member of the IRA"? No. The latter is a specific, illegal, terrorist organisation. The former is a catchall phrase which summarises the well known links between that terrorist group an the legal, political party. Proving the link to the satisfaction of a court wouldn't be hard when SF are selling IRA T Shirts. Even the phrase "SF/IRA" acknowledges there is a (thin) separation between SF and the IRA. Otherwise SF would just be referred to as the IRA.

Does a statement that a member of SF is a member of "SF/IRA" tend to injure a persons reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society? No. Reasonable members of society see the clear links between SF and the IRA, in their gift shop, in their leadership, in their activists and in their praise for the IRA and its acts. SF revel in the association.

A member or supporter of SF's reputation is already affected by SFs association with the IRA - describing them as being a member or supporter of "SF/IRA" again is not an accusation of being a member of the IRA.

I said terms like "SF/ IRA TDs", or "members of the SF/IRA Executive" would appear sufficient to create a cause of action by individuals in those groups. Likewise "members of the Loughrea SF/IRA Cumann" or "the SF/IRA club at Trinity College Dublin". There is no way on earth i would ever put my name to a statement like that, regardless of what I might privately believe about Sinn Fein. I doubt any responsible person would.

I wouldn't either, but this is a politics forum for discussion by individuals, not a press release by a party, group or organisation.

While we're on the topic of defamation, do we really want the rules to be set by that? I don't mind but I think *a lot* of the Provo posters will mind because I note a real tendency to make defamatory statements about groups and individuals.

Describing members of the Orange Order or anyone participating in a Orange Order parade as "bigoted" or "sectarian" would tend to injure an individuals reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society? So the Mods should be infracting and banning anyone who describes members/marchers of the Orange Order in those terms right?

How about direct defamatory attacks on individuals by some posters here?

Here's one made just yesterday

Henlars67 wrote: »

Siobhan (RIP) is Eilis' sister. Their mother was Joe Cahill's sister.

Siobhán and Eilis didn't speak, even after Siobhan was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Eilis is a bitter woman with an axe to grind

There are two defamatory statements made about a named individual, the latter a clear attempt to undermine her reputation with the public. As at the time of posting this, it was thanked by Happyman42, amongst others. I don't know how he rationalises his thanks for that post with his campaign for preventing defamatory statements about groups or individuals. Of course, my cynicism tells me people who want to ban the phrase "SF/IRA" want to keep their terms for their opponents still available. How could you make a valid point without calling someone a West Brit afterall?

The various supporters of the initiative to ban use of "SF/IRA" either for reasons of encouraging good debate, or in a misguided attempt to protect Boards from legal threats need to consider if they *really* want the result they're aiming for. From my perspective, as demonstrated above, there is a real tendency to attack named individuals and members of groups so if they want infractions and bans handed out for it, then they will be picking up the bans a lot quicker than anyone else.

Or, there could be a recognition that this is politics forum, not a court room or a echo chamber where opposing views are banned. There will be views they don't like, and they just need to toughen up and get on with it.

Sand wrote: »

Describing members of the Orange Order or anyone participating in a Orange Order parade as "bigoted" or "sectarian" would tend to injure an individuals reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society? So the Mods should be infracting and banning anyone who describes members/marchers of the Orange Order in those terms right?

It's not my place to say, and I'm sure the mods have enough headaches, but why not?

An ISP which closely supervises online content should never allow someone to publish a negative imputation to the extent that is is defamatory against members of a specific club in a specific locale, unless that club were so large as to incapable of possibly applying to all its members.

For example,

"lawyers cheat on their partners and they all evade tax" is never defamatory

but

"all of the solicitor-members of the Fine Gael parliamentary party cheat on their partners and they all evade tax" is defamatory.

conorh91 wrote: »

"Mary Lou McDonald is a senior member of SF/IRA."
.....
Mary Lou McDonald is presumed, in law, not to be a senior member of the IRA.
If she were a senior member of the IRA, this would tend to injure her reputation.
If someone says she is a member of the IRA, that is on its face, a defamatory statement.

Okay. And what if someone says she is a member of SF/IRA which is a different statement entirely?

Nobody is accusing Mary Lou of being a member of the IRA. They're referencing the association of the IRA to a group she is openly a member of. An association that is very easy to demonstrate to any reasonable person.

There are examples of media openly associating SF and the IRA, including using the phrase "SF/IRA". No court action resulted, successful or otherwise. Because SF knows they would lose.

But why put yourself through that? Why risk a bumper sticker, or a billboard, or with great bluster, very publicly pronouncing "this is where the line is", "this is not defamatory" on your internet forum, seemingly inviting liability.

Why go out of your way to invite trouble like that? It just seems like such pointless bravado.

Why host an internet forum at all, inviting liability by that fact alone?

There is a balance to be struck - I think the balance is right on this point. I'm fairly sure Boards get their own legal advice as is necessary. Maybe a court will think differently, but there would need to be an example of the usage of "SF/IRA" being upheld as defamatory by a court. Is there one?

@conorh91

It's not my place to say, and I'm sure the mods have enough headaches, but why not?

Because its a discussion forum. If groups, organisations and yes, individuals, cannot be discussed without any negative opinion, comment or judgement being treated as libel then you might as well close down the whole thing.

Again, there is a balance to be drawn: A statement should be backed and it shouldn't breach the sites own policies taken under their own legal advice. But if you can only offer positive judgements and opinions, then why bother having a forum in the first place?

conorh91 wrote: »

In that case, it's even easier to prove defamation. she has been named; inference need not be drawn that the defamatory statement refers to her as its subject.

Prove what? That she is a member of SF, which is closely associated with the IRA?

Saying someone is a member of SF/IRA is not the same as saying they are a member of the IRA.

That is laid down in statute by the clear language of s.10 of the Defamation Act 2009, which emanated from a Supreme Court case I referred to earlier. To go back over that case, a couple of men broke into and hid in the attic of a GAA clubhouse. The News of the World reported the story, saying IRA plots were overheard. A member of the club sued for defamation, even though he was never named. The fact that the club was named, and the fact that he was a member, was enough.

And that has no relevance to inferring, directly or indirectly, that an individual is a member "SF/IRA". Accusing a club and its members of plotting IRA attacks is an entirely different thing.

There are degrees of liability. ISPs are protected by various statutes, including most notably, the Defamation Act itself.

ISPs enhance their liability, however, by closely supervising and establishing rules of policy, i.e. proclaiming that certain content will be allowed. If that content turns out to be defamatory, the ISP has gone too far.

So you can see why it is confusing why an ISP would bother to take a firm position on this. You can achieve the same outcome by taking each case on a case-by-case basis. There seems to be no good reason to put down in writing that a certain statement (e.g. SF/IRA, or XXX, TD, is corrupt") will not be actioned. Why would you ever do that to yourself?

There is nothing in the charter which states its fine to refer to "SF/IRA" or that a certain TD is corrupt. Quite the opposite. The mods were asked to insert a rule banning references to "SF/IRA". They decided not to. That is not approval of the term - its just a decision not to ban it outright, for the same reasons terms like "blueshirts", "west brits", "FFailure" are not banned outright.

There are 9 formal defences to defamation, and honest opinion is one of them.

Great, so we're in the clear on usage of the SF/IRA term as it is many, many peoples honest opinion that SF and the IRA are closely associated.

Sand wrote: »

Saying someone is a member of SF/IRA is not the same as saying they are a member of the IRA.

So what is your motive in using the term SF/IRA when talking about SF?

conorh91 wrote: »

I would read "member of SF/IRA" as imputing membership, or a relationship so close as to lead a reasonable person to believe the person has an ongoing IRA association.

Grand, I and most reasonable people would not. That's probably why there has never been a successful case on that basis despite it being widely used in media and political discourse for decades.

Twenty priests from a small, Catholic diocese with a history of inadequately protecting children from sexual abuse go on a pilgrimage following the publication of the Ryan report. On their return, a member of the public takes an ad in the newspaper saying "Welcome back from Knock, members of the local clergy/ paedophile ring".

The editor whose newspaper is the second-named defendant, stands up in court and announces, to a bewildered-looking jury, that "the forward-slash was used to establish an alternative conjunction, and not an interchangeable one".

Did the clergy fail to protect children, or were they known past members of a paedophile ring, champions of that paedophile ring, defenders of its actions and crimes and are they selling paedophile material for profit in their giftshop?

You're repeatedly trying to draw a conclusion from a different set of circumstances to avoid acknowledging that the SF/IRA reference is fair in the eyes of most people.

No, but in a thread entitled "A discussion on the rules", a poster asked whether he was allowed to allege illegality by a member of parliament. In response, a moderator stated that "Where such allegations [of corruption] are common currency, so common as to not constitute libel, we don't object", citing as an example of allegations of corruption.

That's when I replied. Not because I care about the cause of the Shinners or corrupt TDs, but because it is in the nature of discussion forums to suggest alternative viewpoints, or even, suggest a mistake, especially where it a mistake is a potentially serious one.

The problem arises when opinion morphs into a statement which is construed as fact, and where individuals are reasonably identifiable.

Grand, in so far as it goes but where allegations are so common as to not constitute libel tends to ensure the reasonable person will not consider it libel. Hardly anyone's opinion on a internet forum can be mistaken for fact. It is all someone's honest opinion. The mods have and will no doubt continue to intervene where they feel a line is being crossed.

@A Dub in Glasgow

So what is your motive in using the term SF/IRA when talking about SF?

Many people have explained it already ADIG.

It's a term to highlight the the clear association between SF and the IRA as organisations. I know supporters of SF really, really, really wish everyone would forget *their* past, but they wont. SF/IRA summarises why SF is transfer toxic. It summarises why people roll their eyes when SF tries to moralise. It summarises why the idea of SF getting any influence over the army or police in the Republic worries reasonable people.