AH, 'Celebrities' and 'Abuse'

brummytom

Hi, I'm not seeking to cause trouble, I'm asking a genuine (and short) question.



Now, I'm of the opinion that, if someone actively puts them-self in the public eye, they're 'fair game'.

Obviously I can see that potentially libellous comments could be problematic; but what's wrong with expressing an opinion about someone who chooses to place themself in the spotlight?


I don't mean to be one of these 'WE WANT FREE SPEECH" numpties, I understand boards is, above all, a company. But can users merely stating an opinion about someone realistically lead to legal action? (again, a genuine question - I'm, obviously, not familiar with such laws).

oscarBravo

brummytom wrote: »

Now, I'm of the opinion that, if someone actively puts them-self in the public eye, they're 'fair game'.

As a purely personal opinion, that's an attitude I find a wee bit distasteful. Why should being well-known make someone a target for abuse?

Obviously I can see that potentially libellous comments could be problematic; but what's wrong with expressing an opinion about someone who chooses to place themself in the spotlight?

If that opinion is defamatory, the problem is built-in.

But can users merely stating an opinion about someone realistically lead to legal action?

If the opinion is defamatory: yes, it can.

Rabies

brummytom wrote: »

Hi, I'm not seeking to cause trouble, I'm asking a genuine (and short) question.



Now, I'm of the opinion that, if someone actively puts them-self in the public eye, they're 'fair game'.

Obviously I can see that potentially libellous comments could be problematic; but what's wrong with expressing an opinion about someone who chooses to place themself in the spotlight?


I don't mean to be one of these 'WE WANT FREE SPEECH" numpties, I understand boards is, above all, a company. But can users merely stating an opinion about someone realistically lead to legal action? (again, a genuine question - I'm, obviously, not familiar with such laws).

I think under Irish law, Boards.ie is held accountable for the content of the site and its wording, not the individual that posted it.

Gummy Panda

I think the main point is that there is a line between criticising someone's actions and defamation of character. I think in that thread did go too far and the line got blurred.

Dudess

oscarBravo wrote: »

As a purely personal opinion, that's an attitude I find a wee bit distasteful. Why should being well-known make someone a target for abuse?

If they're not altogether renowned for being of pleasant character themselves - e.g. Michael O'Leary?

That said, in the case of someone not particularly well known or in the public eye like that reporter, I don't agree with venom like groundless character assassinations or slating of appearance (I do agree with people having the right to air their view if they really dislike her writings though) but someone like the aforementioned MOL - not averse to gimmicky publicity stunts - is surely fair game for harsh criticism?

brummytom

oscarBravo wrote: »

As a purely personal opinion, that's an attitude I find a wee bit distasteful. Why should being well-known make someone a target for abuse?

I appreciate that's your opinion, but I do disagree. As I said, I believe that if someone thrusts themself into the public eye, they should fully expect to recieve both positive and negative feedback.

If they're not prepared for this, then, in my opinion, they're not equipped to deal with 'fame'.


When does expressing an opinion become defamy?

Dudess

Yeah, where draw the line? Some people seem to be big fans of not allowing criticism of anything, including e.g. musical acts. If a positive opinion is allowed, then a negative one should also be.

Terry

oscarBravo wrote: »

If that opinion is defamatory, the problem is built-in. If the opinion is defamatory: yes, it can.

Surely you cannot be sued for voicing your opinion.

If that's the case, then Bono and BIFFO can never be mentioned in AH ever again.

Ok, here's a few hypothetical situations.

I'm a journalist and author. I've written some articles and books which AH users disagree with (read: absolutely hate).

Which of the following are permissible, and which are defamatory?

Terry is a cúnt.
Terry is a cúnt because he said <something/> in that article/book.
Terry is a fat bastard. I've no idea how he got a book deal. His books suck.
Terry can suck my balls. I hate him.
Terry is wrong about X. I hate him.
Terry is wrong about X. He's a ****ing wanker.
Photoshopped pic of me with Hitler or someone similar.
Photoshopped pic of me with sad Keanu Reeves.
Photoshopped pic of me with a tiny peni... Sorry. Been done.
Terry is a dickhead because he said X.
I hate Terry for X reason.

Note: I'm not a boards.ie member in these hypothetical situations.

K-9

I thought some of those posts in that thread were OTT. It is AH though, so I'd say alot of it was oneupmanship or tongue in cheek.

In general, where do you draw the line? Gets chalk.

I assume Myers, Quinn and O'Toole are fair game, so why not other journalists?

epgc3fyqirnbsx

It is accepted that when somebody publishes an article or book or whatever that that then is subject to the criticisms which you may think it deserves, as it is put in the public domain by the writer.

If a writer publishes an article that is then descriptive of their personality and lifestyle, as some in question have done, then that personality and lifestyle should also be subject to criticism as it is they who placed it in the public domain.

where the line needs to be drawn is invasions of privacy on information that was not put forward, such as publishing personal details, relationships etc

And as if someone publishes an article that may rub some people up the wrong way on a particular issue, but the said person does it from an opinion point of view, then it should be perfectly acceptable to argue against that opinion but under no circumstances mention their personal life


In short the type of comment that should be allowed needs to be directly proportionate to the amount of personal information that the writer puts forward.
This is true from a legal and moral point of view

El Weirdo

Terry wrote: »

Terry is a cúnt.

^This. :pac:

Rabies

Since Terry has thrown himself to the floor I'll use his name in this example
This is the way I see it.

Terry is a stupid fat bitch
How ****ing stupid is that overweight health minister Terry?
Why do we have retarded politicians likes Terry, everything they do is wrong.
I wouldn't piss on Terry if he was on fire.
*stupid thread time* What politicians would you like to shoot?

Terry is the worst politician Ireland because <insert valid reason>
Does having an over weight minister of health (Terry) send a right message to the public?
Terry is doing a terrible job in his role, things have got worse. Who should we replace Terry with?
Terry's policies are rubbish, how did he graduate for uni? Never listens to the people's needs or acts accordingly.
*light fun stupid thread time* If you could send 5 politicians to the moon who would it be?


There is a bit of a difference between the above paragraphs.
To be in the public eye and receive a back lash is fine. It is expected. Any tabloid or sloppy journalist that insults or lies about the public figure or celebrity often finds out that they get sued fairly quickly. Check the media, there is more than enough examples out there, including newspapers posting apologies.

coletti

brummytom wrote: »

Now, I'm of the opinion that, if someone actively puts them-self in the public eye, they're 'fair game'.

While I am not entirely sure what qualifies as "puts them-self in the public eye" consists of (does the partner of a celebrity qualify, for example, if the partner is photographed with the celebrity on a shopping trip/holiday/night out?), your statement has been the argument used by the tabloid press for years to justify them to do their build-them-up-then-knock-them-down in an effort to sell their filthy papers to unthinking morons.

If you think it through, the statement is a slogan and not an argument. There is no excuse to intrude into and poke and pry into someone's life for no reason other than their perceived celebrity status, whether or not they have "put them-self in the public eye".

The tabloid press is a nasty vicious medium which doesn't stop at those who have "put themselves in the public eye", but will trample over anyone who can invoke the base emotions of jealousy, hatred, greed and spite towards other human beings in an attempt to make profits.

Don't fall for their nasty excuses for their pretty foul behaviour. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone "puts them-self in the public eye" which is a smoke screen invented by the same tabloids to hide their own base and vile behaviour to human beings.

Tom Dunne

RopeDrink wrote: »

The problem is that the large majority of users seem to opt for critiquing someone in an abusive manner rather than just critiquing them.

This^

I had numerous long-winded posts created, pointing out my displeasure with the tabloid-esque manner in which AH posters slate celebrities, but the above sentence puts it succinctly.

I have no problem with a bit of slagging, I can give as good as I can take, but when it starts getting nasty and personal, I have no time for it.

And there is of course the fact that we live in a very litigious society and that Boards.ie can be held accountable for what you say (and I believe in some cases, the poster themselves can be held liable, though don't quote me on that, I am no legal eagle).

My name is URL

The thread about yer one in negative equity was closed for the same reason. It was going well allowed to stay open up until people started trawling through her Bebo & Facebook accounts so they could rip into her looks and her boyfriend. No need for that carry on.. there was plenty one could say about her writing skills and the material in her articles without getting overly personal. Just makes it seem like a load of bullies having a go, when that happens

DeVore

Sorry, I'm on hols so I'm going to keep this short.

A statement is defamatory when it fulfills all three of these criteria:

1. Its published. (thats a given on Boards)
2. Its untrue.
3. It lowers the target person in the eyes of their right-thinking peers.

Now, the one everyone will jump on is: Its untrue. So lets expand on that one.

Terry, sorry mate you put yourself forward as our guinea pig. Suppose someone posts:
"Terry stole from SSF". They might genuinely believe it but unfortunately they need to be able to prove it in a court of law. The burden of proof is on the poster. And consequently on Boards as the publisher

The reality is that Terry isnt going to sue BiggusDickus69 he's going to sue Boards. As the publisher, if we knowingly continue to publish that comment, we are responsible for it. It doesnt matter what you think SHOULD be the law. That IS the law.

"Surely" is the most expensive word in legal history. "Surely" precedes what YOU think the law SHOULD be. If there is one thing this job has shown me its that the gulf between what people think the law should be, and what the law ACTUALLY IS, is enormous.

So, when the OP says that in his opinion someone who is famous is fair game.... thats fascinating but utterly irrelevant. The law does not share his opinion and in fact, holds almost the diametrically opposite view (someone who makes their living from celebrity is damaged more).

Your opinions on what should happen in a perfect world are all very interesting (and I agree with many of them) but shall we return to deal with the reality of the situation?

I'm off for another pina colada.

DeV.

Bonito

So, so long as it's true, we're allowed say it?

E.g. Celeb is caught with trousers down with someone who wasn't their wife/husband/BF/GF etc. We can call them a dirty, rotten, cheating so-and-so and it'd be allowed, because it's true?

aidan_walsh

Bonito wrote: »

So, so long as it's true, we're allowed say it?

E.g. Celeb is caught with trousers down with someone who wasn't their wife/husband/BF/GF etc. We can call them a dirty, rotten, cheating so-and-so and it'd be allowed, because it's true?

Unless said someone later transpired to be a doctor who specialises in issues of such areas

Terry

DeVore wrote: »

Terry, sorry mate you put yourself forward as our guinea pig. Suppose someone posts:

That cracked me up.
I've no problem ever taking one for the team.

Enjoy your pina colonics.

Terry

Terry wrote: »

That cracked me up.
I've no problem ever taking one for the team.

Enjoy your pina colonics.

Dear pedants, when I say "the team", I mean the entire boards community. Not mods or admins or anyone else. I mean everyone who enjoys this site.

AckwelFoley

Rabies wrote: »

Since Terry has thrown himself to the floor I'll use his name in this example
This is the way I see it.

Terry is a stupid fat bitch
How ****ing stupid is that overweight health minister Terry?
Why do we have retarded politicians likes Terry, everything they do is wrong.
I wouldn't piss on Terry if he was on fire.
*stupid thread time* What politicians would you like to shoot?

.

Says more about the person making the comments like above than it does about their target, if i were a politicin i wouldnt be bothered in the slightest by such comments as i would hold the value of what was said similar to how i would regard that person.. zero.

I see alot of thses comments on AH in particular about the governement and bankers etc, and it somewhat irritates me, they're brainless quips from brainless people or perhaps too lazy to perhaps put some thought into what they are saying.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Terry wrote: »

Dear pedants, when I say "the team", I mean the entire boards community. Not mods or admins or anyone else. I mean everyone who enjoys this site.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Nonsense - We all know by now that Mods/CatMods/Admins ONLY look out for themselves/eachother and are a power hungry inbred race of hermits who hate all outsiders. Various Feedback threads prove this to be true.

:rolleyes:

Jesus. Defensive much, fellers?

pleasant Co.

Omar Repulsive Platoon wrote: »

Jesus. Defensive much, fellers?

can you blame them? :eek:

AckwelFoley

Mactard wrote: »

can you blame us? :eek:

Fixed your post. :pac:

4zn76tysfajdxp

Mactard wrote: »

can you blame them? :eek:

Oh I don't know. I just think it looks as paranoid as the people they were making fun of is all.

Bonito

Dev's drinking cocktails. IMO, this is proof enough that he has caught the ghey.


It's always the good'uns.

pleasant Co.

snyper wrote: »

Fixed your post. :pac:

Defamation of character! you're gonna git it now

Jazzy

took your time closing the Tom thread didnt ya! :pac:

DeVore

When it was brought to our attention, we closed it within 24 hours. No pleasing some people it seems.... damned if we do etc.

DeV.

oscarBravo

Bonito wrote: »

So, so long as it's true, we're allowed say it?

E.g. Celeb is caught with trousers down with someone who wasn't their wife/husband/BF/GF etc. We can call them a dirty, rotten, cheating so-and-so and it'd be allowed, because it's true?

This seems to have been missed.

As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer), the fact that what you say is true may be a defence in a defamation action. The problem is, if a poster says something nasty about a public figure, and the public figure sues boards.ie for defamation, then it becomes boards.ie's problem to try to create a defence by establishing the truth of the allegation. Part of our role as mods and admins is to try to prevent the website from getting sued, because getting sued isn't fun.

I'll reiterate what Tom Dunne has said: I don't understand the need to be abusive when criticising someone.

Bonito

oscarBravo wrote: »

This seems to have been missed.

As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer), the fact that what you say is true may be a defence in a defamation action. The problem is, if a poster says something nasty about a public figure, and the public figure sues boards.ie for defamation, then it becomes boards.ie's problem to try to create a defence by establishing the truth of the allegation. Part of our role as mods and admins is to try to prevent the website from getting sued, because getting sued isn't fun.

I'll reiterate what Tom Dunne has said: I don't understand the need to be abusive when criticising someone.

So we can use "nice defamation"?

"Ah, sure Terry's a right aul lovely bollox."

Am I doing it right?

oscarBravo

Bonito wrote: »

So we can use "nice defamation"?

"Ah, sure Terry's a right aul lovely bollox."

Am I doing it right?

No, and it troubles me slightly that I have to explain the difference between criticism and abuse. See if you can tell which is which here:

"Terry rarely contributes anything worthwhile to a discussion."

"Terry's a bollox."



(With apologies to Terry, who isn't a bollox and whose contributions I value greatly.)

Bonito

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, and it troubles me slightly that I have to explain the difference between criticism and abuse. See if you can tell which is which here:

"Terry rarely contributes anything worthwhile to a discussion."

"Terry's a bollox."



(With apologies to Terry, who isn't a bollox and whose contributions I value greatly.)

Bold = Criticism.
Underline = Abuse.

Nah, Terry offered to be the guinea for this so it's all good.

Can boards be sued for critical abuse or abusive criticism?

Like, Bonito is a lazy stupid bollox who contributes nothing worthwhile to a discussion.

If statements are true, are they just very critical rather than abusive?

You shouldn't be worried, I'm not a solicitor or anything. Would you rather I didn't ask what we can and can't say on boards and end up causing boards to be threatened with legal action? Not everyone knows the sites terms of use and rules off by heart.

K-9

I thought the vast majority of the stuff was grand. After all it was criticising the writing and attitude of the articles.

Describing somewhere as the Monte Carlo of Europe, in the biggest selling newspaper in the land, will lead to critical comments!

Posting Facebook or Bebo links is too far. Nobody knows what a poster on the internet is going to put on them.

Gummy Panda

DeVore wrote: »

No pleasing some people it seems....

DeV.

That's just what jesus said

MitchKoobski

This might read a bit messy, can't really phrase it all how I want. I didn't really post in the Tom thread at all, but it was a bit funny seeing one or two of the videos. However when people started rooting out his facebook and personal details, and then taking the piss, it got out of hand and had to be closed. It went from being a bit of a pisstake to something that was harsh and unnecessary and needed to be closed. It started to remind me of a certain internet-hate-machine. I think its fine to give an opinion about what someone did or said in an article or on the telly, but it got way too personal and that sort of stuff shouldn't stand. If a celebrity says something, does something or writes something for the public to view/read/hear then its open to opinions and criticism. Thats where it should stop. Its not open to "Look at this **** and her *** the ****." That's when people start suing.

Red Alert

Perhaps it's a lesson to avoid having your facebook profile public

K-9

Red Alert wrote: »

Perhaps it's a lesson to avoid having your facebook profile public

Everybody should have their profile private but Facebook wouldn't take over the world then.

Bonito

Red Alert wrote: »

Perhaps it's a lesson to avoid having your facebook profile public

I was going to say that but didn't in case someone came in with the "They shouldn't have/need to, people shouldn't stalk them/look at their profile without permission. They should be allowed put whatever they want on the internet" argument.

They can but if they don't make it private then people are going to find it and they've only themselves to blame.

K-9

Bonito wrote: »

They can but if they don't make it private then people are going to find it and they've only themselves to blame.

Yes, but looking at it from a Boards.ie view point, they can't be seen to facilitate that.

Away you go and post away if you so wish, that "right" hasn't been taken away and they can only blame themselves. The name is obviously in the public domain, so away you go.

Bonito

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but looking at it from a Boards.ie view point, they can't be seen to facilitate that.

Away you go and post away if you so wish, that "right" hasn't been taken away and they can only blame themselves. The name is obviously in the public domain, so away you go.

OK from now on when there's a celeb bashing thread, lets PM the persons bebo/facebook/myspace rather than putting it on thread. Then we can rip the piss out of them behind closed doors.

Sounds crazy. So crazy, it just might work.

My name is URL

Bonito wrote: »

They can but if they don't make it private then people are going to find it and they've only themselves to blame.

Even boards have rules on what you can cross reference, from the site. If it seems underhanded or like bullying then we'd get an infraction for it.. if you go and post a pic of someone which they posted on another forum, and made fun of their looks just because they start shit threads, it wouldn't be acceptable, let alone posting their FB profiles and tearing into them.

Membership is only a few keystrokes, not really a buffer zone for being disallowed certain liberties.

K-9

Bonito wrote: »

OK from now on when there's a celeb bashing thread, lets PM the persons bebo/facebook/myspace rather than putting it on thread. Then we can rip the piss out of them behind closed doors.

Sounds crazy. So crazy, it just might work.

You aren't seeing the distinction. I can go and pm or post on that facebook/bebo page NOW, if I so wish.

Boards can't facilitate it. Boards has a certain responsibility, you don't.

Bonito

K-9 wrote: »

You aren't seeing the distinction. I can go and pm or post on that facebook/bebo page NOW, if I so wish.

Boards can't facilitate it. Boards has a certain responsibility, you don't.

I did see it. If 2 people enjoy bashing the same person then the other is hardly going to report a PM they receive with the persons facebook. Some people are friends in real life as well as on boards. So if they decided to PM links to each other and rip the piss out of the person then there's not much boards can do because they're not publically flaming them.

All boards has done is give them a different platform to do this on. They can do the same thing over email, text, private message on facebook/myspace/bebo etc etc etc etc.

So long as the person can't see boards members doing it, there's sweet fúck all they can do about it.

K-9

Private messages are private, not searchable, not on Google, not viewable by everybody.

Threads are. The poster or a friend or relative, could do a search on Google or Bing on a name and find it 3 years later.

Bonito

K-9 wrote: »

Private messages are private, not searchable, not on Google, not viewable by everybody.

Threads are. The poster or a friend or relative, could do a search on Google or Bing on a name and find it 3 years later.

What? That was my point. Take it off the thread and there's nothing that can be done about it.

K-9

Bonito wrote: »

What? That was my point. Take it off the thread and there's nothing that can be done about it.

Exactly and completely agreed. The issue here isn't what you do in your pm's! Nobody really cares same as you telling your neighbour what you think of Kevin Myers!

Nobody cares. Say it in front of an audience and it gets printed, different matter altogether.

DeVore

Private Messages between individuals are not considered "published" hence no defamation.

Go back and look at my list of 3 things to qualify as defamation.

DeV.

dr.bollocko

DeVore wrote: »

Sorry, I'm on hols so I'm going to keep this short.

A statement is defamatory when it fulfills all three of these criteria:

1. Its published. (thats a given on Boards)
2. Its untrue.
3. It lowers the target person in the eyes of their right-thinking peers.

Dav wrote: »

I've had to delete the Tom O'C thread due to a threat of legal action against the site.

After Hours posters need to understand that personal abuse of someone like this gets us in trouble. It has to stop. We've already had this discussion not that long ago in relation to a reporter who posted an article some found to be nonsense which turned into nothing but personal abuse of her as a person which had no relevance or bearing on the thread.

I don't get it.
And if I don't get it I can't moderate it.
I don't want to blanket ban the topic of celebrities and am unsure how to understand the idea of removing the concept of knocking celebrity idiots anonymously on after hours. Now we are getting reported posts if a poster farts near celebrities. So I haven't been moderating since this whole topic came to a head and I want to thank brummytom for bringing up the discussion here.
The rudest celeb you've met thread in celebs / showbiz cuts much closer to the bone than most of the bad stuff on AH and it's been open forever and ever.
I can handle and understand and help with specific lies about celebrities being removed. But the entire thread on

Tom O'C

was removed. All of it. Not some specific posts which indicate a pattern, just all of it.
Not really useful feedback for me tbh.

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read on here and it's downright egotistical of boards to even think itself important enough to ban "slagging people". It's allowed on the biggest and best websites in the world but not here in lowly Ireland.

Slagging is not the same as defamation of character.. If I say that a journalist is a complete retard, I think that's fair game. If I say that John Smith from madeuptown raped a child, then it's not fair game. There's a big and very obvious difference there.

Tom Dunne

Deleted User wrote: »

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read on here and it's downright egotistical of boards to even think itself important enough to ban "slagging people". It's allowed on the biggest and best websites in the world but not here in lowly Ireland.

Slagging is not the same as defamation of character.. If I say that a journalist is a complete retard, I think that's fair game. If I say that John Smith from madeuptown raped a child, then it's not fair game. There's a big and very obvious difference there.

Can I ask what legal training you have?