AH ban

Amhran Nua

Hi there, I would like to object to a ban in AH, the mod has given permission to post the pms:

Initial ban:
Hi Amhran Nua,

You have been banned from After Hours for the following duration:

7 Day(s)

for the following reason:

libellous, post deleted

Response:

Hi there, in the spirit of following the dispute resolution process, I will object to this banning.

Libel implies that you have factual information about the person in question. The comment that was made said
"He strikes me as the sort of fella"
not
"He didn't mind working for his rent to reach the top, if you know what I mean, and we haven't heard anything from him in the last few years because he's discovered facebook and sits in his office all day smoking a pipe and interfering with himself while looking at his students' pictures."

There is a distinct difference between the two, one is an opinon, the other is a statement.

Now while I appreciate it is not up to the mods to be educated on legal niceties, there is no reason to react just because someone pressed the "report" button. I didn't object to the last banning because frankly I was tired of it at that stage, although I certainly should have.

Caustic remarks and contempt are the harvest that those pushing a racist agenda will reap; they should have considered their delicate sensiblities before deliberately trying to drum up racial hatred.

Further comment:
This thread revolved around a particularly nasty piece of work whose "research" has no doubt fuelled many right wing organisations and given justification to who knows how many back alley beatings since it was published. The comment made was an expression of the contempt I and many others feel for fraudulent misogynistic and racist propaganda.

If the admins feel the comment was too close to the libel line, fair enough, delete it, and I'll watch for that in future, but I make no apology for the tone or attitude of the comment, and I request that the ban be lifted.

Further, as mentioned above, I request that the previous ban from AH which has since expired be expunged from the records, since I feel it is unfairly prejuidicing the decisions of mods on whether or not to apply a ban, an infraction, or merely a written warning.

That ban was cited as being in response to being too caustic towards comments which, wait for it, implied that Irish people had a natural predisposition towards molesting children, made by someone trying to defend the actions of the church towards paedophile priests. For such a monstrous accusation, I don't believe it is possible to be too caustic.

I should really have contested it at the time, and I PMed the mod with a document supporting the reality that Irish people have in fact one of the lowest tendencies towards paedophilia in the world, but I had other things to deal with at the time.

g'em

Hi Amhran Nua, I'll take a look into this.

Can I take it from your post that you and the banning Moderator have discussed this?

Amhran Nua

g'em wrote: »

Hi Amhran Nua, I'll take a look into this.

Can I take it from your post that you and the banning Moderator have discussed this?

The only PM omitted was the one where the moderator indicated that the process should be moved to dispute resolution, so yes.

g'em

tbh Amhran Nua this really comes down to one statement:

He didn't mind working for his rent to reach the top, if you know what I mean, and we haven't heard anything from him in the last few years because he's discovered facebook and sits in his office all day smoking a pipe and interfering with himself while looking at his students' pictures.

Semantics of libel law aside can you see why there's an issue with implying that someone is involved in activity that would put his job and his reputation in jeopardy? By all means constructively criticising, but this is a serious defamation of an individual's character.

Amhran Nua

g'em wrote: »

Semantics of libel law aside can you see why there's an issue with implying that someone is involved in activity that would put his job and his reputation in jeopardy? By all means constructively criticising, but this is a serious defamation of an individual's character.

It would be a defamation if I were claiming it was true. It is not, to the best of my knowledge. And his character is quite clearly illustrated by his own life's work. Also in that thread I noted that he would not have been out of place guarding Auschwitz or on Goebbels' propaganda committee, which does not appear to have raised any protest.

I believe it is important to speak out in as robust a manner as possible against these sentiments of racial superiority wherever they arise; they have very real consequences in the real world. And it can build up fast. While you or I are quite capable of seeing through them, not everyone is so enlightened, and it leads to violence, hatred and misery. That's not acceptable, and I don't see how any right minded person could think otherwise.

As I've already said, I understand if the admins want to leave that deleted, if it might get boards in trouble. I genuinely don't think it will, but that's an opinion. I'll also be careful about making such comments in future.

However I absolutely will continue to speak out robustly against racist propaganda. Perhaps the mods might be better advised to ban anyone who chooses to click "report" on those pouring scorn on hatemongers.

Amhran Nua

Oh and just a note of clarification - I didn't make that statement, that was used in the pm as an example of something that would be considered libellous.

The actual statement that was made was:
He strikes me as the sort of fella who wouldn't mind working for his rent to reach the top, if you know what I mean, and we haven't heard anything from him in the last few years because he's discovered facebook and sits in his office all day smoking a pipe and interfering with himself while looking at his students' pictures.

g'em

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It would be a defamation if I were claiming it was true. It is not, to the best of my knowledge. And his character is quite clearly illustrated by his own life's work. Also in that thread I noted that he would not have been out of place guarding Auschwitz or on Goebbels' propaganda committee, which does not appear to have raised any protest.

As I said above, this comes down to that one comment, and the implication is enough to render it as libellous.

Amhran Nua wrote:

I believe it is important to speak out in as robust a manner as possible against these sentiments of racial superiority wherever they arise; they have very real consequences in the real world. And it can build up fast. While you or I are quite capable of seeing through them, not everyone is so enlightened, and it leads to violence, hatred and misery. That's not acceptable, and I don't see how any right minded person could think otherwise.

While I commend you for the rigorousness with which you feel the need to speak out against such issues this is a DRP thread. Your opinions regarding such beliefs have as much to do with the problem to hand as the price of potatoes. If it appears that I'm being flippant, it's because I am, I have little time for folks who like to sopabox their personal crusades at every opportunity. It certainly won't win me over when I'm giving up my time to try and get to the root of what's going on here.

Amhran Nua wrote:

As I've already said, I understand if the admins want to leave that deleted, if it might get boards in trouble. I genuinely don't think it will, but that's an opinion. I'll also be careful about making such comments in future.

Well at this point I am choosing to leave it deleted. If you wish to argue against that then the Admins can take a look.

Amhran Nua wrote:

However I absolutely will continue to speak out robustly against racist propaganda. Perhaps the mods might be better advised to ban anyone who chooses to click "report" on those pouring scorn on hatemongers.

Speak out all you like, but do so within the rules. I don't care what your personal agenda is, rule breaking is rule breaking and we are blind to the causes behind them when they are upheld.

I'm going to need to think about this before I decide anything with regards to your ban.

Amhran Nua

g'em wrote: »

As I said above, this comes down to that one comment, and the implication is enough to render it as libellous.

Yes, please note that the comment you quoted was not the one which was actually made.

g'em wrote: »

If it appears that I'm being flippant, it's because I am, I have little time for folks who like to sopabox their personal crusades at every opportunity.

At every opportunity? Those comments were made in reponse to comments on threads which I felt were offensive. I didn't start those threads, and I don't bring those sentiments into any other threads I participate in, and there are many.

If you would like to know the likelihood of "repeat offences" of near-libel, I will make an effort not to approach too closely again. If by "offences" you mean responding vigorously to posters of murky origin who make out that the Irish people are predisposed by nature to the most vile habits and weaknesses, I can't give any assurances.

g'em wrote: »

Speak out all you like, but do so within the rules. I don't care what your personal agenda is, rule breaking is rule breaking and we are blind to the causes behind them when they are upheld.

As far as I am aware, the comment made did not violate any rules.

g'em

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If you would like to know the likelihood of "repeat offences" of near-libel, I will make an effort not to approach too closely again. If by "offences" you mean responding vigorously to posters of murky origin who make out that the Irish people are predisposed by nature to the most vile habits and weaknesses, I can't give any assurances.

If you respond in a way that is libellous towards someone, appropriate action will be taken, and this instance will be taken into consideration.

Amhran Nua wrote:

As far as I am aware, the comment made did not violate any rules.

You made a libellous and unfounded comment about someone, this was brought to our attention and we (the Moderators) are duty bound to remove it and take whatever action we deem appropriate.

I'm going to lift the ban and replace it with an infraction - please be mindful of how you are posting in future. Constructive criticism is fine, making outlandish claims that hide under "opinion" but defame an individuals' character are not allowed.

Amhran Nua

g'em wrote: »

Constructive criticism is fine, making outlandish claims that hide under "opinion" but defame an individuals' character are not allowed.

I will accept your decision, as I understand boards has to look out for itself, and thank you for your time on this.

Would it be possible to have the previous ban expunged, for the reasons I outlined in the first post?

g'em

I'm afraid that's not something we can do - it's not a case of whether I agree or disagree, simply that the vbulletin software (I hope I'm saying that right, I'm not very technologically minded) is not capable of removing bans from profiles.

Amhran Nua

g'em wrote: »

I'm afraid that's not something we can do - it's not a case of whether I agree or disagree, simply that the vbulletin software (I hope I'm saying that right, I'm not very technologically minded) is not capable of removing bans from profiles.

That's a pity. Well, thanks again.