freedom of speech ?

Irish Fox

I'm aware in the irish constituition that freedom of speech is protected
but I'm also concerned about defamation and slander laws.
I have a few questions about this :

I know defamation is when you publish false statements about a group or person but if the statement is true are you still allowed publish a person or groups name in the newspaper or by radio ?

are the press allowed to publish anything they want ?

can a person or group sue you for publishing true statements that would make the publics opinion of them lower ?

do defamation laws only apply to media or does facebook count aswell ?

any help would be great

NoQuarter

Irish Fox wrote: »

I'm aware in the irish constituition that freedom of speech is protected
but I'm also concerned about defamation and slander laws.
I have a few questions about this :

I know defamation is when you publish false statements about a group or person but if the statement is true are you still allowed publish a person or groups name in the newspaper or by radio ?

If you publish a true statement it can never be "defamation". The constitution right to freedom of speech under Article 40.6 is, like most constitutional rights, not absolute. For instance there is a ban on broadcasting religious material over radio true or not.

are the press allowed to publish anything they want ?

No, the press' right to free speech, again, is qualified by other peoples rights, e.g privacy etc etc.

can a person or group sue you for publishing true statements that would make the publics opinion of them lower ?

No.

do defamation laws only apply to media or does facebook count aswell ?

Facebook, in theory, would count as defamation is defined as "publication by ANY means".

any help would be great

...

HicksLennon

Received this from Facebook friend today...

Forget copyright infringement, YouTube is now complying with removal orders from governments to stop populist rage going viral

In a frightening example of how the state is tightening its grip around the free Internet, it has emerged that You Tube is complying with thousands of requests from governments to censor and remove videos that show protests and other examples of citizens simply asserting their rights, while also deleting search terms by government mandate.

The latest example is You Tube’s compliance with a request from the British government to censor footage of the British Constitution Group’s Lawful Rebellion protest, during which they attempted to civilly arrest Judge Michael Peake at Birkenhead county court. Peake was ruling on a case involving Roger Hayes, former member of UKIP, who has refused to pay council tax, both as a protest against the government’s treasonous activities in sacrificing Britain to globalist interests and as a result of Hayes clearly proving that council tax is illegal.

Hayes has embarked on an effort to legally prove that the enforced collection of council tax by government is unlawful because no contract has been agreed between the individual and the state. His argument is based on the sound legal principle that just like the council, Hayes can represent himself as a third party in court and that “Roger Hayes” is a corporation and must be treated as one in the eyes of the law.

The British government doesn’t want this kind of information going viral in the public domain because it is scared stiff of a repeat of the infamous poll tax riots of 1990, a massive tax revolt in the UK that forced the Thatcher government to scrap the poll tax altogether because of mass civil disobedience and refusal to pay.

When viewers in the UK attempt to watch videos of the protest, they are met with the message, “This content is not available in your country due to a government removal request.”

We then click through to learn that, “YouTube occasionally receives requests from governments around the world to remove content from our site, and as a result, YouTube may block specific content in order to comply with local laws in certain countries.” You can also search by country to discover that Google, the owner of You Tube, has complied with the majority of requests from governments, particularly in the United States and the UK, not only to remove You Tube videos, but also specific web search terms and thousands of “data requests,” meaning demands for information that would reveal the true identity of a You Tube user.

Google claims that the information sent to governments is “needed for legitimate criminal investigations,” but whether these “data requests” have been backed up by warrants is not divulged by the company.

“Between July 1 and Dec. 31 (2009), Google received 3,580 requests for user data from U.S. government agencies, slightly less than the 3,663 originating from Brazil,” reports PC World. “The United Kingdom and India sent more than 1,000 requests each, and smaller numbers originated from various other countries.”

With regard to search terms, one struggles to understand how a specific combination of words in a Google search can be considered a violation of any law. This is about government and Google working hand in hand to manipulate search results in order to censor inconvenient information, something which Google now freely admits to doing.

You Tube’s behavior is more despicable than the Communist Chinese, who are at least open about their censorship policies, whereas You Tube hides behind a blanket excuse and doesn’t even say what law has been broken.
Anyone who swallows the explanation that the videos were censored in this case because the government was justifiably enforcing a law that says scenes from inside a court room cannot be filmed is beyond naive. Court was not even in session in the protest footage that was removed, and the judge had already left the courtroom.

The real reason for the removal is the fact that the British government is obviously petrified of seeing a group of focused and educated citizens, black, white, old and young, male and female, go head to head with the corrupt system on its own stomping ground.

In their efforts to keep a lid on the growing populist fury that has arrived in response to rampant and growing financial and political tyranny in every sector of society, governments in the west are now mimicking Communist Chinese-style Internet censorship policies in a bid to neutralize protest movements, while hypocritically lecturing the rest of the world on maintaining web freedom.

Via a combination of cybersecurity legislation and policy that is hastily introduced with no real oversight, governments and large Internet corporations are crafting an environment where the state can simply demand information be removed on a whim with total disregard for freedom of speech protections.

This was underscored last year at the height of the Wikileaks issue, when Amazon axed Wikileaks from its servers following a phone call made by Senator Joe Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee demanding the website be deleted.

Lieberman has been at the forefront of a push to purge the Internet of all dissent by empowering Obama with a figurative Internet kill switch that he would use to shut down parts of the Internet or terminate websites under the guise of national security. Lieberman spilled the beans on the true reason for the move during a CNN interview when he stated “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.”

Except that China doesn’t disconnect the Internet “in case of war,” it only ever does so to censor and intimidate people who express dissent against government atrocities or corruption, as we have documented. This is precisely the kind of online environment the British and American governments are trying to replicate as they attempt to put a stranglehold on the last bastion of true free speech – the world wide web.

BattleCorp

Irish Fox wrote: »

can a person or group sue you for publishing true statements that would make the publics opinion of them lower ?

Here is a question about the above point.

If a former customer owes money for an item that they bought from you and you have written proof of an agreement between both parties, and proof that the item was received and part paid for, can you publish the person's name (eg. online) and the amount that they stung you for?

The customer hasn't complained about the quality of the item either and have been using it for the past six months. They are just refusing to pay the balance of the payment.

If the info is factual, and proof of the transaction and non payment is provided, can you name and shame them on the internet due to their refusal to pay fully for the item?

Would this be defamation or infringing on their rights?

mcmoustache

HicksLennon wrote: »

blah blah global elite blah blah no contract with state blah blah censorship blah blah freeman nonsense blah blah chinese comparisons

The youtube videos are available here. What are you on about? Also, the people in the videos are somewhere between mental and retarded.

As for the arrest of a judge, what's he charged with? Here in Ireland, an arrest can be carried out by a citizen for offenses which carry a 5 year custodial sentences. I don't know what the story is in the UK.

One more thing, under what law can a freeman nutter arrest a judge? Does it not contradict the whole freeman ideology? And where the hell were they going to put the judge? This stuff is such a load of dingos kidneys.

MODS, could this be moved to the large freeman thread? You know, the recent one featuring Bobby Sludds and a few others of questionable mental faculties? This thread is in danger of being derailed.

I apologise for my hand in it too.