Broadsheet.ie & IT deleting articles relating to Kate's death

tbh

looks like this is the case. Reading between the lines, it would appear broadsheet have been comprehensively shut up. Superinjunction style.

The Sparrow

tbh wrote: »

looks like this is the case. Reading between the lines, it would appear broadsheet have been comprehensively shut up. Superinjunction style.

That's brilliant!

uvox

Can we expect a Letters Page in the Irish Times tomorrow full of outraged Irish Times readers saying how they will never read Broadsheet again, attack on freedom of speech, disgrace, shame, disrespect, (contd. page 94)?

Probably not.

Suddenly John Ryan's zeal for published of "in the public interest" appears to have waned. I wonder why?

oceanclub

uvox wrote: »

Can we expect a Letters Page in the Irish Times tomorrow full of outraged Irish Times readers saying how they will never read Broadsheet again, attack on freedom of speech, disgrace, shame, disrespect, (contd. page 94)?

Probably not.

Suddenly John Ryan's zeal for published of "in the public interest" appears to have waned. I wonder why?

To be fair, we should hold a national broadsheet newspaper allegedly "of record", which itself claimed it was never approached in a legal manner, to a higher standard than a comedy website which - presumably - has had some kind of legal action taken out against it.

P.

Dudess

Yeah I'd be more inclined to direct my ire at whomever has coerced Broadsheet into zipping it. Instead of leaping to play the blame game, maybe the people who have posted comments to the site should consider how little power Broadsheet has, and how much power those it's up against have. It obviously had no choice - why are some so quick to attack it when they don't even know the full story? It's as if they need to be cynical or something. No thinking it through - just petulant teenage foot-stamping. Like, does Broadsheet have loads of money for solicitor fees?

I think Broadsheet spoke out as best it could...

The Sparrow

Plus I doubt this is the last we have heard of it. I would give Broadsheet the benefit of the doubt. Better to try and fail then not try at all.

hada

The Sparrow wrote: »

Plus I doubt this is the last we have heard of it. I would give Broadsheet the benefit of the doubt. Better to try and fail then not try at all.

Completely agree. Just watched last week's Saturday Show with Kate's parents and brother on RTE Player - absolutely heart breaking. Terry Prone et al will get their rewards; in this life or the next.

Toby Take a Bow

hada wrote: »

Completely agree. Just watched last week's Saturday Show with Kate's parents and brother on RTE Player - absolutely heart breaking. Terry Prone et al will get their rewards; in this life or the next.

Probably not in the next life, though.

And if they have enough money to silence any media, they'll probably be okay in this life too.

Callipo

Word is that the poor lass had such an affliction with drink that it made most of the position of others null and void

hada

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Probably not in the next life, though.

And if they have enough money to silence any media, they'll probably be okay in this life too.

I'd rather be poor than what is alleged on my conscious.

Toby Take a Bow

hada wrote: »

I'd rather be poor than what is alleged on my conscious.

That's great, but I doubt Prone does.

tbh

hada wrote: »

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Probably not in the next life, though.

And if they have enough money to silence any media, they'll probably be okay in this life too.

I'd rather be poor than what is alleged on my conscious.

You don't even know what is alleged.(alleged by whom by the way, because its.not by Kate) let alone what is true

Its just Fecking lazy to assume that because TCC have worked in politics that they are automatically guilty of vague and unspeakable horribility (tm tbh 2011).

Once more. WE. DON'T. KNOW. ANYTHING. ABOUT. WHAT. HAPPENED.

if broadsheet are guilty of anything, its of accusing the IT of cowardice before establishing the facts.

I'm not saying something dodgy didot happen. But i think its important to never pre-judge a story and Im not goin.g to start with this one.

uvox

Broadsheet should explain where their deleted posts concerning this story have gone. The Irish Times modified their articles for sure, and explained belatedly. However, the evidence is there to see. Deleting content, on the other hand, is how Stalinists behave.

Frankly, the initial allegations should never have been published by the Irish Times whether anonymous or not. I doubt any legal representations were made, but they were clearly very damaging, unproven, and remain so.

As Broadsheet have found out it is better to have a permanent income than to be fascinating (Oscar Wilde). The site doesn't even have a data protection or privacy policy statement. It's wide open for commenters on that site to be pursued for comments while the owner/operator disappears.

Irish online media hasn't come of age at all.

Hotblack Desiato

uvox wrote: »

The site doesn't even have a data protection or privacy policy statement. It's wide open for commenters on that site to be pursued for comments while the owner/operator disappears.

Under Irish law, both commenters AND the site that publishes the comments can be pursued. Same as print media.

Irish online media hasn't come of age at all.

Does 'coming of age' mean the freedom to print anything without consequences?

raindog.promo

ninja900 wrote: »

Does 'coming of age' mean the freedom to print anything without consequences?

This leaves Ireland trailing behind other jurisdictions. Since 1996, the United States has given internet providers a defence in respect of material written by users. So have many EU countries, which went further than European law requires. Ireland, however, exposes internet intermediaries to a much greater business risk of being held liable for material they did not produce.

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2010/02/28/irish-defamation-law-still-inadequate-for-internet/

Millicent

The post is still up on Broadsheet -- just renamed, I think.

Or is it another one being referred to?

Hotblack Desiato

raindog.promo wrote: »

This leaves Ireland trailing behind other jurisdictions. Since 1996, the United States has given internet providers a defence in respect of material written by users. So have many EU countries, which went further than European law requires. Ireland, however, exposes internet intermediaries to a much greater business risk of being held liable for material they did not produce.

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2010/02/28/irish-defamation-law-still-inadequate-for-internet/

Writing all in bold is like writing all in caps - annoying... unless one is a mod, of course...

I would read that piece as referring to ISPs rather than website owners, and I'd agree as it's unreasonable to hold ISPs responsible. It's not unreasonable to hold website owners responsible for what they themselves 'publish'.

When a libel is printed, everyone involved can be sued, even the printer and the bookshop.

Dudess

uvox wrote: »

Broadsheet should explain where their deleted posts concerning this story have gone. The Irish Times modified their articles for sure, and explained belatedly. However, the evidence is there to see. Deleting content, on the other hand, is how Stalinists behave.

Or people who have the might of hot-shot lawyers on their case. Why oh why are people so desperate to paint Broadsheet as bad guys here?

As Broadsheet have found out it is better to have a permanent income than to be fascinating (Oscar Wilde).

And I wouldn't blame them. Being a renegade and a rebel and so on is great to a point, especially to teenagers, but in the real world you have to protect yourself too.

It's wide open for commenters on that site to be pursued for comments while the owner/operator disappears.

Defamation doesn't work like that. If a caller to the Joe Duffy show said <insert public figure here> liked looking up child porn and it made it to air, RTE would be sued. This is one of the reasons there is a time lag of a few seconds to live phone-in shows.
If a caller to the Joe Duffy show said a doctor in Waterford named <insert common name here> liked groping women's boobidies when giving them non gynae medical examinations, all doctors in Waterford with that name could sue RTE.

The Sparrow

Dudess wrote: »

If a caller to the Joe Duffy show said a doctor in Waterford named <insert common name here> liked groping women's boobidies when giving them non gynae medical examinations, all doctors in Waterford with that name could sue RTE.

Exactly. That's why when a broadcaster mentions the name of somebody arrested or convicted of a crime, they always give their address so they cannot be confused with people who have the same name.

I didn't buy the Irish Times today for the first time in ages. Bought The Examiner too because I'm less than enamoured with Independent News and Media too.

Hotblack Desiato

Dudess wrote: »

If a caller to the Joe Duffy show said <insert public figure here> liked looking up child porn and it made it to air, RTE would be sued.

And even if the allegation is actually true, the person accused could well win their case anyway and only have the truth come out years later if ever.

Liberace won a libel case in the 1950s when a British newspaper implied he was gay!

Several journalists claimed, after the tribunals made it public knowledge, that they knew all about Charlie Haughey's dodgy finances but couldn't print anything about it. The Evening Press or Irish Press* printed a story in the late 70s about how CJH owed a very large loan, approx £1,000,000 to AIB. He got them to retract it and I think the journalist concerned left the paper. Of course it turned out that the story printed was correct.


* Rather ironic as of course the Irish Press group was founded by Eamon de Valera.

uvox

Kate Fitzgerald articles on broadsheet.ie are slowly dropping out of the Popular Posts and the one that was most commented on one is no longer in the "Most Commented" section.

Discuss.

nacho libre

the point someone made earlier about doctors encouraging people to put anything but mental illness on a sick note is very sad. it shows, despite all the campaigns, we seem to have made little progress on public attitudes towards this illness.

The Sparrow

uvox wrote: »

Kate Fitzgerald articles on broadsheet.ie are slowly dropping out of the Popular Posts and the one that was most commented on one is no longer in the "Most Commented" section.

Discuss.

Such is the cycle of news. Unfortunately.

Acid_Violet

We've had a breakthrough......ish.....?

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/12/12/parents-of-kate-fitzgerald-to-meet-irish-times-editor-this-week/

Podge_irl

Dudess wrote: »

Instead of leaping to play the blame game

Something Broadsheet, amongst many others, already did themselves.

roast

Acid_Violet wrote: »

We've had a breakthrough......ish.....?

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/12/12/parents-of-kate-fitzgerald-to-meet-irish-times-editor-this-week/

Any update on this, does anyone know?

Seachmall

ninja900 wrote: »

I would read that piece as referring to ISPs rather than website owners, and I'd agree as it's unreasonable to hold ISPs responsible. It's not unreasonable to hold website owners responsible for what they themselves 'publish'.

"Intermediary" is everybody between the author and the reader. Websites are protected from what's published on their sites, with some exceptions. This is how YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and essentially every website with user generated content can remain in business. They don't need to fear lawsuits for what their users publish.

The exceptions above generally come into play with anonymous publications. Some people argue if the author can't be held accountable and the site is in essence protecting them the website should be held accountable. I'm not sure if there are any laws that actually enforce this but it has been presented to various governments many times. And the courts can swing either way when hearing the case.

Sites are also held accountable if they don't remove certain (typically illegal) materials within a reasonable amount of time after being notified (what is considered a "reasonable amount of time" is decided by the courts should the case get that far). This does include libelous and defamatory remarks if the courts consider them so.

(Overview - Not necessarily applicable to Ireland but it'll give you a good idea none-the-less.)

Birneybau

By Tom And Sally Ann Fitzgerald

Our daughter, 25 year-old Kate Fitzgerald, had the last conversation of her life just before 7 PM on August 22, 2011.
She spoke to Peter Murtagh, then Opinion Editor of the Irish Times. Peter promised that her article on depression, suicide and workplace attitudes to mental health would be published in the Irish Times.
Only hours later, Kate took her own life, fully believing that her last message to the world was in safe hands. Sadly, she was wrong.
.
Kate was a great fan of the Irish Times. She was very proud that the Irish Times had published three of her articles. Her last published article was to be anonymous, at least for a while. To Kate, the Irish Times was the pinnacle of Irish journalism.
.
True to his word, Peter Murtagh published Kate’s last words on September 9, not realising that Kate was dead.
When we spoke to Peter on September 10/11, he was deeply moved by the story of Kate and wrote an excellent article that was published in the Irish Times on Saturday November 26.
The story shook the nation, becoming the most read story on Irish Times online for an unprecedented three days in a row.
On Monday, it was picked up by this website and within two days, became the #1 story on both Facebook and Twitter. This website had connected the dots and identified Kate’s employer.
The Irish Times, Kate’s iconic newspaper, ran for the hills. First, they butchered the article by removing key parts. Next, they blacked out the whole article, including the accompanying suicide hotline numbers.
.
As a final indignity Irish Times editor, Kevin O’Sullivan published an apology for publishing Kate’s last words, saying that “significant assertions within the original piece were not factual”. We made it known that we stand behind her last words.
.
Sally and I met with Kevin O’Sullivan, editor, and Denis Staunton, deputy editor on Tuesday, December 13 at the Irish Times office in Dublin. Peter Murtaugh observed for part of the meeting. We demanded to know what elements of Kate’s article were “not factual”. The editor apologised for any distress he might have caused us.
Despite repeated requests, he could not identify a single statement from the article that was “not factual”. He said they cut the article for “legal reasons”.
We asked for a retraction for calling Kate a liar and gave them two days to do so. Both editors stated that saying Kate’s words were “not factual” was not equivalent to calling her a liar.
Like many readers, we fail to see that distinction. Two days later, we received a call from Kevin O’Sullivan, again apologizing for any offence caused, but declining to give us either a retraction or an apology, for “legal reasons”.
Mr. O’Sullivan also presumptuously stated that Irish Times readers had no difficulty with his retraction.
On one level, Sally and I understand this. Sally is a voice teacher in Bantry who runs concerts for charity, and I run a small technical writing and Irish language services company in rural West Cork.
We do not advise Ireland’s Taoiseach and the Fine Gael party. We do not chair Ireland’s national broadcasting authority. We do not offer PR advice to the princes of the Catholic Church. We do not have daily access to talk shows and newspapers. In short, we are not influential.
When the Irish Times found itself between a rock and a hard place, it chose to go against us and our dead daughter.
We spoke to Kate almost every day for the last weeks of her life. What she told us in those conversations validates her final article.
We are happy that her final words have touched so many lives and promoted an awareness of mental health. We have heard from many people how it changed their lives, and several people were inspired to seek help for themselves because of it.
We are deeply hurt by the insensitivity of the Irish Times and its inability to grasp how its position has compounded our grief, and attempted to stilt the national debate on depression and suicide.
We are saddened that the Irish “paper of record” has chosen to delete Kate’s last words from the public record. We consider it a tragedy that the Irish Times has let down one its greatest fans, an aspiring young writer, and erased her final message to the world.
We ask that the Irish people, and especially, the readers of the Irish Times, make their feelings known on this matter.
We have lost Kate forever, please help us ensure that her final message lives on.
Tom and Sally Ann Fitzgerald December 16, 2011

Very eloquently put.

P.s., formatting as it was.

tbh

it's interesting how they allude to Terry Prone in that piece, but don't come out and accuse tcc of putting pressure on the times.. I can't decide if this issue is the Irish Times being over-zealous, the communications clinic being overbearing, or neither or both.

What Goes Up...

Birneybau wrote: »

By Tom And Sally Ann Fitzgerald
.....

Link:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/12/16/let-kate-have-the-final-word/