Judge calls for criminal sanctions on webposters

lividduck

A high court judge yesterday called for criminal sanctions with heavy penalties for those who post untrue allegations on websites. See http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/website-accused-of-defamation-is-closed-by-judge-3005716.html

A good thing?, or just censorship?

MagicMarker

That judge wears socks with holes in them.

abouttobebanned

Tbh, anything that makes people think twice before they post online is a good thing.

imitation

"Rate my solicitor closed by judge"
Reads a bit like turkey killed at christmas by butcher.

I think the Judge has a fair point about slander, it can be untrue and damaging. The problems are what if boards was shut because of a few mild posts about some company ?

Imo its a pity people cant use those rating websites fairly, I do find alot of professions have cowboys, and you often find out too late.

ejmaztec

He probably only wants people to stop posting nasty stuff about the legal profession, and allowed his emotions to get the better of him.

tigger123

People spouting lies, myths and nonsense on the internet should think twice methinks.

Crazy Horse 6

A free country indeed.

lividduck

tigger123 wrote: »

People spouting lies, myths and nonsense on the internet should think twice methinks.

Thats ok in theory, but people also need to let off steam sometimes, the number of times certain politicians have been called names like traitor etc on some threads could lead to criminal cases been taken against them.
If a person thinks they have been slandered they already have the right to take a civil action, what this judge wants is for the Gardai to arrest them and if found guilty that they be imprisoned!

omahaid

I've always been amazed at how quick the judiciary can act when one of their own are involved. It also amazes me how easy judges can criticize what they like but to criticize a judge can be interpreted as contempt of court.

And I have to ask, wtf do judges know about the internet?

ejmaztec

We should voice our opinions on rate_your_judge.com.

micropig

lividduck wrote: »

A high court judge yesterday called for criminal sanctions with heavy penalties for those who post untrue allegations on websites. See http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/website-accused-of-defamation-is-closed-by-judge-3005716.html

A good thing?, or just censorship?

Untrue allegations- person making them should be held accountable

Edit: but public figures should expect a bit of flack

stovelid

To be fair, those kinds of sites are open to all kinds of abuse. Abuse that probably makes it easier for people to get them closed down.

roast

Myths and lies, understandably they should be removed from any website, but taking down the entire website is a bit ridiculous.
What about all the genuine responses on the website? Surely this is contradictory to freedom of speech?

efb

I think people should put up or shut up. If you want to let off steam rant to a friend- ... Oh wait...

NinjaK

and so it begins..

Ellis Dee

A lot of Irish judges have had a bit of a thing about the Internet ever since one of their own was caught by American police downloading thousands of kiddy porn images and all the details were passed on to the Gardai here. Remember that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Curtin

I suppose many of them wonder when they will be the next ones to be caught out doing something that would never come to light were it not for the Internet.:rolleyes:


Judges in Ireland have too much power, they are far too inconsistent in their sentencing, often pontificate on everything and anything in the most pompous and asinine way, and anybody who disagrees with them can be imprisoned under the far too draconian contempt powers they have.:)

They need to get a life and respect people's right to express their views, including those about the legal profession. After all, there is nothing to prevent a right of reply.:cool:

Dravokivich

omahaid wrote: »

And I have to ask, wtf do judges know about the internet?

Its all connected by pipes.

sensibleken

That judge can only get an erection by watching car crashes

allegedly

omahaid

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Judges in Ireland have too much power

I wont lie, I am terrified at the fact that there are a group of people in this country who are in no way answerable to society and who can punish people, it seems so daft.

ed2hands

Our justice minister Alan Shatters list of complaints on RateMySolicitor from previous clients involving divorce cases and the like for his law firm was long and comprehensive.

allegedly

ejmaztec

I'm surprised that it took this long for the site to be closed down, as the allegations made by the web-posters have been sitting on that site for a few years.

Ray Palmer

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

A free country indeed.

You have never been free to lie about people. There is a coming of age on the internet where somebody publishes things that are not true will get punished.

Seachmall

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You have never been free to lie about people.

So should we prosecute all those who spread untrue rumours? I'd suspect more than half the country would end up inside.

Laws should not only be balanced but enforceable. This ruling is neither and sets a bad precedent.

CptSternn

The real question is what does this mean for Yelp and Tripadvisor?

Can we not freely and openly post online our experiences with companies we trade with? If we are taken advantage of, or, receive inadequate services that are overpriced can we not speak of this online?

This is not only draconian, but will help make the Internet obsolete in Ireland. With SOPA and ACTA piled on, it is only a matter of time before the tech companies start moving their EU HQs elsewhere.

Chips Lovell

If you publish false allegations in a newspaper, you open yourself up to libel action. It follows that anyone who does so on the web risks the same.

Seachmall

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If you publish false allegations in a newspaper, you open yourself up to libel action. It follows that anyone who does so on the web risks the same.

But that newspaper would not be shut down as a result of one writer's comment.

Chips Lovell

Seachmall wrote: »

But that newspaper would not be shut down as a result of one writer's comment.

You can seek an injunction to stop publication, which is effectively what the judge did with this website.

Seachmall

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You can seek an injunction to stop publication, which is effectively what the judge did with this website.

Stopping the publication of an article is not the same as shutting down the newspaper.

People have, more or less, always had the right to have comments about them removed from websites. This is a step too far.

Chips Lovell

Seachmall wrote: »

Stopping the publication of an article is not the same as shutting down the newspaper.

People have, more or less, always had the right to have comments about them removed from websites. This is a step too far.

A website is not a newspaper. If a newspaper kept a libellous article up on its website, it could suffer the same fate. They refused to take it down and denied they were responsible for operating the website.

Seachmall

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They refused to take it down and denied they were responsible for operating the website.

There's no indication in that article that the website ignored previous rulings and refused to take the content down.

Chips Lovell

They pleaded justification. In other words, they didn't want to take it down.

Seachmall

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They pleaded justification. In other words, they didn't want to take it down.

Which they're entitled to do. When their defense failed a more reasonable ruling would be to force them to take down the comments. Not shut down the entire site.

Chips Lovell

Seachmall wrote: »

Which they're entitled to do. When their defense failed a more reasonable ruling would be to force them to take down the comments. Not shut down the entire site.

They were ordered to remove the comments too. But they denied they were operating the website. I think if they're washing their hands of what goes up there, the judge was reasonable in ordering it cease operations until the case is heard.

ballsymchugh

ejmaztec wrote: »

We should voice our opinions on rate_your_judge.com.

that judge fella was alright in beverly hills cop, but didn't do much after that. all in all, very meh.

Bad Panda

A reliable source informs me that the judge in this case sells poison milk to school kids.

Capt'n Midnight

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There is a coming of age on the internet where somebody publishes things that are not true will get punished.

If what you say isn't true then ...

Oh wait,


I see what you did there.

Seachmall

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

the judge was reasonable in ordering it cease operations until the case is heard.

I completely disagree.

The case is with regards to the comments posted. The comments are what should be addressed, instead the judge is taking it upon himself to decide the future of a perfectly legitimate website.

The precedent being set here would allow for any site that allows reviews to be judged based on a small minority of users who abuse their given permissions.

If the judge had ordered the comments to be removed and the site owners ignored that ruling then a case against the owners, and the site, would be justifiable. In this instance however the judge is jumping the gun.

meemeep

this bit is worrying also:

They must also provide the names and address of all those involved in the posting of defamatory material. Mr Tansey also obtained similar orders against Dotster, which did not enter a defence.

So someone didn't like the service he provided, said so anonymously, and now he gets their names and addresses and goes after them? Would any solicitor represent them (the alleged defamers) in this case?

Seachmall

meemeep wrote: »

Would any solicitor represent them (the alleged defamers) in this case?

If you're willing to defend child rapists but not defamers you've definitely some priority issues.

Oink

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They were ordered to remove the comments too. But they denied they were operating the website. I think if they're washing their hands of what goes up there, the judge was reasonable in ordering it cease operations until the case is heard.

Exactly. If they're not responsible for the website, surely they won't mind if it's taken down.

Capt'n Midnight

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Tbh, anything that makes people think twice before they post online is a good thing.

idiots and those with grudges will still post

the silent majority will become more silent

as was posted elsewhere the solution would have been to get people to register so that they could give their opinion


and yes I do know people who have suffered at the hands of ambulance chaser, but the judge ruled in court so I can't make allegations of perjury

CptSternn

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If you publish false allegations in a newspaper, you open yourself up to libel action. It follows that anyone who does so on the web risks the same.

We are not talking about false allegations, we are talking about an honest review of a business and or services.

Am I not entitled to my opinion of how well a solicitor did or did not perform for me after I retained their services?

Am I not legally allowed to tell anyone that they had no clue, did not do their job, and in the end I had to get another solicitor?

Same argument can be made for any business. This sets the precedent that businesses cannot be named nor can they be mentioned in reviews that are anything less than perfect, else we the consumer face harsh penalties under the judicial system if we actually tell other people when the services we pay for turn out to be not what we expected or far less than adequate.

How does this make any sense?

People wouldn't post bad reviews about solicitors, businesses, or any other groups if they didn't deserve them. You think people get their jollies just posting random stuff on ORM (review) websites?

This is nothing short of censorship, a draconian measure that allows businesses to keep their poor performance under wraps and penalises the consumer who chooses to do nothing more than make their voices heard publicly in a digital age.

Capt'n Midnight

over in the UK they've done the same
http://www.thelawyer.com/solicitors-from-hell-website-forced-offline/1010264.article

The_Minister

I take it that most of the people here never went on the website before it was shut down?


I went on it a few times a few years back, and do you know what I never saw?

A Solicitor with a positive rating.

Ever.

Think about that.


The site was run by people with a grudge, and used by people with grudges to put up frankly untrue things.


My favourite one was where a solicitor was called a gender-neutral name (think it was Pat????).
'He' got dogs abuse, absolutely slated like everyone, then someone pointed out that the solicitor in question was actually female

Seachmall

The_Minister wrote: »

A Solicitor with a positive rating.

Ever.

Think about that.

I'm trying to decide if that says more about solicitors or the site...

CptSternn

Ireland!

The land of all 5 star hotels and restaurants! Every business listed on TripAdvisor is also 5 stars!

Why? Because anything less is a lawsuit!

Capt'n Midnight

meemeep wrote: »

Would any solicitor represent them (the alleged defamers) in this case?

If there is money involved ?

I'm not saying all solicitors are unprincipled money-grabbers , but you have to remember that some may be , and there is a lot less work these days since the easy pickings of conveyancing when they could get a percentage of the value of the property for some routine paperwork

lividduck

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If you publish false allegations in a newspaper, you open yourself up to libel action. It follows that anyone who does so on the web risks the same.

You are missing the point, the Judge wants it made a CRIMINAL offence so that people can jailed.

CptSternn

Here is another example of how the current government doesn't get it -

If they let this stand, all online review websites IN Ireland will have perfect scores for ALL businesses due to the threat of legal action.

HOWEVER

Not so in America. So Americans won't visit sites TripAdvisor.ie as it will be worthless since they all have inflated ratings. This means Americans will still visit TripAdvisor.com, and there they can post their OWN ratings on places they visited while in Ireland.

You will have the Irish websites, which will become useless, and then the American ones which will allow you to rate places in Ireland that will become the norm.

This will shut down more businesses here in Ireland since they will have no use for an Irish branch of the business, and more people will be using American websites, since for all intents and purposes the Irish websites will become synonymous with censorship and lack of free speech.

Top that off with the just recently passed Irish SOPA and ACTA and you have set the stage for the exit of the high tech companies from Ireland.

Seachmall

CptSternn wrote: »

If they let this stand, all online review websites IN Ireland will have perfect scores for ALL businesses due to the threat of legal action.

A mate of mine works for a holiday booking/review site and was telling me a story of this hostel in Singapore (or somewhere around there) that kept harassing them because of the dire reviews he was getting. They told him they couldn't remove the reviews without removing his entry and since he got a lot of bookings through the site he had to let it stand.

Guess they'll be altering their review policy should this judge get his way.

Chips Lovell

Seachmall wrote: »

The precedent being set here would allow for any site that allows reviews to be judged based on a small minority of users who abuse their given permissions.

If the judge had ordered the comments to be removed and the site owners ignored that ruling then a case against the owners, and the site, would be justifiable. In this instance however the judge is jumping the gun.

That's incorrect. There are other circumstances, which make this case different from the scenario you outline. The defendants claimed they weren't operating the website. It's registered to a "John Smith, Red Square, Moscow". It's like the owners of TripAdvisor saying it's not their website. What do you expect the judge to do in this case?

CptSternn wrote: »

We are not talking about false allegations, we are talking about an honest review of a business and or services.

Am I not entitled to my opinion of how well a solicitor did or did not perform for me after I retained their services?

Am I not legally allowed to tell anyone that they had no clue, did not do their job, and in the end I had to get another solicitor?

Same argument can be made for any business. This sets the precedent that businesses cannot be named nor can they be mentioned in reviews that are anything less than perfect, else we the consumer face harsh penalties under the judicial system if we actually tell other people when the services we pay for turn out to be not what we expected or far less than adequate.

How does this make any sense?

People wouldn't post bad reviews about solicitors, businesses, or any other groups if they didn't deserve them. You think people get their jollies just posting random stuff on ORM (review) websites?

This is nothing short of censorship, a draconian measure that allows businesses to keep their poor performance under wraps and penalises the consumer who chooses to do nothing more than make their voices heard publicly in a digital age.

It doesn't set any such precedent. You're perfectly entitled to give an honest review of a business. You're not entitled to make false allegations. That's what is going to be decided in court, whether the allegations were false and libellous.