Irish Defamation Act 2009

Eiriu

Has anybody been prosecuted for blasphemy offences under this act since its inception?

The offence of blasphemy is quite vague and I am looking for any cases or relevant articles that help define the current legal position.

Also any suggestions on which way this Act would apply to information that is available on the internet?

Tom Young

No;
Not so much data around try www.cearta.ie blog; and
Treatment the same way as physical publications, with consideration for eCommerce defences, e.g., Hosting defence.

I'd be surprised if anyone was ever convicted of blasphemy. The proofs are ridiculous and the defences available would make the trial a lot of fun.

Procrastastudy

Kayroo wrote: »

I'd be surprised if anyone was ever convicted of blasphemy. The proofs are ridiculous and the defences available would make the trial a lot of fun.

Last case I ever heard of was in the uk - a poem was published in a gay magazine about Jesus getting homosexual oral sex while being crucified... I know you couldn't make this stuff up.

Peregrinus

The last blasphemy prosecution in Ireland was in 1855. I wouldn't hold my breath for the next one.

Procrastastudy

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Last case I ever heard of was in the uk - a poem was published in a gay magazine about Jesus getting homosexual oral sex while being crucified... I know you couldn't make this stuff up.

Pretty sure the poet made it up...

Also aren't those the facts (minus Jesus) in R v Brown? Poet was clearly a law student... Hmmmm... Aren't you a law student Procrastastudy?

ResearchWill

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty sure the poet made it up...

Also aren't those the facts (minus Jesus) in R v Brown? Poet was clearly a law student... Hmmmm... Aren't you a law student Procrastastudy?

R v Lemon

http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/la205_criminal_law_and_procedure_1/cases/R_v_Lemon_PtI.html

Peregrinus

The charge in R v Lemon was "blasphemous libel", an offence which (the Supreme Court has ruled) ceased to existing Ireland with the enactment of the 1937 Constitution. (Nobody discovered that it had ceased to exist, however, until someone attempted a private prosecution in 1997 or thereabouts.) Hence R -v Lemon is probably not all that relevant to a consideration of the 2009 statutory offence in Ireland.

Entertaining though R -v Brown undoubtedly was - stop sniggering, ye blaggards at the back - it dealt with assault offences, and the question of consent, in the context of sadomasochistic play. Nothing to do with blasphemy.

Procrastastudy

I do like the fact that "backwards Catholic Ireland"* hasn't prosecuted anyone for this since 1855 and the UK was quite happily at it until the late 1970s.

*Please not the use of inverted commas I don't think Ireland is backwards.

Victor

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I don't think Ireland is backwards.

At times, this is utterly mistaken.



There are two meaning to what I've just said.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Entertaining though R -v Brown undoubtedly was - stop sniggering, ye blaggards at the back - it dealt with assault offences, and the question of consent, in the context of sadomasochistic play. Nothing to do with blasphemy.

I'm perfectly aware of the facts in R v Brown. As the tone of my post may have suggested I was joking about what the previous poster had said was happening to Jesus.

Procrastastudy

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm perfectly aware of the facts in R v Brown. As the tone of my post may have suggested I was joking about what the previous poster had said was happening to Jesus.

Very interesting Article in the IT by an Alumnus of GCD this week. Not sure if I'd have the guts to declare it my favourite case however!

Eiriu

Would anyone have a link to this article?

It is interesting that the government did not remove the reference to blasphemy from the constitution during the recent children's referendum, and repeal this section of the 2009 Act.

So is this blasphemy section of the Act totally redundant?

Victor

Eiriu wrote: »

It is interesting that the government did not remove the reference to blasphemy from the constitution during the recent children's referendum, and repeal this section of the 2009 Act.

They didn't want to confuse the two issues. While Irish governments tend to be much slower than some others to have multiple referendums on the same day, I think the stance was justifiable in this case. Further constitutional reform is on the agenda anyway.

So is this blasphemy section of the Act totally redundant?

I think 'redundant' might be the wrong word, but it is certainly deliberately difficult to prosecute.

Eiriu

Eiriu wrote: »

Would anyone have a link to this article?]

It's an article about a homosexual sado-masochistic group who regularly taped their exploits.

The legal point in question was whether one could consent to certain forms of assault.

For utterly puerile reasons every legal student in Ireland and England remembers the name of the case forevermore.