Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Irish Defamation Act 2009

  • 11-11-2012 1:02pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 106 ✭✭


    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?


Comments

  • Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,258 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


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


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]



    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? :D


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    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? :D

    R v Lemon

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,258 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,647 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    I don't think Ireland is backwards.
    At times, this is utterly mistaken.



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


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 106 ✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,647 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.


Advertisement