Defamation Act and threads on religious belief.

philologos

I was just reading a thread on the Islam forum, and the following was posted about an Islamic perspective on Jesus in respect to the Jewish people by a poster:

whydoc wrote: »

Welcome
May i ask u from where did u get your info on islam, u seem have made a good research
mmalaka addressed your questions but want to add:
Muslim scholars have given many different reasons for the return of Prophet Jesus عليه السلام to this World. A few are listed below:
1) The Jews believe that they killed Prophet Jesus عليه السلام , Allah will send him before the end of time to prove that they did not killed him and that he is alive. It is Jesus who will fight the Jews and kill their leader, the Dajjal. (Ibn Hajar Al'Asqalani's Fathul-Bari)
[...]

What interests me more than this view (which I find quite hard to stomach) is Asiaprod's response:

Asiaprod wrote: »

You get one warning about this. This comment can be interpreted as being in contravention of the "Defamation Act 2009 of the Republic of Ireland" It is also unacceptable here at Boards ie. I would prefer not to see this type of comment again. Next time this type of comment is seen from any poster it will result in a permanent ban for that poster.

My question is what impact does the Defamation Act have on discussing religious belief on boards.ie. I would hope that it wouldn't stifle legitimate argument or discussion (even if I find the original point of view revolting, I think people should be free to express it). Many arguments on other fora including After Hours could be construed to be blasphemous, to what extent will this bear on threads there, or is it only in respect to anti-Semitism.

Much thanks,
philologos

EDIT: Thread link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82182753#post82182753

oscarBravo

philologos wrote: »

My question is what impact does the Defamation Act have on discussing religious belief on boards.ie.

Have you read the Act in question? Specifically s.36?

Spear

It's that anti-blasphemy bollocks:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/sec0036.html#sec36

36.— (1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.


(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—


(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and


(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

philologos

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have you read the Act in question? Specifically s.36?

I've just reread section 36. What I'm wondering is what are the implications of this for other fora and for boards.ie as a whole. I'm not keen on censoring content that could be perceived as blasphemous but there is content on After Hours for example that is far more blasphemous than on the Islam forum.

Moreover there are some claims which one faith could make that would be blasphemous to another. I think the post in question was hugely distasteful but it seems that the poster is actually quoting Islamic hadith to back his point up.

My question is how does this work on boards.ie. In the event of defamation what is the policy of boards.ie?

I'm curious on the laws impact, and why it is being used only very selectively by moderators.

Edit: to clarify in the event that I'm asked by other posters, I'm firmly and unequivocally against blasphemy laws and curbing free speech.

oscarBravo

My reading of Asiaprod's comment is that the post in question isn't acceptable per se oh yeah and it's quite possibly illegal.

I guess he'll clarify himself.

philologos

oscarBravo wrote: »

My reading of Asiaprod's comment is that the post in question isn't acceptable per se oh yeah and it's quite possibly illegal.

I guess he'll clarify himself.

Sure I agree with you that it wasn't a comment that would be deemed acceptable by most. However if this is a genuine Islamic teaching it ought to be engaged with. My question concerns the Defamation Act as well. There are many posts on boards.ie that given sufficient outrage would violate that law.

I'm just wondering what the official policy is on this and indeed I'm looking forward to Asiaprod's comment.

looksee

36.—(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding \25,000.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters
blasphemous matter if—
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organisation or
cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers

While I do not agree with the post in question, even though I do not claim any religious affiliations, the following could be argued:

It has to offend a substantial number of adherents. The post was made in the Islam forum, which would not expect to get more than a handful of non-Muslim readers, and on a site on which the great majority of users appear to claim no religious interests. Further, since it is in the Islam forum it cannot be claimed that there was an intention to offend. If it had been gratuitously posted in the Christianity forum there would be a different argument.

A reasonable person would find...academic value. This is a discussion site, so assuming that is a genuine belief of Muslims, it is a valid topic for discussion.

The claim is that Jesus will come back and kill a leader of the Jews, but then goes on to say that at that stage he will be a follower of Islam, so it is the Islamic faith that will do the killing, not Christianity. So are Christians to get offended about the killing or the conversion? Its such an 'angels on the head of a pin' discussion that to remove it would suggest you would have to remove any reference to any discussion in Christianity that relates to, say, transubstantiation or the dictats of St. Paul, in case Catholics would get offended in one case or feminists in the other.

Benny_Cake

looksee wrote: »

36.—(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding \25,000.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters
blasphemous matter if—
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organisation or
cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers

While I do not agree with the post in question, even though I do not claim any religious affiliations, the following could be argued:

It has to offend a substantial number of adherents. The post was made in the Islam forum, which would not expect to get more than a handful of non-Muslim readers, and on a site on which the great majority of users appear to claim no religious interests. Further, since it is in the Islam forum it cannot be claimed that there was an intention to offend. If it had been gratuitously posted in the Christianity forum there would be a different argument.

A reasonable person would find...academic value. This is a discussion site, so assuming that is a genuine belief of Muslims, it is a valid topic for discussion.

The claim is that Jesus will come back and kill a leader of the Jews, but then goes on to say that at that stage he will be a follower of Islam, so it is the Islamic faith that will do the killing, not Christianity. So are Christians to get offended about the killing or the conversion? Its such an 'angels on the head of a pin' discussion that to remove it would suggest you would have to remove any reference to any discussion in Christianity that relates to, say, transubstantiation or the dictats of St. Paul, in case Catholics would get offended in one case or feminists in the other.

I read that post as giving the opinions of various religious scholars, it may be a case of simply quoting another source, although it is one that might offend to Jews, Christians, and possibly other Muslims who don't agree with that particular interpretation. Also, from my reading of the Defamation Act, in order for blasphemy to be proven it must be shown that the offending party intended to cause offence.

Best of let Asiaprod clarify this if he wants to, as there may have been other factors at play here. Unfortunately, Dermot Ahern's stupid blasphemy legislation is still hanging around long after the man himself is gone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Plus there are any amount of texts you could pull from the Abrahamic sources that suggest Pagans should be treated with extreme prejudice. It's why this daft "law" is daft. The get out clause is "literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value" but who puts the value on such things. I'm surprised Sherlock didn't draft it...

Chips Lovell

Wasn't it intentionally meant to be a daft law?

My understanding of the situation at the time was that it was in the constitution but there was no legislation. They were faced with either having to hold a referendum or legislating. So their solution was to draft a law where it was pretty much impossible to successfully prosecute anyone.

Dades

It is a daft law, and not one I believed the Boards brass were too concerned about.

Otherwise I'd be getting a few PMs. :P

Orion

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Wasn't it intentionally meant to be a daft law?

My understanding of the situation at the time was that it was in the constitution but there was no legislation. They were faced with either having to hold a referendum or legislating. So their solution was to draft a law where it was pretty much impossible to successfully prosecute anyone.

Or option 3 - doing nothing. Nobody was clamouring for a law on blasphemy and it's been that way for decades. It's a law that deserves not just to be ignored but flouted.

philologos

As encouraging as it is to see many of the posters standing against blasphemy laws, can any admin shed light on boards.ie official policy?

Asiaprod

Away on a real life deadline (I do contract work). Will give you my take on this as soon as I get back (before the weekend).

philologos

Asiaprod wrote: »

Away on a real life deadline (I do contract work). Will give you my take on this as soon as I get back (before the weekend).

No rush. I was just restating the intention of the thread.

ejmaztec

All the more reason for keeping religion threads out of AH. :P

Asiaprod

Sorry for the delay.

As requested, here is the Official Policy relating to the Blasphemy Act:

As is listed in Boards.ie's Terms and Conditions, boards.ie cannot be used to break any laws of the land, including, but not limited to defamation, copyright and blasphemy. If the office is notified of such content it will take it down if it finds it to be in breach of the law and may take further action against the person who posted it. As also stated in the Ts & Cs, breaches of law need to be reported to the office (which avoids any potential issues where someone thinks that reporting a post is the same as notifying the company).

The post in question on the Islam Forum was reported to they office as per the procedure.
I was notified, and took a look at it. While the action of seeking to debate an Islamic issue was not at fault, the wording used was the posters own take and was presented in a manner that totally misrepresented the Islamic Position.

For this the poster received both a Yellow Card (Warning) and I posted a warning in thread. Since the post did not break the Blasphemy Act, the thread was left open so that debate could continue (using the correct quotation supplied by the Islam Mod).

As a footnote, he OP was subsequently Site banned since they were a re-reg and had a history of warnings all dealing with breaking the Charter's of Forums the OP posted in.

philologos

Asiaprod wrote: »

Sorry for the delay.

As requested, here is the Official Policy relating to the Blasphemy Act:



The post in question on the Islam Forum was reported to they office as per the procedure.
I was notified, and took a look at it. While the action of seeking to debate an Islamic issue was not at fault, the wording used was the posters own take and was presented in a manner that totally misrepresented the Islamic Position.

For this the poster received both a Yellow Card (Warning) and I posted a warning in thread. Since the post did not break the Blasphemy Act, the thread was left open so that debate could continue (using the correct quotation supplied by the Islam Mod).

As a footnote, he OP was subsequently Site banned since they were a re-reg and had a history of warnings all dealing with breaking the Charter's of Forums the OP posted in.

Thanks for the clarification of this. But why does it seem on boards.ie that there are different standpoints concerning the Defamation Act. For example you raised it in the Islam forum, but there are a lot of posts that could be easily deemed to be in contravention of this Act in other fora such as AH, Atheist & Agnosticism, Christianity, etc etc.

On a whole, abstracted level. How will this affect other fora on boards.ie?

Asiaprod

philologos wrote: »

On a whole, abstracted level. How will this affect other fora on boards.ie?

It won't.
Only when a post is reported to the office as contravening this Law will action will be taken. If a post is not reported no action will be taken. In addition, every Mod/Cmod/Admin on this site knows what is acceptable in their forums and will act accordingly.

With a Law this vague there is no one rule suits all. Every reported post will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Counsel will be sought and a decision will be made that best protects the site.