Is the Internet a "public place"

SB2013

I was looking at all the racist comments on Facebook in relation to Portmarnock and it got me wondering if Facebook would be considered a public place under the public order act for the purpose of section 6 and 7. It's certainly the kind of behaviour that would be covered by the statute but at the time of its inception the Internet wouldn't have been a thing.

My own opinion is that it could be considered a public place. A Facebook page with unrestricted access is certainly a place open to the public and I can't help but think that if the statute writers had known the Internet would be as big as it is they would have specifically included it. Opinions?

seamus

No, it couldn't be considered a public place under that act.

“public place” includes—

(a) any highway,

(b) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,

(c) any cemetery or churchyard,

(d) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and

(e) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.

The interpretation is very clear that "public place" covers physical, tangible locations where a person can physically be. The only way you could be charged with a public order act "on" Facebook is if you go to their offices and cause a riot outside.

Postings and comments on the Internet are for all intents and purposes under Irish law the same as publications. So a comment in public on facebook (or indeed on boards) is the digital equivalent of publishing your comment in a newspaper. So it's actionable under various other laws, just not the public order act.

NoQuarter

Heres the definition from the Act;

“public place” includes—

(a) any highway,

(b) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,

(c) any cemetery or churchyard,

(d) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and

(e) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.

On the one hand the argument would be that the definition seems to describe tangible places and the internet wouldnt fall within the definition. Then I'd look for any Acts that make reference to the internet around that time to show the drafters were aware of it.

On the face of it, it could fit into section e excluding what I have said above.

EDIT: seamus beat me to it and gave similar advice so I'd say thats the answer.

SB2013

The legislation refers to the persons location though. So if they are on the beach while posting these comments on an open media are they not falling under the section then?

NoQuarter

SB2013 wrote: »

The legislation refers to the persons location though. So if they are on the beach while posting these comments on an open media are they not falling under the section then?

As regard section 6, regardless of the persons location when positng on facebook, I wouldnt think there would be the intent to cause a breach of peace.

For section 7, the public place the facebooker is in isnt the public place of the distribution.

Its an argument that seems to be clutching at straws and would be very difficult to drive home a conviction. Then again, a lawyer cold always have a go at arguing it.

SB2013

NoQuarter wrote: »

As regard section 6, regardless of the persons location when positng on facebook, I wouldnt think there would be the intent to cause a breach of peace.

For section 7, the public place the facebooker is in isnt the public place of the distribution.

Its an argument that seems to be clutching at straws and would be very difficult to drive home a conviction. Then again, a lawyer cold always have a go at arguing it.

Yeah I'm just expanding on what the definition would mean. I know I've gone beyond the original topic. I'm just trying to figure out how behind the law is when it comes to this stuff.

As regards section 6, I have to disagree with you though. The phrase "Go back to your country porch monkeys" would be very likely to cause a breach of the peace in my opinion. But of course you then have to prove where the person was when it was posted.

For section 7 it requires that the person be in a public place and display material. So a person posting "On the beach at Portmarnock, come help us send these people back to the congo" would seem to me to definitely fall under the act

NoQuarter

SB2013 wrote: »

As regards section 6, I have to disagree with you though. The phrase "Go back to your country porch monkeys" would be very likely to cause a breach of the peace in my opinion. But of course you then have to prove where the person was when it was posted.

For section 7 it requires that the person be in a public place and display material. So a person posting "On the beach at Portmarnock, come help us send these people back to the congo" would seem to me to definitely fall under the act

Sorry I had interpreted your original post as meaning that they were sitting at home with their feet up posting these comments rather than at the beach subject to the disturbance.

Seems to fit into the incitement to hatred category better, although that is a difficult conviction to bring home too. But to use the public order act, imo, is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. There may be more suited offences that the criminal practitioners can advise on.

Practically speaking, would a proecutor want to get into a legal argument about the scope of "public place" even before having to get over the reasonable doubt hurdle. Too much effort for what its worth.

hullaballoo

Wrt, "(a) any highway", is anyone up for arguing the information superhighway point? :pac:


To be honest, I don't think it's possible to find a workaround for the definitions in the Act, which couldn't have envisaged the proliferation of the Internet. Needs separate legislation.

valleyoftheunos

the Internet is not a place so I can't see the Act being appropriate.

As to whether posting racist material to the internet whilst in a public place might fall under the act I don't think the actus reus is sufficient or correct although I'm open to correction on that.

I would also think that prosecution for incitement to commit a crime would be more apt or possibly incitement to racial hatred.