When I say that I won't allow any more illegal posts, I mean it.

Dav

I don't know why a very small number of members here chose to ignore my warning, but it is my responsibility to this site to ensure that when notified of potentially illegal content on it, that I must remove it.

I made a pretty clear warning about what I would do should such nonsense continue but that was ignored, so I'm not going to be permanently banning the parties involved for a week and I have removed the offending thread in it's entirety.

This is my job and I simply will not entertain being questioned about how it's done - my word on this site is, if you'll pardon the expression, law and whilst most of you will never have seen me stepping in anywhere on Boards taking this sort of action, I'm left with little choice in this particular instance.

The Blasphemy law in Ireland is a load of nonsense. No one wanted it, no one needed it and in my personal opinion it was little more than political smokescreen at a time when Ireland has real problems that need real solutions. As was mentioned in the thread, even the law makers themselves claim that it's unworkable. This is the sort of thing that's bound to make you feel anything but confident about your elected representatives.

The Defamation law in Ireland is equally a load of nonsense, it takes the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" and turns it completely on it's head and punishes anyone who would dare speak up about something negative and tells them that unless they have exceptionally deep pockets to pay their way to a high court victory, they have no entitlement to voice and anyone who helps them have a voice is just as guilty as they are despite having nothing to do with whatever issue is at hand.

Both of these *ARE* the law of this land and as a business that has its offices in the Republic of Ireland, Boards.ie Ltd is bound by these and every other law in the Irish statue. I as an employee of Boards.ie Ltd have an obligation to act in the company's best interests and keep us on the side of the law. Being compliant with this law is not up for discussion. When the company is officially notified about something that is in breach of the law (as we were by an email earlier today), we have to act or we become responsible for it and we are not going to court for your ignorance (I'm speaking directly to you valknut).

It's been a very long time since I've had to step in to After Hours to deal with this sort of thing - that's a credit to the community here and especially to the mods who've worked exceptionally hard to turn this forum from the downward spiral it was on, so I sincerely thank you all for collectively agreeing that this should be a place of sometimes serious and sometimes frivolous discussions of all kinds, but that there are ways and means to talk to to one another and about any given subject that keeps everything civil, legal and above all fun. AH used to cause us one serious legal threat a week, but now I really cannot remember the last time anything here caused us any bother, so if it seems like I'm coming down on this particular issues extremely hard, I am because I am not prepared to let the forum slip and let all your hard work start to come undone.

Thank you all for your time and whether you're happy about my actions or not, I do hope you can at least respect that 1) I have no choice and 2) I'm far more interested in seeing your community thrive rather than having its members (and by extension this entire site) once again branded as ignorant and petulant children because of a few bad eggs with some sort of axe to grind.

PizzamanIRL

Dav wrote: »

AH used to cause us one serious legal threat a week

That's crazy.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

not sure if you can answer this.. but someone emailed you about jokes relating to a certain man who's been dead for a long time?

Dav

No, someone emailed me what looked to me to be pretty blatant breaches of the blasphemy law.

One man's joke is another man's hate crime.

wazky

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

That's crazy.

Yeah, must of been a slow week on AH.

we'llallhavetea

what's all this? are we still allowed fantasise about ridin' priests?!

Mr.Crinklewood

Can we not just take the Eagle to the vet?

My name is URL

Could you give a synopsis of the offending post so that people know exactly what kind of thing to be avoiding?

kneemos

Can't wait for the next episode.

KeithM89

I have no idea what this is about so i'll just leave this here:

donvito99

Wait, what happened?

BNMC

Hey Dav I followed you on Twitter and you never followed back. Shame on you!

Peregrine

My name is URL wrote: »

Could you give a synopsis of the offending post so that people know exactly what kind of thing to be avoiding?

+1

I'm a bit confused here. What happened and what kind of threads were removed?

I'm not questioning their removal, if it was breaching laws, that's fair enough. But what kind of posts were they? Are we just talking about anything that could be seen as defamation/could cause outrage/hate?

B.A._Baracus

I have no clue whats going on aswell.
If boards.ie doesnt want certain things said, thats cool, I just don't know what are such things

Bipolar Joe

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

+1

I'm a bit confused here. What happened and what kind of threads were removed?

I'm not questioning their removal, if it was breaching laws, that's fair enough. But what kind of posts were they? Are we just talking about anything that could be seen as defamation/could cause outrage/hate?

That is literally anything, ever. I would like a little clarification.

Pushtrak

Damn blasphlegmy laws.

we'llallhavetea

BNMC wrote: »

Hey Dav I followed you on Twitter and you never followed back. Shame on you!

he likes nipple stories

cml387

Maybe someone suggested that Buddha is a less than svelte individual?

PLUG71

The thread was about Tommy Robinson leaving the EDL.

Seachmall

Is it possible to expand on what Boards.ie will consider blasphemous?

For example, am I allowed to quote Richard Dawkins' opinion of the Old Testament God?

Richard Dawkins wrote:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Is that blasphemous?

Is it OK because it's a quote from popular culture?

If so am I allowed to express my own comparable sentiments?

sentient_6

I too hope some clarity is offered as a OP means nothing without context. Don't do that! What? That! oh......ok?

kneemos

Hard to know what blasphemy is.

tayto lover

Whatever you say, say nothing
When you talk about you know what
For if you know who could hear you
You know what you'd get
For they'd take you off to you know where
For you wouldn't know how long
So for you know who's sake
Don't let anyone hear you singing this song

And you all know what I'm speaking of
When I mention you know what
And I think it's very dangerous to even mention that
For the other ones are always near
Although you may not see
And if anyone asks who told you that
Please don't mention me

And you all know who I'm speaking of
When I mention you know who
And if you know who could hear me
You know what he'd do
So if you don't see me around
You'll know why I'm away
And if anyone asks you where I've gone
Here's what you must say

Well that's enough about so and so
Not to mention such and such
I think I'll end my song now
Sure I've already said too much
For the less you say, the less you hear
And the less you'll go astray
And the less you think, the less you do
And the more you'll hear them say

Dav

Calling the prophet Muhammed a paedophile and pervert was the general jist of it. The tone used was deliberately attempting to incite hatred. I didn't see the person involved calling every other historical figure that married multiple women or women who in today's terms we now call (with very good reason I might add) children.

It's only relatively recent times (< 200 years) that we have ages of majority and statutory sex laws (again, with very good reason) and they are wildly different all around the world and no less culturally acceptable or not in their respective nations.

It's only 50 years since it was expected of any young boy of the age of 15 to go and get a full time job in Ireland, now we would question someone for doing that at 18 and wonder why they're not going to college.

You can't objectively look at historical records with currently applicable cultural norms.

RDM_83 again

Nobody has ever been charged with the blasphemy laws, in fact its designed to be unworkable (this according to people with actual legal knowledge unlike myself :cool: ).

If boards.ie actually gave a shiit about the blasphemy laws or thought they were a serious threat to the sites existence the recent clampdown on church bashing threads in AH would have happened a lot sooner and a lot harder and the Religion and Spirituality group of forums would be a continuous legal nightmare.

Unless this is about the Athlone incident threads I'm a bit confused.

Rayne Wooney

kneemos wrote: »

Hard to know what blasphemy is.

I thought blasphemy was something from medieval times, apparently it's not. Wikipedia says

Section 36 defines a new offence of "Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter",[35] which carries a maximum fine of €25,000.[35] The offence consists of uttering material "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion", when the intent and result is "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion

So insulting the sacred church stuff is illegal?

hairyslug

For those of us with the dumb, can someone explain the blasphemy laws in Ireland, my mind keeps on getting stuck at the stoning scene in the life of Brian

Joe10000

hairyslug wrote: »

For those of us with the dumb, can someone explain the blasphemy laws in Ireland, my mind keeps on getting stuck at the stoning scene in the life of Brian

All I said was that piece of Halibut was good enough for Jehovah.

hatrickpatrick

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Nobody has ever been charged with the blasphemy laws, in fact its designed to be unworkable (this according to people with actual legal knowledge unlike myself :cool: ).

If boards.ie actually gave a shiit about the blasphemy laws or thought they were a serious threat to the sites existence the recent clampdown on church bashing threads in AH would have happened a lot sooner and a lot harder and the Religion and Spirituality group of forums would be a continuous legal nightmare.

Unless this is about the Athlone incident threads I'm a bit confused.

In as unbannable a manner as possible, what happened in Athlone?
Is this the "why do you like riding hippos" thing again? It resurfaces on AH every few months and we all have a good nostalgic chuckle about it

Seachmall

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

But what kind of posts were they? Are we just talking about anything that could be seen as defamation/could cause outrage/hate?

The thread was about Tommy Robinson leaving the EDL, the OP however was quick to change the discussion to how evil Islam is and repeatedly referred to racist/bigoted/Islamophobic blogs and sites.

Y'know, the usual.

Peregrine

hairyslug wrote: »

For those of us with the dumb, can someone explain the blasphemy laws in Ireland, my mind keeps on getting stuck at the stoning scene in the life of Brian

Pretty much the quote Rayne Wooney posted above.

Here's the full quote from the 2009 Defamation Act:

(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.

ringadingding

Jaysus, you can't go near that Muhammad feller without getting someone's knickers in a twist

Some boyo

Ace Attorney

Are people actually being prosecuted for breaking the blasphemy law in modern ireland? i mean surely its just seen as an ancient law that is no longer revelant

Smidge

Okay, now I'm really confused.
It's not okay to call Mohammed a paedophile(I never even saw this post just going by whats in this thread)as it is against blasphemy laws in this State but the Catholic Church can be run down every hands turn(no lover of them but just in context)with every description of abuse and Jesus is a regular figure of ridicule in AH.

I hate to say it but I don't know what a tracker mortgage is?

PLUG71

Seachmall wrote: »

The thread was about Tommy Robinson leaving the EDL, the OP however was quick to change the discussion to how evil Islam is and repeatedly referred to racist/bigoted/Islamophobic blogs and sites.

Y'know, the usual.

Some posters were genuine and not racist!

kneemos

Smidge wrote: »

Okay, now I'm really confused.
It's not okay to call Mohammed a paedophile(I never even saw this post just going by whats in this thread)as it is against blasphemy laws in this State but the Catholic Church can be run down every hands turn(no lover of them but just in context)with every description of abuse and Jesus is a regular figure of ridicule in AH.

I hate to say it but I don't know what a tracker mortgage is?

Nobody threatens legal action.

MurdyWurdy

Smidge wrote: »

Okay, now I'm really confused.
It's not okay to call Mohammed a paedophile(I never even saw this post just going by whats in this thread)as it is against blasphemy laws in this State but the Catholic Church can be run down every hands turn(no lover of them but just in context)with every description of abuse and Jesus is a regular figure of ridicule in AH.

I hate to say it but I don't know what a tracker mortgage is?

I was thinking this too. Some posters take every opportunity to denigrate the Catholic Church and there are many posts that devout Catholics would find very offensive (I am not a Catholic, nor am I offended by it I'm just using it as an example). It is only blasphemous if it's about Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha/Flying Spaghetti Monster or are all negative things about the church not allowed?

It really is very confusing.

Smidge

kneemos wrote: »

Nobody threatens legal action.

Joe10000

Smidge wrote: »

Okay, now I'm really confused.
It's not okay to call Mohammed a paedophile(I never even saw this post just going by whats in this thread)as it is against blasphemy laws in this State but the Catholic Church can be run down every hands turn(no lover of them but just in context)with every description of abuse and Jesus is a regular figure of ridicule in AH.

I hate to say it but I don't know what a tracker mortgage is?

That's a very fair point.

who the fug

Dav wrote: »

No, someone emailed me what looked to me to be pretty blatant breaches of the blasphemy law.

One man's joke is another man's hate crime.

can you point me in the direction of someone who will take me to court for blasphemy, quick flight in to dublin blasphem the pasta monster , get arrested fly out

hopefully this person is in temple bar so we can replace stag weekends, a new gathering type thing

iCrazzy

I can do what ever I want, no one is my boss, there I said it

Smidge

MurdyWurdy wrote: »

I was thinking this too. Some posters take every opportunity to denigrate the Catholic Church that devout Catholics would find very offensive (I am not a Catholic, nor am I offended by it I'm just using it as an example). It is only blasphemous if it's about Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha/Flying Spaghetti Monster or are all negative things about the church not allowed.

It really is very confusing.

I'm not a follower of any organised religion and had a quick read of the Statute there online and as far as I can tell it's as clear as mud.

Nodin

Dav wrote: »

I don't know why a very small number of members here chose to ignore my warning, but it is my responsibility to this site to ensure that when notified of potentially illegal content on it, that I must remove it.
.................

Considering your view expressed here


"Mocking a religion is mocking those that practise it. No idea why anything thinks they have the right to mock any religion anyway, it is at best poor manners and at worst incitement of hatred."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84589661&postcount=147

...I'd that's a handy coincidence.

As the law is designed to be unprosecutable, I fail to see why theres a fear of prosecution.

My name is URL

Dav wrote: »

You can't objectively look at historical records with currently applicable cultural norms.

That's fair enough, but I can't help but wonder to what extent Boards are willing to apply that standard.

I honestly don't mean to be argumentative over this, but people do that all the time regardless of what race, creed or ethnicity the subject of discussion happens to be.

Is it only going to be a problem if it's reported to you guys in an official and opaque way? What about reported posts and on-thread accusations of such implications?

I'm only asking because of the seemingly official and final manner of your warning.

SweepTheLeg

They should take a look at the Athiesm forum, plenty of Blasphemy going on there. But just not against the right religion yh?

Vanilla Glacier

Can we insult shuhammed?

who the fug

MurdyWurdy wrote: »

I was thinking this too. Some posters take every opportunity to denigrate the Catholic Church and there are many posts that devout Catholics would find very offensive (I am not a Catholic, nor am I offended by it I'm just using it as an example). It is only blasphemous if it's about Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha/Flying Spaghetti Monster or are all negative things about the church not allowed?

It really is very confusing.

simples you can't call Mo a pedo, but you can point out he married a minor. Mary was not a slapper that made a fool out of Joseph just a naive young lady what got execited with a door to door salesman called Gabriel

Rayne Wooney

Is it blasphemous to insult Flying Spaghetti Monster?

catallus

This is risk-aversion gone mad.

losthorizon

Its a pity about the tone of the debates as well. Attack the post not the poster should be enforced. On the thread that was taken down one poster called another a Nazi - no need for that kind of stuff.

markomuscle

so i'm guessing it's best not to mention priests on boards? i'm lost