Why is it that the defamation / libel rules which apply to Twitter and Facebook...

hatrickpatrick

...don't apply to Boards as well?
Is it because neither of those companies is registered in Ireland and therefore subject to Irish libel laws, or what?

Boards very often deletes, for fear of reprisal in the form of legal action, stories which are absolutely dominant on social media at the same time. Most recently there's a story about a nightclub bouncer allegedly being a dick - the video, posted by the bouncer himself, is repeatedly "snipped" and threads closed despite being plastered all over both Facebook and Twitter.

Last year there was the infamous incident of a drunken girl ranting about her father's employer, and that he was the highest earning partner thereof. These too were removed on grounds of legal risk, while Facebook and Twitter allowed them to run rampant.

Now I'm not commenting on the tastefulness or ethics of the viral sharing of either of these two stories (or many others, the incident in Slane last year comes to mind as well) on social media, but I am curious as to why Boards is so terrified of being sued while the likes of Twitter and Facebook are not.

A few days ago an Irish court demanded that Twitter remove a defamatory profile, which it did, but at no stage did the question of being fined, or having to pay damages or anything like that, come up. With both Facebook and Twitter, the disclaimer that "The paltform provider is not directly liable for what its users post in real time" seems to hold up in court time and again.

I am merely wondering, why does the aforementioned not apply here? Are there genuine reasons for Boards to be treated differently by the legal system, or for want of a better expression do Facebook and Twitter just have bigger balls?

Spear

The same laws do apply:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1231/495405-twitter-international-court/

but Twitter/Facebook etc can take the hit easier and afford solicitors easier.

Czarcasm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I am merely wondering, why does the aforementioned not apply here? Are there genuine reasons for Boards to be treated differently by the legal system, or for want of a better expression do Facebook and Twitter just have bigger balls?

I suppose it would indeed take bigger balls to be a bigger dick, which is why I for one am glad that Boards as a community prides itself on the fact that it's guiding principle is one that other social media sites would do well to follow. That is -

Don't be a dick (regardless of the size of your balls).

Why the hell do some posters feel a need to import the shìte, drivel and vitriol that drives other social media sites onto Boards? If those posters want to discuss those types of posts, then as you quite rightly point out HP there are other social media sites that cater to this need to gossip.

I hope Boards will continue to uphold the standard "don't be a dick" rule and refuse to pander to posters who revel in the misery of other human beings.

hatrickpatrick

Spear wrote: »

The same laws do apply:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1231/495405-twitter-international-court/

Right, but my point is that at no point has either of these companies been fined. The worst that seems to have happened to them is being told to delete stuff, I haven't heard of them actually having to pay out to anyone. Perhaps I've missed a story though? And no company was fined for allowing discussions of any of the above mentioned incidents which Boards was too afraid to let people talk about here.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I suppose it would indeed take bigger balls to be a bigger dick, which is why I for one am glad that Boards as a community prides itself on the fact that it's guiding principle is one that other social media sites would do well to follow. That is -

Don't be a dick (regardless of the size of your balls).

Sharing a video posted by a bouncer himself of that bouncer being a dick and commenting on it is hardly being a dick. The only reason it was removed was presumably to avoid being sued, and I'm merely asking since this never happens to social media sites why Boards seems to be so worried about it.

Why the hell do some posters feel a need to import the shìte, drivel and vitriol that drives other social media sites onto Boards? If those posters want to discuss those types of posts, then as you quite rightly point out HP there are other social media sites that cater to this need to gossip.

I saw a video posted on AH, I wrote what I thought was an interesting reply to it, and the thread was locked when I clicked post reply - the video wasn't defamatory or sexual or anything like that, so presumably the only reason for removing it was the threat of legal action. It wasn't about "being a dick".

I hope Boards will continue to uphold the standard "don't be a dick" rule and refuse to pander to posters who revel in the misery of other human beings.

So commenting on an incident of potential misconduct by a bouncer which is all over the internet is "reveling in the misery of other human beings"?

Spear

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Right, but my point is that at no point has either of these companies been fined. The worst that seems to have happened to them is being told to delete stuff, I haven't heard of them actually having to pay out to anyone. Perhaps I've missed a story though? And no company was fined for allowing discussions of any of the above mentioned incidents which Boards was too afraid to let people talk about here.

Failure to comply with a court order leads to the fines, they've already incurred solicitors fees.

Czarcasm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Right, but my point is that at no point has either of these companies been fined. The worst that seems to have happened to them is being told to delete stuff, I haven't heard of them actually having to pay out to anyone. Perhaps I've missed a story though? And no company was fined for allowing discussions of any of the above mentioned incidents which Boards was too afraid to let people talk about here.

Boards doesn't have the legal muscle that the likes of Facebook and Twitter have in all fairness, and when they are served with takedown notices, they have to act on them. This costs time and money to process, so presumably Boards will often take pre-emptive action to prevent further legal headaches for itself and it's members. When you set up your own site you can discuss whatever you like and deal with the costs of the legal rammifications of same.

Sharing a video posted by a bouncer himself of that bouncer being a dick and commenting on it is hardly being a dick. The only reason it was removed was presumably to avoid being sued, and I'm merely asking since this never happens to social media sites why Boards seems to be so worried about it.

Boards has every right to decide on what content they want on their website, and what content they don't want. You could presume it was to avoid being sued, or you could equally presume that Boards would choose to have no part in a social media witch hunt against a person. You could also presume that the unwitting participant in the video gave personally identifiable information and that could also leave them open to unforeseen consequences, much like the story of the Tesco employee in Limerick that was doing the rounds on social media last month which allowed for the identification of an innocent party who had no wish to be identified and involved in a social and print media witch hunt.

I saw a video posted on AH, I wrote what I thought was an interesting reply to it, and the thread was locked when I clicked post reply - the video wasn't defamatory or sexual or anything like that, so presumably the only reason for removing it was the threat of legal action. It wasn't about "being a dick".

Whether it was the possible threat of legal action, or just the fact that Boards wanted no part in a witch hunt, or just the fact that the video identified an innocent member of the public who had no wish to have their business spread all over social media sites, I find the perpetrators of such behaviour, and those who give it the oxygen of publicity to be nothing but the height of dickish behaviour tbh, but that's more just my own personal opinion and I can't speak for Boards on that one.

So commenting on an incident of potential misconduct by a bouncer which is all over the internet is "reveling in the misery of other human beings"?

Yes, yes it is, I really shouldn't have to point out to you Patrick at this stage the unforeseen consequences that incidents going viral on social media can have on the individuals involved.

If Boards doesn't want to be party to the witch hunt, I personally would applaud them for their actions. If you're that desperate to discuss such incidents, well then as you say yourself - they're all over other social media sites with lesser standards, bigger legal teams, and even bigger pockets.

Steve

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Right, but my point is that at no point has either of these companies been fined. The worst that seems to have happened to them is being told to delete stuff, I haven't heard of them actually having to pay out to anyone. Perhaps I've missed a story though? And no company was fined for allowing discussions of any of the above mentioned incidents which Boards was too afraid to let people talk about here.

FB and Twitter are billion dollar corporations, spending 20 grand on legal fees to avoid a $500 fine or uphold their 'good' name would be a pittance to them. Boards doesn't have that kind of loot so we need a different strategy.

RDM_83 again

Spear wrote: »

Failure to comply with a court order leads to the fines, they've already incurred solicitors fees.

Steve wrote: »

FB and Twitter are billion dollar corporations, spending 20 grand on legal fees to avoid a $500 fine or uphold their 'good' name would be a pittance to them. Boards doesn't have that kind of loot so we need a different strategy.

It doesn't really explain why certain threads aren't left active until Distilled Media (who are a reasonably sized group) receive a take down notice or a solicitors letter though wouldn't that approach incur no costs.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Boards has every right to decide on what content they want on their website, and what content they don't want. You could presume it was to avoid being sued, or you could equally presume that Boards would choose to have no part in a social media witch hunt against a person. You could also presume that the unwitting participant in the video gave personally identifiable information and that could also leave them open to unforeseen consequences, much like the story of the Tesco employee in Limerick that was doing the rounds on social media last month which allowed for the identification of an innocent party who had no wish to be identified and involved in a social and print media witch hunt.

If Boards doesn't want to be party to the witch hunt, I personally would applaud them for their actions. If you're that desperate to discuss such incidents, well then as you say yourself - they're all over other social media sites with lesser standards, bigger legal teams, and even bigger pockets.

How does a thread like this fit which is allowed to stay open fit in with that attitude though.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057115242

Considering it contains contact details etc not saying the party referred to in that thread is "innocent" but neither is the bouncer (who uploaded the video himself) the threads keep getting locked about

Czarcasm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

It doesn't really explain why certain threads aren't left active until Distilled Media (who are a reasonably sized group) receive a take down notice or a solicitors letter though wouldn't that approach incur no costs.

You don't think time costs money? How much moderators time would you like to take up moderating a clusterfcuk of a thread like has previously been witnessed when incidents like this crop up what used to be every so often but have now become much more regular. Best policy surely would be to nip them in the bud before they go 30 pages and reports start getting missed or not picked up on because volunteers time is limited and they also aren't the legal eagles that other social media sites will have in their ranks.

How does a thread like this fit which is allowed to stay open fit in with that attitude though.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057115242

Considering it contains contact details etc not saying the party referred to in that thread is "innocent" but neither is the bouncer (who uploaded the video himself) the threads keep getting locked about

I wasn't actually referring to the person filming the incident as the innocent party, but you'll also notice I haven't contributed to that thread you're referring to. I can't answer as to why the Moderators of individual fora will make the judgement calls they do, but me personally I would've nipped that thread in the bud too tbh.

P_1

I'd presume that Boards doesn't have the cash to throw about on billable hours that the likes of FB and Twitter have and that the vast majority of lawyers letters that lead to threads being nuked actually contain fairly reasonable requests.

The likes of the chap on Dondeal with the car are different I'd say, in that case someone put up a xenophobic ad and in my eyes pretty much put up the rope to hang himself with.

Will I Amnt

P_1 wrote: »

I'd presume that Boards doesn't have the cash to throw about on billable hours that the likes of FB and Twitter have and that the vast majority of lawyers letters that lead to threads being nuked actually contain fairly reasonable requests.

The likes of the chap on Dondeal with the car are different I'd say, in that case someone put up a xenophobic ad and in my eyes pretty much put up the rope to hang himself with.

And the bouncer who put up the video of himself didn't?

Spear

RDM_83 again wrote: »

It doesn't really explain why certain threads aren't left active until Distilled Media (who are a reasonably sized group) receive a take down notice or a solicitors letter though wouldn't that approach incur no costs.

Because notification and takedown is the default the site works on. Boards.ie doesn't claim nor pretend to police every post and thread as they would imply responsibility for anything that got through.

Daqster

Will I Amnt wrote: »

And the bouncer who put up the video of himself didn't?

I think people are presuming that the video was removed in case the bouncer / club sued, but my guess would be that it was to protect the guy who was made fun of / bullied and who was quite possibly underage.

The lad also appears to have given his full name in the video too which also makes the potential of further online bullying a very real possibility.

hullaballoo

This thread is based on a completely false premise. The defamation laws are applicable across the board. The nature of Facebook and Twitter allows for these things to spread wider, faster. Also, their moderators are far busier with far more serious unlawful content than with what boards.ie has to contend.

What you'll also find is that searching twitter or Facebook for either of the examples in the OP relating to those two teenaged girls you won't find anything. Just because something is "rampant" for a few hours across social media doesn't make it lawful or legal.

The other thing is that boards.ie has a content policy set by the terms of use and their interpretation by the admins etc. That is because this site wants to maintain certain standards and broadly keep the site for almost universal use.

The other thing that has been repeated on this thread that is totally incorrect is that there is ever any "fine" that comes into the equation here. No one gets fined for defamation in this country. The monetary aspect is that being sued is expensive whether you win or lose. If you lose, it is particularly expensive. Due to the lack of any proper legislation on this topic, the courts tend to err on the side of caution unless a very expensive Senior Counsel reads up enough on the technical and social aspects to convince the Court otherwise. Thus, orders to take down are common. Thus, the websites usually end up paying the legal costs of the person requesting the takedown, usually including a very expensive Senior Counsel or two and a moderately expensive Junior Counsel or two/three and the solicitor. Then the site has to pay its own lawyers.

The above all happens without the Plaintiff actually having to prove the content was actually defamatory, just that it might be. The question of whether or not the content was actually defamatory might never be decided.

Part of the problem is that lawyers generally don't understand basic technology let alone the intricacies of user-generated content websites. The other part is that people who use these sites do not appreciate how what they say or do online can have massive implications for the subjects of their comments. Massive. Life and death massive in some cases.

El Guapo!

I closed the thread so I feel I should give some feedback here.
There was no order given from the powers that be to close the thread. So I'll just get that straight.
I personally closed the thread while I consulted with my fellow mods and decided what the best course of action should be.
After careful consideration, it was decided that the thread didn't serve much of a purpose and would be better off remaining closed and the link being removed.

This best describes the reason why I felt the thread should be closed:

Daqster wrote: »

I think people are presuming that the video was removed in case the bouncer / club sued, but my guess would be that it was to protect the guy who was made fun of / bullied and who was quite possibly underage.

The lad also appears to have given his full name in the video too which also makes the potential of further online bullying a very real possibility.

The guy in this video (not the bouncer) was in a drunken vulnerable state and he was made a fool of while being videoed (more than likely without his prior knowledge).
I closed the thread more so to protect him from any nastiness that may result from having his face and personal details plastered online.

Apart from all that, Hullabaloo has shed some light on the hornets nest that is Irish defamation law. It's a mine-field and, in my opinion, it wasn't worth keeping the thread open and risking it, just so people could vent their anger at the situation.

Sorry for the kind of rushed reply but I'm in work at the moment and haven't got time to go into more detail. But that's the gist of why I felt the need to lock the thread up.

Annasopra

People just wanted the video of the kpmg girl left up so they could bully the girl and say horrible nasty things about her. I'm glad that that boards.ie stood it's ground on that issue.

clairefontaine

While Facebook and Twitter might be attractive to suesimply because the spoils of war would be tremendous considering their stock value, who would want to take on the tremendous team of lawyers they have?

They are more immune to libel and slander cases because 1. they have **** hot legal counsel. 2. They have money to burn. 3. They are subject to US libel and slander laws, which are very different to Irish ones.

Annasopra

clairefontaine wrote: »

While Facebook and Twitter might be attractive to suesimply because the spoils of war would be tremendous considering their stock value, who would want to take on the tremendous team of lawyers they have?

They are more immune to libel and slander cases because 1. they have **** hot legal counsel. 2. They have money to burn. 3. They are subject to US libel and slander laws, which are very different to Irish ones.

Why wouldn't they be subject to laws in Ireland?

P_1

clairefontaine wrote: »

While Facebook and Twitter might be attractive to suesimply because the spoils of war would be tremendous considering their stock value, who would want to take on the tremendous team of lawyers they have?

They are more immune to libel and slander cases because 1. they have **** hot legal counsel. 2. They have money to burn. 3. They are subject to US libel and slander laws, which are very different to Irish ones.

I would have thought that by having their EU HQ's in Dublin both would find themselves subject to Irish law

clairefontaine

P_1 wrote: »

I would have thought that by having their EU HQ's in Dublin both would find themselves subject to Irish law

It is my understanding that their headquarters are in California and European headquarters are in Ireland, but due to a tax loophole they are technically "stateless."

Annasopra

clairefontaine wrote: »

It is my understanding that their headquarters are in California and European headquarters are in Ireland, but due to a tax loophole they are technically "stateless."

I still don't understand why they would be subject to US law. I've just done some research and they are not.

http://www.anthonyjoyce.ie/defamation-social-media

http://www.williamfry.ie/publication-article/social_media_-_applicable_libel_and_privacy_laws_in_ireland.aspx?paid=102&keyword=&month=0&year=0

http://www.donaghys.ie/Social_Media_Sites_and_Defamation_Law/Default.132.html

http://sociable.co/social-media/irish-businessman-sets-precedent-with-twitter-defamation-case/

http://www.thejournal.ie/arrested-facebook-twitter-troll-louise-mensch-defamation-abuse-internet-488501-Jun2012/

clairefontaine

mango salsa wrote: »

I still don't understand why they would be subject to US law. I've just done some research and they are not.

http://www.anthonyjoyce.ie/defamation-social-media

http://www.williamfry.ie/publication-article/social_media_-_applicable_libel_and_privacy_laws_in_ireland.aspx?paid=102&keyword=&month=0&year=0

http://www.donaghys.ie/Social_Media_Sites_and_Defamation_Law/Default.132.html

http://sociable.co/social-media/irish-businessman-sets-precedent-with-twitter-defamation-case/

http://www.thejournal.ie/arrested-facebook-twitter-troll-louise-mensch-defamation-abuse-internet-488501-Jun2012/

What I am understanding here, is that it is the person who actually writes the stuff who is vulnerable to legal action because they are the ones doing the defaming? It's not twitter or google getting taken to court in any of those links. The authors are.

The people who write them are residents of Ireland no?

Dav

A crime is committed in Ireland where the 1's and 0's are rendered into readable content. It doesn't matter where the 1's and 0's are stored or what path they've taken to get here, when they're transmitted to a device in Ireland and read here, they're subject to our law. People seem to have this fantasy belief that moving servers to a different country will somehow make you exempt from this and that's simply not true and to my knowledge, never has been. So, Facebook and Twitter and anyone else are just as subject to the law as us.

No one tries to sue them because they're gigantic and their massively funded and expert legal teams would probably take the average Irish law firm to school (unless it's a firm like Merrion Legal or Simon McGarr who we know are Ireland's leading internet experts). Given *we* have to constantly explain the absolute basics Data Protection act to solicitors, there's a part of my brain that finds the idea of one of these sorts of (either clueless or total chancer) solicitor's getting a serious public smack down from a giganto company hilarious

The sort of person who tries to sue us generally speaking is a small business who's suffering because of a couple of bad reviews. They can just about afford to come after us because we're small, broke and a simple target and they don't think that hiring someone to do better SEO for them would be a better way to spend their mony. Big businesses never do this, they understand that you're better off trying to fix a customer's problem and to be publicly seen to be doing so than trying to make history disappear.

Annasopra

clairefontaine wrote: »

What I am understanding here, is that it is the person who actually writes the stuff who is vulnerable to legal action because they are the ones doing the defaming? It's not twitter or google getting taken to court in any of those links. The authors are.

The people who write them are residents of Ireland no?

No.

Twitter and Facebook would be liable too.

P_1

clairefontaine wrote: »

What I am understanding here, is that it is the person who actually writes the stuff who is vulnerable to legal action because they are the ones doing the defaming? It's not twitter or google getting taken to court in any of those links. The authors are.

The people who write them are residents of Ireland no?

Authors and publishers are liable I think. Google is ok because it'd be akin to taking on a library if one were to go after them

clairefontaine

mango salsa wrote: »

No.

Twitter and Facebook would be liable too.

Do twitter and Facebook have their headquarters in Ireland?

Dav, geography does have an influence, to what extent and in what detail I am not sure.

I certainly do know that it does when it comes to copyright. If I want to watch something on Amazon streaming, even if I'm in the US and Amazon can detect that, it will not allow it if I pay for it using an Irish bank card. These shows are restricted to US customers, most likely because of royalty issues or some other law.

But ultimately no one is going to sue Google in Ireland because no one wants to face their team of 500 lawyers. They are exempt from local tax laws due to loopholes so it wouldnt suprise me if they have other exemptions too.

Are boards exempt from the same tax codes that Google is for example?

hullaballoo

clairefontaine wrote: »

While Facebook and Twitter might be attractive to suesimply because the spoils of war would be tremendous considering their stock value, who would want to take on the tremendous team of lawyers they have?

Plenty of people. Those sites get sued all the time. They also "lose" cases quite a lot. Generally, the cases aren't newsworthy though. I'm not just talking about defamation here but more in relation to the rate at which those companies get sued.

They are more immune to libel and slander cases because 1. they have **** hot legal counsel.

Not really. They just have legal counsel. Here, in Ireland, the standards of counsel don't vary greatly. If you mean their in-house people, I don't know what that would have to do with them being sued for the type of content we're dealing with here. Their in-house people deal with contracts and compliance issues. They don't do litigation. That's left to the litigation professionals in this country and we're all independent.

2. They have money to burn.

They might have lots of money but no company is ever willing to throw that money down the plughole by ignoring flagrant breaches of laws, whether they're Irish laws or other laws. They employ advisers in as many distinct jurisdictions as they can to advise in relation to the localised standards. That doesn't mean they're ok with being sued.

Apart from the money, there are myriad other reasons why companies and individuals, big, medium or small do not want to be sued.

3. They are subject to US libel and slander laws, which are very different to Irish ones.

As above, this is simply not true. If someone in the US defames me on facebook, I can sue them either here or in the US, depending on where I think I'll get a better result. It's here, by the way. Relatively speaking, the US courts don't give a fcuk about protecting the individual's name. Here, we don't give a fcuk about freedom of expression (we don't even have "freedom of speech" here).

Beasty

clairefontaine wrote: »

They are exempt from local tax laws due to loopholes so it wouldnt suprise me if they have other exemptions too.

Are boards exempt from the same tax codes that Google is for example?

You are confusing the Google trading operations in Ireland which are subject to the full Irish tax code and other Google subsidiaries which may be involved in holding Intellectual property and/or providing finance to Google companies

Boards is subject to the same tax rules as Google are on their trading operations in Ireland - I suspect Boards benefits from the ultimate tax planning device - if you don't make much of a profit you don't pay much tax;)

Annasopra

clairefontaine wrote: »

Do twitter and Facebook have their headquarters in Ireland?

Dav, geography does have an influence, to what extent and in what detail I am not sure.

I certainly do know that it does when it comes to copyright. If I want to watch something on Amazon streaming, even if I'm in the US and Amazon can detect that, it will not allow it if I pay for it using an Irish bank card. These shows are restricted to US customers, most likely because of royalty issues or some other law.

But ultimately no one is going to sue Google in Ireland because no one wants to face their team of 500 lawyers. They are exempt from local tax laws due to loopholes so it wouldnt suprise me if they have other exemptions too.

Are boards exempt from the same tax codes that Google is for example?

I really don't see why twitter and facebook would be exempt from Irish defamation law at all. A lot of the links I posted above state they are liable

P_1

There's a rather interesting debate about Twitter and the law (from a British criminal perspective) on Newsnight at the moment