Iona vs Panti

swampgas

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Unless you give a **** about freedom of speech.

It would seem that our libel laws are preventing freedom of speech rather than RTE per se. :-/

Delirium

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Unless you give a **** about freedom of speech.

Tbh, I care about freedom of speech but I'd definitely have qualms about forking out €200k+ to fight for it.

SpaceTime

I'm guessing they're more likely to go out on a limb for a journalist and editorial team on an investigative case than a light entrainment show too.

They may need the legal firepower for what they percieve as bigger issues.

MilanPan!c

P_1 wrote: »

True, but is being broke and having freedom of speech better than curtailing some aspects of free speech and not being broke?

Do you care more about freedom or money?

MilanPan!c

SW wrote: »

Tbh, I care about freedom of speech but I'd definitely have qualms about forking out €200k+ to fight for it.

Think if the founders had been as blasé about your freedom as you are about others.

P_1

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Do you care more about freedom or money?

Well sadly the way this world works is that you can't have one without the other.

swampgas

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Do you care more about freedom or money?

TBH, if I were faced with a (false) libel suit, I wouldn't have the luxury of simply fighting it on principle. I'd have to do the maths, as I still have to live and provide for my family.

It might be a bitter pill to swallow to settle instead, but that's often the best way with the law the way it is right now.

Turtwig

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Do you care more about freedom or money?

Without money you're not going to have freedom of speech (or anything!) for very long. Generally speaking an audience for your speech requires a bit of money.

Cabaal

SW wrote: »

100% certainty of paying €85k beats 10% chance of paying €300k every time.

even if it was a 99% chance they'd win, its still cheaper for RTE to payout the 85k,

I've previous made decisions in relation to cases brought against a company I once worked for,

In all my time in 99% of cases it didn't matter how right the company we would make a settlement....why?, because it would have cost more to contest it so it made more financial sense to payout small amounts.

Sometimes it killed me to make this decision and I used to even have arguments with people over it as they'd want to fight it and not give in, but I had to explain the costs in sending somebody to the court etc.

It didn't mean the person taking the case against us was right though,

In this instance RTE looked at the likely costs and paid out because it was cheaper, it doesn't mean Iona are right though.

periodictable

Well I think Panti could show Ms O'Brien a thing or two about style. Start with that goddamned awful excuse for a hairstyle. Waters could listen in for tips.

Bannasidhe

Cabaal wrote: »

even if it was a 99% chance they'd win, its still cheaper for RTE to payout the 85k,

I've previous made decisions in relation to cases brought against a company I once worked for,

In all my time it didn't matter how right the company was we paid out....why?, because it would have cost more to contest it so it made more financial sense to payout small amounts.

Sometimes it killed me to make this decision and I used to even have arguments with people over it as they'd want to fight it and not give in, but I had to explain the costs in sending somebody to the court etc.

It didn't mean the person taking the case against us was right though,

In this instance RTE looked at the likely costs and paid out because it was cheaper, it doesn't mean Iona are right though.

Let's look at this a slightly different way..

If Iona and Waters were so damn confident why did they accept hush money?

Why not go to court and win not just a far larger pay-out but also the kudos of vindication in a Court of Law?

Delirium

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Think if the founders had been as blasé about your freedom as you are about others.

As things stand, I could only dream of ever having €200,000 to my name. That's financial security, a home, college for kids.

Fighting for freedom of speech isn't accepting those crazy fines but rather changing the system so the penalty isn't there.

MilanPan!c

Jernal wrote: »

Without money you're not going to have freedom of speech (or anything!) for very long. Generally speaking an audience for your speech requires a bit of money.

There's two things wrong with this way of thinking:

- you don't need money to have a platform for speech - ask anyone with the internet
- freedom isn't about buying the right to do something, it's about being guarantees the right by law

AerynSun

MilanPan!c wrote: »

- you don't need money to have a platform for speech - ask anyone with the internet

My internet costs at least 20 euro per month, and there's the cost of electricity to run the laptop that I had to pay for... plus the cost of somewhere warm and dry to sit while I'm online... so it's not for free.

I know this might seem silly, small little costs... but for poor people, these little costs are a big deal. That's why you don't hear Africa's voice on the internet - most of the people living in Africa can't afford to get online to tell the global north or the west what they think of capitalism.

Cabaal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If Iona and Waters were so damn confident why did they accept hush money?

Why not go to court and win not just a far larger pay-out but also the kudos of vindication in a Court of Law?

Thats the thing,
They weren't interested in clearing their name or even having the right to reply,

It was all about the money and they wanted it (as seen from their response when they refused to allow the money to be given to charity)

If they wanted the moral high ground they would have said to RTE, ok we want an apology and you can give the money to XYZ charity. They didn't have any interest in this happening.

swampgas

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Let's look at this a slightly different way..

If Iona and Waters were so damn confident why did they accept hush money?

Why not go to court and win not just a far larger pay-out but also the kudos of vindication in a Court of Law?

I wonder if they simply couldn't afford the costs of doing so?

Either way, it's interesting - either they weren't confident of winning their case, or else they haven't the resources to fight a case.

Which means that perhaps RTE could have played a little more hardball to see whether they would have settled for right of reply and/or payment to a charity?

Penn

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Do you care more about freedom or money?

And what if you might end up with neither?

There is no legal Freedom of Speech in Ireland, and RTE wouldn't be using their own money to fight the case, they'd be using taxpayers money. Coupled with the fact that even though if they won their legal costs would likely have to be covered by Iona, that might not cover the cost of having to come up with enough proof to defend the comments made.

This isn't the hill to die on when the war is now being fought in a different field. This has brought global attention to the issue and TDs, MEPs and Senators are now involved and standing up for those freedoms because they have the ability to do so. Iona's name is now constantly being associated with homophobia. Panti's Noble Call is being retweeted by celebrities worldwide. Tens of thousands raised for marriagequality.ie over the past week.

The damage that this is doing to Iona and their cause, in my opinion, far exceeds the money RTE had to pay out. That €85,000 has paid for itself.

MilanPan!c

AerynSun wrote: »

My internet costs at least 20 euro per month, and there's the cost of electricity to run the laptop that I had to pay for... plus the cost of somewhere warm and dry to sit while I'm online... so it's not for free.

I know this might seem silly, small little costs... but for poor people, these little costs are a big deal. That's why you don't hear Africa's voice on the internet - most of the people living in Africa can't afford to get online to tell the global north or the west what they think of capitalism.

Suuuuurre... But internet penetration in Ireland is at 80%, so it's not really an issue here.

MilanPan!c

Penncil Dick wrote: »

And what if you might end up with neither?

There is no legal Freedom of Speech in Ireland, and RTE wouldn't be using their own money to fight the case, they'd be using taxpayers money. Coupled with the fact that even though if they won their legal costs would likely have to be covered by Iona, that might not cover the cost of having to come up with enough proof to defend the comments made.

This isn't the hill to die on when the war is now being fought in a different field. This has brought global attention to the issue and TDs, MEPs and Senators are now involved and standing up for those freedoms because they have the ability to do so. Iona's name is now constantly being associated with homophobia. Panti's Noble Call is being retweeted by celebrities worldwide. Tens of thousands raised for marriagequality.ie over the past week.

The damage that this is doing to Iona and their cause, in my opinion, far exceeds the money RTE had to pay out. That €85,000 has paid for itself.

It's a fair point, as long as you're not the one losing your freedom to the state broadcaster.

Happyman42

One big question remains:

How come Mooney isn't all over this like a wet rash?

Obviously warned off (censored!)

periodictable

At the end of the day these people have hoisted themselves on their own petard. People will take a certain view of them.

AerynSun

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Suuuuurre... But internet penetration in Ireland is at 80%, so it's not really an issue here.

Except for the other 20%...

swampgas

periodictable wrote: »

At the end of the day these people have hoisted themselves on their own petard. People will take a certain view of them.

Hmmm. I wonder if some time in the future, when John Waters is introduced to somebody, will he be asked "Oh, are you that John Waters, you know, the Iona guy?" I can only hope so.

Penn

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's a fair point, as long as you're not the one losing your freedom to the state broadcaster.

What you also have to consider is that the comments made weren't made by RTE. They were made by Rory. I don't know the extent to which Rory has also been threatened with legal action, but if Rory goes to court to challenge Iona on it, that's completely understandable. At least Rory would have a better chance of using a defense such as "honest opinion" given how he also qualified his statements on SNS with what he felt homophobia was.

The opinions Rory stated weren't the opinions of RTE though. It would be a much harder case for them to defend than for Rory.

Again, it's simply not the hill to die on. At least not until RTE give their reasoning on what legal advice they were given.

MilanPan!c

AerynSun wrote: »

Except for the other 20%...

Lol. Yes.

But considering the original concern was:

"Generally speaking an audience for your speech requires a bit of money."

And considering that 80% of Irish people have internet access, the bar is so low to having access to a platform in Ireland as to basically be non-existent.

Ash.J.Williams

Penncil Dick wrote: »

What you also have to consider is that the comments made weren't made by RTE. They were made by Rory. I don't know the extent to which Rory has also been threatened with legal action, but if Rory goes to court to challenge Iona on it, that's completely understandable. At least Rory would have a better chance of using a defense such as "honest opinion" given how he also qualified his statements on SNS with what he felt homophobia was.

The opinions Rory stated weren't the opinions of RTE though. It would be a much harder case for them to defend than for Rory.

Again, it's simply not the hill to die on. At least not until RTE give their reasoning on what legal advice they were given.

I disagree,....i felt RTE went as far as putting the words in his mouth,,,it all started with "those people cheese me off"

Bannasidhe

Happyman42 wrote: »

One big question remains:

How come Mooney isn't all over this like a wet rash?

Obviously warned off (censored!)

He is all over it like a wet rash right now.

Obliq

Glen Killane clearly not thrilled to be having to go public with this, but they're certainly covering the controversy NOW anyway........

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0205/502379-rte-iona/

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He is all over it like a wet rash right now.

Fascinating...wonder will he reference Panti....bet you he won't!

MilanPan!c

Penncil Dick wrote: »

What you also have to consider is that the comments made weren't made by RTE. They were made by Rory. I don't know the extent to which Rory has also been threatened with legal action, but if Rory goes to court to challenge Iona on it, that's completely understandable. At least Rory would have a better chance of using a defense such as "honest opinion" given how he also qualified his statements on SNS with what he felt homophobia was.

The opinions Rory stated weren't the opinions of RTE though. It would be a much harder case for them to defend than for Rory.

Again, it's simply not the hill to die on. At least not until RTE give their reasoning on what legal advice they were given.

The larger issue is that they aren't Rory, they're the state broadcaster and the loudest voice in Ireland.

If they can't stand up to a four-person institute and protect freedom of speech for their guests, they've proven their worthlessness. Or near enough.

This also adds great credence to everyone that feels it's immoral to force a tax onto the entire population, to promote a political agenda. Whether out of greed or fear or corruption.

Put another way: there's no small in the struggle to keep the nations airwaves open to all voices. The more RTE is scared away from taking ethical decisions the less valid their entire remit becomes.