Sig deleted due to external link ?

franksm

Hi folks

My sig, which has been untouched since 2012, has today been deleted whilst in a thread in the Dublin 15 forum.

The sig linked to an image of a person breaking into my car, someone I have been trying to get help in identifying. The image and associated video are publically available, and have been published in the press (Herald, Independent, Sunday World) and on TV (TV3, CBS, ITV and CCTV).

Search Youtube for the words Ongar Triumph Stag

May I understand why the sig was deleted ?

Thanks
Frank

Orion

This forum is the place to ask.

Would it not be an idea when deleting sigs to put a reason in the replacement instead of just "Sig removed" or a pm to the user?

smashey

I removed it earlier and sent a PM at the time. While there may be a valid reason for having it, it was felt that having the link there wasn't the best place for it.

Zaph

Given that Smashey explained why the sig was removed, I'm not entirely sure why you thought the replacement was any more acceptable.

franksm

Apologies, I guess I still do not understand the reason why the signature is unacceptable. I did check the requirements to make sure it fitted the limitations. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=vb3_user_profile#faq_vb3_signatures_avatars

Can you let me know what is wrong with the new sig, and how to make it fit ? Thanks

Zaph

The problem isn't the size, the problem is that you're linking to external sites showing pictures or video of a person allegedly committing a crime. I say allegedly, because until they have been tried and found guilty they are innocent. And because they are legally innocent, if for any reason they did end up in court and were found not guilty, there's always a risk that they could claim that Boards defamed them or prejudiced any action against them by allowing the sig. While we have every sympathy for you having been the victim of a crime, as admins we have a duty to ensure that nothing is posted that could possibly harm the site. The only reason your sig has remained for so long is that nobody reported it until now and it wasn't spotted by an admin to remove it.

franksm

Okay, that is something I can understand, thanks for the explanation.

In my defence, the footage etc is in the public domain, in the press and on TV, and is well publicised on every other forum I take part in.

For example: http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z146/franksm/Weirdness/Frankmk20001.jpg

Would it be acceptable to use the original image, but with the person's head pixelated ?

Zaph

As long as the person in the picture isn't identifiable, and the sig doesn't link to anywhere that has other unpixellated images of them, then there shouldn't be a problem.

Beasty

For info, Dav provided an explanation here of why we are not permitted to show pictures of person alleged to have committed a crime. I interpreted it as applying equally to links to such pictures

Dades

That looks like a lovely Stag, btw. What damage did the perp' do to the car getting in?

hullaballoo

What laws are broken by posting a recording of something that happened?

28064212

hullaballoo wrote: »

What laws are broken by posting a recording of something that happened?

Provided it was taken in a public place, probably none. The problem is posting a recording, and then saying "this recording shows this person is a car thief". Unless that person is a convicted car thief, you're in to defamation terroritory

Toto Wolfcastle

28064212 wrote: »

Provided it was taken in a public place, probably none. The problem is posting a recording, and then saying "this recording shows this person is a car thief". Unless that person is a convicted car thief, you're in to defamation terroritory

Yeah, this was posted in relation to the sig:

Pretty sure the Blanch Gardaí know the guy in my sig link, he's a prolific burglar at Clonsilla train station and in the Ongar residential area. But no help from them at all.

I don't know if the guy in question has been convicted or not.

hullaballoo

28064212 wrote: »

Provided it was taken in a public place, probably none. The problem is posting a recording, and then saying "this recording shows this person is a car thief". Unless that person is a convicted car thief, you're in to defamation terroritory

And the person stealing the car is going to sue for defamation, is he?

28064212

hullaballoo wrote: »

And the person stealing the car is going to sue for defamation, is he?

I don't know, is he? Boards.ie also doesn't know, and don't want to be in a position where they need to know

hullaballoo

Pretty sure the Blanch Gardaí know the guy in my sig link, he's a prolific burglar at Clonsilla train station and in the Ongar residential area. But no help from them at all.

I can see how that might land you in trouble, all right.

hullaballoo

28064212 wrote: »

I don't know, is he? Boards.ie also doesn't know, and don't want to be in a position where they need to know

I just can't get this straight in my head.

I post a video of someone breaking into my car.

I then get a solicitor's warning/initiation letter that says, "We represent Mr X, the man in the video you posted on [website]."

Unless there is a massive gap in my legal knowledge, I'm not too concerned about receiving that letter.

28064212

hullaballoo wrote: »

I just can't get this straight in my head.

I post a video of someone breaking into my car.

I then get a solicitor's warning/initiation letter that says, "We represent Mr X, the man in the video you posted on [website]."

Unless there is a massive gap in my legal knowledge, I'm not too concerned about receiving that letter.

Assuming you mean "I post a video of someone breaking into my car, and make an accusation based on that recording"? Posting a video with no context/accusation isn't a problem

Then you get a second letter, stating that defamation proceedings have started against you. It is now your responsibility to prove to a court that your accusation is true, something which takes time and money.

Now you have a personal interest in this case, so it's probably worth your time and money. Boards.ie doesn't, has no idea if the original accusation is true, and potentially receives many of these threats. Why would they take the risk?

Dav

Prejudicing a future criminal investigation is the biggest concern. It can invite comments about the person in the vid which is always a potential source of fun too.

hullaballoo

Dav wrote: »

Prejudicing a future criminal investigation is the biggest concern. It can invite comments about the person in the vid which is always a potential source of fun too.

That's certainly more in line with what my concerns would be.

franksm

Dades wrote: »

That looks like a lovely Stag, btw. What damage did the perp' do to the car getting in?

Dades, the car was in fantastic condition. Took me a while to get it like that. It was to be used the next day as a wedding for a mate, so stupidly I had left a camera and some other stuff in the dash - something I wouldn't ever usually do.

The guy in question bent back the quarterlight on the door, pretty much writing off the entire door on that car. And then trashed the wiring under the dash in an attempt to hotwire it. Luckily I had a good immobiliser on it (but no alarm). Still, took me three weeks to require that car - dashboard out and all.

I was plagued with this guy continually damaging and trying another, more modern car in the same place over the previous three years. Funny thing, since putting the CCTV up, it was obvious that all crime in the street was being done by three people (all friends, living in an adjacent street). By default you might think it's a huge amount of scumbags giving the place a bad name, but no, just a couple of same individuals. Gardaí weren't too interested in the whole thing though, despite clear images. Foolish me thinking the older car was not ever going to be a target.

Sold the car on a couple of years later, I still miss it

Overheal

hullaballoo wrote: »

And the person stealing the car is going to sue for defamation, is he?

Maybe: this woman was tried and convicted and she still wants to sue for defamation and emotional distress

http://consumerist.com/2014/05/27/woman-convicted-of-putting-needles-in-food-sues-grocer-for-8-million/

It's not even the idea that such a person would win, it's that you'd have to fight them legally about it.

Steve

Overheal wrote: »

Maybe: this woman was tried and convicted and she still wants to sue for defamation and emotional distress

God bless america.

I understand the reasons for removal but also mourn the days this would be a no-brainer for boards. Helping one of our own catch a criminal who destroyed their property vs red tape and legalities...

Overheal

Bigger target these days. Sadly. And you have to admit, how many trolls and rereg's that are real life pricks are out there who wouldn't actually mind bringing a real case against the site? We've made enemies :pac:

Renegade Mechanic

So.... Even though a video/image plainly shows someone breaking into a car......they can still sue for defamation due to having a video/image of them breaking into a car posted? That seems to eliminate the point of what "defamation of character" is actually for.

Dades

The problem is less the defamation thing and more the prejudice this might case in the event this gentleman was ever prosecuted.

That link above even says that case its reporting was never brought.

hullaballoo

Defamation simply isn't a problem here.

The only problem is (the potential for) prejudice.

Posting a recording of something is not defamatory. What might be defamatory is when someone says, "that's John McDoe".

28064212

hullaballoo wrote: »

Defamation simply isn't a problem here.

The only problem is (the potential for) prejudice.

Posting a recording of something is not defamatory. What might be defamatory is when someone says, "that's John McDoe".

That's not quite true. Say I have a video of someone breaking into a car, and that person is identifiable from the video. I post that video online with the allegation that the person in the video is a car thief. It then emerges that person was "breaking into" their own car because they locked their keys inside. I would be open to a defamation suit from that person.

hullaballoo

28064212 wrote: »

That's not quite true. Say I have a video of someone breaking into a car, and that person is identifiable from the video. I post that video online with the allegation that the person in the video is a car thief. It then emerges that person was "breaking into" their own car because they locked their keys inside. I would be open to a defamation suit from that person.

Yes, but only because of the supposition.

Not because of the contents of the video/image on its own.

28064212

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yes, but only because of the supposition.

Not because of the contents of the video/image on its own.

The contents of the video in the OP were not posted on their own. They were posted with a specific allegation that has not been proven in court. Boards.ie has no idea if the allegation is true.

Well, they probably have a pretty good idea, just like you and I do, but they have no interest in standing over that allegation

hullaballoo

28064212 wrote: »

The contents of the video in the OP were not posted on their own. They were posted with a specific allegation that has not been proven in court. Boards.ie has no idea if the allegation is true.

Well, they probably have a pretty good idea, just like you and I do, but they have no interest in standing over that allegation

I don't want to make this thread even more confusing for people trying to make sense of it so I'm not going to address your point directly, apologies.

It's enough to say that I agree that this is a typical example of where over-lawyering has a chilling effect on personal freedom. It's disgusting.

28064212

hullaballoo wrote: »

I don't want to make this thread even more confusing for people trying to make sense of it so I'm not going to address your point directly, apologies.

Fair enough

hullaballoo wrote: »

It's enough to say that I agree that this is a typical example of where over-lawyering has a chilling effect on personal freedom. It's disgusting.

Oh I agree I'm not saying I agree with the laws, just that I understand Boards' stance in light of those laws.

Dades

28064212 wrote: »

The contents of the video in the OP were not posted on their own. They were posted with a specific allegation that has not been proven in court. Boards.ie has no idea if the allegation is true.

That said, the OP could *maybe* have kept the image link in his sig - sans allegations - were it not for the substantive issue of prejudice.

hullaballoo

28064212 wrote: »

Oh I agree I'm not saying I agree with the laws, just that I understand Boards' stance in light of those laws.

Yes, I thought you would!

Renegade Mechanic

Dades wrote: »

The problem is less the defamation thing and more the prejudice this might case in the event this gentleman was ever prosecuted.

That link above even says that case its reporting was never brought.

Prejudice.. They wouldn't want to show it in court then. It might sway opinion:D:D