Thread removed from AH and no reason given

My name is URL

I don't know which mod deleted it so don't know who to PM.

Why was it removed?

This was the link to said thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057312904

Ah, never mind -

https://twitter.com/IsraelinIreland/status/525217495767322624

It wasn't fake. I saw it with my own two eyes and have the URL of the original (now deleted) tweet

The Hill Billy

If you are monitoring that account then you know that the thread was removed for a good reason. Did it not occur to you that it was a fake post or that the account had been hacked? Posting it here again is nothing but trolling IMHO.

My name is URL

The Hill Billy wrote: »

If you are monitoring that account then you know that the thread was removed for a good reason. Did it not occur to you that it was a fake post or that the account had been hacked? Posting it here again is nothing but trolling IMHO.

Posting what here again?

The Hill Billy

My bad. Ignore the last line.

My name is URL

They said it came from a fake account, which is total BS.. A number of people saw the tweet on their page before they deleted it. There was a link to thejournal contained in the Tweet. I'm sure that it'd be easy enough to check where referrals were coming from on the story linked in it.

Why would I assume it was fake anyway? It's not as if they don't have a history of posting inciteful stuff and then deleting it after the backlash. It's not the first time they've claimed to be hacked or had stuff posted by someone unofficially either.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/israeli-embassy-deletes-christmas-thought-attacking-palestinians-from-facebook/

My name is URL

Here's a post from Reddit by someone on r/israel who saw the tweet on their page last night

http://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/2k2r6t/if_anyone_is_interested_here_is_rirelands/clhg7il

Lovely Bloke

So, if a user "threatens legal action" they get banned.

If any kind of organisation "threatens legal action" they get whatever they complain about removed from Boards.

That's about the crux of it yeah?

Dav

Well we can't exactly ban them when they're not members?

We're still awaiting any official communication from the Israeli embassy on this. Having seen some of the vitriolic hate speech that comes from that account, I'm not going to hold my breath. If nothing comes from them, I might just set the thread live again and let discussion carry on, but that's not guaranteed.

Gordon

I get a bit of an impression of demandyness from their (public) tweet.

Dav

I don't know who manages that Twitter account, but as someone who works in this field, I'd be deeply concerned over the sort of message that particular account sends out.

(that's how you do diplomacy folks )

My name is URL

It's possible that the (faked/hacked/unofficial) Tweet isn't even the issue for them, but rather the other links I posted in that thread.. about your man being charged with harassing a woman, and his wife threatening to 'out' people who she disagrees with.. for which details of both are already in the public domain.

oscarBravo

Dav wrote: »

I don't know who manages that Twitter account, but as someone who works in this field, I'd be deeply concerned over the sort of message that particular account sends out.

I'm reminded of this memorable exchange:



To which the following reply was sent:

dr.bollocko

Giving accounts like that any kind of credence just helps spread their message.

Christ I feel bad even commenting on it. Best dismissed, deleted, ignored, removed.

Tokyo

Looks like it's made the papers...

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/trending/absolutely-outrageous-completely-fake-tweet-falsely-attributed-to-the-israeli-embassy-goes-viral-30689636.html

My name is URL

Any official word from them yet? Just curious... it's not a big deal if the thread isn't put back up.

Reiver

So the Israeli embassy can now get threads locked in Boards. Truly they are masters of the dark arts!

My name is URL

Reiver wrote: »

So the Israeli embassy can now get threads locked in Boards. Truly they are masters of the dark arts!

Not just locked, but deleted. And all from a threat (downright lie really) made on Twitter.

They said they demanded that Boards remove the thread, but Boards have said that they haven't even contacted them.

Kinda laughable really. I don't care about the thread at this stage, but I'd like to know if Boards have received an official request to remove it other than a load of bluster written by a lunatic on Twitter.

shruikan2553

My name is URL wrote: »

Not just locked, but deleted. And all from a threat (downright lie really) made on Twitter.

They said they demanded that Boards remove the thread, but Boards have said that they haven't even contacted them.

Kinda laughable really. I don't care about the thread at this stage, but I'd like to know if Boards have received an official request to remove it other than a load of bluster written by a lunatic on Twitter.

Careful, they might come for you if you dont watch yourself. They are printing signs about how you hate Jews :pac:

Nodin

Let's not be negative towards them. After all, they show those of us lacking in people skills that there is no glass ceiling.

ireland.man

So any updates on this situation? Will the original thread remain closed? And will the exact reasons be specified so we can avoid future short-lived threads like this?

Cheers!

Dav

Simply put, I couldn't reinstate the thread because it starts off calling them scum-bags (open and shut defamation - go straight to jail - do not pass go) and descends from there on.

If people could have these conversations without resorting to the sorts of comments that gets a publisher like us in legal trouble, there'd be no problems at all, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

So I'm sorry folks, that particular thread has to remain deleted, however, I am absolutely happy for any discussion to go ahead about the issue as long as people keep it legal. The moment the office is notified of it, we have to act, that's just how it works - it's the only way we can stay online and out of court.

P_1

Didn't know that calling somebody a scumbag, unpleasant as it is, was grounds for them taking legal proceedings on defamation grounds. One for the "you learn something new every day" file.

Just out of interest I'm guessing that something like "x has acted in a rather scumbaggery way" is ok defamation wise but "x is a scumbag" isn't?

GerB40

Dav wrote: »

Simply put, I couldn't reinstate the thread because it starts off calling them scum-bags (open and shut defamation - go straight to jail - do not pass go) and descends from there on.

If people could have these conversations without resorting to the sorts of comments that gets a publisher like us in legal trouble, there'd be no problems at all, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

So I'm sorry folks, that particular thread has to remain deleted, however, I am absolutely happy for any discussion to go ahead about the issue as long as people keep it legal. The moment the office is notified of it, we have to act, that's just how it works - it's the only way we can stay online and out of court.

See this is the problem. Although normal discourse on this subject can happen, it's impossible to talk about what Israel are doing to Palestine without words like scumbags, murderers, and even worse racist slurs cropping up.

I'm pro Palestine but I recognise that Judaism isn't at fault. It's the Isreali government who have been proven to be terrorising men women and children of Palestine.

The whole issue is too heated for impartiality so in my opinion, as long as discussion can be kept legal a highly moderated thread is not only possible, but needed..

Moaner Lisas Hairy Arse

irishcentral.com/news/politics/Referendum-may-soon-abolish-Irelands-blasphemy-laws.html

Ireland will hold a referendum to abolish its blasphemy laws. The vote is expected to take place some time early in 2015, Junior Minister Aodhán Ó’Ríordáin announced last week.

“Blasphemous matter” was deemed a punishable offense under Ireland’s 1937 constitution. The 2009 Defamation Act defined blasphemy as “publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defenses permitted.”

Currently, the offense is punishable by a fine of up to €25,000 ($31,600).

"In practice, there have been no prosecutions under the 2009 Act and the last public prosecution for blasphemy in Ireland appears to have been brought in 1855," Aodhan O Riordain told parliament on Thursday.

Ó’Ríordáin said it hadn’t been decided yet whether the amendment would simply remove the crime of blasphemy, or replace it with a ban on incitement to religious hatred.

It is also unclear whether the ban on blasphemy found in the Defamation Act would remain law, or be replaced by an offense of incitement to religious hatred.

In his speech, the Labour TD said that Ireland already has a ban on incitement to hatred, including on religious grounds.

Atheist and secular campaigners are welcoming government’s decision, the Guardian reports.

Michael Nugent, one of the founders of Atheist Ireland, said the move was “urgent and overdue.”

“Islamic states at the UN have been citing Ireland’s blasphemy law as evidence that modern European states have no problem with outlawing blasphemy just as Islamic states do. You know you are doing something wrong when Pakistan is citing you as best practice for blasphemy laws,” said Nugent, a comedy writer.

He says the law should not be replaced with new clauses outlawing insult to religions.

“We already have laws against incitement to hatred on a number of grounds, including gender, religion, sexuality and race. Why single out religion again and give it extra protection in the constitution?”

Former justice minister Dermot Ahern says the blasphemy law is need as the 1937 constitution extends the protection of belief only to Christians.

Soon we'll be able to call everyone a scumbag.

ireland.man

Dav wrote: »

Simply put, I couldn't reinstate the thread because it starts off calling them scum-bags (open and shut defamation - go straight to jail - do not pass go) and descends from there on.

If people could have these conversations without resorting to the sorts of comments that gets a publisher like us in legal trouble, there'd be no problems at all, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

So I'm sorry folks, that particular thread has to remain deleted, however, I am absolutely happy for any discussion to go ahead about the issue as long as people keep it legal. The moment the office is notified of it, we have to act, that's just how it works - it's the only way we can stay online and out of court.

That's fair enough but just for consistency, can we have the exact reason why the thread must remain closed? Is the word scumbag off limits? There's far more racism and sexism and prejudice found throughout other AH threads that closing this one seems, again, inconsistent.

Dav

I gave you the exact reason - defamation. I'm not trying to be flippant, but when the office is made aware of a specific legal issue on the site, it has to act. There may well be other breaches of law across the site, but they've not been reported. Most of the time the mods nip these sorts of things in the bud before the party or parties mentioned come across it and notify us - in this case though the mods kicked it up the line to us to get a final decision.

Again, I don't want people to think they can't talk about these things, but they can't break the law when they do, that's all.

Little CuChulainn

P_1 wrote: »

Didn't know that calling somebody a scumbag, unpleasant as it is, was grounds for them taking legal proceedings on defamation grounds.

It's not. There is a specific exclusion in defamation law for an honest opinion.

Dav

No there isn't.

There're are 3 exclusions to defamation law: Truth, Absolute Privilege and Qualified Privilege. Now, if you can tell me where calling someone a scum-bag falls into any of those 3 and you're prepared to bet an entire company on being able to prove it, come back to me and we'll talk.

Given a giant like RTÉ paid out to people like John Waters and the Iona darlings based on statements made by Rory O'Neill that are demonstrably true and are the truth as defined by a significant chunk of this country's populace and our government's reluctance to stand up against the sorts of atrocities we're seeing happening to Palestinian citizens, how well do you think they'll help us out in what amounts to an international issue?

Little CuChulainn

Dav wrote: »

No there isn't.

There're are 3 exclusions to defamation law: Truth, Absolute Privilege and Qualified Privilege. Now, if you can tell me where calling someone a scum-bag falls into any of those 3 and you're prepared to bet an entire company on being able to prove it, come back to me and we'll talk.

Yes there is. Section 20, the defence of honest opinion.

Dav wrote: »

Given a giant like RTÉ paid out to people like John Waters and the Iona darlings based on statements made by Rory O'Neill that are demonstrably true and are the truth as defined by a significant chunk of this country's populace and our government's reluctance to stand up against the sorts of atrocities we're seeing happening to Palestinian citizens, how well do you think they'll help us out in what amounts to an international issue?

They won't help you out. And I don't blame you for removing the thread as the Israelis have much more financial power than you. Doesn't change the fact that an honest opinion is still covered.

My name is URL

Ambassador - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3382506,00.html

Boaz Modai, Head of the Instruction Branch in the Foreign Ministry, admitted to harassing a woman in his office, police told Ynet Wednesday.

This had cost him many sleepless nights, he said, and thus "there was no reason for the complainant to sleep well."

Deputy Ambassador - http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/13/a-message-from-israels-deputy-ambassador-to-ireland/

“We can find names of [those] Israelis [who support Palestinians]… we should hit their soft spot, publish their pictures, maybe it will embarrass their friends and relatives at home, and hopefully the local [Palestinian] activists will think that they work for the Mossad

The acts of these activists are, I think, not ideologically motivated, but rather have to do with psychological reasons (disappointment with their parents or problems with their sexual identity)

People have been called scumbags on the site for far less than that!

Dav

And those of whom who've threatened us with legal action over same have had the threads removed.

The Honest Opinion clause, as it was explained to me (and I freely acknowledge that my information on this may be incomplete or not accurate) is there to protect against something like reporting about or discussing someone who was found guilty of something and then new evidence came to light some time later that showed them to be innocent - so at the time of publications the facts were believed to be true beyond doubt, but have subsequently been proven false.

My name is URL

Is there any chance that Boards would just pass responsibility for what is posted on to users?

I posted what I posted.. and I stand over it.

A literal shit-tonne of others also seen the post on their page.

Who are they going to sue?

Penn

My name is URL wrote: »

Is there any chance that Boards would just pass responsibility for what is posted on to users?

It's not a question of "won't", it's "can't". Boards are still legally responsible if they don't remove such posts once notified of potential legal action.

Dav

Penn wrote: »

It's not a question of "won't", it's "can't". Boards are still legally responsible if they don't remove such posts once notified of potential legal action.

^ This.

We're still the publisher.

The defamed party can, should they choose, go after the person who said it too, but we have no way of bypassing our link in the chain except for the removal upon notification.

ireland.man

I think the example a mod used to support their closing the thread, the example of the John Waters case and RTE was a perfect analogy. A lot of people were shocked that RTE caved in so quickly and the fact they paid taxpayers money out without any sort of fight or input from the public was widely seen as very undemocratic.

We have the same issue here. A powerful force generally threatens this space of political discussion and immediately Boards caves in and closes the thread without much of a counter-argument or seemingly looking for proof of potential defamation (I assume Boards didn't have time to discuss this matter in detail with the embassy since they closed the thread within hours of the twitter complaint).

I understand the fear of liability and it's a very difficult position for Boards to be in but simply put, the thread was closed far too quickly to allow any kind of transparency, and all seemingly down to a single general tweet threatening legal action on the embassy's account. There was no proof given to say the original post in the thread was wrong or defamatory. It's very much a stark reminder that Boards is a business and not completely a free space to exchange ideas.

Dav

What sort of transparency are you looking for? This is as open and shut as it gets folks - someone finds they've been defamed, they notify us, we take it down. This has been our stated policy for years.

The Embassy's claim wasn't up for discussion, it didn't have to be, calling someone or a group of someone's a scum-bag is defamation. It cannot be clearer than that. Ironically, if you turned it up to 11 and called them every name under the sun, you're exempt because "gross abuse" is not considered to have an impact on any "right thinking individual's" opinion on someone. But, we don't allow that level of vitriol here on Boards - so having rules makes you more vulnerable.

Gatling

There was another thread removed in the last 24 hrs from AH I take it for the same Threat of legal action .
Followed by a mod warning in a separate thread warning of action against discussion of a case that already been through the courts resulting in 3 people been convicted of sexual assault .

Where would the thread of defamation come into it ??

El Weirdo

Gatling wrote: »

There was another thread removed in the last 24 hrs from AH I take it for the same Threat of legal action .
Followed by a mod warning in a separate thread warning of action against discussion of a case that already been through the courts resulting in 3 people been convicted of sexual assault .

Where would the thread of defamation come into it ??

Probably nothing to do with defamation, but contempt of court?

I haven't seen the thread or mod warning so I could be way off the mark.

Darkglasses

Gatling wrote: »

There was another thread removed in the last 24 hrs from AH I take it for the same Threat of legal action .
Followed by a mod warning in a separate thread warning of action against discussion of a case that already been through the courts resulting in 3 people been convicted of sexual assault .

Where would the thread of defamation come into it ??

Did you pm one of the mods and ask them? They're the people to ask about moderating matters 99.9% of the time.

Gatling

Darkglasses wrote: »

Did you pm one of the mods and ask them? They're the people to ask about moderating matters 99.9% of the time.

Yes i did .

I came across this yesterday didn't want to start a similar thread

Dav

That fell under Contempt of Court - the names of the 3 men convicted should never have been revealed as they were minors at the time of the crime, I suspect the papers who initially published them may be getting reprimanded for that. We received a letter from one of the convicted men's solicitor about it.

Gatling

Dav wrote: »

That fell under Contempt of Court - the names of the 3 men convicted should never have been revealed as they were minors at the time of the crime, I suspect the papers who initially published them may be getting reprimanded for that. We received a letter from one of the convicted men's solicitor about it.

Seriously that was quick ,

Didn't think there would be an issue been the 3 convicted were all in there 20's so discussion of the case is a total no no ,
I'll take note for further reference ,

Thanks Dav

Dav

Yea, I'd imagine that the papers that initially published too thought the same, but as the crimes were committed when they were minors and the victim too was a minor, the restrictions in reporting come into play.

Niamh informs me that I was in error, we actually received 3 letters - one each for the three men named - I had only seen one of them.

Gatling

Dav wrote: »

Yea, I'd imagine that the papers that initially published too thought the same, but as the crimes were committed when they were minors and the victim too was a minor, the restrictions in reporting come into play.

Niamh informs me that I was in error, we actually received 3 letters - one each for the three men named - I had only seen one of them.

One was identified i didn't see the other name's myself ,i would have thought if they were found guilty and put on the sex offenders register then they could be identified ,

Little CuChulainn

Gatling wrote: »

One was identified i didn't see the other name's myself ,i would have thought if they were found guilty and put on the sex offenders register then they could be identified ,

Ireland doesn't really have a sex offenders register, certainly nothing public. It just has obligations to notify and deal with local Gardaí.

My name is URL

These were the days! Did the mental ****s ever get back to ye?

Boards.ie: Niamh

I'm not sure that they did. Zombie thread closed.