Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Thread removed from AH and no reason given

2»

Comments



  • 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?




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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. :)


  • Advertisement


  • 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 ??




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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




  • 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.




  • 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 ,




  • 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.




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


  • Boards.ie Community Manager


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


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement