Online defamation

thestar

I saw an article yesterday on facebook about a man that was convicted of manslaughter. I read the comments and numerous people accused the convicted man and his partner of involvement in another persons disappearance.

I was surprised to see it and thought it was very silly of people. Would they not be leaving themselves open to a claim of defamation?

ChampagnePop

Interesting........

MarkAnthony

Would it lower his reputation given the conviction?

Arguable either way.

thestar

MarkAnthony wrote:

Would it lower his reputation given the conviction?

Well whatever about him, they accused another lady also

Gatling

It's one of them situation where people are adding 1+1 and getting 2.5 ,
This paticular situation has been talked about on social media and online comments sections for a number of years .

h2005

thestar wrote: »

I saw an article yesterday on facebook about a man that was convicted of manslaughter. I read the comments and numerous people accused the convicted man and his partner of involvement in another persons disappearance.

I was surprised to see it and thought it was very silly of people. Would they not be leaving themselves open to a claim of defamation?

Hes killed one person not a big leap to think he might have killed that persons sister too.

thestar

h2005 wrote:

Hes killed one person not a big leap to think he might have killed that persons sister too.

Yes, not a big leap in your own head but writing it online and blatantly accusing someone is different

h2005

thestar wrote: »

Yes, not a big leap in your own head but writing it online and blatantly accusing someone is different

Have you an example of what was posted?

nuac

Mod
Careful now

Canadel

Facebook comments sections cause for defamation now? Christ.

Mod
Could be if republished here, or linked to from here
We have to be careful ar eagla na h-eagla

wokingvoter

One particular "news" outlet on Facebook attracts the worst trolling I have ever come across. Literally hundreds of outrageous comments accusing all sorts of people of every crime from paedophilia to murder to fraud.
Then the threats start everything from a good kicking to crucifixion rape torture decapitation you name it
There was a hint of it on boards over the weekend on a thread about recent developments in the tragic Philip Cairns disappearance but it was in AH so no action was taken

IsaacWunder

For a statement to be defamatory it has to lower a person's reputation amongst right thinking people. It also has to be balanced against the right to free speech of the person who said it, and the importance of free and open debate in a democracy.

In other words defamation can't be used to censure people asking reasonable, logical and rational questions.

The man you're talking about is a convicted killer. He admitted killing one step child. Another is missing, presumed dead. It's not defamatory to wonder if he was involved in the death or disappearance of the other child.

Carawaystick

Before the defamation act, there was a case of a person in jail for killing somebody taking a libel action against a redtop tabloid for stating he was a sex abuser.
I think that person was successful, the paper claimed as he killed someone he had no good name, but the jury decided a killer was better than a sex abuser.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

coylemj

IsaacWunder wrote: »

For a statement to be defamatory it has to lower a person's reputation amongst right thinking people.

True

IsaacWunder wrote: »

It also has to be balanced against the right to free speech of the person who said it, and the importance of free and open debate in a democracy.

If you express an opinion which would tend to lower someone's reputation, it may be defamatory but you can always fall back on the 'defence of honest opinion'. However if you make a statement of fact and it can be shown to be untrue and defamatory, you can't invoke those principles as a defence, otherwise 'free speech' could be invoked to say pretty much anything as is the case in the US with the First Amendment. Over here a person is entitled to protect his reputation ....

Bunreacht na hEireann.

40.3.2 The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

Losty Dublin

Canadel wrote: »

Facebook comments sections cause for defamation now? Christ.

Mod
Could be if republished here, or linked to from here
We have to be careful ar eagla na h-eagla

I've met the people inferred to here. That's why you need to be very careful in what you say and where; you don't know who's watching and when.

coylemj

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I've met the people inferred to here. That's why you need to be very careful in what you say and where; you don't know who's watching and when.

As you're a frequent poster, I'm going to take that as bona fide advice rather than a veiled threat which is how a lot of people might interpret it.

Losty Dublin

coylemj wrote: »

As you're a frequent poster, I'm going to take that as bona fide advice rather than a veiled threat which is how a lot of people might interpret it.

It's advice. We live in a small world and from time to time it's good to watch we say and about whom.

As it happens I only met them the once so you're safe for now

Homer

Well there's one of them at least we are safe from seeing for quite a while thank god.

my friend

thestar wrote: »

MarkAnthony wrote:

Would it lower his reputation given the conviction?

Well whatever about him, they accused another lady also

She's no lady.

eldamo

my friend wrote: »

She's no lady.

Her gun is digging into your hip?

Pat Mustard

Mod:

We seem to have drifted off topic so perhaps we could move back to discuss online defamation.

davo10

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Mod:

We seem to have drifted off topic so perhaps we could move back to discuss online defamation.

Interesting case in the papers today, a judge awarded €75k for online defamation related to a Facebook post about the head of the game shooting org.

Pat Mustard

Link:

€75,000 plus costs.

In awarding the maximum allowable damages against John Gilsenan, of Grigg, Doohamlet, Castleblayney, Judge John O’Hagan told Monaghan Circuit Criminal Court on Thursday that his order should “teach people posting messages on the social media site to be very careful”.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Canadel

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I've met the people inferred to here. That's why you need to be very careful in what you say and where; you don't know who's watching and when.

The wider issue here really is the death of anonymity on the web, or what's left of it. The internet is a fabulous creation, constantly innovating and certainly the world would be unimaginable without it. But part of the magic of the internet initially was the tool of anonymity. But now it has become a dirty word. It's mostly associated with an activist hacker group who are treated with scepticism by most, and unease by many. The web is becoming a reflection of real life, but of the most basic and boring parts.

davo10 wrote: »

Interesting case in the papers today, a judge awarded €75k for online defamation related to a Facebook post about the head of the game shooting org.

While there is very little detail of the case in the article, I can't help but think this is a load of nonsense. And a deliberate precedence being set by the courts to create more of these cases, rather than chill free (no such thing as free speech) speech.

davo10

Canadel wrote: »

While there is very little detail of the case in the article, I can't help but think this is a load of nonsense. And a deliberate precedence being set by the courts to create more of these cases, rather than chill free (no such thing as free speech) speech.

I think it is a stark reminder that you cannot hide behind anonymity when you make unfounded and damaging allegations against another person or organisation on the Internet. Anonimity is not a cloak to protect you from wrongdoing of any type, and the risk of a hefty penalty may temper some of the more malicious posts online.

hullaballoo

Canadel wrote: »

The wider issue here really is the death of anonymity on the web, or what's left of it. The internet is a fabulous creation, constantly innovating and certainly the world would be unimaginable without it. But part of the magic of the internet initially was the tool of anonymity. But now it has become a dirty word. It's mostly associated with an activist hacker group who are treated with scepticism by most, and unease by many. The web is becoming a reflection of real life, but of the most basic and boring parts.
While there is very little detail of the case in the article, I can't help but think this is a load of nonsense. And a deliberate precedence being set by the courts to create more of these cases, rather than chill free (no such thing as free speech) speech.

Moderator:

You have already been warned twice about your posts on this subject. This is a collateral attack, again, on those who have chosen to remedy a wrong against them by way of legal action. It is unacceptable, as is your ignoring what the moderators have been saying to go.

Banned for one month.

Mr. Incognito

about a man that was convicted of manslaughter.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/section/31/enacted/en/html#sec31

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the court in a defamation action shall, in making an award of general damages, have regard to—


(a) the nature and gravity of any allegation in the defamatory statement concerned,


(b) the means of publication of the defamatory statement including the enduring nature of those means,


(c) the extent to which the defamatory statement was circulated,


(d) the offering or making of any apology, correction or retraction by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of the defamatory statement,


(e) the making of any offer to make amends under section 22 by the defendant, whether or not the making of that offer was pleaded as a defence,


(f) the importance to the plaintiff of his or her reputation in the eyes of particular or all recipients of the defamatory statement,

Pro Hoc Vice

Canadel wrote: »

The wider issue here really is the death of anonymity on the web, or what's left of it. The internet is a fabulous creation, constantly innovating and certainly the world would be unimaginable without it. But part of the magic of the internet initially was the tool of anonymity. But now it has become a dirty word. It's mostly associated with an activist hacker group who are treated with scepticism by most, and unease by many. The web is becoming a reflection of real life, but of the most basic and boring parts.
While there is very little detail of the case in the article, I can't help but think this is a load of nonsense. And a deliberate precedence being set by the courts to create more of these cases, rather than chill free (no such thing as free speech) speech.

Do you think free speech gives you the right to state as a fact a person in a position of trust is a thief.

"Mr Crofton gave an outline of how the Facebook comment had resulted in questions being raised by members about the organisation’s finances, and legal costs, and had resulted in a confrontation that led to him being suspended on full pay by the body."

Because of the post the person was suspended I accept on full pay but that could have led to didmissal.

The internet was never anonymous it was perceived to be but if a person wants to destroy a person's life truth is always the best defence.

"Gilsenan failed to appear in court and counsel said that although he engaged in some early communication with the plaintiff, he had since “abandoned” the matter."

If he could not stand over the statement in public he should not have made it.

jenny smith

In an interview about the 75k award a lawyer said on radio that is is the person who would be sued not the site unlike papers. So why would this site be responsible if someone defamed someone?

hullaballoo

Lawyers disagree all the time. If we didn't, we wouldn't have jobs. :pac:

I think that case, not having read it, was in relation to facebook. There are nuances to the law so that a different site might mean a successful case against both site and individual user.

Pat Mustard

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Do you think free speech gives you the right to state as a fact a person in a position of trust is a thief.

Many people think that they have the right to say whatever they want under the perceived protection of semi-anonymity. Remember the former www.rateyoursolicitor.com website, where people posted defamatory statements about lawyers and judges alike.

Pro Hoc Vice

jenny smith wrote: »

In an interview about the 75k award a lawyer said on radio that is is the person who would be sued not the site unlike papers. So why would this site be responsible if someone defamed someone?

There is a question about moderation in that if a site is the wild west no liability where if a site has moderation it's more like a newspaper.