Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Youths doing ****ty things but not shooting anyone
Options
Comments
-
-
ILoveYourVibes wrote: »My arguement could be anything in a court of law.
No, it couldn't. If you're taking a case to a court of law in Ireland, you'd have to name the respondent/defendant at the outset. You were arguing a private individual was breaking the law by videoing in a public space - He wasn't.
I'm not getting into the GDPR obligations of Facebook surrounding the hosting of videos. or RTÉ or the Mexican website with the article. Harassment is a separate matter altogether.ILoveYourVibes wrote: »there would be snippets of hundreds of areas that could apply to any published image - as others have mentioned above, data protection, privacy, etc etc etc.
So quote it? Someone with a law degree should be able to specifically highlight. Citing a full act doesn't cut it. You cited the Childcare Act 1991 earlier, which relates to childcare services. Unless you're arguing that the guy videoing was running a pre-school while he videoed this, you're talking absolute nonsense.ILoveYourVibes wrote: »This is not a personal activity. He could be considered a data controller.
You'd have a very tough time arguing that it was taken for commercial purposes. He's hardly making profit from the video.ILoveYourVibes wrote: »Ask in legal discussion. Might be interesting.
Do the Kings Inn refer much stuff to Boards.ie? I'm sure that'd be a solid retort in a court of law. You're all over the place.
The fact is that you don't know and you haven't managed to cite a single piece of legislation correctly to support your argument. The man who took the video was perfectly entitled to do so, as it was in a public space. I think it was also pretty a wise decision to protect himself, considering the accusations and abuse that were being leveled at him.
I think I'm done feeding the troll, now.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I have lots!No, it couldn't. If you're taking a case to a court of law in Ireland, you'd have to name the respondent/defendant at the outset. You were arguing a private individual was breaking the law by videoing in a public space - He wasn't.
I'm not getting into the GDPR obligations of Facebook surrounding the hosting of videos. or RTÉ or the Mexican website with the article. Harassment is a separate matter altogether.
So quote it? Someone with a law degree should be able to specifically highlight. Citing a full act doesn't cut it. You cited the Childcare Act 1991 earlier, which relates to childcare services. Unless you're arguing that the guy videoing was running a pre-school while he videoed this, you're talking absolute nonsense.
You'd have a very tough time arguing that it was taken for commercial purposes. He's hardly making profit from the video.
Do the Kings Inn refer much stuff to Boards.ie? I'm sure that'd be a solid retort in a court of law. You're all over the place.
The fact is that you don't know and you haven't managed to cite a single piece of legislation correctly to support your argument. The man who took the video was perfectly entitled to do so, as it was in a public space. I think it was also pretty a wise decision to protect himself, considering the accusations and abuse that were being leveled at him.
I think I'm done feeding the troll, now.0 -
No, it couldn't. If you're taking a case to a court of law in Ireland, you'd have to name the respondent/defendant at the outset. You were arguing a private individual was breaking the law by videoing in a public space - He wasn't.
I'm not getting into the GDPR obligations of Facebook surrounding the hosting of videos. or RTÉ or the Mexican website with the article. Harassment is a separate matter altogether.
So quote it? Someone with a law degree should be able to specifically highlight. Citing a full act doesn't cut it. You cited the Childcare Act 1991 earlier, which relates to childcare services. Unless you're arguing that the guy videoing was running a pre-school while he videoed this, you're talking absolute nonsense.
You'd have a very tough time arguing that it was taken for commercial purposes. He's hardly making profit from the video.
Do the Kings Inn refer much stuff to Boards.ie? I'm sure that'd be a solid retort in a court of law. You're all over the place.
The fact is that you don't know and you haven't managed to cite a single piece of legislation correctly to support your argument. The man who took the video was perfectly entitled to do so, as it was in a public space. I think it was also pretty a wise decision to protect himself, considering the accusations and abuse that were being leveled at him.
I think I'm done feeding the troll, now.
He doesn't have to be doing it for commercial purposes.
If you, as an individual or an organisation, collect, store or process any data about living people on any type of computer,phone or in a structured filing system, then you are a data controller.
His best defense imo is THIS IS A ONE OFF!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Firing welfare around with no questions asked doesn’t help either.
Put the two together and you’ve the perfect breeding ground for scumbags.
I’ve never seen anyone on social welfare with braces. Theres a massive waiting list for children’s orthodontics in this country, never mind the rarity for the HSE to fund braces on medical card. Someone has forked out a couple G’s for their child’s orthodontics there.
Accept it that this is the middle class, newish bicycles no doubt bought for Christmas last December, the €20 ridiculously looking haircuts of the young lads, the Helly Hansen clothes.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Danielle Bregoliis_that_so wrote: »Real life will wipe that cockiness off her face or more likely sadly shorten it.
She is worth 3 million. She became famous from that one clip.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement