The "we don't discuss things before the courts" thing

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697018#Comment_123697018

If your mind is so made up there's really no point in having this conversation.

You're taking what's being said and creating your own narrative at this point.

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697068#Comment_123697068

I thought I was giving you enough room to develop your case.

No to worry, let's call it an adjournment.

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697097#Comment_123697097

There's clearly room for some changes in the implementation of the rule. Particularly when it comes to cases outside Ireland.

You're just being a smart Alec tbh, what's the point in developing anything when your intent is to take the p1ss?

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697104#Comment_123697104

Sorry you feel that way.

And to think you were the one complaining about closing down conversations.

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697118#Comment_123697118

Touche.

Here's an easy one.

Should boards.ie close discussion of cases before the courts outside of Ireland?

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697130#Comment_123697130

Ok, let bygones etc.

I think the owner of the site should, if he is so minded, seek independent legal advice on that matter and then proceed as he sees fit.

If I have an interest in some such case in another jurisdiction I certainly won't be bothered reading pages of commentary here.

Avatar in the Post

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697062#Comment_123697062

“Why the immediate rush to shut down postings on every case that comes to public attention?”

Who is going to monitor court status?

Despite some paying, the vast majority use this as a free service. What you are suggesting is a more costly website, with paid mods in legal and other forums.

Avatar in the Post

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697062#Comment_123697062

Twitter for example does get sued and they do remove posts, and they have paid staff to act on complaints. Boards.ie have adopted a low cost/low risk model. Nobody pro court case discussions answered this other than, ‘shur there’s no real risk, and should let us post on court cases’. It’s easy to say when not potentially liable.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123696680#Comment_123696680

Discussions about the media reporting can be enlightening.

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697228#Comment_123697228

Could be problematic to host a discussion about the media reporting because comments might stray into unforeseen areas.

It would be difficult for voluntary mods to monitor.

Anyway such discussions about media reporting could wat until the case concludes.

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697155#Comment_123697155

I honestly don't see the need for the belt and braces approach to this that you're so keen on.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697337#Comment_123697337

Might be forum specific, loads of forums allow discussion after sentencing or it's thrown out.

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697716#Comment_123697716

There was also talk of a paid members only forum, not readable to the public when the subscriptions were announced.

Such conversations could live there with no consequence.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697915#Comment_123697915

The same way conversations about moderation in the top secret moderator forum lived with no consequence? Oh wait...

I get your sentiment and in theory it would be a great solution, however with such a low bar for admission (the price of a pint) any notion of privacy is out the window. I'd view such a forum as a place for subscribers to give some feedback (and maybe foster a subscriber community) but nothing more really.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697915#Comment_123697915

And that doesn't really deal with the issue. Just because it's paid to access doesn't eliminate the legal risk. I honestly don't get why posters view it as urgent to discuss ongoing cases.

Prior to this you said it was needed to keep the site alive but I don't see people paying to simply be able to discuss ongoing cases. Ongoing cases are subject to plenty of rumor and such content being published on the site is not beneficial and it can absolutely affect a case if a jury member encounters it.

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697337#Comment_123697337

In fairness I have been told that I'm overly cautious when it comes to legal matters.

I've even doubted myself in the past but my approach has seen me through some sticky situations.

When it comes down to it I just don't think the advantage of having discussion of cases while they are being tried outweigh the possible consequences.

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123698064#Comment_123698064

Consequences that haven't been defined. Particularly in relation to cases outside of Ireland.

PixelCrafter

The biggest problem is that cases in Ireland have collapsed in the past due to excessive media attention. Courts here have a tendency to accept an argument that the accused cannot get a fair trial, and the case ends up falling apart.

Ireland's unusual in that courts seem to accept that as a valid reason for a case not to proceed, far more readily they they do in other Common Law jurisdictions. Usually a judge can just instruct the jury to disregard and ignore media coverage.

daheff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123693449#Comment_123693449

to allow a free discussion of the issue

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123697258#Comment_123697258

You won't get much traction discussing media coverage of 6-12 months ago.

gameoverdude

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123696633#Comment_123696633

Morally is a amusing

gameoverdude

Israel

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123699009#Comment_123699009

There are quite a few posts over the last couple of days discussing this point.

To summarise my position briefly it's -

1 - there are legal and practical difficulties for mods and the site owner

2 - I don't think there is much value in discussing cases parallel to they being tried in court

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123699031#Comment_123699031

Possibly not but if the matter under discussion is compelling enough it might gather interest.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123699096#Comment_123699096

In what way?

johnny_ultimate

Frankly: I think a blanket ban on sub judice court proceedings is one of the smarter policies any Irish organisation with an open discussion forum can implement, whether that's boards or a media organisation with a social presence. Talking about Irish jury trials specifically here rather than every legal case before the courts, of course.

Not just does it protect the organisation and the posters themselves, it protects the trial itself. Both the accussed and, even more importantly, the victims are entitled to a fair trial. It's a very, very real risk that a trial could collapse from some wayward online comments - plenty of judges have very low tolerance for that sort of thing, and yes a juror could be swayed by an opinion someone has online rather that what they heard in the courtroom. Having had cause to monitor comments on social media pages for media organisations before, I learned pretty quickly people will say the stupidest, riskiest and often most inaccurate things under trial reports - so it's no surprise at all organisations implement a blanket ban, because the moderation burden and legal risks are just too big.

The best way for a trial to be reported on is for trained court reporters to do their job and keep the public informed about the day-to-day happenings while avoiding any kind of colour commentary or opining until the trial is done. Having seen them at work, it's an incredibly skilled and careful field of journalism. Especially when it comes to live tv / radio, where you really need to be careful to not step beyond the reporting limitations despite what you might have heard in court. The Kriegel case was the most high-profile example. No surprise there were a few slip-ups.

Different rules should certainly apply for non-jury cases. But for those jury cases, it doesn't really matter what other jurisdictions or indeed other websites allow. Of course a lot of discussions happen in person that some people want to see online. IMO Boards has it right and we should be happy that active court cases don't turn into free for all circuses. There will be a point when people are free to discuss what took place in a trial. But when it's going on, personally I put more value in a fair legal process than the capacity of randomers to sound off online about it.

Beasty

Who should judge what should be allowed and what should not?

We cannot assume any relevant legal knowledge/training for Mods, Cmods or Admins. Newspapers and other press outlets pay lawyers to stay on the right side of the law.

I think it was the Belfast rugby case where the judge referenced social media comment across the island indicating it could be prejudicial. And yes this island includes an area subject to different laws. Can actions in one jurisdiction affect cases in another? Maybe someone should pay a lawyer for an opinion on the matter. As I understand it the current rule was on the back of legal advice

And i know cases in other jurisdictions have seen some commentary. Particularly the US.

If someone reports, we have a site rule we are required to follow. We are not though expected to scrutinise posts that are not reported.

I realise some will think the risks are low. They are there nonetheless. And yes this site is exposed as "publisher" as is the author. The author though is anonymous. It's possible they could not be tracked down, leaving Boards to face the music

odyssey06

Is the legal advice still on file at Boards HQ?
Can it be re-read to see if 'the courts' was intended to mean global and not just the jurisdictions on the island of Ireland?

hullaballoo

fwiw i think i provided advice on this although there is a good chance external advice (so to speak) was also received at various points down the years. presuming the legal advisors were at least half competent, the advice will have been consistent. there are many various reasons why this rule is in place that trump free expression.

at a basic level, public discussion of cases before the courts is illegal. yeah there's a real legal risk to boards and directors etc. of being imprisoned if discussion was allowed. but that's not even half the picture. leaving aside the illegality, it's not a good idea for social reasons as well as legal ones (and yes they mix together.

2 bad things that pop into my head immediately - it could either (a) result in someone innocent going to prison if a jury was influenced by internet sleuths who get this stuff totally wrong all the time or (b) worse for some, result in someone guilty getting away with it because their lawyers spotted the online discussion and got a mistrial from the judge.

there are a heap of other reasons from a social and legal perspective why this policy has always been in place and as others have said, there are other websites that could take a leaf from the book of boards on this one.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123739395#Comment_123739395

That doesn't answer a lot of the questions raised on the thread though.
I would agree with what you have written as it relates to a jury trial in Ireland.

But:
Does the "the courts" really mean anywhere in the world?
Even if it's not illegal to comment on it in the country the trial is taking place?
Even if it's a non-jury trial?