A discussion on the rules.

porsche959

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's boring - almost a cliche- to have to even mention this, but the second largest political party, and some in the party currently in government (not all, the likes of John 'Unionist' Bruton is at least consistent) venerate killers who started a violent up-rising which at the time had little or no popular mandate.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote: »

It's a term to highlight the the clear association between SF and the IRA as organisations. I know supporters of SF really, really, really wish everyone would forget *their* past, but they wont. SF/IRA summarises why SF is transfer toxic. It summarises why people roll their eyes when SF tries to moralise. It summarises why the idea of SF getting any influence over the army or police in the Republic worries reasonable people.

It does not worry me that some people use the phrase SF/IRA instead of SF. If anything, it highlights their own childishness

porsche959

Sand wrote: »

It's a term to highlight the the clear association between SF and the IRA as organisations. I know supporters of SF really, really, really wish everyone would forget *their* past, but they wont. SF/IRA summarises why SF is transfer toxic. It summarises why people roll their eyes when SF tries to moralise. It summarises why the idea of SF getting any influence over the army or police in the Republic worries reasonable people.

The IRA is on permanent ceasfire and has decommissioned, effectively, wound itself up.

Are you against the peace process?

Godge

Sand wrote: »

There is a significant number of problems with your logic, which is probably why there has never been a successful case taken for use of the "SF/IRA" phrase to my knowledge despite it being in widespread, public use. It's also probably why someone cant come on boards, make a series of racist posts and then sue boards.ie for defamation when they are banned with at least one reason offered being that they are racist.

Is "member of SF/IRA" interchangeable with "member of the IRA"? No. The latter is a specific, illegal, terrorist organisation. The former is a catchall phrase which summarises the well known links between that terrorist group an the legal, political party. Proving the link to the satisfaction of a court wouldn't be hard when SF are selling IRA T Shirts. Even the phrase "SF/IRA" acknowledges there is a (thin) separation between SF and the IRA. Otherwise SF would just be referred to as the IRA.

Does a statement that a member of SF is a member of "SF/IRA" tend to injure a persons reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society? No. Reasonable members of society see the clear links between SF and the IRA, in their gift shop, in their leadership, in their activists and in their praise for the IRA and its acts. SF revel in the association.

A member or supporter of SF's reputation is already affected by SFs association with the IRA - describing them as being a member or supporter of "SF/IRA" again is not an accusation of being a member of the IRA.



I wouldn't either, but this is a politics forum for discussion by individuals, not a press release by a party, group or organisation.

While we're on the topic of defamation, do we really want the rules to be set by that? I don't mind but I think *a lot* of the Provo posters will mind because I note a real tendency to make defamatory statements about groups and individuals.

Describing members of the Orange Order or anyone participating in a Orange Order parade as "bigoted" or "sectarian" would tend to injure an individuals reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society? So the Mods should be infracting and banning anyone who describes members/marchers of the Orange Order in those terms right?

How about direct defamatory attacks on individuals by some posters here?

Here's one made just yesterday



There are two defamatory statements made about a named individual, the latter a clear attempt to undermine her reputation with the public. As at the time of posting this, it was thanked by Happyman42, amongst others. I don't know how he rationalises his thanks for that post with his campaign for preventing defamatory statements about groups or individuals. Of course, my cynicism tells me people who want to ban the phrase "SF/IRA" want to keep their terms for their opponents still available. How could you make a valid point without calling someone a West Brit afterall?

The various supporters of the initiative to ban use of "SF/IRA" either for reasons of encouraging good debate, or in a misguided attempt to protect Boards from legal threats need to consider if they *really* want the result they're aiming for. From my perspective, as demonstrated above, there is a real tendency to attack named individuals and members of groups so if they want infractions and bans handed out for it, then they will be picking up the bans a lot quicker than anyone else.

Or, there could be a recognition that this is politics forum, not a court room or a echo chamber where opposing views are banned. There will be views they don't like, and they just need to toughen up and get on with it.

I would agree with all of the above.

I would only add the following:

(1) Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein has said quite clearly that he will never disassociate himself from the IRA.

(2) There are a number of members of Sinn Fein who have been convicted of IRA membership.


Anyway, I don't think we need any further discussion on this issue.


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-disgraced-30675107.html

The phrase "SF/IRA leadership" has been used fairly liberally in that article. Given the propensity of Gerry and the lads to report the Indo to the PCC, we shall hear sooner or later whether it is an acceptable phrase and boards can fall in line with what is allowed in the mainstream media. In the meantime, if it is ok for a newspaper, can't see why it is a problem here.

I wouldn't be optimistic about SF succeeding. Despite what they said the other day, it seems they lost 6-3 the last time they played the Indo.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/now-adams-thinks-hes-curbed-us-he-has-not-30674875.html


"But Mr Adams's proclamation that the "Independent Group" had been forced to apologise to him was not true. It was, in fact, a lie. There was no apology, forced or otherwise. It was black propaganda. "

Sand

porsche959 wrote: »

Are you against the peace process?

Oh man. That's hilarious.

porsche959

Sand wrote: »

Oh man. That's hilarious.

So, you don't wish to answer the question?

porsche959

Godge wrote: »

Anyway, I don't think we need any further discussion on this issue.

Far from it, I think discussion should continue. This is a discussion forum, right?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

porsche959

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't, as a rule, put much credence on unsigned articles from the Labour party's inhouse propaganda machine. Odd to see you of all posters, with your pro-free market anti-big government agenda, citing it as the source of wisdom!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

To paraphrase Groucho; do we really want to be members of a club that includes the Sindo?
I still haven't seen a convincing argument against my suggestion that the rule should be to use the name and abbreviation that a party uses itself. One rule for all, surely that is being fair to all.
As Godge proves in this post, it is possible to historically link within a post without using a currently offensive and incorrect abbreviation.(Which he is entitled to do if he wishes and it is relevant)

Godge wrote: »

SF want us to move on from their past.

Not all of us want to forget the part that McGuinness, Ferris, Ellis, Adams and others played in despicable events.

I keep getting attacked for saying this but the reality is there are many many people who will not forget however much SF want us to.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well considering some of those terms are already banned your not really helping your point

A Dub in Glasgo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

or Queen Elizabeth I

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Sindo was using SF/IRA because it was historical and because the IRA are involved in the allegations.
Would the Sindo print the following; 'Gerry Adams Addresses The SF/IRA Party Conference and get away with it, do you think?

So, you would also ban the terms "Shinners," "Fianna Failure," "Zanu-FF," and any other such colorful nickname?

Would we also have to refer to the head of state of the UK as "Queen Elizabeth II," and the former prime minister as "Baroness Margaret Thatcher"?

I am referring to the use of party titles, so yes Fianna Failure and Zanu-FF would be off limits.

glic71rods46t0

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Well considering some of those terms are already banned your not really helping your point

Wow. A fairly serious own goal. Just wow!

jank

Are people seriously still arguing that the term 'Sinn Fein/IRA' offensive and a bannable offence.
This weekend Michael Martin, the leader of the largest opposition party did an interview with Newstalk. He used the term on a number of occasions. It is in the public lexicon for very obvious reasons. Only Sinn Fein supporters seam to have an issue with this. If self proclaimed Republicans on this forum are unhappy about this, then they should lobby Sinn Fein to stop selling IRA merchandise and ask for all past known and suspected members of the IRA to vacate their seats.

FreudianSlippers

Firstly, let point out that I'm obviously not a mod here so my contribution is merely to clarify some points raised regarding the law of defamation in Ireland.

Secondly, I should also say that I am against the banning of terms in this forum as a general rule - it follows that I believe the use of "SF/IRA" should be considered on a case by case basis (i.e. that it should be considered in the context of the post; this may become more clear in a moment).

One of the main points in relation to the law of defamation is that statements are both actionable without proof of damage and presumed to be false unless a successful defence is raised. There has been a lot of discussion about what a jury would or wouldn't find defamatory - flat out, as a practitioner in this area, you just never know what a jury is going to do in these cases. It would be particularly unwise to attempt to guess what would be a successful defence in these cases.

In relation to defamation of a class of persons, Section 10 of the Defamation Act 2009 states:

Where a person publishes a defamatory statement concerning a class of persons, a member of that class shall have a cause of action under this Act against that person if—

(a) by reason of the number of persons who are members of that class, or

(b) by virtue of the circumstances in which the statement is published,

the statement could reasonably be understood to refer, in particular, to the member concerned.

Again, it is potentially defamatory to refer to "SF/IRA" in circumstances where it was reasonably understood to be referring to a specific individual within that class of people.

The final point that should be raised is the issue of liability of hosts. It is correct that there is a general legal exemption from liability of intermediary service providers. However, this can be lifted by the receipt of notice of the tort. As boards is a post-moderated site, if a post was reported as being potentially defamatory and boards failed to remove it, they could be liable for the contents of that post.

In short, whilst I believe that "SF/IRA" is potentially defamatory, it is certainly actionable where it is used to refer to a specific individual. The merits of that case and chances of success are obviously up for debate, but the key is that in law the statement is presumed false until the defendant convinces the jury otherwise - I'm not sure the mere sale of coffee mugs would be the most resounding defence.

conorh91

I'm fully in agreement with FreudianSlippers, above, only to add that the same should obviously apply to words imputing corrupt or otherwise illegal acts to identifiable politicians. the fact that something is common currency, or popular to say, does not, by itself, place it beyond the reach of the Defamation Act.

Also, to Sand, just because someone has never sued for defamation over a particular formulation does not mean it cannot be defamatory. Politicians actually tend not to be litigious regarding defamation. They may have many motivations in not taking action, including an unwillingness to antagonize the media, or to be seen to interfere with free expression.

Happyman42

conorh91 wrote: »

that the same should obviously apply to words imputing corrupt or otherwise illegal acts to identifiable politicians. .

Which is covered by the charter and well moderated in fairness I can't for instance say 'XXXXX XXXXX is guilty of paedophilia' without providing proof of that.

conorh91

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is covered by the charter and well moderated in fairness I can't for instance say 'XXXXX XXXXX is guilty of paedophilia' without providing proof of that.

I'm just mentioning it because it was specifically raised earlier in this thread as being non-actionable in light of it being a prevalent allegation.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Sindo was using SF/IRA because it was historical and because the IRA are involved in the allegations.
.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-disgraced-30675107.html

"Intense pressure on Mary Lou McDonald and new generation TDs and senators to force SF/IRA to come clean on growing sex-abuse scandals"

"The Fianna Fail leader Mr Martin yesterday expressed particular concern over "the treatment of Mairia" which he said "has been an open secret within Sinn Fein/IRA for a decade now - yet their instinct has been to marginalise and punish."

Just to give one example, the use of SF/IRA in that article does not appear to be historical in nature.

As for the use in a current context, the way the Cahill case is going, in particular the possibility she mentioned of further cases coming to light, we may see SF/IRA as an adjective coming more rather than less into use.

maccored

Thats the paper who's owning group had to apologise to Adams. They were caught out twice publishing crap about him so its no wonder they say 'SF/IRA'.

Godge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-disgraced-30675107.html

"Intense pressure on Mary Lou McDonald and new generation TDs and senators to force SF/IRA to come clean on growing sex-abuse scandals"

"The Fianna Fail leader Mr Martin yesterday expressed particular concern over "the treatment of Mairia" which he said "has been an open secret within Sinn Fein/IRA for a decade now - yet their instinct has been to marginalise and punish."

Just to give one example, the use of SF/IRA in that article does not appear to be historical in nature.

As for the use in a current context, the way the Cahill case is going, in particular the possibility she mentioned of further cases coming to light, we may see SF/IRA as an adjective coming more rather than less into use.

K-9

maccored wrote: »

Thats the paper who's owning group had to apologise to Adams. They were caught out twice publishing crap about him so its no wonder they say 'SF/IRA'.

Martin said it, and they reported it, I'd have thought that was the relevant part of the article!

Godge

maccored wrote: »

Thats the paper who's owning group had to apologise to Adams. They were caught out twice publishing crap about him so its no wonder they say 'SF/IRA'.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/now-adams-thinks-hes-curbed-us-he-has-not-30674875.html

Gerry Adams made nine separate complaints about the Independent. Three were upheld. A classic case of him throwing a lot of mud and hoping some sticks (It means he lost 6-3 by the way).

From a read of the article, by the way, it seems the more serious complaints were thrown out.

maccored

its unfortunate, but I cant actually believe anything that paper prints considering the crap they've printed so far.

Godge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/now-adams-thinks-hes-curbed-us-he-has-not-30674875.html

Gerry Adams made nine separate complaints about the Independent. Three were upheld. A classic case of him throwing a lot of mud and hoping some sticks (It means he lost 6-3 by the way).

From a read of the article, by the way, it seems the more serious complaints were thrown out.

FreudianSlippers

Godge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-disgraced-30675107.html

"Intense pressure on Mary Lou McDonald and new generation TDs and senators to force SF/IRA to come clean on growing sex-abuse scandals"

"The Fianna Fail leader Mr Martin yesterday expressed particular concern over "the treatment of Mairia" which he said "has been an open secret within Sinn Fein/IRA for a decade now - yet their instinct has been to marginalise and punish."

Just to give one example, the use of SF/IRA in that article does not appear to be historical in nature.

As for the use in a current context, the way the Cahill case is going, in particular the possibility she mentioned of further cases coming to light, we may see SF/IRA as an adjective coming more rather than less into use.

This has clearly been legalled and quite cunningly. On its face, it appears MLMcD has been defamed, but by calling her the "new generation" and saying that they want her (SF) to put pressure on SF/IRA to come clean.

Thus, specifically excluding the only identifiable person from the (potentially) defamatory statement.

tipptom

K-9 wrote: »

A mod of another forum maybe, definitely not a politics mod.

So you agree that he should not have been named on boards by a moderator irregardless of if he was mentioned on a hostile irish media who wanted to play politics with this regardless if it was going to definably prejudicing a potential trial of an alleged rapist that still could have been convicted in a court of law,and a trial that GA could have been cross examined on his role and advice to the alleged victim.

tipptom

K-9 wrote: »

This isn't really the thread for it, there's a discussion on the rules thread on the main page.

No,this is definatly the thread for it because of the medias agenda and involvment in this,i am asking you why boards and its moderators which seemed to have joined this agenda towards SF and would this fellas name would have being named if he had not being tied in with SF,IMO that it wouldn't,you are part of the broader media and I don't think a legitimate question should be tried to be censored.

K-9

tipptom wrote: »

So you agree that he should not have been named on boards by a moderator irregardless of if he was mentioned on a hostile irish media who wanted to play politics with this regardless if it was going to definably prejudicing a potential trial of an alleged rapist that still could have been convicted in a court of law,and a trial that GA could have been cross examined on his role and advice to the alleged victim.

tipptom wrote: »

No,this is definatly the thread for it because of the medias agenda and involvment in this,i am asking you why boards and its moderators which seemed to have joined this agenda towards SF and would this fellas name would have being named if he had not being tied in with SF,IMO that it wouldn't,you are part of the broader media and I don't think a legitimate question should be tried to be censored.

We just expect all users (we don't extend special dispensations to any political party supporters of any ilk) to abide by rules. It works well for the most part.