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

A discussion on the rules.

Options
1…5354565859…89

Comments

  • Options
    #1652
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Whist we're discussing rules, can we discuss this new conspiracy that the media somehow has some agenda or is ruled by one person or the NWO or whatever. Nobody has given any evidence to support this, other than continually shouting buzzwords like "tax non dom" and other such silliness.


  • Options
    #1653
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    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.

    It's actionable where it implies a specific allegation - that is, membership of an illegal organisation. The point about "SF/IRA" being a prevalent term referring to Sinn Fein is that its prevalence means it can be argued not to carry the implication of IRA membership even when applied to an individual, and it is only that implication which is actionable.

    If someone is a member of Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein is regularly referred to as "SF/IRA", then referring to someone as "a member of SF/IRA" doesn't automatically carry the implication that they're personally a member of the IRA, only that they're a member of an organisation (SF) which is in turn connected to the IRA. I think you would have to dig further to show that the implication was specifically that the individual referred to was an IRA member.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1654
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It's actionable where it implies a specific allegation - that is, membership of an illegal organisation. The point about "SF/IRA" being a prevalent term referring to Sinn Fein is that its prevalence means it can be argued not to carry the implication of IRA membership even when applied to an individual, and it is only that implication which is actionable.

    If someone is a member of Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein is regularly referred to as "SF/IRA", then referring to someone as "a member of SF/IRA" doesn't automatically carry the implication that they're personally a member of the IRA, only that they're a member of an organisation (SF) which is in turn connected to the IRA. I think you would have to dig further to show that the implication was specifically that the individual referred to was an IRA member.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    That would certainly be the case if the onus was on the plaintiff to prove the meaning.


  • Options
    #1655
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    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.
    That's good alright. It's like saying "We're asking Fine Gael and pedophiles to stop attacks on children"...


  • Options
    #1656
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That's good alright. It's like saying "We're asking Fine Gael and pedophiles to stop attacks on children"...

    Please do go on.............

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1657
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    K-9 wrote: »
    Please do go on.............

    Put away that food you scamp! ;)


  • Options
    #1658
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It's actionable where it implies a specific allegation - that is, membership of an illegal organisation. The point about "SF/IRA" being a prevalent term referring to Sinn Fein is that its prevalence means it can be argued not to carry the implication of IRA membership even when applied to an individual, and it is only that implication which is actionable.

    If someone is a member of Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein is regularly referred to as "SF/IRA", then referring to someone as "a member of SF/IRA" doesn't automatically carry the implication that they're personally a member of the IRA, only that they're a member of an organisation (SF) which is in turn connected to the IRA. I think you would have to dig further to show that the implication was specifically that the individual referred to was an IRA member.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


    Use of the phrase "SF/IRA" implies an association between SF and the IRA. It does not imply that a member of one is a member of the other. Rather it collectively describes a particular mindset and association. Similar acronyms have been used to collectively describe left-wing groups.

    I think the current controversy is only linking SF and IRA even more closely in the public eye. The fact that Gerry Adams can talk so knowledgeably on his blog about the kangaroo courts and the motivations of the IRA over the last 45 years shows a level of understanding of the IRA that only someone closely associated with them (at the very least) would know.

    Gerry's blogs and public statements would be more than sufficient to show an association between SF/IRA in any defamation case.


  • Options
    #1659
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    That would certainly be the case if the onus was on the plaintiff to prove the meaning.

    Which, in the case of a defence of truth, it would be. One would claim that:

    1. it is true that the plaintiff is a member of Sinn Fein

    2. it is true that Sinn Fein are associated with the IRA, and that "SF/IRA" is a term commonly used to refer to that association, and used to refer to Sinn Fein

    3. it is therefore true that referring to someone as a member of "SF/IRA" can mean no more than they're a member of Sinn Fein, and that the use of the phrase by itself therefore cannot be held to establish an imputation of IRA membership by an individual.

    I'd take a bet, but I imagine it would be rather a while before it was settled, if ever.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1660
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    There is a serious problem with this forum when somebody makes a reasonable allegation based on the information in the public domain and a reasonable analysis of those facts using the standards of civil proof and is immediately shouted down by a number of posters suggesting that without criminal proof the allegation doesn't stand up.

    In particular, the way the Gerry Adams threads have been derailed by people who won't listed to reasoned arguments based on the public information and demand proof at every turn is not conducive to good discussion.

    If we were all to respond in kind to every post about the golden circle or Irish Water or Enda Kenny or Alan Shatter, the threads would melt down. Apologies for the few I posted to demonstrate how quickly this could happen.

    Examples of posts that do little to add to the sum of human knowledge on the subject of Gerry Adams and are little more than cynical attempts to stifle debate:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92733295&postcount=963

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92733101&postcount=951

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92733215&postcount=957

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92731911&postcount=924


  • Options
    #1661
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    2. it is true that Sinn Fein are associated with the IRA, and that "SF/IRA" is a term commonly used to refer to that association, and used to refer to Sinn Fein
    That's like saying Enda Kenny is commonly referred to as a c**t so it's be OK to call him that in a newspaper. Non-whites and travellers are often referred to by other names too, so I guess that's OK now?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1662
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Godge wrote: »
    Examples of posts that do little to add to the sum of human knowledge on the subject of Gerry Adams and are little more than cynical attempts to stifle debate:
    Asking for sources, evidence and data are now "cynical attempts to stifle debate". We don't we all just state our opinion then and not bother reading each other's posts if we don't care if any of it is true?


  • Options
    #1663
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That's like saying Enda Kenny is commonly referred to as a c**t so it's be OK to call him that in a newspaper. Non-whites and travellers are often referred to by other names too, so I guess that's OK now?

    No, your analogy just doesn't actually work, that's all. None of those things that people get called are organisations that actually exist, nor are the people in question organisations.

    You seem to have missed the point entirely, I'm afraid - which is fair enough, it's a reasonably complex one.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1664
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    Examples of posts that do little to add to the sum of human knowledge on the subject of Gerry Adams and are little more than cynical attempts to stifle debate:



    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92733101&postcount=951

    I asked for sources and I didn't get them.
    Are you trying to turn the place into somewhere where you can say whatever you want without backing it up?


  • Options
    #1665
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No, your analogy just doesn't actually work, that's all. None of those things that people get called are organisations that actually exist, nor are the people in question organisations.

    You seem to have missed the point entirely, I'm afraid - which is fair enough, it's a reasonably complex one.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    The IRA has also been verified by multiple independent sources as no longer existing.
    Your point? All too complicated for you?


  • Options
    #1666
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    The IRA has also been verified by multiple independent sources as no longer existing.
    Your point? All too complicated for you?

    No longer active, stood down etc. but not no longer existing. Bring me your proof that they are no longer existing.


  • Options
    #1667
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    The IRA has also been verified by multiple independent sources as no longer existing.
    Your point? All too complicated for you?

    Aaaand we're back to nitpicking again. Are you denying that the IRA ever existed? Or are you demanding that the moment they're claimed as disbanded everyone should just forget and move on? And I do say "claimed", because you know, secret illegal organisation etc, and there does seem to be some doubt over the matter.

    Anyway, I've already been round this loop once. The association is still strong enough for me to be satisfied it's reasonable to link the two organisations - a good example of which is, indeed, Gerry Adams stating that the IRA no longer exists.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1668
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    No longer active, stood down etc. but not no longer existing. Bring me your proof that they are no longer existing.

    The point is Godge and the mods, if you accuse somebody of a connection to a defunct organisation then it is up to you to provide proof.
    In the context of a current affairs debate 'SF/IRA' is wrong and wholly against the spirit of good debate.


  • Options
    #1669
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The point is Godge and the mods, if you accuse somebody of a connection to a defunct organisation then it is up to you to provide proof.
    In the context of a current affairs debate 'SF/IRA' is wrong and wholly against the sirit of good debate.

    Nobody independent has ever said that it no longer exists.

    They have said that the arms were decommissioned, they have said it is no longer active, that is had stood down, but nobody, apart from Gerry Adams (and how would he know?) has said that it no longer exists.

    If you are going to make the statement that the IRA which we know existed, no longer exists, please provide clear irrefutable evidence.


  • Options
    #1670
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    Nobody independent has ever said that it no longer exists.

    They have said that the arms were decommissioned, they have said it is no longer active, that is had stood down, but nobody, apart from Gerry Adams (and how would he know?) has said that it no longer exists.

    If you are going to make the statement that the IRA which we know existed, no longer exists, please provide clear irrefutable evidence.

    It is you and others who are using 'SF/IRA'

    I'm asking you to prove it exists and SF are connected to it currently.
    Quite simple.


  • Options
    #1671
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It is you and others who are using 'SF/IRA'

    I'm asking you to prove it exists and SF are connected to it currently. Otherwise, I am asking you to cease and desist.
    Quite simple.


    I am happy to desist once I have seen proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the IRA no longer exist. Until then, all the evidence I have is that they still exist. There has been no winding-up process.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1672
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The point is Godge and the mods, if you accuse somebody of a connection to a defunct organisation then it is up to you to provide proof.
    In the context of a current affairs debate 'SF/IRA' is wrong and wholly against the spirit of good debate.

    A question there is whether something like the current Mairia Cahill affair really is a current affair. At the time it happened, Sinn Fein and the IRA were still visibly joined at the hip, and the IRA undeniably in existence. And if people want to highlight the connection between the two organisations that undeniably existed at the time relevant to the Cahill affair, I can't see any reason they shouldn't.

    This is part of their legacy as an organisation, and if it's for Sinn Fein to clear that toxic legacy up, as it appears to be, then that's what they have to do. If that reminds everyone of the link between the two, that's just life - Sinn Fein get to suffer from the legacy of a connection to a terrorist organisation because, well, they were connected to a terrorist organisation. Lie down with the dog, get up with fleas.

    It'll wear off eventually.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1673
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It is you and others who are using 'SF/IRA'

    I'm asking you to prove it exists and SF are connected to it currently. Otherwise, I am asking you to cease and desist.
    Quite simple.

    And I'm going to make the point, from a mod perspective, that asking is all you're entitled to do. Whether people choose to honour your request is up to them, and no badgering will be tolerated.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1674
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    So we can safely use all previous associations when we refer to organisations? That'll be fun.


  • Options
    #1675
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    A question there is whether something like the current Mairia Cahill affair really is a current affair. At the time it happened, Sinn Fein and the IRA were still visibly joined at the hip, and the IRA undeniably in existence. And if people want to highlight the connection between the two organisations that undeniably existed at the time relevant to the Cahill affair, I can't see any reason they shouldn't.

    This is part of their legacy as an organisation, and if it's for Sinn Fein to clear that toxic legacy up, as it appears to be, then that's what they have to do. If that reminds everyone of the link between the two, that's just life - Sinn Fein get to suffer from the legacy of a connection to a terrorist organisation because, well, they were connected to a terrorist organisation. Lie down with the dog, get up with fleas.

    It'll wear off eventually.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I have consistently been asking about it's use in discussions about the current SF party.


    P.s. I don't understand how my answer to Godge has been seen as 'badgering'. Could you elaborate?


  • Options
    #1676
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Which, in the case of a defence of truth, it would be. One would claim that:

    1. it is true that the plaintiff is a member of Sinn Fein

    2. it is true that Sinn Fein are associated with the IRA, and that "SF/IRA" is a term commonly used to refer to that association, and used to refer to Sinn Fein

    3. it is therefore true that referring to someone as a member of "SF/IRA" can mean no more than they're a member of Sinn Fein, and that the use of the phrase by itself therefore cannot be held to establish an imputation of IRA membership by an individual.

    I'd take a bet, but I imagine it would be rather a while before it was settled, if ever.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    You're confusing the statutory defence of 'truth' with the more fundamental interpretation of "defamatory statement"

    The defence of truth arises only where it is established/admitted that a statement tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable men.

    But you seem to be making a different claim. That the statement does not injure a person's reputation.

    You/boards.ie may freely take a gamble that an IRA association is not injurious to reputation. It might work out. I just don't see why this forum sees the need to establish a line in the sand. Why not just accept that the SF/IRA formulation can be defamatory, and take it case-by-case to achieve the same effect?
    Godge wrote: »
    There is a serious problem with this forum when somebody makes a reasonable allegation
    As far as the defamation act is concerned, there is no such thing as a "reasonable allegation"

    An allegation is either injurious to reputation, or it is not.
    An allegation is either true or it is not, and it is presumed not.


  • Options
    #1677
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I was just having a look at one of the more heated SF threads. I would agree that there is a difference between simply saying "SF/IRA" and/or discussing the historical actions of "SF/IRA", but to insinuate or, in some cases, flat out state that current SF members are members of the IRA or that "SF/IRA" are engaging in illegal or otherwise unsavoury behaviour could potentially be defamatory.

    I would again state that we should not be engaging in theoretical defences of truth or honest opinion or whatever if they cannot be factually supported. It is for a jury to determine whether there is a valid defence to a case in defamation, not armchair lawyers (or even real lawyers as juries are so unpredictable in Ireland).


  • Options
    #1678
    Sacksian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,895 ✭✭✭Sacksian


    Could I make an argument on behalf of reasonableness?

    I'm not a fan of SF by any stretch of the imagination but what purpose does the SF/IRA term serve other than to antagonise people? Is it that useful a term?

    If you're talking about current members of SF, then discuss their SF membership. If putative membership of IRA is relevant to the discussion, then discuss that. Otherwise, why should the terms be conflated, unless it's as a political prodding stick.

    The soccer forum has banned the use of slang terms for players, managers, teams, etc, because people were getting offended and threads were being derailed.

    How many political discussions benefit from the continued use of SF/IRA?

    Drop it and you can continue all of the separate (and important) arguments about what Gerry Adams did or didn't do or the links between SF and the IRA or whether the IRA continues to exist - but the automatic conflation of the terms seems to be a little pointless and actively frustrates discussion.


  • Options
    #1679
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I was just having a look at one of the more heated SF threads. I would agree that there is a difference between simply saying "SF/IRA" and/or discussing the historical actions of "SF/IRA", but to insinuate or, in some cases, flat out state that current SF members are members of the IRA or that "SF/IRA" are engaging in illegal or otherwise unsavoury behaviour could potentially be defamatory.

    That seems fair enough to me.

    We're just going round in circles at this stage.
    P.s. I don't understand how my answer to Godge has been seen as 'badgering'. Could you elaborate?

    Asking him to cease and desist isn't on.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #1680
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    K-9 wrote: »



    Asking him to cease and desist isn't on.

    Ok, wasn't intended to sound rude. Withdrawn.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1681
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Sacksian wrote: »
    Could I make an argument on behalf of reasonableness?

    I'm not a fan of SF by any stretch of the imagination but what purpose does the SF/IRA term serve other than to antagonise people? Is it that useful a term?

    If you're talking about current members of SF, then discuss their SF membership. If putative membership of IRA is relevant to the discussion, then discuss that. Otherwise, why should the terms be conflated, unless it's as a political prodding stick.

    The soccer forum has banned the use of slang terms for players, managers, teams, etc, because people were getting offended and threads were being derailed.

    How many political discussions benefit from the continued use of SF/IRA?

    Drop it and you can continue all of the separate (and important) arguments about what Gerry Adams did or didn't do or the links between SF and the IRA or whether the IRA continues to exist - but the automatic conflation of the terms seems to be a little pointless and actively frustrates discussion.

    The term "golden circle" would equally have to be banned especially when it is used in relation to the current Government where there is no evidence at all about the operation of a "golden circle".

    There are many similar pejorative terms in use about the Catholic Church, Fianna Fail, Alan Shatter, Fine Gael, Pat Rabbitte, etc. that have not been proved in court and that are equally defamatory and should be banned if you are to ban the SF/IRA phrase.

    The phrase SF/IRA has been used in public by Micheal Martin and the Irish Independent in recent days and it certainly has more legal certainty than some of the puerile rubbish posted on here. Banning it on its own would be seen as protecting one group of overly-sensitive posters rather than addressing a wider issue of defamatory labels.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement