Iona vs Panti

Bannasidhe · 05-02-2014 04:39PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Fascinating...wonder will he reference Panti....bet you he won't!

Radio on in a different room to the one I'm working in so can only hear snippets depending on background noise here.

weisses · 05-02-2014 04:49PM

Will costs not be recovered by RTE if they would win the case ? I thought you could

So if they are sure to win .... the whole cost excuse will go out the door

Bannasidhe · 05-02-2014 04:56PM

weisses wrote: »

Will costs not be recovered by RTE if they would win the case ? I thought you could

So if they are sure to win .... the whole cost excuse will go out the door

RTE was awarded around 2.2 m against Beverly Flynn.

Eventually, after RTE threatened to bring Bankruptcy proceedings against Flynn she agree to pay around 1, 225,000.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/beverly-flynn-finalises-1225000-settlement-with-rte-26301416.html

Unclear is she ever did... but I assume she did as the bankruptcy proceedings were dropped.

oscarBravo · 05-02-2014 05:03PM

weisses wrote: »

So if they are sure to win .... the whole cost excuse will go out the door

Leaving aside the fact that that's not true, who said they're sure to win?

Happyman42 · 05-02-2014 05:04PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Radio on in a different room to the one I'm working in so can only hear snippets depending on background noise here.

not one reference to it. Deffo warned off. Accused the Russkies of being homophobes though.

weisses · 05-02-2014 05:10PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

RTE was awarded around 2.2 m against Beverly Flynn.

Eventually, after RTE threatened to bring Bankruptcy proceedings against Flynn she agree to pay around 1, 225,000.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/beverly-flynn-finalises-1225000-settlement-with-rte-26301416.html

Unclear is she ever did... but I assume she did as the bankruptcy proceedings were dropped.

My point is that if RTE would be brought to court because of this and would they win the people bringing RTE to court would be liable for costs

Would the other party win it will be vice versa

So to me it looks RTE are not sure they could win this in court (prove the homophobic remarks where valid) and settled accordingly

Valid question remains then if Waters can be legally labelled as a Homophobic person, despite what most people feel here (me included)

swampgas · 05-02-2014 05:10PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The larger issue is that they aren't Rory, they're the state broadcaster and the loudest voice in Ireland.

If they can't stand up to a four-person institute and protect freedom of speech for their guests, they've proven their worthlessness. Or near enough.

This also adds great credence to everyone that feels it's immoral to force a tax onto the entire population, to promote a political agenda. Whether out of greed or fear or corruption.

Put another way: there's no small in the struggle to keep the nations airwaves open to all voices. The more RTE is scared away from taking ethical decisions the less valid their entire remit becomes.

That's a fair point. However the remedy required here may be a change to libel law rather than RTE gambling on a desired outcome. Maybe this incident can be used to push for a review of libel law, as it's pretty obvious that it's not fit for purpose.

What's important as well is that the general public be made aware that Iona didn't win any victory, instead they used the law as a shield to protect themselves from a fair description of what they are.

weisses · 05-02-2014 05:11PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that that's not true, who said they're sure to win?

I just looked through this site and looked at point 1 in the questions checklist

Well if they would have a case against Waters regarding him being Homophobic they should not settle.... period

http://www.defamationireland.com/defamation-compensation/

Delirium · 05-02-2014 06:12PM

IonaWatch tackles latest Iona website post.

Link To Complete Post - Ben Conroy gets things backwards.

In the latest unintentionally ironic piece from the Iona Institute’s website, Ben Conroy says that “This whole debate revolves around the difference between arguments and insults. Trying to stop anyone from making their case, whether they are passionate advocates of same-sex marriage or equally passionate opponents, is censorship.”

Conroy thinks that when someone calls a view “homophobic” that this is a mere insult – designed to shut down the debate. He thinks it suggests bad faith on the part of the accused, implying perhaps that the arguments they are putting forth are not in fact sincere ones and are being used merely to mask their underlying homophobia.

Unsurprisingly, this gets things completely backwards.

Labelling a view as homophobic isn’t an insult as Conroy supposes – it’s actually the premise of an argument. The argument being that people ought not to hold homophobic views, so if one’s views can be fairly described as homophobic, one ought to change them. Of course, the obvious response to this argument is to deny that one’s views can be fairly described as homophobic. Thus a debate can get under way, about what homophobia is and how it manifests itself and whether some particular argument only makes sense provided that we accept homophobic premises.

In practice, the debate often doesn’t get that far, but not because the accusation of homophobia shuts it down but rather because the person accused of being homophobic refuses to defend themselves against the charge, insisting that it amounts to an accusation of bad faith on their part.

oceanclub · 05-02-2014 06:16PM

SW wrote: »

IonaWatch tackles latest Iona website post.

Link To Complete Post - Ben Conroy gets things backwards.

Ben Conroy is Breda O'Brien's son, as noted by Brendan O'Connor (which he got slightly peevish about).

P.

Delirium · 05-02-2014 06:17PM

So Iona refused to take part and then sent an incognito contributor of theirs?

Bannasidhe · 05-02-2014 06:25PM

SW wrote: »

So Iona refused to take part and then sent an incognito contributor of theirs?

Imagine that... I. AM. SHOCKED. :eek:

:pac:

Delirium · 05-02-2014 06:28PM

:P:D

Turtwig · 05-02-2014 06:28PM

Don't really see how it's relevant that he's O'Brien's son. Fair enough he's a columnist for the Irish Catholic but unless there's something legal about it being his Mam that sued RTE I cannot understand why Brendan mentioned he was O'Brien's son. Otherwise it seems like poisoning the well.

Also, he's write an awful amount of guff.

I don't mind the older wans doing it but when folks of the younger generation ala himself and Wendy Grace write such nonsense a part of me dies inside.

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 06:28PM

FanMahBrow wrote: »

It's got more to do with maths than justice.

Say that the probability of a jury finding that the deranged defamed Ionanists are not homophobic is only 10%.
Size of award plus both sides legal fees: 1 million plus

1 million * 0.10 > 85000 euro. So paying out is often cheaper in cases such as this, unpalatable as it is.

Wishful thinking can only get you so far.

The RTE memo doesn't say "we were forced to back down on the off-chance that we could lose."

It says legal experts within RTE and without consulted in relation to this accusation were consulted and BOTH said that were likely to lose. i.e. John Waters and Iona would likely be able to prove to a jury that they weren't homophpbic.

As a dual-funded public body, RTÉ should not knowingly progress to defend an action when it is advised, internally and externally, that such a defence is unlikely to succeed before a jury.

swampgas · 05-02-2014 06:38PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Wishful thinking can only get you so far.

The RTE memo doesn't say "we were forced to back down on the off-chance that we could lose."

It says legal experts within RTE and without consulted in relation to this accusation were consulted and BOTH said that were likely to lose. i.e. John Waters and Iona would likely be able to prove to a jury that they weren't homophpbic.

You seem to want to translate an unwillingness to contest a libel claim as complete vindication for Iona. You haven't been following the thread very well. The whole point is that libel law, as it stands, is hugely biased in favour of the person making the claim. That's why so few people are willing to fight a libel case, it's also why certain litigious groups run to the lawyers at the first sign of criticism.

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 06:47PM

swampgas wrote: »

You seem to want to translate an unwillingness to contest a libel claim as complete vindication for Iona. You haven't been following the thread very well. The whole point is that libel law, as it stands, is hugely biased in favour of the person making the claim. That's why so few people are willing to fight a libel case, it's also why certain litigious groups run to the lawyers at the first sign of criticism.

The main problem with your post is that the defamation laws aren't "hugely biased" in favour of the litigant. You can say anything you want as long as it's true. The person suing has to prove that it's false. RTE's legal experts considered it likely that Waters and Iona would be able to prove their innocence and then offered the victims compensation and apologised.

There is really only once conclusion that can be drawn.

swampgas · 05-02-2014 06:49PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The main problem with your post is that the defamation laws aren't "hugely biased" in favour of the litigant. You can say anything you want as long as it's true. The person suing has to prove that it's false. RTE's legal experts considered it likely that Waters and Iona would be able to prove their innocence and then offered the victims compensation and apologised.

There is really only one conclusion that can be drawn.

Nope, there are lots of conclusions that can be drawn. You can persist with this simplistic black and white view of how libel law works, but the reality is more complicated than that.

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 06:52PM

weisses wrote: »

Will costs not be recovered by RTE if they would win the case ? I thought you could

So if they are sure to win .... the whole cost excuse will go out the door

Yes. However, people like to ignore this basic fact. RTE said it themselves, the reason they offered compensation and an apology is that they would likely lose --meaning that based on the facts s jury would consider "Panti's" claim both false and damaging -- and have to pay out a larger compensation + costs.

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 06:57PM

swampgas wrote: »

Nope, there are lots of conclusions that can be drawn. You can persist with this simplistic black and white view of how libel law works, but the reality is more complicated than that.

I did a semester on media law, so not completely clueless, though that was before it changed a couple of years ago, but it's purpose is the same - to protect innocent people from false and damaging accusations.

If someone made a false and damaging accusation against you on prime time TV what would you do?

Turtwig · 05-02-2014 07:03PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I did a semester on media law, so not completely clueless, though that was before it changed a couple of years ago, but it's purpose is the same - to protect innocent people from false and damaging accusations.

If someone made a false and damaging accusation against you on prime time TV what would you do?

Doesn't have to be false. If I had money and I really cared about my power or whatever (basically I was a prick, which I am, but I can't admit that or you can't call me that), I'd just sue them into submission and apologising.

swampgas · 05-02-2014 07:04PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I did a semester on media law, so not completely clueless, though that was before it changed a couple of years ago, but it's purpose is the same - to protect innocent people from false and damaging accusations.

If someone made a false and damaging accusation against you on prime time TV what would you do?

If I was a homophobe with a track record of making homophobic statements in print and in debates, I'd probably run off to my lawyer to slap a libel claim in an attempt to stop the truth getting out.

It would depend on the circumstances, but were I in John Water's shoes I'd be much happier with a right-of-reply and a chance to debate my accusers on prime time.

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 07:08PM

Jernal wrote: »

I sometimes wonder if the best thing to do would be take out a defamation case against you. Certainly there are public figures in real-life who would have a claim. Your insistence that a secularist was paedophile for instance.

The law isn't an idealism it's a practicality. Key to that practicality is cost. RTE had at least 5 defamation cases brought against them. They'd have to defend all of them through the courts. Now, let's assume for a second they won all of them. How do you think the €85,000 would fare against the cost of those individual battles? It's most probable that €85,000 would be a significant saving. Now imagine, if the odds of them losing were 1%. Now we're talking potential payout in the millions. As has been mentioned on this thread several times the financially prudent thing to do is payout. RTE are one of the few outlets in the country that could have challenged it and that's why I wish to God they had. They precedent they have set now for the coming referendum is not good.

There's a reason why pretty much all defamation cases are settled out of court. It's a damning criticism of our legal system that the cases are far too costly to even compete. Iona's legal team knew this. This was a strategic move to stifle debate in the media. Now every media outlet has to discuss SSM on Iona's terms. Including boards. Which may end up being one clusterfuck of a moderating headache!

If you are going to have a go you need to be more accurate, which would be good advice for "Panti" too. I never insisted any secularist is a paedo, I pointed out his links to Paedophilia advocacy groups.

He couldn't sue me because truth is a defense. It would be a matter of course to prove that this is true.

It is not anymore expensive for Iona and Waters to go to court than RTE.

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 07:12PM

swampgas wrote: »

If I was a homophobe with a track record of making homophobic statements in print and in debates, I'd probably run off to my lawyer to slap a libel claim in an attempt to stop the truth getting out.

It would depend on the circumstances, but were I in John Water's shoes I'd be much happier with a right-of-reply and a chance to debate my accusers on prime time.

So why weren't the legal experts aware of this "track record"? If they were then they wouldn't have considered it likely that they would lose.

Turtwig · 05-02-2014 07:13PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you are going to have a go you need to be more accurate, which would be good advice for "Panti" too. I never insisted any secularist is a paedo, I pointed out his links to Paedophilia advocacy groups.

He couldn't sue me because truth is a defense. It would be a matter of course to prove that this is true.

It is not anymore expensive for Iona and Waters to go to court than RTE.

Ok let me put this as blunty as possible.

Boards.ie would not care how truthworthy the claim was and neither would your accountant. It's always best to settle these things out of court. Unless you have very very very very very very deep pockets.
(That very wasn't very blunt now was it?)

Corkfeen · 05-02-2014 07:20PM

Jernal wrote: »

Ok let me put this as blunty as possible.

Boards.ie would not care how truthworthy the claim was and neither would your accountant. It's always best to settle these things out of court. Unless you have very very very very very very deep pockets.
(That very wasn't very blunt now was it?)

So you're saying they're not homophobic,right?

Obliq · 05-02-2014 07:28PM

Eff me, Paddy Manning making a right balls of his argument on The Last Word at the mo. Wow. I don't think he sounds like he thinks he sounds.....http://www.todayfm.com/player/

Cabaal · 05-02-2014 07:33PM

Obliq wrote: »

Eff me, Paddy Manning making a right balls of his argument on The Last Word at the mo. Wow. I don't think he sounds like he thinks he sounds.....http://www.todayfm.com/player/

I'm unsure why he gets any airtime,

He's indoctrinated into the idea of marriage is for children, it should never change.

In two years time he'll look as idiotic as the women that campaigned against giving women the right to vote..... Hell he looks like a fool now

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 07:40PM

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm unsure why he gets any airtime,

He's indoctrinated into the idea of marriage is for children, it should never change.

In two years time he'll look as idiotic as the women that campaigned against giving women the right to vote..... Hell he looks like a fool now

Could you unpack that without the ad-homs?

What specifically has he said that makes him look like a fool? Also, why are you allowed to attack him like this when Rory isn't to be allowed to referred to by his job title?

He gets airtime because we live in a democracy. He is either an extremely brave and principled man or he is a shameless opportunist, using the situation to make a name for himself.

Obliq · 05-02-2014 07:41PM

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm unsure why he gets any airtime,

He's indoctrinated into the idea of marriage is for children, it should never change.

In two years time he'll look as idiotic as the women that campaigned against giving women the right to vote..... Hell he looks like a fool now

Yes, he seems to put his fingers in his ears shouting "laa la laa la laa, I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUU" every time a gay person mentions their children. Why does he get airtime? I don't know why, "in the interest of balance", an anomaly such as himself (gay, wishing to discriminate against gays) gets such a platform. Yes, give everyone a voice, but don't pretend it's balanced to have an anti SSM gay on the panel.

Iona vs Panti

Comments