The Hill Billy wrote: »
If you are monitoring that account then you know that the thread was removed for a good reason. Did it not occur to you that it was a fake post or that the account had been hacked? Posting it here again is nothing but trolling IMHO.
Dav wrote: »
I don't know who manages that Twitter account, but as someone who works in this field, I'd be deeply concerned over the sort of message that particular account sends out.
Reiver wrote: »
So the Israeli embassy can now get threads locked in Boards. Truly they are masters of the dark arts!
My name is URL wrote: »
Not just locked, but deleted. And all from a threat (downright lie really) made on Twitter.
They said they demanded that Boards remove the thread, but Boards have said that they haven't even contacted them.
Kinda laughable really. I don't care about the thread at this stage, but I'd like to know if Boards have received an official request to remove it other than a load of bluster written by a lunatic on Twitter.
Dav wrote: »
Simply put, I couldn't reinstate the thread because it starts off calling them scum-bags (open and shut defamation - go straight to jail - do not pass go) and descends from there on.
If people could have these conversations without resorting to the sorts of comments that gets a publisher like us in legal trouble, there'd be no problems at all, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
So I'm sorry folks, that particular thread has to remain deleted, however, I am absolutely happy for any discussion to go ahead about the issue as long as people keep it legal. The moment the office is notified of it, we have to act, that's just how it works - it's the only way we can stay online and out of court.
Ireland will hold a referendum to abolish its blasphemy laws. The vote is expected to take place some time early in 2015, Junior Minister Aodhán Ó’Ríordáin announced last week.
“Blasphemous matter” was deemed a punishable offense under Ireland’s 1937 constitution. The 2009 Defamation Act defined blasphemy as “publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defenses permitted.”
Currently, the offense is punishable by a fine of up to €25,000 ($31,600).
"In practice, there have been no prosecutions under the 2009 Act and the last public prosecution for blasphemy in Ireland appears to have been brought in 1855," Aodhan O Riordain told parliament on Thursday.
Ó’Ríordáin said it hadn’t been decided yet whether the amendment would simply remove the crime of blasphemy, or replace it with a ban on incitement to religious hatred.
It is also unclear whether the ban on blasphemy found in the Defamation Act would remain law, or be replaced by an offense of incitement to religious hatred.
In his speech, the Labour TD said that Ireland already has a ban on incitement to hatred, including on religious grounds.
Atheist and secular campaigners are welcoming government’s decision, the Guardian reports.
Michael Nugent, one of the founders of Atheist Ireland, said the move was “urgent and overdue.”
“Islamic states at the UN have been citing Ireland’s blasphemy law as evidence that modern European states have no problem with outlawing blasphemy just as Islamic states do. You know you are doing something wrong when Pakistan is citing you as best practice for blasphemy laws,” said Nugent, a comedy writer.
He says the law should not be replaced with new clauses outlawing insult to religions.
“We already have laws against incitement to hatred on a number of grounds, including gender, religion, sexuality and race. Why single out religion again and give it extra protection in the constitution?”
Former justice minister Dermot Ahern says the blasphemy law is need as the 1937 constitution extends the protection of belief only to Christians.
P_1 wrote: »
Didn't know that calling somebody a scumbag, unpleasant as it is, was grounds for them taking legal proceedings on defamation grounds.
Dav wrote: »
No there isn't.
There're are 3 exclusions to defamation law: Truth, Absolute Privilege and Qualified Privilege. Now, if you can tell me where calling someone a scum-bag falls into any of those 3 and you're prepared to bet an entire company on being able to prove it, come back to me and we'll talk.
Dav wrote: »
Given a giant like RTÉ paid out to people like John Waters and the Iona darlings based on statements made by Rory O'Neill that are demonstrably true and are the truth as defined by a significant chunk of this country's populace and our government's reluctance to stand up against the sorts of atrocities we're seeing happening to Palestinian citizens, how well do you think they'll help us out in what amounts to an international issue?
Boaz Modai, Head of the Instruction Branch in the Foreign Ministry, admitted to harassing a woman in his office, police told Ynet Wednesday.
This had cost him many sleepless nights, he said, and thus "there was no reason for the complainant to sleep well."
“We can find names of [those] Israelis [who support Palestinians]… we should hit their soft spot, publish their pictures, maybe it will embarrass their friends and relatives at home, and hopefully the local [Palestinian] activists will think that they work for the Mossad
The acts of these activists are, I think, not ideologically motivated, but rather have to do with psychological reasons (disappointment with their parents or problems with their sexual identity)