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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Defamation

2»

Comments

  • #32
    fiachraX
    Registered Users Posts: 122 ✭✭fiachraX


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    in the context of defamation proceedings, it is very difficult to establish that any statement is defamatory if the prospective plaintiff is a convicted rapist.


    Any statement, or just any statement concerning rape?

    Are you saying that the court would take the view that a convicted rapist is already so poorly regarded by society that pretty much nothing that anyone could say about him (he's a scammer, he's a bully etc.) would cause his reputation to be damaged because it's already as low as can be?


  • #33
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,707 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Yes, if your reputation is as low as that of a convicted rapist then it can't really go much lower. Or if it can be lowered, the damages payable are likely to be merely nominal from either a judge or a jury.

    It would be an inadvisable suit in most cases.


  • #34
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,455 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    Yes, if your reputation is as low as that of a convicted rapist then it can't really go much lower.
    What if you have a good reputation, but are also a convicted rapist? i.e. knowledge of your conviction is not widespread. Is it assumed that reasonable members of society have all public knowledge available?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and dark mode). Now available through the extension stores

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #35
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    Yes, if your reputation is as low as that of a convicted rapist then it can't really go much lower. Or if it can be lowered, the damages payable are likely to be merely nominal from either a judge or a jury.

    It would be an inadvisable suit in most cases.

    An interesting conundrum. A rapist who has served the required time, co-operated with prison services and rehabilitation, earned his deduction of time for good behaviour etc and has led a blameless life since release...such a paragon of redeemed virtue would have every right to expect the court to offer him the same opportunity for vindication as another. After all, if the court denies it the court is admitting the processes of rehabilitation are not sufficient to undo the damage of the conviction. If law officers denied the opportunity then they would send the same message. I smell a different sort of suit.


  • #36
    Elite Woad Raider
    Closed Accounts Posts: 77 ✭✭Elite Woad Raider


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    I doubt that the word defamation is understood in this sense in Ireland in common non-legal speech by most people.

    On the legal side, it is bizarre to me that a true statement could ever be regarded as defamation in the courts.


    What happens if you happen to be a patient in a hospital who sh.its himself in bed and that's made known on Facebook? Is that defamation?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    Elite Woad Raider wrote: »
    What happens if you happen to be a patient in a hospital who sh.its himself in bed and that's made known on Facebook? Is that defamation?

    Using the definition of defamation in Irish law here the argument would be that sick people are going to be sick so the fact that an ill person has symptoms of being ill doesn’t tend to diminish their reputation. It’s arguable. Would a better line of attack be confidentiality breach, data protection and GDPR issues and failure in duty of care by hospital?

    Interesting scenario. Without giving specific detail can you say more? Was it an attack on the patient? Or the hospital? Or the HSE?


  • #38
    Moomoomacshoe
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭Moomoomacshoe


    KWAG2019 wrote: »
    Using the definition of defamation in Irish law here the argument would be that sick people are going to be sick so the fact that an ill person has symptoms of being ill doesn’t tend to diminish their reputation. It’s arguable. Would a better line of attack be confidentiality breach, data protection and GDPR issues and failure in duty of care by hospital?

    Interesting scenario. Without giving specific detail can you say more? Was it an attack on the patient? Or the hospital? Or the HSE?

    With regards to publishing what if a report brought into a court room about a person, is that considered "published"?
    This scenario: a tenant making a report about another tenant that tarnishes reputation,(untrue) ruins reputation with landlord etc? Published as a report in a court room scenario?


  • #39
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    Moomoomacshoe wrote: »
    With regards to publishing what if a report brought into a court room about a person, is that considered "published"?
    This scenario: a tenant making a report about another tenant that tarnishes reputation,(untrue) ruins reputation with landlord etc? Published as a report in a court room scenario?

    Court reports are published in papers or radio/tv online. I don’t know if the court record is open to general public. You’d have to find out if court proceedings are privileged like the Dail.


  • #40
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Moomoomacshoe wrote: »
    With regards to publishing what if a report brought into a court room about a person, is that considered "published"?
    This scenario: a tenant making a report about another tenant that tarnishes reputation,(untrue) ruins reputation with landlord etc? Published as a report in a court room scenario?

    Anything introduced in court has the benefit of absolute privilege.


    KWAG2019 wrote: »
    Court reports are published in papers or radio/tv online. I don’t know if the court record is open to general public. You’d have to find out if court proceedings are privileged like the Dail.

    Fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings also has the benefit of absolute privilege.


  • #41
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,707 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Court proceedings are absolutely privileged and nothing said in court is actionable.

    Journalist reports are somewhat privileged. They must be fair and accurate. IME, they are rarely so.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    Court proceedings are absolutely privileged and nothing said in court is actionable.

    Journalist reports are somewhat privileged. They must be fair and accurate. IME, they are rarely so.

    Somewhat?

    Journalists reports or indeed anyone who reports on court proceedings are afforded an absolute privilege provided it's fair and accurate.


  • #43
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,707 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    GM228 wrote: »
    Somewhat?

    Journalists reports or indeed anyone who reports on court proceedings are afforded an absolute privilege provided it's fair and accurate.

    Yes, somewhat.

    The proviso that the report must be fair and accurate is a limitation on the "absolute" privilege that, given what I see daily, means that the privilege has de facto limited application.


  • #44
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    Yes, somewhat.

    The proviso that the report must be fair and accurate is a limitation on the "absolute" privilege that, given what I see daily, means that the privilege has de facto limited application.

    Ah apologies, I was thinking you meant they may have had a qualified type privilege as long as it was fair and accurate, my bad hullaballoo. And yes I agree fully.


  • #45
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,707 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    I was trying to avoid using the term absolute privilege for journalists only for that reason. It is absolute privilege for fair and accurate reports but that isn't the same as saying any report of court proceedings is absolutely privileged.

    Although I note that the Law Reform Commission has a report that I've not yet read on the question of whether the absolute privilege should be extended to cover all reports and make them actionable only where the plaintiff can show malice. Reading the bare minimum, I don't think they recommended this as there are clear and obvious dangers, particularly where they are recommending the privilege remains in place for non professional journalists reporting on court proceedings.


  • #46
    Moomoomacshoe
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭Moomoomacshoe


    So if shown to a number of 3rd parties? Published with the (wont name) type of hearing but not a court..(I'm not sure if this constitutes court/ falls within remit of court as no oath taken is informal as such) is that enough to show defamation? Along with the damage caused by malice and false claims?

    Another scenario: can somone claim a person assaulted them and spread it around without consequence? Never filed with guards as nevee happened?


  • #47
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    Moomoomacshoe wrote: »
    So if shown to a number of 3rd parties? Published with the (wont name) type of hearing but not a court..(I'm not sure if this constitutes court/ falls within remit of court as no oath taken is informal as such) is that enough to show defamation? Along with the damage caused by malice and false claims?

    Another scenario: can somone claim a person assaulted them and spread it around without consequence? Never filed with guards as nevee happened?

    Sounds like the goalposts are moving. You need to find out the type of hearing and applicable privilege if any. Read early posts here: malice irrelevant. Falsity not necessarily relevant.

    The consequence might depend on the action taken by the plaintiff and the success of the action.


  • #48
    podge018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,815 ✭✭✭podge018


    Didn't want to start a new thread.....

    Could a voicemail played on loudspeaker in the office, in which an untrue allegation was made, be actionable defamation? While the message was intended for one person only, more people heard it and so was it therefore published? The voicemail has been saved to the system.


  • #49
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,455 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    podge018 wrote: »
    Didn't want to start a new thread.....

    Could a voicemail played on loudspeaker in the office, in which an untrue allegation was made, be actionable defamation? While the message was intended for one person only, more people heard it and so was it therefore published? The voicemail has been saved to the system.
    Defamation Act 2009 wrote:
    The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person)
    Once it was published to one person, it was (potentially) defamatory, the further publication didn't make it "more" defamatory.

    Depending on the circumstances, it could open up the possibility of a second defamation action i.e. Person A makes a defamatory statement about Person Z to Person B. Person B then republishes that statement to Persons C through F. Person Z could take defamation actions against both A and B. Although a win against A doesn't automatically imply a win against B, as they may have more defence options available to them

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and dark mode). Now available through the extension stores

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #50
    padser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭padser


    podge018 wrote: »
    Didn't want to start a new thread.....

    Could a voicemail played on loudspeaker in the office, in which an untrue allegation was made, be actionable defamation? While the message was intended for one person only, more people heard it and so was it therefore published? The voicemail has been saved to the system.

    A modern twist on the inquisitive butler.

    Classic


Advertisement