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.

That Case We Can't Mention.

  • 27-03-2015 7:19pm
    #1
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,407 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    It's all over the radio and the papers have specials on it tomorrow apparently.
    Can't be bothered myself but out of curiosity why the ban on Boards?
    Post edited by Shield on


«13

Comments

  • #2
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,034 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    He's not yet sentenced, the legal process is on-going, and it's still considered sub-judice and hence can't be discussed.


  • #3
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,407 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Spear wrote: »
    He's not yet sentenced, the legal process is on-going, and it's still considered sub-judice and hence can't be discussed.

    So discussion is different to what the media is doing?


  • #4
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    kneemos wrote: »
    So discussion is different to what the media is doing?

    Broadcast and newspaper media have legal types to run articles past before publication, boards.ie does not also as it operates in real time someone might make an accusation which is then pounced upon by a party to a given case. Obviously other net based outlets might take a more laxed approach but that doesn't mean they are correct in their judgement.


  • #5
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    You can discuss it on Reddit Ireland..

    I understand the boards position, but it's still a real shame that you can't discuss these things on the best irish internet platform, the article on the rte website outlining how the case was formed is particularly worthy of attention


  • #6
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    kneemos wrote: »
    It's all over the radio and the papers have specials on it tomorrow apparently.
    Can't be bothered myself but out of curiosity why the ban on Boards?


    As explained by the rest of them. He's not being sentenced till 20th April, so till then, nothing can be said.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,034 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    There's an Irish Times article about this kind of thing:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sub-judice-is-not-necessarily-the-ultimate-conversation-stopper-1.2086067

    Even though the issue of how vague the laws are was raised back in 1983, still nothig has been done to clarify them, hence Boards.ie has no choice but to protect itself.


  • #8
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,407 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Nodin wrote: »
    As explained by the rest of them. He's not being sentenced till 20th April, so till then, nothing can be said.

    Boards is literally the only one not talking about it.
    Anyway on the grounds of good taste it's probably not a bad thing.


  • #9
    Tombi!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    So in other words: the law is an ass and as per usual in Ireland, outdated compared to modern times so Boards is doing what it can to keep the site from getting into potential legal trouble?


  • #10
    Renegade Mechanic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    kneemos wrote: »
    Boards is literally the only one not talking about it.
    Anyway on the grounds of good taste it's probably not a bad thing.

    Could the same thing not be said about a certain Germanwings pilot? Im struggling to wrap my head around it myself tbh.


  • #11
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Nodin wrote: »
    As explained by the rest of them. He's not being sentenced till 20th April, so till then, nothing can be said.

    It's a mandatory life sentence, nothing can affect that now.

    National radio have had all sorts of guests discussing the case and previous unheard of details, with the guilty party being called a monster, a vile and sadistic man, amongst other things. I don't think anything said on boards can have any more an affect then what has been said today about him on radio and TV.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    It's a mandatory life sentence, nothing can affect that now.

    National radio have had all sorts of guests discussing the case and previous unheard of details, with the guilty party being called a monster, a vile and sadistic man, amongst other things. I don't think anything said on boards can have any more an affect then what has been said today about him on radio and TV.


    That would be my view. Certainly a piece I read in the indo wasn't distinguishing itself from a typical AH crime related thread in any meaningful way. However when theres the risk of a good few grand going down the jacks if you're wrong, it's a different matter, particularily when you don't have it.


  • #13
    Desolation Of Smug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 760 ✭✭✭Desolation Of Smug


    Nodin wrote: »
    That would be my view. Certainly a piece I read in the indo wasn't distinguishing itself from a typical AH crime related thread in any meaningful way. However when theres the risk of a good few grand going down the jacks if you're wrong, it's a different matter, particularily when you don't have it.

    :) Uh oh...


  • #14
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,319 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Not debating the actual ban but legally could those commenting on thejournal articles be charged for contempt of court or would it fall on the site owners?


  • #15
    Renegade Mechanic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    super_furry wrote: »
    Not debating the actual ban but legally could those commenting on thejournal articles be charged for contempt of court or would it fall on the site owners?

    To the best of my knowledge, site owners aren't responsible. It's being discussed on telly isn't it?, so if TV media feels safe surely written media is safe aswell.


  • #16
    Tombi!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    I believe within reason, websites are not responsible for the content made by members. For example, if I post "X is an idiot" and Boards gets an email saying "Take down the the content saying X is an idiot" then they a certain amount of time. Then, if they don't, it's on Boards to explain why they didn't.
    I think it's a fair bit more complicated than that but that was an example I was given.


  • #17
    Deank
    Registered Users Posts: 7,238 ✭✭✭Deank


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    It's a mandatory life sentence, nothing can affect that now.

    National radio have had all sorts of guests discussing the case and previous unheard of details, with the guilty party being called a monster, a vile and sadistic man, amongst other things. I don't think anything said on boards can have any more an affect then what has been said today about him on radio and TV.

    Well put, Boards though seem to think that they are (legally) responsible for what is posted, this is not the case, the poster is responsible for their posts and the one liable for any legal ramifications if they post something that contravenes law.

    Who is making the call on why the GD case can't be discussed??? It's hardly the mods, puppet strings are being pulled, the decisions are being made much higher up, begins with D and end with M.

    /Rant :o


  • #18
    Deank
    Registered Users Posts: 7,238 ✭✭✭Deank


    Brutal Deluxe wrote: »
    I believe within reason, websites are not responsible for the content made by members. For example, if I post "X is an idiot" and Boards gets an email saying "Take down the the content saying X is an idiot" then they a certain amount of time. Then, if they don't, it's on Boards to explain why they didn't.
    I think it's a fair bit more complicated than that but that was an example I was given.

    That's it in a nutshell.

    If someone posts something that is legally dodgy and it's missed for whatever reason; if a request is then made to remove the offending post and ignored that's where the trouble starts.


  • #19
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    I can see the need for a safety first approach considering how batshítcrazy the law is. In my opinion the policy appears a tad conservative but it's not my opinion that matters.


  • #20
    Deank
    Registered Users Posts: 7,238 ✭✭✭Deank


    P_1 wrote: »
    I can see the need for a safety first approach considering how batshítcrazy the law is. In my opinion the policy appears a tad conservative but it's not my opinion that matters.

    There's a safety approach and then there's a "Oh shít, eh dafuq we do, shut it down" approach.

    Online censorship is thriving still :(


  • #21
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,707 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    There are quite a few misunderstandings here about what the issues are so I will try to put aside some time to give my views tomorrow.

    It's a very important principal of justice that the site are trying to protect against and it doesn't just come down to getting sued.

    The defence in this case relied heavily on the prejudice issue, mainly citing the Irish Times and other national media. Boards is part of the national media whether people here choose to believe it or not. The difference is boards don't use their lawyers to vet everything that's said here.

    More later...


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Money's too tight to mention...


  • #23
    bodhrandude
    Registered Users Posts: 12,350 ✭✭✭✭bodhrandude


    I done media law in my journalism degree course in Edinburgh, its standard there before a live court case, newspapers usually can't name the accused unless I suppose its a high profile case, but the papers over there would go, "A man was charged with two counts of murder at Glasgow High Court today." They are not allowed to disclose identity normally. The current Irish case is ongoing and live, so opinion can affect the outcome of a case, I suppose all the media stuff is just theories and the like, although here the suspect is named.

    If you want to get into it, you got to get out of it. (Hawkwind 1982)



  • #24
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    There are quite a few misunderstandings here about what the issues are so I will try to put aside some time to give my views tomorrow.

    It's a very important principal of justice that the site are trying to protect against and it doesn't just come down to getting sued.

    The defence in this case relied heavily on the prejudice issue, mainly citing the Irish Times and other national media. Boards is part of the national media whether people here choose to believe it or not. The difference is boards don't use their lawyers to vet everything that's said here.

    More later...

    It has to be said that given the language being used in the print media as of this morning, its hard to see how much worse could come up here.


  • #25
    seventeen sheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭seventeen sheep


    I think it's a pity that discussion isn't allowed here - it's an interesting and important case, from several perspectives. The verdict has been submitted now, so it's not like the jury can be influenced in any way.

    It seems the case is now being freely discussed on pretty much all other Irish discussion forums and social media, and in the comments sections of news websites - it's hard to believe that everyone else has interpreted the related laws incorrectly, and boards.ie is the only one doing it right.

    I do understand that allowing discussion of the case would probably involve extra work from the moderators, and I do understand that these are unpaid volunteers that may not be willing/able to take on the extra work. But if this is the reason, it should be stated.

    Once his sentence has been determined, will discussion be allowed then? Or when (if ever) will it be allowed on this site?


  • #26
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,183 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    seventeen sheep wrote: »
    I do understand that allowing discussion of the case would probably involve extra work from the moderators, and I do understand that these are unpaid volunteers that may not be willing/able to take on the extra work. But if this is the reason, it should be stated.
    Hardly any mods are legal experts - how can they possibly keep on top of fast-flowing threads in the likes of AH, while having to consider potential legal implications of certain posts? Bottom line is the site owners have made it clear in the past that they want the site to adopt a "better safe than sorry" policy on legal exposures


  • #27
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Beasty wrote: »
    Hardly any mods are legal experts - how can they possibly keep on top of fast-flowing threads in the likes of AH, while having to consider potential legal implications of certain posts? Bottom line is the site owners have made it clear in the past that they want the site to adopt a "better safe than sorry" policy on legal exposures

    Given the language used in regard to the convicted and information referred to here (and these are only from the on-line media, not the print with no web presence) its hard to see how one could be "sorry". I think a recheck with some legal people might be in order.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/graham-dwyer-found-guilty-of-the-murder-of-elaine-ohara-and-faces-life-behind-bars-31090327.html

    http://www.irishmirror.ie/

    http://www.herald.ie/news/im-safe-now-what-graham-dwyer-said-20-minutes-before-verdict-31101467.html

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/graham-dwyer-trial/dwyer-had-a-list-of-victims-whom-he-planned-to-stab-and-torture-31101269.html


  • #28
    seventeen sheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭seventeen sheep


    Beasty wrote: »
    Hardly any mods are legal experts - how can they possibly keep on top of fast-flowing threads in the likes of AH, while having to consider potential legal implications of certain posts? Bottom line is the site owners have made it clear in the past that they want the site to adopt a "better safe than sorry" policy on legal exposures

    Oh I would have assumed it was the admins making those decisions, not the mods?


  • #29
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,183 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    seventeen sheep wrote: »
    Oh I would have assumed it was the admins making those decisions, not the mods?
    What makes you think the Admins are legal experts?


  • #30
    Renegade Mechanic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    Beasty wrote: »
    Hardly any mods are legal experts - how can they possibly keep on top of fast-flowing threads in the likes of AH, while having to consider potential legal implications of certain posts? Bottom line is the site owners have made it clear in the past that they want the site to adopt a "better safe than sorry" policy on legal exposures

    "Better safe than sorry" has killed off as much as it has saved. At the end of the day all these people want to do is discuss. And theyre leaving Boards behind to discuss on other sites, say Reddit and the such. Reddit is hosted in the absolute kings country of sueing culture, and it hasn't been buried yet (er, I hope.. Haven't been on to check :o )
    Nobody wants to fill a post with bile and attack the man, the few that do are just that. Few.

    Even the Judge said he agreed 110% with the jury. An extremely poor, unprofessional choice of words and quite possibly grounds for appeal. But I'll eat my hat if his legal team actually do.

    It's definitely a safe policy, but you might be sorry for enforcing it so strictly.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    seventeen sheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭seventeen sheep


    Beasty wrote: »
    What makes you think the Admins are legal experts?

    Admins, site management/owners?

    I don't know, I don't know how this site operates. My point is that someone has messed up.

    I do think it's poor that the main discussion site in Ireland isn't allowing the main court case under discussion in Ireland to be discussed right now. When every other website is allowing it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement