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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A discussion on the rules.

1303133353654

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    What is commonly held to be true about a person by the public cannot be defamatory, since it cannot lower the reputation of the person supposedly defamed in the eyes of the public.
    A defamatory statement is one which "tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society".

    In other words, the test is whether IRA membership, for example, would tend to injure any person's reputation, and that test is objective, not subjective. Actual injury need not be proved.

    Furthermore, there is a presumption of falsity.

    It would make a mockery of the presumption of falsity if the prevalence of belief in the defamatory statement were a legal defence.

    And it would make a mockery of the presumption of falsity if a jury or a court, as the case may be, were forced to say "Yes, this statement is false, but you have no remedy, because everyone prefers to believe it".

    The idea of a defence counsel imploring the jury in a defamation suit not to return a finding of defamation because "everyone believes the false statement anyway" is just outlandish.

    Take the recent defamation action taken by Michael Lowry against Sam Smyth, journalist, regarding Smyth's "hand in the till" statement. Smyth successfully defended his comment, and he raised about five defences throughout the hearing and the subsequent appeal. At no stage did he claim that "everyone believes Lowry to be corrupt", even if most people do.

    Because that would be nonsense.
    And was defamatory because it was regarded as sufficient to identify the club chairman, not because it defamed the group.
    Nobody claimed it defamed a group. There is no such thing as a class action in this country.

    I said terms like "SF/ IRA TDs", or "members of the SF/IRA Executive" would appear sufficient to create a cause of action by individuals in those groups. Likewise "members of the Loughrea SF/IRA Cumann" or "the SF/IRA club at Trinity College Dublin". There is no way on earth i would ever put my name to a statement like that, regardless of what I might privately believe about Sinn Fein. I doubt any responsible person would.

    Finally, I take some of the blame for perpetuating this conversation, but it probably is not a good idea for this forum to so publicly take a stance on this.

    It's your prerogative, I just don't think it's necessary for a forum to almost invite trouble on itself by appearing to proclaim that a certain formulation will not be sanctioned, and can be proceeded with. At the very least I think it would be wise to concede that the term SF/IRA can be defamatory in certain contexts, as suggested above.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    conorh91 wrote: »
    A defamatory statement is one which "tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society".

    In other words, the test is whether IRA membership, for example, would tend to injure any person's reputation, and that test is objective, not subjective. Actual injury need not be proved.

    Furthermore, there is a presumption of falsity.

    It would make a mockery of the presumption of falsity if the prevalence of belief in the defamatory statement were a legal defence.

    And it would make a mockery of the presumption of falsity if a jury or a court, as the case may be, were forced to say "Yes, this statement is false, but you have no remedy, because everyone prefers to believe it".

    The idea of a defence counsel imploring the jury in a defamation suit not to return a finding of defamation because "everyone believes the false statement anyway" is just outlandish.

    Take the recent defamation action taken by Michael Lowry against Sam Smyth, journalist, regarding Smyth's "hand in the till" statement. Smyth successfully defended his comment, and he raised about five defences throughout the hearing and the subsequent appeal. At no stage did he claim that "everyone believes Lowry to be corrupt", even if most people do.

    Because that would be nonsense.

    Nobody claimed it defamed a group. There is no such thing as a class action in this country.

    I said terms like "SF/ IRA TDs", or "members of the SF/IRA Executive" would appear sufficient to create a cause of action by individuals in those groups. Likewise "members of the Loughrea SF/IRA Cumann" or "the SF/IRA club at Trinity College Dublin". There is no way on earth i would ever put my name to a statement like that, regardless of what I might privately believe about Sinn Fein. I doubt any responsible person would.

    Finally, I take some of the blame for perpetuating this conversation, but it probably is not a good idea for this forum to so publicly take a stance on this.

    It's your prerogative, I just don't think it's necessary for a forum to almost invite trouble on itself by appearing to proclaim that a certain formulation will not be sanctioned, and can be proceeded with. At the very least I think it would be wise to concede that the term SF/IRA can be defamatory in certain contexts, as suggested above.

    Someone is going to be less "cordially" yours etc after this. Well done for putting the effort into the above. Of course someone could admit that he's wrong but don't hold your breath - more likely to walk home with the ball.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Sand wrote: »
    As for decrying it as lowering the tone of the debate...



    If you're going to characterise your opponents as negative adjectives, its very hard for usage of "SF/IRA" to lower the tone of the debate. Paisley certainly doesn't exist - that much is certain - but you're still referencing him in your postings on current events.

    If you follow northern politics you would be aware that Paisley was very popular of the term, I am not sure if he coined it but he would definitely be one of its most prominent users.
    And can you honestly hold up your hands and say that Paisley was good for civilized debate on political issues (post 1994-8ish he was probably better than some though but in NI thats not hard).
    So yes I feel Paisley style of debate is pretty applicable.
    Sand wrote: »
    Thats even before we get to usage of "RUC/PSNI" and similar reference to the RUC which no longer exists.
    Agreed actually unless like with the SF/IRA label someone adds something to back up their point.

    The fact that mods don't even consider a slight issue with this and what it does to threads does sort of point that maybe its time a mod that would at least consider voting for SF be considered, I have made this point before but there definitely isn't one now and AFAIK there never has been one.
    SF aren't a fringe party anymore no matter how much people would wish that to be the case. They have been higher than 10% for the last 5 years among the general population, and much higher in age group that boards.ie draws its main user base from the fact that this has never been reflected in the moderation team says something where as there has been numerous mods extremely hostile to SF over the years.
    Note: I am not arguing for a mod to be a default voice for SF, simply one that can understand the concerns and be aware of the double standards that operate


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    The fact that mods don't even consider a slight issue with this and what it does to threads

    We do recognise it can cause bother on threads, 2 sides at it.
    does sort of point that maybe its time a mod that would at least consider voting for SF be considered, I have made this point before but there definitely isn't one now and AFAIK there never has been one.
    SF aren't a fringe party anymore no matter how much people would wish that to be the case. They have been higher than 10% for the last 5 years among the general population, and much higher in age group that boards.ie draws its main user base from the fact that this has never been reflected in the moderation team says something where as there has been numerous mods extremely hostile to SF over the years.
    Note: I am not arguing for a mod to be a default voice for SF, simply one that can understand the concerns and be aware of the double standards that operate

    I don't really see how it would add anything, FG and FF probably get as much if not more abuse than SF on here!

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



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    K-9 wrote: »
    I don't really see how it would add anything, FG and FF probably get as much if not more abuse than SF on here!

    Emm no, they don't. Maybe the forum would read less like the front page of the sindo if a bit more effort was put into reducing the bias and double standards.
    I am not a SF supporter by the way


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,605 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    conorh91 wrote: »
    A defamatory statement is one which "tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society".

    In other words, the test is whether IRA membership, for example, would tend to injure any person's reputation, and that test is objective, not subjective. Actual injury need not be proved.

    Furthermore, there is a presumption of falsity.

    It would make a mockery of the presumption of falsity if the prevalence of belief in the defamatory statement were a legal defence.

    There is a significant number of problems with your logic, which is probably why there has never been a successful case taken for use of the "SF/IRA" phrase to my knowledge despite it being in widespread, public use. It's also probably why someone cant come on boards, make a series of racist posts and then sue boards.ie for defamation when they are banned with at least one reason offered being that they are racist.

    Is "member of SF/IRA" interchangeable with "member of the IRA"? No. The latter is a specific, illegal, terrorist organisation. The former is a catchall phrase which summarises the well known links between that terrorist group an the legal, political party. Proving the link to the satisfaction of a court wouldn't be hard when SF are selling IRA T Shirts. Even the phrase "SF/IRA" acknowledges there is a (thin) separation between SF and the IRA. Otherwise SF would just be referred to as the IRA.

    Does a statement that a member of SF is a member of "SF/IRA" tend to injure a persons reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society? No. Reasonable members of society see the clear links between SF and the IRA, in their gift shop, in their leadership, in their activists and in their praise for the IRA and its acts. SF revel in the association.

    A member or supporter of SF's reputation is already affected by SFs association with the IRA - describing them as being a member or supporter of "SF/IRA" again is not an accusation of being a member of the IRA.
    I said terms like "SF/ IRA TDs", or "members of the SF/IRA Executive" would appear sufficient to create a cause of action by individuals in those groups. Likewise "members of the Loughrea SF/IRA Cumann" or "the SF/IRA club at Trinity College Dublin". There is no way on earth i would ever put my name to a statement like that, regardless of what I might privately believe about Sinn Fein. I doubt any responsible person would.

    I wouldn't either, but this is a politics forum for discussion by individuals, not a press release by a party, group or organisation.

    While we're on the topic of defamation, do we really want the rules to be set by that? I don't mind but I think *a lot* of the Provo posters will mind because I note a real tendency to make defamatory statements about groups and individuals.

    Describing members of the Orange Order or anyone participating in a Orange Order parade as "bigoted" or "sectarian" would tend to injure an individuals reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society? So the Mods should be infracting and banning anyone who describes members/marchers of the Orange Order in those terms right?

    How about direct defamatory attacks on individuals by some posters here?

    Here's one made just yesterday
    Henlars67 wrote: »
    Siobhan (RIP) is Eilis' sister. Their mother was Joe Cahill's sister.

    Siobhán and Eilis didn't speak, even after Siobhan was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

    Eilis is a bitter woman with an axe to grind

    There are two defamatory statements made about a named individual, the latter a clear attempt to undermine her reputation with the public. As at the time of posting this, it was thanked by Happyman42, amongst others. I don't know how he rationalises his thanks for that post with his campaign for preventing defamatory statements about groups or individuals. Of course, my cynicism tells me people who want to ban the phrase "SF/IRA" want to keep their terms for their opponents still available. How could you make a valid point without calling someone a West Brit afterall?

    The various supporters of the initiative to ban use of "SF/IRA" either for reasons of encouraging good debate, or in a misguided attempt to protect Boards from legal threats need to consider if they *really* want the result they're aiming for. From my perspective, as demonstrated above, there is a real tendency to attack named individuals and members of groups so if they want infractions and bans handed out for it, then they will be picking up the bans a lot quicker than anyone else.

    Or, there could be a recognition that this is politics forum, not a court room or a echo chamber where opposing views are banned. There will be views they don't like, and they just need to toughen up and get on with it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    K-9 wrote: »
    I don't really see how it would add anything, FG and FF probably get as much if not more abuse than SF on here!
    That's certainly what I see from boards.ie and twitter. I guess it's a demographic issue. Anecdotally, SF supporters tend to have more time on their hands, and grew up with the internet. Hence the term Shinnerbots. Of course, mud-slinging is prevalent across the political spectrum, it's just more visible online.
    Sand wrote: »
    Is "member of SF/IRA" interchangeable with "member of the IRA"? No. The latter is a specific, illegal, terrorist organisation. The former is a catchall phrase which summarises the well known links between that terrorist group an the legal, political party.
    Who's your local SF representative? Lets imagine it's Mary Lou McDonald. Do me a favour. Put a bumper sticker on your car, or erect a billboard outside your house, displaying the words "Mary Lou McDonald is a senior member of SF/IRA."

    Take a picture, post it here, and make me look foolish.

    I've already set out the objective test for the law of defamation, and how it does not require that actual injury be caused to any reputation, merely that a statement tends to injure a person's reputation. It's very clear.

    Mary Lou McDonald is presumed, in law, not to be a senior member of the IRA.
    If she were a senior member of the IRA, this would tend to injure her reputation.
    If someone says she is a member of the IRA, that is on its face, a defamatory statement.

    Now you could go before a court, or a jury as the case may be, and make a novel argument regarding the semantics of the forward-slash, citing some obscure case from a dusty volume of the Commonwealth reports of the 1800s. Try it. It might work.

    But why put yourself through that? Why risk a bumper sticker, or a billboard, or with great bluster, very publicly pronouncing "this is where the line is", "this is not defamatory" on your internet forum, seemingly inviting liability.

    Why go out of your way to invite trouble like that? It just seems like such pointless bravado.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Sand wrote: »
    Describing members of the Orange Order or anyone participating in a Orange Order parade as "bigoted" or "sectarian" would tend to injure an individuals reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society? So the Mods should be infracting and banning anyone who describes members/marchers of the Orange Order in those terms right?
    It's not my place to say, and I'm sure the mods have enough headaches, but why not?

    An ISP which closely supervises online content should never allow someone to publish a negative imputation to the extent that is is defamatory against members of a specific club in a specific locale, unless that club were so large as to incapable of possibly applying to all its members.

    For example,

    "lawyers cheat on their partners and they all evade tax" is never defamatory

    but

    "all of the solicitor-members of the Fine Gael parliamentary party cheat on their partners and they all evade tax" is defamatory.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Isn't the solution to make it a simple rule that all parties are referred by by the names they use themselves?

    After that anybody is free to offer a personal opinion (which was what my thanking of the post on Ellis O'Hanlon was) within a post, if it is relevant. It is also very easy for a mod to adjudicate on, somebody either uses the proper name or doesn't.

    It would be a starting point of equal respect for all democrats and have the added bonus of limiting the ways threads can be dragged off topic or head for the inevitable train crash.
    That would add quite a bit to the Politics forum in my opinion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,605 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    conorh91 wrote: »
    "Mary Lou McDonald is a senior member of SF/IRA."
    .....
    Mary Lou McDonald is presumed, in law, not to be a senior member of the IRA.
    If she were a senior member of the IRA, this would tend to injure her reputation.
    If someone says she is a member of the IRA, that is on its face, a defamatory statement.

    Okay. And what if someone says she is a member of SF/IRA which is a different statement entirely?

    Nobody is accusing Mary Lou of being a member of the IRA. They're referencing the association of the IRA to a group she is openly a member of. An association that is very easy to demonstrate to any reasonable person.

    There are examples of media openly associating SF and the IRA, including using the phrase "SF/IRA". No court action resulted, successful or otherwise. Because SF knows they would lose.
    But why put yourself through that? Why risk a bumper sticker, or a billboard, or with great bluster, very publicly pronouncing "this is where the line is", "this is not defamatory" on your internet forum, seemingly inviting liability.

    Why go out of your way to invite trouble like that? It just seems like such pointless bravado.

    Why host an internet forum at all, inviting liability by that fact alone?

    There is a balance to be struck - I think the balance is right on this point. I'm fairly sure Boards get their own legal advice as is necessary. Maybe a court will think differently, but there would need to be an example of the usage of "SF/IRA" being upheld as defamatory by a court. Is there one?

    @conorh91
    It's not my place to say, and I'm sure the mods have enough headaches, but why not?

    Because its a discussion forum. If groups, organisations and yes, individuals, cannot be discussed without any negative opinion, comment or judgement being treated as libel then you might as well close down the whole thing.

    Again, there is a balance to be drawn: A statement should be backed and it shouldn't breach the sites own policies taken under their own legal advice. But if you can only offer positive judgements and opinions, then why bother having a forum in the first place?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Sand wrote: »
    Okay. And what if someone says she is a member of SF/IRA which is a different statement entirely?
    In that case, it's even easier to prove defamation. she has been named; inference need not be drawn that the defamatory statement refers to her as its subject.
    There are examples of media openly associating SF and the IRA, including using the phrase "SF/IRA".
    And as I said earlier, there is no general problem with the term SF/IRA. A problem only arises in some circumstances, i.e. where it refers to contemporary circumstances, and where it singles out a particular sub-group within the organisation, e.g. a parliamentary party.

    That is laid down in statute by the clear language of s.10 of the Defamation Act 2009, which emanated from a Supreme Court case I referred to earlier. To go back over that case, a couple of men broke into and hid in the attic of a GAA clubhouse. The News of the World reported the story, saying IRA plots were overheard. A member of the club sued for defamation, even though he was never named. The fact that the club was named, and the fact that he was a member, was enough.
    Why host an internet forum at all, inviting liability by that fact alone?
    There are degrees of liability. ISPs are protected by various statutes, including most notably, the Defamation Act itself.

    ISPs enhance their liability, however, by closely supervising and establishing rules of policy, i.e. proclaiming that certain content will be allowed. If that content turns out to be defamatory, the ISP has gone too far.

    So you can see why it is confusing why an ISP would bother to take a firm position on this. You can achieve the same outcome by taking each case on a case-by-case basis. There seems to be no good reason to put down in writing that a certain statement (e.g. SF/IRA, or XXX, TD, is corrupt") will not be actioned. Why would you ever do that to yourself?
    But if you can only offer positive judgements and opinions
    There are 9 formal defences to defamation, and honest opinion is one of them.

    Honest opinion does not, however, extent to statements of fact which, if they are injurious to reputation, are always presumed false.

    I'm just suggesting the forum should tread more carefully in laying down policy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,605 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    conorh91 wrote: »
    In that case, it's even easier to prove defamation. she has been named; inference need not be drawn that the defamatory statement refers to her as its subject.

    Prove what? That she is a member of SF, which is closely associated with the IRA?

    Saying someone is a member of SF/IRA is not the same as saying they are a member of the IRA.
    That is laid down in statute by the clear language of s.10 of the Defamation Act 2009, which emanated from a Supreme Court case I referred to earlier. To go back over that case, a couple of men broke into and hid in the attic of a GAA clubhouse. The News of the World reported the story, saying IRA plots were overheard. A member of the club sued for defamation, even though he was never named. The fact that the club was named, and the fact that he was a member, was enough.

    And that has no relevance to inferring, directly or indirectly, that an individual is a member "SF/IRA". Accusing a club and its members of plotting IRA attacks is an entirely different thing.
    There are degrees of liability. ISPs are protected by various statutes, including most notably, the Defamation Act itself.

    ISPs enhance their liability, however, by closely supervising and establishing rules of policy, i.e. proclaiming that certain content will be allowed. If that content turns out to be defamatory, the ISP has gone too far.

    So you can see why it is confusing why an ISP would bother to take a firm position on this. You can achieve the same outcome by taking each case on a case-by-case basis. There seems to be no good reason to put down in writing that a certain statement (e.g. SF/IRA, or XXX, TD, is corrupt") will not be actioned. Why would you ever do that to yourself?

    There is nothing in the charter which states its fine to refer to "SF/IRA" or that a certain TD is corrupt. Quite the opposite. The mods were asked to insert a rule banning references to "SF/IRA". They decided not to. That is not approval of the term - its just a decision not to ban it outright, for the same reasons terms like "blueshirts", "west brits", "FFailure" are not banned outright.
    There are 9 formal defences to defamation, and honest opinion is one of them.

    Great, so we're in the clear on usage of the SF/IRA term as it is many, many peoples honest opinion that SF and the IRA are closely associated.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Sand wrote: »
    Saying someone is a member of SF/IRA is not the same as saying they are a member of the IRA.
    I would read "member of SF/IRA" as imputing membership, or a relationship so close as to lead a reasonable person to believe the person has an ongoing IRA association.

    This brings us dejectedly back to the semantics of the forward-slash, and what inferences a Court or a jury would draw.

    Lets leave the political examples aside for a moment, to examine this argument.
    Twenty priests from a small, Catholic diocese with a history of inadequately protecting children from sexual abuse go on a pilgrimage following the publication of the Ryan report. On their return, a member of the public takes an ad in the newspaper saying "Welcome back from Knock, members of the local clergy/ paedophile ring".

    The editor whose newspaper is the second-named defendant, stands up in court and announces, to a bewildered-looking jury, that "the forward-slash was used to establish an alternative conjunction, and not an interchangeable one".

    Now, I have no idea what a jury believes about reasonable members of society, and their opinion on the brave little punctuation mark that is claimed to see-off a defamation suit. It probably doesn't matter.

    The point is whether someone, like an internet forum owner, is willing to take such a risk or stand up in court like our aforementioned editor, appealing to the rudiments of English grammar.
    Sand wrote: »
    There is nothing in the charter which states its fine to refer to "SF/IRA" or that a certain TD is corrupt.

    No, but in a thread entitled "A discussion on the rules", a poster asked whether he was allowed to allege illegality by a member of parliament. In response, a moderator stated that "Where such allegations [of corruption] are common currency, so common as to not constitute libel, we don't object", citing as an example of allegations of corruption.

    That's when I replied. Not because I care about the cause of the Shinners or corrupt TDs, but because it is in the nature of discussion forums to suggest alternative viewpoints, or even, suggest a mistake, especially where it a mistake is a potentially serious one.
    Great, so we're in the clear on usage of the SF/IRA term as it is many, many peoples honest opinion that SF and the IRA are closely associated
    The problem arises when opinion morphs into a statement which is construed as fact, and where individuals are reasonably identifiable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,285 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Sand wrote: »
    Saying someone is a member of SF/IRA is not the same as saying they are a member of the IRA.


    So what is your motive in using the term SF/IRA when talking about SF?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The Sindo has an upfront anti SF agenda/editorial stance, there is supposed to be a level playing field here, no?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The problem is that its antagonistic from the get go. Reasonable debate can't take place when the starting position is so antagonistic.
    I am not a SF supporter (don't know why I keep qualifying my position).
    The Sindo and various other self righteous publications and commentators are delivering votes to SF with their antagonistic stance.
    For many voters (approx. 25% of the electorate) SF seems to have the answers, not corrupted by being in power and against austerity together with a certain edginess of having the freedom fighter past.
    Many of SF's elected reps have nothing to do with the armed struggle and got elected on a SF wave during the summer yet the zealots here insist on insulting everyone's intelligence with SF/IRA labels.
    The debate should be about the crazy fiscal policies (my opinion) SF propagate instead of always trying to discredit SF as terrorists, the electorate isn't buying it and the war is over for over a decade


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,605 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    conorh91 wrote: »
    I would read "member of SF/IRA" as imputing membership, or a relationship so close as to lead a reasonable person to believe the person has an ongoing IRA association.

    Grand, I and most reasonable people would not. That's probably why there has never been a successful case on that basis despite it being widely used in media and political discourse for decades.
    Twenty priests from a small, Catholic diocese with a history of inadequately protecting children from sexual abuse go on a pilgrimage following the publication of the Ryan report. On their return, a member of the public takes an ad in the newspaper saying "Welcome back from Knock, members of the local clergy/ paedophile ring".

    The editor whose newspaper is the second-named defendant, stands up in court and announces, to a bewildered-looking jury, that "the forward-slash was used to establish an alternative conjunction, and not an interchangeable one".

    Did the clergy fail to protect children, or were they known past members of a paedophile ring, champions of that paedophile ring, defenders of its actions and crimes and are they selling paedophile material for profit in their giftshop?

    You're repeatedly trying to draw a conclusion from a different set of circumstances to avoid acknowledging that the SF/IRA reference is fair in the eyes of most people.
    No, but in a thread entitled "A discussion on the rules", a poster asked whether he was allowed to allege illegality by a member of parliament. In response, a moderator stated that "Where such allegations [of corruption] are common currency, so common as to not constitute libel, we don't object", citing as an example of allegations of corruption.

    That's when I replied. Not because I care about the cause of the Shinners or corrupt TDs, but because it is in the nature of discussion forums to suggest alternative viewpoints, or even, suggest a mistake, especially where it a mistake is a potentially serious one.

    The problem arises when opinion morphs into a statement which is construed as fact, and where individuals are reasonably identifiable.

    Grand, in so far as it goes but where allegations are so common as to not constitute libel tends to ensure the reasonable person will not consider it libel. Hardly anyone's opinion on a internet forum can be mistaken for fact. It is all someone's honest opinion. The mods have and will no doubt continue to intervene where they feel a line is being crossed.

    @A Dub in Glasgow
    So what is your motive in using the term SF/IRA when talking about SF?

    Many people have explained it already ADIG.

    It's a term to highlight the the clear association between SF and the IRA as organisations. I know supporters of SF really, really, really wish everyone would forget *their* past, but they wont. SF/IRA summarises why SF is transfer toxic. It summarises why people roll their eyes when SF tries to moralise. It summarises why the idea of SF getting any influence over the army or police in the Republic worries reasonable people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It's boring - almost a cliche- to have to even mention this, but the second largest political party, and some in the party currently in government (not all, the likes of John 'Unionist' Bruton is at least consistent) venerate killers who started a violent up-rising which at the time had little or no popular mandate.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,285 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Sand wrote: »

    It's a term to highlight the the clear association between SF and the IRA as organisations. I know supporters of SF really, really, really wish everyone would forget *their* past, but they wont. SF/IRA summarises why SF is transfer toxic. It summarises why people roll their eyes when SF tries to moralise. It summarises why the idea of SF getting any influence over the army or police in the Republic worries reasonable people.

    It does not worry me that some people use the phrase SF/IRA instead of SF. If anything, it highlights their own childishness


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    Sand wrote: »
    It's a term to highlight the the clear association between SF and the IRA as organisations. I know supporters of SF really, really, really wish everyone would forget *their* past, but they wont. SF/IRA summarises why SF is transfer toxic. It summarises why people roll their eyes when SF tries to moralise. It summarises why the idea of SF getting any influence over the army or police in the Republic worries reasonable people.

    The IRA is on permanent ceasfire and has decommissioned, effectively, wound itself up.

    Are you against the peace process?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Sand wrote: »
    There is a significant number of problems with your logic, which is probably why there has never been a successful case taken for use of the "SF/IRA" phrase to my knowledge despite it being in widespread, public use. It's also probably why someone cant come on boards, make a series of racist posts and then sue boards.ie for defamation when they are banned with at least one reason offered being that they are racist.

    Is "member of SF/IRA" interchangeable with "member of the IRA"? No. The latter is a specific, illegal, terrorist organisation. The former is a catchall phrase which summarises the well known links between that terrorist group an the legal, political party. Proving the link to the satisfaction of a court wouldn't be hard when SF are selling IRA T Shirts. Even the phrase "SF/IRA" acknowledges there is a (thin) separation between SF and the IRA. Otherwise SF would just be referred to as the IRA.

    Does a statement that a member of SF is a member of "SF/IRA" tend to injure a persons reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society? No. Reasonable members of society see the clear links between SF and the IRA, in their gift shop, in their leadership, in their activists and in their praise for the IRA and its acts. SF revel in the association.

    A member or supporter of SF's reputation is already affected by SFs association with the IRA - describing them as being a member or supporter of "SF/IRA" again is not an accusation of being a member of the IRA.



    I wouldn't either, but this is a politics forum for discussion by individuals, not a press release by a party, group or organisation.

    While we're on the topic of defamation, do we really want the rules to be set by that? I don't mind but I think *a lot* of the Provo posters will mind because I note a real tendency to make defamatory statements about groups and individuals.

    Describing members of the Orange Order or anyone participating in a Orange Order parade as "bigoted" or "sectarian" would tend to injure an individuals reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society? So the Mods should be infracting and banning anyone who describes members/marchers of the Orange Order in those terms right?

    How about direct defamatory attacks on individuals by some posters here?

    Here's one made just yesterday



    There are two defamatory statements made about a named individual, the latter a clear attempt to undermine her reputation with the public. As at the time of posting this, it was thanked by Happyman42, amongst others. I don't know how he rationalises his thanks for that post with his campaign for preventing defamatory statements about groups or individuals. Of course, my cynicism tells me people who want to ban the phrase "SF/IRA" want to keep their terms for their opponents still available. How could you make a valid point without calling someone a West Brit afterall?

    The various supporters of the initiative to ban use of "SF/IRA" either for reasons of encouraging good debate, or in a misguided attempt to protect Boards from legal threats need to consider if they *really* want the result they're aiming for. From my perspective, as demonstrated above, there is a real tendency to attack named individuals and members of groups so if they want infractions and bans handed out for it, then they will be picking up the bans a lot quicker than anyone else.

    Or, there could be a recognition that this is politics forum, not a court room or a echo chamber where opposing views are banned. There will be views they don't like, and they just need to toughen up and get on with it.

    I would agree with all of the above.

    I would only add the following:

    (1) Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein has said quite clearly that he will never disassociate himself from the IRA.

    (2) There are a number of members of Sinn Fein who have been convicted of IRA membership.


    Anyway, I don't think we need any further discussion on this issue.


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-disgraced-30675107.html

    The phrase "SF/IRA leadership" has been used fairly liberally in that article. Given the propensity of Gerry and the lads to report the Indo to the PCC, we shall hear sooner or later whether it is an acceptable phrase and boards can fall in line with what is allowed in the mainstream media. In the meantime, if it is ok for a newspaper, can't see why it is a problem here.

    I wouldn't be optimistic about SF succeeding. Despite what they said the other day, it seems they lost 6-3 the last time they played the Indo.

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/now-adams-thinks-hes-curbed-us-he-has-not-30674875.html


    "But Mr Adams's proclamation that the "Independent Group" had been forced to apologise to him was not true. It was, in fact, a lie. There was no apology, forced or otherwise. It was black propaganda. "


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,605 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    porsche959 wrote: »
    Are you against the peace process?

    Oh man. That's hilarious.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    Sand wrote: »
    Oh man. That's hilarious.

    So, you don't wish to answer the question?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    Godge wrote: »
    Anyway, I don't think we need any further discussion on this issue.

    Far from it, I think discussion should continue. This is a discussion forum, right?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I don't, as a rule, put much credence on unsigned articles from the Labour party's inhouse propaganda machine. Odd to see you of all posters, with your pro-free market anti-big government agenda, citing it as the source of wisdom!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    To paraphrase Groucho; do we really want to be members of a club that includes the Sindo?
    I still haven't seen a convincing argument against my suggestion that the rule should be to use the name and abbreviation that a party uses itself. One rule for all, surely that is being fair to all.
    As Godge proves in this post, it is possible to historically link within a post without using a currently offensive and incorrect abbreviation.(Which he is entitled to do if he wishes and it is relevant)
    Godge wrote: »
    SF want us to move on from their past.

    Not all of us want to forget the part that McGuinness, Ferris, Ellis, Adams and others played in despicable events.

    I keep getting attacked for saying this but the reality is there are many many people who will not forget however much SF want us to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Well considering some of those terms are already banned your not really helping your point ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,285 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    or Queen Elizabeth I


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    The Sindo was using SF/IRA because it was historical and because the IRA are involved in the allegations.
    Would the Sindo print the following; 'Gerry Adams Addresses The SF/IRA Party Conference and get away with it, do you think?


    So, you would also ban the terms "Shinners," "Fianna Failure," "Zanu-FF," and any other such colorful nickname?

    Would we also have to refer to the head of state of the UK as "Queen Elizabeth II," and the former prime minister as "Baroness Margaret Thatcher"?
    I am referring to the use of party titles, so yes Fianna Failure and Zanu-FF would be off limits.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    Well considering some of those terms are already banned your not really helping your point ;)

    Wow. A fairly serious own goal. Just wow!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Are people seriously still arguing that the term 'Sinn Fein/IRA' offensive and a bannable offence.
    This weekend Michael Martin, the leader of the largest opposition party did an interview with Newstalk. He used the term on a number of occasions. It is in the public lexicon for very obvious reasons. Only Sinn Fein supporters seam to have an issue with this. If self proclaimed Republicans on this forum are unhappy about this, then they should lobby Sinn Fein to stop selling IRA merchandise and ask for all past known and suspected members of the IRA to vacate their seats.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    I'm fully in agreement with FreudianSlippers, above, only to add that the same should obviously apply to words imputing corrupt or otherwise illegal acts to identifiable politicians. the fact that something is common currency, or popular to say, does not, by itself, place it beyond the reach of the Defamation Act.

    Also, to Sand, just because someone has never sued for defamation over a particular formulation does not mean it cannot be defamatory. Politicians actually tend not to be litigious regarding defamation. They may have many motivations in not taking action, including an unwillingness to antagonize the media, or to be seen to interfere with free expression.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    conorh91 wrote: »
    that the same should obviously apply to words imputing corrupt or otherwise illegal acts to identifiable politicians. .

    Which is covered by the charter and well moderated in fairness I can't for instance say 'XXXXX XXXXX is guilty of paedophilia' without providing proof of that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Which is covered by the charter and well moderated in fairness I can't for instance say 'XXXXX XXXXX is guilty of paedophilia' without providing proof of that.
    I'm just mentioning it because it was specifically raised earlier in this thread as being non-actionable in light of it being a prevalent allegation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The Sindo was using SF/IRA because it was historical and because the IRA are involved in the allegations.
    .


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-disgraced-30675107.html

    "Intense pressure on Mary Lou McDonald and new generation TDs and senators to force SF/IRA to come clean on growing sex-abuse scandals"

    "The Fianna Fail leader Mr Martin yesterday expressed particular concern over "the treatment of Mairia" which he said "has been an open secret within Sinn Fein/IRA for a decade now - yet their instinct has been to marginalise and punish."

    Just to give one example, the use of SF/IRA in that article does not appear to be historical in nature.

    As for the use in a current context, the way the Cahill case is going, in particular the possibility she mentioned of further cases coming to light, we may see SF/IRA as an adjective coming more rather than less into use.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Thats the paper who's owning group had to apologise to Adams. They were caught out twice publishing crap about him so its no wonder they say 'SF/IRA'.
    Godge wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-disgraced-30675107.html

    "Intense pressure on Mary Lou McDonald and new generation TDs and senators to force SF/IRA to come clean on growing sex-abuse scandals"

    "The Fianna Fail leader Mr Martin yesterday expressed particular concern over "the treatment of Mairia" which he said "has been an open secret within Sinn Fein/IRA for a decade now - yet their instinct has been to marginalise and punish."

    Just to give one example, the use of SF/IRA in that article does not appear to be historical in nature.

    As for the use in a current context, the way the Cahill case is going, in particular the possibility she mentioned of further cases coming to light, we may see SF/IRA as an adjective coming more rather than less into use.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    maccored wrote: »
    Thats the paper who's owning group had to apologise to Adams. They were caught out twice publishing crap about him so its no wonder they say 'SF/IRA'.

    Martin said it, and they reported it, I'd have thought that was the relevant part of the article!

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



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    maccored wrote: »
    Thats the paper who's owning group had to apologise to Adams. They were caught out twice publishing crap about him so its no wonder they say 'SF/IRA'.

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/now-adams-thinks-hes-curbed-us-he-has-not-30674875.html

    Gerry Adams made nine separate complaints about the Independent. Three were upheld. A classic case of him throwing a lot of mud and hoping some sticks (It means he lost 6-3 by the way).

    From a read of the article, by the way, it seems the more serious complaints were thrown out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    its unfortunate, but I cant actually believe anything that paper prints considering the crap they've printed so far.
    Godge wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/now-adams-thinks-hes-curbed-us-he-has-not-30674875.html

    Gerry Adams made nine separate complaints about the Independent. Three were upheld. A classic case of him throwing a lot of mud and hoping some sticks (It means he lost 6-3 by the way).

    From a read of the article, by the way, it seems the more serious complaints were thrown out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Godge wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-disgraced-30675107.html

    "Intense pressure on Mary Lou McDonald and new generation TDs and senators to force SF/IRA to come clean on growing sex-abuse scandals"

    "The Fianna Fail leader Mr Martin yesterday expressed particular concern over "the treatment of Mairia" which he said "has been an open secret within Sinn Fein/IRA for a decade now - yet their instinct has been to marginalise and punish."

    Just to give one example, the use of SF/IRA in that article does not appear to be historical in nature.

    As for the use in a current context, the way the Cahill case is going, in particular the possibility she mentioned of further cases coming to light, we may see SF/IRA as an adjective coming more rather than less into use.


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,219 ✭✭✭tipptom


    K-9 wrote: »
    A mod of another forum maybe, definitely not a politics mod.
    So you agree that he should not have been named on boards by a moderator irregardless of if he was mentioned on a hostile irish media who wanted to play politics with this regardless if it was going to definably prejudicing a potential trial of an alleged rapist that still could have been convicted in a court of law,and a trial that GA could have been cross examined on his role and advice to the alleged victim.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,219 ✭✭✭tipptom


    K-9 wrote: »
    This isn't really the thread for it, there's a discussion on the rules thread on the main page.
    No,this is definatly the thread for it because of the medias agenda and involvment in this,i am asking you why boards and its moderators which seemed to have joined this agenda towards SF and would this fellas name would have being named if he had not being tied in with SF,IMO that it wouldn't,you are part of the broader media and I don't think a legitimate question should be tried to be censored.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    tipptom wrote: »
    So you agree that he should not have been named on boards by a moderator irregardless of if he was mentioned on a hostile irish media who wanted to play politics with this regardless if it was going to definably prejudicing a potential trial of an alleged rapist that still could have been convicted in a court of law,and a trial that GA could have been cross examined on his role and advice to the alleged victim.
    tipptom wrote: »
    No,this is definatly the thread for it because of the medias agenda and involvment in this,i am asking you why boards and its moderators which seemed to have joined this agenda towards SF and would this fellas name would have being named if he had not being tied in with SF,IMO that it wouldn't,you are part of the broader media and I don't think a legitimate question should be tried to be censored.

    We just expect all users (we don't extend special dispensations to any political party supporters of any ilk) to abide by rules. It works well for the most part.

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



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement