ibis wrote:

riadach wrote:

ibis wrote:

riadach wrote:

I'm appauled. shocked and appauled.

Relax, man. Don't have a cow.

That's it, tá mé ag tógáil an maroc orm féin.

Well, that was completely wasted on me. I've been quite accurately described as having a "couple of feck-all", on account of going to school in London.

I'm actually surprised how intelligible I was given how hopelessly drunk I was coming in last night.

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

How does the law operate if everyone continues to qualify everything with "I think", "maybe", "perhaps" etc.? Can expressing your opinion be libellous, slanderous, defamatory?

Maybe I should ask a good solicitor (like droghedasouth)...

The definition of defamation is a statement which would adversely effect the reputation of a person in the eyes of a reasonable third party.

Now apply that to the following statement if said by me about Riadach.

Riadach perverted weirdo who sexually molests stray cats and steals from charities.

And then, using the same criteria, evaluate this statement:

I think Riadach dirty perverted weirdo who secually molests stray cats and steals from charities.

Was the outcome of your consideration of the later statement any different to that of the first?

Now you could claim Fair comment, but in order to do that you would have to prove that you honestly believed that Riadach got his jollies from bothering moggies. It would also have to be a statement of some use to somebody, warning a cat owners club
from organising a meeting near his house, rather than said to or about him with the sole intent of causing
him or his reputation harm.

What about the defence of justification, aka truth? A statement cannot constitute libel if it is true, so surely as long as you actually think it then you have a defence?

evercloserunion wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

How does the law operate if everyone continues to qualify everything with "I think", "maybe", "perhaps" etc.? Can expressing your opinion be libellous, slanderous, defamatory?

Maybe I should ask a good solicitor (like droghedasouth)...

The definition of defamation is a statement which would adversely effect the reputation of a person in the eyes of a reasonable third party.

Now apply that to the following statement if said by me about Riadach.

Riadach perverted weirdo who sexually molests stray cats and steals from charities.

And then, using the same criteria, evaluate this statement:

I think Riadach dirty perverted weirdo who secually molests stray cats and steals from charities.

Was the outcome of your consideration of the later statement any different to that of the first?

Now you could claim Fair comment, but in order to do that you would have to prove that you honestly believed that Riadach got his jollies from bothering moggies. It would also have to be a statement of some use to somebody, warning a cat owners club
from organising a meeting near his house, rather than said to or about him with the sole intent of causing
him or his reputation harm.

What about the defence of justification, aka truth? A statement cannot constitute libel if it is true, so surely as long as you actually think it then you have a defence?

You would have to get one of the cats to speak up in court I think. We went into this in a bit of depth when we were setting up - P.ie had been threatened with legal action and moved to the US. It was a panicky time but educational.

My understanding (and it is not er'hem professional advice) is that there is such a defence, but it has to be proven very thoroughly - the benefit of the doubt is with the complainant's good name. Politicians have a good bit of immunity in public interest matters, and in general don't sue as if they did they would never have time to do anything else. And look what happened to poor Albert...

cactus flower wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

How does the law operate if everyone continues to qualify everything with "I think", "maybe", "perhaps" etc.? Can expressing your opinion be libellous, slanderous, defamatory?

Maybe I should ask a good solicitor (like droghedasouth)...

The definition of defamation is a statement which would adversely effect the reputation of a person in the eyes of a reasonable third party.

Now apply that to the following statement if said by me about Riadach.

Riadach perverted weirdo who sexually molests stray cats and steals from charities.

And then, using the same criteria, evaluate this statement:

I think Riadach dirty perverted weirdo who secually molests stray cats and steals from charities.

Was the outcome of your consideration of the later statement any different to that of the first?

Now you could claim Fair comment, but in order to do that you would have to prove that you honestly believed that Riadach got his jollies from bothering moggies. It would also have to be a statement of some use to somebody, warning a cat owners club
from organising a meeting near his house, rather than said to or about him with the sole intent of causing
him or his reputation harm.

What about the defence of justification, aka truth? A statement cannot constitute libel if it is true, so surely as long as you actually think it then you have a defence?

You would have to get one of the cats to speak up in court I think. We went into this in a bit of depth when we were setting up - P.ie had been threatened with legal action and moved to the US. It was a panicky time but educational.

My understanding (and it is not er'hem professional advice) is that there is such a defence, but it has to be proven very thoroughly - the benefit of the doubt is with the complainant's good name. Politicians have a good bit of immunity in public interest matters, and in general don't sue as if they did they would never have time to do anything else. And look what happened to poor Albert...

In theory the threshold of proof in civil cases is a balance of probabilities, so you only have to prove that it was probably true, but you're right, the court (or, in the case of defamation, the jury) will take a very conservative view of what's probable in such cases.

http://www.digitalrights.ie/

We have this link at the bottom of the Portal page - its quite useful.

I'm subscribed to the RSS feed there, it's very good. I believe it's they who are taking a case to challenge controversial data retention laws.

....of way it fulfills some peoples need for unrequited love?

P.ie serves only one function imo. It reveals the wide range of extremist views that exist in Ireland today. I usually ignored what was considered the extreme left views as they are just generally outdated and disproved. Right wing views expressed on the forum are sometimes mind boggling.

There might be a second function. It's funny. So many ideas are expressed without thought, foundation or reference to anything but the poster's own world view. And youngdan's ability to come up with nicknames or storybased retorts are always a giggle.

Starting to sound like a monthy python sketch now. Third - but attached to second. It's funny how seriously the site takes itself and some posters take themselves.

...i love meaningful and balanced dialogue. i like the fact that who shouts loudest tends to win the arguments and like the consistent moderation policies and the easy user access to the new site.

I love Politics.ie because I can give all the racists a good bashing!

gnash1970 wrote:

I love Politics.ie because I can give all the racists a good bashing!

just don't pull too hard and use plenty of lube.