oxegen - the bad news just wont go away (1 Viewer)

[jane]

It's worrying some parties think that they just have to accept the MCD pressuring routines and censor themselves...like MCD had any chance in any court with a case like this, people sharing rumours in the internets. It's just bullying, cop on and they'll go back to their drawing boards.

They won't win their cases, but they can actually bring a case under Irish law because, unlike other kinds of cases, in which the burden of proof is on the person who has filed the lawsuit, the burden of proof is on the person accused of defamation to prove that the statement(s) he or she made are either true or were honestly believed to be true.

In any case, no one appears to be speaking in bad faith, but, as is acceptable as a defense, in the belief that they have spoken the truth, which they believed to be in the public interest. Or, that it was a 'comment' rather than a fact. But under the law, it seems that This Hypothetical Company could make trouble for anyone who says anything because they would be obligated, not just to go to court, but to go to court with the burden of proof on their shoulders.

I actually had no idea just how insanely strict these laws were. In fact, I think they are far too strict. In fact, I am worried that I could be sued for defaming the defamation laws.

This appears to be a very clear explanation of the law, and is where I just learned, in the last five minutes, why it is that these solicitors' letters, as much a legal cul de sac they might be, are actually, well, within the bounds of the law. Eek.

http://indigo.ie/~kwood/defamation.htm



ALL GIGS ARE BRILLENT OK.

ALL FESTIVALS ARE MA FREN.

 

[classic seanc]

It's worrying some parties think that they just have to accept the MCD pressuring routines and censor themselves...like MCD had any chance in any court with a case like this, people sharing rumours in the internets. It's just bullying, cop on and they'll go back to their drawing boards.

Go easy man. The libel laws are mad in this country y'know.


Also, he who fights and runs away etc...

 

[Dktr. Faustus]

So are there some prior cases in Ireland about net forum users / admins being convicted of defamation, accusations made in the forums not being directed at persons and not being extreme in any means, just word-of-mouth and own experiences on happenings?

There is the "free speech" in heavy quotations, but still, we've got amnesty, ECHR, or whatever, think about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mclibel and consider how principally significant the differences are in the ways of communication here.

I don't believe MCD would even start such a battle, and I don't think that claiming their scare tactics ridiculous is ridiculous. I'm no expert in law, just sayin...

 

[GARYXKNIFEDX]

Just start every comment about MCD with "I heard a rumour" surely as long as you make it clear you are not stating a fact you would have some sort of defense? Or is that too ridiculously easy to work?
Anyway,my experience of working with them was bad. So bad in fact I didn't work with them. Local bands really should just turn down gigs offered to them by MCD.

 

[pete]

Or is that too ridiculously easy to work?

Yes. If it went to court the onus would be on the author / publisher to prove that their statement was truthful. The fact that you were repeating "hearsay" wouldn't be a defense - you're still 'publishing' it.

 

[Unicron]

Considering the amount of bullshit and pisstaking that goes on here surely everything posted on thumped is protected as satire.

Just make up the most ridiculous, unbelieveable statements about them and you're in the clear. MCD rape donkeys.

 

[jane]

Just start every comment about MCD with "I heard a rumour" surely as long as you make it clear you are not stating a fact you would have some sort of defense? Or is that too ridiculously easy to work?

From what I can tell, yes. The thing is, though, they can still take you to court, and it's up to you to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was a comment, not an objective and observable Highly Scientological Fact. I can't imagine any court would want to waste their time with a million defamation suits that won't hold water, but the fact is, they appear to have the legal right to make you take the day off work to go to court to prove that the mean things you said that made them cry were just your personal opinion.

jaakko, it's a good point about the McLibel thing. I mean, it IS a bit like someone suing for saying McDonald's food is unhealthy, and that their corporate policies are shit. Oprah Winfrey was also sued by the beef lobby for renouncing hamburgers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Lyman).

It's a seriously fucking dodgy tactic, I think, and I think it's part of a broader trend, in which the laws that were supposed to protect 'the people' are being used to harm these 'people'. Free speech laws are being hauled out to help hatemongers spread their bullshit, and libel laws are being used by corporations to prevent people from speaking what is clearly the truth, but what does not meld with the truthiness of their agendas. I really wish the libel laws could be changed to reflect the fact that they are being abused by the people who need to be criticised the most. Unfortunately, that won't fucking happen.

 

[hugh]

Yes. If it went to court the onus would be on the author / publisher to prove that their statement was truthful. The fact that you were repeating "hearsay" wouldn't be a defense - you're still 'publishing' it.

So who gets sued here? The author (the poster) or the publisher (Pete?)?

 

[jane]

Yes. If it went to court the onus would be on the author / publisher to prove that their statement was truthful. The fact that you were repeating "hearsay" wouldn't be a defense - you're still 'publishing' it.

But 'fair comment' is a defense:

Fair comment​

In order to plead fair comment, the publisher must be able to show that

• the report was on a matter of public interest
• the statement was a comment, rather than a fact and
• the comment was fair, in that the belief was honestly held

It is a matter for the court to decide whether words are facts or comments. Often the distinction is so unclear that defence lawyers will rely on what is called a "rolled-up plea". That means they claim that, insofar as the words consist of facts, they are true; insofar as they consist of opinions, they are fair comment made without malice and in good faith on a matter of public interest.

The test of malice is subjective, but the court will allow evidence of the publisher's previous conduct, refusal to apologise or repetition of the defamatory matter.

​

 

[Theseus Mock]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Don't forget, tickets for next years fest go on sale this November. Can't wait!

 

[jane]

So who gets sued here? The author (the poster) or the publisher (Pete?)?

Dude, go to that website I linked to. Apparently, EVERYONE can get sued separately.

I am trying to restrain myself from reading this in full: http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/volume10/lrc_67.html. I'm really fascinated by the law, and I fucking should have become a lawyer. Then I'd have money. And I could also go around defending people's fucking rights to speak their goddamn minds without threats of being sued for saying they don't like standing in a field full of drunk twats.

Also looking interesting is this: http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/volume8/lrc_61.html

Gah.

 

[pete]

But 'fair comment' is a defense:

but who wants to have to go to court?

 

[pete]

So who gets sued here? The author (the poster) or the publisher (Pete?)?

Nobody gets sued here.

 

[jane]

but who wants to have to go to court?

That's the whole point of what I'm saying. People can use threats of defamation suits to shut other people up, simply because no one wants to get hauled into court, even if it would be relatively simple to explain that what you said was 'fair comment' or that you believed it to be true at the time. The threat of court, though, is enough, because it's the defendant who is made to do all the work.

 

[pete]

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/04/13/defamation-bill-will-it-meet-internet-users-needs/

a good read

 

[rotten tropics]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1Hl7acUaxw

Don't forget, tickets for next years fest go on sale this November. Can't wait!

dont be so cynical,it could be like this;

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Dktr. Faustus]

jaakko, it's a good point about the McLibel thing. I mean, it IS a bit like someone suing for saying McDonald's food is unhealthy, and that their corporate policies are shit. Oprah Winfrey was also sued by the beef lobby for renouncing hamburgers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Lyman).

It's a seriously fucking dodgy tactic, I think, and I think it's part of a broader trend, in which the laws that were supposed to protect 'the people' are being used to harm these 'people'. Free speech laws are being hauled out to help hatemongers spread their bullshit, and libel laws are being used by corporations to prevent people from speaking what is clearly the truth, but what does not meld with the truthiness of their agendas. I really wish the libel laws could be changed to reflect the fact that they are being abused by the people who need to be criticised the most. Unfortunately, that won't fucking happen.

Well, it has! Kinda. From the mclibel-linky

On 15 February 2005, the pair's 20-year battle (and 11-year court battle) with the company concluded when the ECHR ruled that the original case had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered that the UK government should pay the McLibel Two £57,000 in compensation. In making their decision, the ECHR criticised the way in which UK laws had failed to protect the public's right to criticise corporations whose business practices affect people's lives and the environment (which violates Article 10) and criticised the biased nature of the trial due to the defendants' lack of legal aid, the complex and oppressive nature of the UK libel laws, and the imbalance in resources between the parties to the case (which violates Article 6). In response to the ECHR's decision, Steel and Morris issued the following press release;

By going to court you can win, AND make some tens of grands of money too, come on now MCD

 

[jane]

Well, it has! Kinda. From the mclibel-linky



By going to court you can win, AND make some tens of grands of money too, come on now MCD

A ha! I should have done a little more homework, dude. I totally just defamed the defamation, but I believed it to be true at the time.

 

[GARYXKNIFEDX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1Hl7acUaxw

Don't forget, tickets for next years fest go on sale this November. Can't wait!

so how many words does a video count for ? if of course a picture counts for a thousand.


This whole things fucked. I go to the odd MCD gig but I may be rethinking that.

 

[Dktr. Faustus]

A SLAPP in the face of public taste