Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rockall
    Posts
    78,412

    Default Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...269036294.html

    We haven't carried any threads about the recent case between Politics.ie and Michael Daly while that case was in Court.

    Now that the case has been settled, there are useful lessons and reminders for forum users to be had from the results.

    The case has been settled with acknowledgement from either side that the other party is of good repute.

    It was accepted that the posting complained of was not made by David Cochrane as had been alleged. It was also acknowledged that the Site Owner, David Cochrane, removed the postings. It was acknowledged by David Cochrane that the posting/s was/were untrue.

    Last week, an interim injunction was granted to auctioneer, Michael Daly , partner of Darragh Ó Sé of Tralee auctioneers Daly Ó Sé Property Partners Denny Street, Tralee, restraining publication of reports on the website. Yesterday, a correction, without admission of liability, on behalf of Politics.ie founder David Cochrane of Crodaun Park, Cellbridge, Co Kildare was read out in court by the defendant’s counsel Pauline Walley. This acknowledged the distress caused to Mr Daly and said a genuine error had occurred.
    “The defendant appreciates that Michael Daly brought this to his notice on the 13th of April, 2010, and upon which he acted diligently and expeditiously. The defendant had taken down the posting immediately upon becoming aware of the untrue and damaging content of the posting. The defendant was subsequently advised by the member that this posting was completely untrue.”
    A key aspect of this case is that it appears to have been that on this occasion it was accepted that the site does not pre-moderate posts and that the responsibility for each post lies with its author of the post.

    Everyone posting on this or any other blog or website should be aware that every individual, whether we are opposed to their politics or not, is entitled to their good name unless allegations to the contrary are proven.

    On no account should anyone hide behind anonymity to trash anyone else's reputation.

    Posters should also be aware that libels or possible libels made by others should never be quoted/repeated in their posts.

    Our Terms and Conditions require that you take responsibility for your posts. Like all forums, PW.org would have to comply, in the event of a Court Order seeking user details.

    In the event of anyone seeing a post or thread which you think may be untrue and injurious to someone's reputation, please advise me or a moderator immediately.

    I would appreciate it if no-one repeats any of the original discussion complained of, as any such posts will be deleted and there may be penalties attached.

    Internet Forums are a valuable platform for political and social debate: like everything else, use them responsibly


    Thanks!
    Last edited by C. Flower; 24-04-2010 at 07:54 PM.
    “ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”
    — Jean-Paul Sartre

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    16,656

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    What part of Celbridge is Crodaun Park in?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rockall
    Posts
    78,412

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Lord View Post
    What part of Celbridge is Crodaun Park in?
    I hope, for his sake, that it's not a flood plain.
    “ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”
    — Jean-Paul Sartre

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    71

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    I think the settlement of the case was a win/win solution for both sides. In my opinion, it highlights the risk in blogging compared to utilising a site like P.W or P.ie.

    I'm sure you're all familiar with the blogger who made allegations concerning the acquisition of the State of a cache of papers from James Joyce. In spite of a subsequent fulsome apology on the blog, he was taken to court by both parties and settled for €100,000, mainly due to the costs of the case proceeding in the Hugh Court, which would have been a multiple thereof.

    Without commenting on this particular case, the fact that it was heard in the circuit court and a settlement was reached, provides a good template for similar future actions.

    I would advocate that sites such as this provide a good sounding board for posters before they publish same on their own blogs. It provides an additional comfort area where errors can be corrected or subjected to scrutiny.

    Let me be clear - Under no circumstances am I suggesting that you use this site or P.ie as a conduit for malicious accusations or 'opinion pieces'. The issue with KN - a poster of the highest repute - shows how all of us can be duped into making a 'factual' post based on sources we normally trust.

    Thank you CF for posting this thread as a talking piece.

  5. #5
    MM FF Guest

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    if you cant stand the heat . . .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    1,016

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    People should also remember that there is not really any such thing as anonymity on the internet. It is my view that posters should work on the basis that they can and will be identified, because unless you are very clever, and never make mistakes, then you usually can.

    As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.

    And you definitely shouldn't expect the owner of any website to hide your identity while you go off and make stupid or untrue statements. I am 99.99% sure that neither DC nor CF are making much, if anything, from their work on their respective sites. The idea that either of them should end up in court over it is reprehensible. Court is not cheep.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rockall
    Posts
    78,412

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    Quote Originally Posted by malbekh View Post
    I think the settlement of the case was a win/win solution for both sides. In my opinion, it highlights the risk in blogging compared to utilising a site like P.W or P.ie.

    I'm sure you're all familiar with the blogger who made allegations concerning the acquisition of the State of a cache of papers from James Joyce. In spite of a subsequent fulsome apology on the blog, he was taken to court by both parties and settled for €100,000, mainly due to the costs of the case proceeding in the Hugh Court, which would have been a multiple thereof.

    Without commenting on this particular case, the fact that it was heard in the circuit court and a settlement was reached, provides a good template for similar future actions.

    I would advocate that sites such as this provide a good sounding board for posters before they publish same on their own blogs. It provides an additional comfort area where errors can be corrected or subjected to scrutiny.

    Let me be clear - Under no circumstances am I suggesting that you use this site or P.ie as a conduit for malicious accusations or 'opinion pieces'. The issue with KN - a poster of the highest repute - shows how all of us can be duped into making a 'factual' post based on sources we normally trust.

    Thank you CF for posting this thread as a talking piece.
    Thanks.

    My observation about the Irish Courts is they are not over-obsessed with case law. It's worth looking at, but its not to be absolutely relied on.

    This is a useful precedent, as far as it goes, as it does put some weight on prompt take-down of a dodgy post. However, it is far from clear what if any the consequences of this case might be for the person who made the original posting.

    On the idea of using forums as a sounding board for potentially dodgy posts, I think I might consider that a banning offence .

    My advice would be to check your facts and if you can't substantiate something, don't post it.
    “ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”
    — Jean-Paul Sartre

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    1,016

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    Quote Originally Posted by MM FF View Post
    if you cant stand the heat . . .
    Please explain.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    344

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    A few observations...

    1. I'd disagree with the statement above on case law, the courts are pretty obsessed with precedent from the superior courts (high court and supreme court). That is the basis of our common law system. Where outcomes differ it tends to be because they can be distinguished from what looks like a similar case based on differing facts. Naturally where a new piece of legislation has been enacted it takes a while before the superior courts give us an idea of their approach to the interpretation of that statute.

    2. Very few cases make it to court anyway. Over 90% of cases initiated in all courts from the circuit court and above are settled, like this instance, outside of court. Going to court is, in most instances, a powerful bargaining chip rather than actually wanting to go to court - most parties don't - because outcomes in court rooms are uncertain.

    3. It doesn't really provide a template for anything. As I said, it is following a template already established - namely that cases settle. I have been involved in about 15 defamation cases, none of them ever had a judgment.

    4. The reason the Circuit Court will increasingly become a venue for defamation hearings is that under the new Defamation Act we raised the jurisdiction of the court. It can now grant awards of up to 50,000 in respect of a defamation case, an increase from the previous limit of 38,000. This makes it a more attractive venue for claimants than it used to be.

    5. On the issue of apologies above - they are unfortunately for those who commit defamation - no defence in a libel action. Prior to the new Act issuing an apology was actually an admission of liability, this is no longer the case under the new Act. That said, even where one apologises they may still be sued. However, it can mitigate the damages which are payable by the defendant if the matter is resolved in court.

    It isn't that interesting a case from a legal point of view. However, it is useful as a reminder that what you post online is not posted in some sort of self contained vortex, that you are liable for everything you write here and that you should consider your actions in that light.
    Last edited by johnfás; 24-04-2010 at 10:37 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rockall
    Posts
    78,412

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    Quote Originally Posted by johnfás View Post
    A few observations...

    1. I'd disagree with the statement above on case law, the courts are pretty obsessed with precedent from the superior courts (high court and supreme court). That is the basis of our common law system. Where outcomes differ it tends to be because they can be distinguished from what looks like a similar case based on differing facts. Naturally where a new piece of legislation has been enacted it takes a while before the superior courts give us an idea of their approach to the interpretation of that statute.

    2. Very few cases make it to court anyway. Over 90% of cases initiated in all courts from the circuit court and above are settled, like this instance, outside of court. Going to court is, in most instances, a powerful bargaining chip rather than actually wanting to go to court - most parties don't - because outcomes in court rooms are uncertain.

    3. It doesn't really provide a template for anything. As I said, it is following a template already established - namely that cases settle. I have been involved in about 15 defamation cases, none of them ever had a judgment.

    4. The reason the Circuit Court will increasingly become a venue for defamation hearings is that under the new Defamation Act we raised the jurisdiction of the court. It can now grant awards of up to 50,000 in respect of a defamation case, an increase from the previous limit of 38,000. This makes it a more attractive venue for claimants than it used to be.

    5. On the issue of apologies above - they are unfortunately for those who commit defamation - no defence in a libel action. Prior to the new Act issuing an apology was actually an admission of liability, this is no longer the case under the new Act. That said, even where one apologises they may still be sued. However, it can mitigate the damages which are payable by the defendant.
    Useful post, johnfás, and one that doesn't alter my advice, which is to post within rules of this place and not post allegations that you can't prove to be true.
    “ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”
    — Jean-Paul Sartre

  11. #11
    People Korps Guest

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    Was kerrynorth banned?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    71

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    Quote Originally Posted by People Korps View Post
    Was kerrynorth banned?
    The question has been raised in a thread that was subsequently shut down. I don't believe he was though, as he was posting on the site after the court case started. It's unlikely that the favourable outcome of the case would change that.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    2,375

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    Quote Originally Posted by C Flower View Post
    not post allegations that you can't prove to be true.
    I thought that an allegation was an allegation and existed in a place somewhere between lie and fact ? Allegedly.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rockall
    Posts
    78,412

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    Quote Originally Posted by Lapsedmethodist View Post
    I thought that an allegation was an allegation and existed in a place somewhere between lie and fact ? Allegedly.
    I think I'll leave that one for johnfás....

    and while were're on the subject of who did what (allegedly), innuendo is not on either.
    “ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”
    — Jean-Paul Sartre

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,437

    Default Re: Politics.ie Case - Lessons for Internet Forums

    With due respect, CF has made you aware of the dangers of stupid unfounded Posting, if you wish to take issue with any aspect of the case then I would suggest you contact your own Legal team. Or just use bloddy common sense and read what you were advised.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Share us
Follow Us