May I vehemently echo the Toss's wish of best of health and a 'get well soon' to Snowy. Such good health and associated verve, permits the discussion highlighted above.Without it, this bull**** to which Toss refers, would not exist.Toss wrote:Sometimes life is more important than this bullshit .... get well soon Snowy and here's to the best of health to everyone on here.gingertom wrote:Toss wrote:Technically anything that is said on the internet is subject to the same laws as if it’s published in any other format; in other words, the most likely charges that could be brought against a tweet or a status update are defamation – publication of a statement about someone which injures their reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society – or incitement.
In practice this means that calling someone the worst curse word you can think of is a crap thing to do on Twitter but is unlikely to break the law – but making an untrue allegation about them could, as could encouraging or threatening someone else to commit a crime.
“It’s worth bearing in mind that crude abuse is not defamation, and thus a lot of what goes on online will not ground a defamation action,” explains Fergal Crehan, a Dublin-based barrister.
However crude abuse can possibly, if extreme enough, be prosecuted under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989. Unlike similar laws in other countries, this Act does not specify that the hate must be racial in nature. It simply makes it an offence to engage in actions ‘likely to stir up hatred’.
The use of fake names on social networking sites can also act as a barrier to cases being brought before the court. In order to take a case against a person who has said something on the internet, you have to first find and identify the perpetrator – which, as Fergal Crehan explains, is not always easy online.
“You can get a court order against Twitter or Facebook or whichever website is involved to hand over the IP and email details of individual accounts, but that requires an expensive trip to court which can end up doing you more harm than good,” explains Crehan.
The number of people arrested in Ireland for something they said on a social network is miniscule; a spokesperson for the Gardaí said that complaints have been made but the number of actual arrests made is very low.
Last year a Kerryman who created a Facebook page page entitled ‘Promote The Use of Knacker Babies as Bait’ was brought to court in a landmark case, charged with an offence under the Incitement to Hatred Act . The case was dismissed by the judge who said there was ‘reasonable doubt’ whether the 27-year-old had intended to incite hatred towards members of the Traveller community.
Three years earlier, a man was initially prosecuted in Dundalk District Court for posting obscene messages on a teenage girl’s Bebo page. However the trial was declared a mistrial due to a technicality over the charges that were brought against the man.
Cases have also been brought against bloggers and websites hosted in Ireland.
“Someone has to make a complaint in order for the matter to be investigated,” explained the Garda spokesperson. The Gardaí have a dedicated Computer Crime Section which mostly deals with fraud but also tackles issues of online abuse and offensive material.
Despite the huge number of people on Facebook and Twitter, there is little government impetus to introduce any specific legislation to deal specifically with online abuse.
http://www.thejournal.ie/arrested-faceb ... 1-Jun2012/
The internet is a bit like pandoras box and with the advances in technology, we are at the point where anyone with an 2nd hand 'pay as you go' smartphone can use free wifi to log on and post whatever they want ..... making it very difficult to trace. I think our little corner of the net is well monitored and should anyone decide we are worthy of a court case .... then the state better be ready to run the courts 24/7 eternally given the millions of dubious comments/opinions that are out there.
https://globalfreedomofexpression.colum ... v-estonia/
Read this case on electronic media publications carefully. It has binding authority over the cases you mention above Toss. An online news outlet in Estonia was held liable for comments posted upon its server and this was held not to infringe the right to free expression. Contributors should be aware of this ruling.
I refer to this quote on the link I provide above where it is stated that "While Estonian law was anything but clear-cut on whether an online publication could be held liable for defamatory comments posted on its website, the ECtHR determined that such liability was foreseeable. Specifically, by exercising control over and eventually publishing such defamatory comments, an online periodical such as Delfi violated Estonia’s Civil Code Act and Obligations Act."
Stories from Christian Brothers School, Eblana...
zingerberi capillus et bene moratus.