Labour Party - the Anti-Technology party

[Mercurial]

Labour has shown themselves to be either anti-technology, or so fecking clueless and out of touch with what's happening in the world that they are willing to tank the only industry in our country which is actually doing alright.

One of those options strikes me as being a lot more plausible than the other.

[SideysGhost]

I think it's a dense and shortsighted post.

Getting rid of defamation law leaves many 'small' people open to damage from untrue accusations and rumour mongering by well off people who can easily afford to create such rumours.

But that's exactly how Irish society has functioned for decades. Try "rocking the boat" and going against the entrenched maffioso families in any small Irish town and see how long it takes before the gombeen class start spreading really nasty rumours about you and yours.

The current laws only protect the rich from little people trying to get their own back in kind, they do nothing to protect the little people, cos ordinary people simply do not have the resources to fight for their names in the rigged corrupt meatgrinder of the Irish "legal" system.

If you recall, many many moons ago I used to work as a barman for Frank Shortt. It took him what, 12 years or so to finally clear his name against the whole weight of the system? And with the moronic peasant tribal nature of rural Ireland, did you know that FF & FG knobs in Inishowen still, to this day, persist in the "no smoke without fire" vicious rumour mongering against him and his family? That's the ugly nasty reality of Ireland and it's only when you've seen the system up close and personal that you realise Ireland isn't a democratic state at all and never has been.

[southwestkerry]

Labour hate every one who dont vote for them... methinks.

[Analyzer]

I think it's a dense and shortsighted post.

Getting rid of defamation law leaves many 'small' people open to damage from untrue accusations and rumour mongering by well off people who can easily afford to create such rumours.

Defamation Law does not prevent rumours. All it prevents is the being open discussion. Defamation Law makes sure that there are rumours.

Irish Defamation Law is instrumental in insuring that there are two versions of the public persona of many public individuals.

There is what is known, and what is officially placed in the public realm. And they can take years to reconcile.

[EvotingMachine0197]

But that's exactly how Irish society has functioned for decades. Try "rocking the boat" and going against the entrenched maffioso families in any small Irish town and see how long it takes before the gombeen class start spreading really nasty rumours about you and yours.

The current laws only protect the rich from little people trying to get their own back in kind, they do nothing to protect the little people, cos ordinary people simply do not have the resources to fight for their names in the rigged corrupt meatgrinder of the Irish "legal" system.

If you recall, many many moons ago I used to work as a barman for Frank Shortt. It took him what, 12 years or so to finally clear his name against the whole weight of the system? And with the moronic peasant tribal nature of rural Ireland, did you know that FF & FG knobs in Inishowen still, to this day, persist in the "no smoke without fire" vicious rumour mongering against him and his family? That's the ugly nasty reality of Ireland and it's only when you've seen the system up close and personal that you realise Ireland isn't a democratic state at all and never has been.

I agree there are major problems with the current setup, but that's more due to some of the shtbags in this Country than the law itself.

I don't accept that allowing a mud slinging free for all would be an improvement on this.

Last year we saw the case of a Sinn Fein Councillor, I forget his name already, getting recourse through the Courts against Willie O'Dea. What chance would he have had if no such recourse were possible?

[CarnivalOfAction]

Last year we saw the case of a Sinn Fein Councillor, I forget his name already, getting recourse through the Courts against Willie O'Dea. What chance would he have had if no such recourse were possible?

[CptSternn]

I agree there are major problems with the current setup, but that's more due to some of the shtbags in this Country than the law itself.

I don't accept that allowing a mud slinging free for all would be an improvement on this.

Last year we saw the case of a Sinn Fein Councillor, I forget his name already, getting recourse through the Courts against Willie O'Dea. What chance would he have had if no such recourse were possible?

Don't get me started on this, as this whole case was a bit of a sham for all sides.

[wickalah]

You think my blog and/or sites like Politics.ie should be governed by the same laws that govern Irish media? That my friend is ludicrous. I have a right to my opinion. I should not have to worry about being sued for speaking my mind. If you think what I think is wrong, then you are more than able to post your own retort, setup your own website, and people can read your views. Having the government or courts shut down my views is not the way a free and open society should work.

It is the way that all free and open societies do work right now. Libel and slander are infringements of others' freedoms and rights.

Ruairi Quinn's comments were that online news/opinion should be as accountable as traditional media. As you said yourself "but if it is a lie and is found out the truth will spread just as quickly, even more so if the TV and newspapers post the facts to combat the misinformation.". This is also where your argument falls down. If there is no impetus for TV and newspapers to print/broadcast the truth, it is very open to abuse by media owners/unscrupulous journalists etc. At the moment, the traditional media is policed by the press council and ombudsman, whose brief, said Quinn, should be expanded to include the internet. Seems like a fairly reasonable proposal to me.

Two statements by Quinn in that piece.

1. Mr Quinn said the strengths of traditional media were its “high degree of reliability, accuracy, authority and a willingness to accommodate different points of view”.

2. One of the big problems with the internet, he remarked, was that “its inhabitants are unaccountable and live in cyberspace. . . a playground for anonymous back-stabbers”.

I'm just wondering if you disagree with either or both of those statements as I would find it hard to argue against either of them.

I know a friend who personally had a libel suit brought against him. The thing is, he was 100% correct. He had evidence to prove this, but thanks to the system here in Ireland, he could not afford to defend himself. He tried, and the person who was suing him had ample resources and used them to tie him up in courts for a couple years till he could no longer afford to fight the case and had to settle. In the Irish system, like the one in the UK, you are guilty until proven innocent, you must prove you innocence and it is by no means cheap.

You are giving this story your subjective slant here. In reality, and how the law views it is:
1. Your friend said something detrimental about this person (effectively calling him "guilty").
2. Your friend was then required to prove the guilt of the person in question (who was presumed innocent until proven guilty).

This is the complete opposite of what you claim in your last line.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that I have come to expect from many online commentators.

The legal system does need reform however, there needs to be a way for ordinary people to be able to defend themselves properly with limited resources. Money should not be an arbitrator of right and wrong.