POLITICS.IE : INSANE IN THE MAINFRAME
Mar 31st, 2008 by Conor McCabe
I’ve received calls from two journalists, one who told me in no certain terms that they won’t touch this, the other who thinks all is needed is for it to be run by their legal team.” (David Cochrane, Sunday 30 March, 2008. 7:08 pm)
Oh man, if there was ever a case of car-crash commenting, this is it.
A couple of days ago, David Cochrane of www.politics.ie received a letter from Liam Guidera of the Irish law firm, Frank Ward and Company Solicitors. It drew attention to possible libelous remarks posted on the website. It demanded that same remarks be removed, and that the names and addresses of six contributors be passed over to the firm. The issue as unfolding was covered here by cedarlounge. At first, the case seemed to be one of enormous significance for the Irish blogging community. Here was one of the most popular political sites in Ireland directly challenged over possible libelous remarks. Cries of “free speech” went up, and yesterday (Sunday) saw fresh developments as first politics.ie disappeared,then reappeared, this time stating that it was now hosted by servers based in America, and as such subject to American guarantees of free speech. Previously, politics.ie was hosted by the Irish company, hosting365.
Cochrane then told all and sundry that they were once again allowed to comment, and sure enough, the little tykes have rushed in like students at an occupation, demanding their RIGHTS and their FREE SPEECH! Incredibly, even though David Cochrane lives in Ireland, and can be summoned by an Irish court, he seems to believes that the physical presence of the servers in America will somehow get him out of libel issues.
Again, yesterday (Sunday), Liam Guidera wrote to David Cochrane, explaining his astonishment at David’s actions in reproducing the original letter, allowing commentators free reign to vent spleen on it, and, furthermore, opening up the possibility of FURTHER libelous actions with regard to these new, and dangerous, comments. Guidera made it quite clear that this second letter was NOT to be reproduced. David Cochrane went ahead and copied it onto his website, with a full commentary as well.
Here’s David’s justification for his action:
I am posting the following, on the basis that this website is hosted in the United States of America, and as such I am using the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech, Politics.ie is not responsible for what you post on this website, however YOU ARE responsible for your own comments. My response in quotes follows.
I never thought it was possible to fuck yourself in the arsehole, but my God, David Cochrane just did it.
The man lives in Ireland, and is only a summons away from an Irish court. The people protected by the servers in America are, well, the host serving company and the ISP numbers of the puerile free speechers who are having a blast by calling George Bush a cunt on the new, Americanized, politics.ie.
The sheer nuttiness of all of this should not take away from the very sober realization that politics.ie has managed to damage at a fundamental level the Irish blogging world. To say that his actions are irresponsible is to say that sticking your foot in your mouth makes for a gourmet meal.
Put it this way, would YOU argue for self-regulation after this mess?
This whole debacle warrants a cooling-off period, some mature heads, and, dare I say it, a bit of fucking cop-on.
I can’t believe what a bunch of wimps you bloggers are! Typical middle class bottlers.
I’m not a fan of Cochrane but fair play to him for having the balls to stand up to the all feared “solicitors letter”. Fuck them. Do you really think that Ahern will allow this crowd of fools to get him onto the front pages again? The Irish media are already under serious pressure with the libel laws (a good recent example was a serious criminal awarded nearly €1 million) and will row in behind anybody with the balls to take on the libel laws. At the moment the last thing Ahern wants is more bad publicity. The rest of the blogging world should be rushing to back Cochrane up, not shafting him. If the suits are successful with Cochrane you will see some serious self censorship in the future. Already Indymedia, the fairly open left wing website, has become more and more censorious over the past couple of months.
I think you’re missing the point fairly wildly there babs. When it comes to legal precident and blogs the first few cases that are brought in this country are going to make or break blogging as a trusted/legitimate form of media in this country for decades to come.
The decisions by politics.ie to
a) fail to enter into a grown-up responsible negotition with the solicitors involved and
b) run to the imagined protection of the US constitution rather than deal with a complainants concearns within the workings of our own civil society
have the potential to paint all bloggers as irresponsible, purile and disconnected from the events about which they comment.
blogging has to pick its battles very carefully on this one. it has to be one worth fighting when it comes. one worth standing over.
this isn’t it.
Donal and Conor I agree.
Donal, you put it perfect. This is about precedent, and it looks like the first case involving libel is going to be this one. Fucking great.
Simon, cheers for the comment.
Babs, that´s working class wimp I’ll have you know.
Babs, I’d support David if he wasn’t so eager to shoot himself in the foot with an Uzi submachine gun. It seems fair to point out that David might have made the situation worse for everyone.
Firstly, he admitted full responsibility and apologized unreservedly. He should have instead sought ways to remove the individual comments, following legal advice to ensure that this would have been enough to satisfy the requirements of the first letter. However, instead he made the situation worse by making his own actions potentially libelous by publishing the letter, thus making public the implication that the firm of solicitors was trying to stifle negative comments about the testimony of Grainne Caruth at the Tribunal.
He then threw all caution to the wind by publishing the second letter imagining that although he’s still an Irish resident that he’d be protected by American libel laws because the data was hosted in the US. Too many nights watching Law&Order I think. In doing this he provided a powerful firm of solicitors, with a very high profile client who is currently involved in a Tribunal, with rich picking to take an action. It doesn’t matter whether the firm of solicitors are right to sue or not, but if they do, and they win, what does that mean for everyone else next time they come across a couple of facts that look suspicious and upon which they choose to comment?
The Irish media are already under serious pressure with the libel laws
Eh, I don’t think that is true at all. This is just sport for the media. It provides quick, easy copy for them. The stories write themselves. The papers provide empty stories on what happened at the Tribunal while the opinion pieces go either ‘Boo, down with Bertie’ or ‘Hey, come on, leave the man alone’ and they’re fairly evenly distributed across the pages of all our papers.
All that said, the original circumstances which brought all this on, the action against the original comments, both the response of Sean Dorgan and the letter from Guidera, sound very sinister. Having read the original comment that prompted all this - and there was only one potentially libelous comment - I can’t see how it was enough to produce this reaction.
Also, it’s been counter productive. They said that they were reacting to the fact that the original comment appeared as the second link on the Google Search for Frank Ward and Co. When I put this search in now, this post appears on the front page, between one that says: “Frank Ward & Company is now one of the largest litigation practices in the country” and the original p.ie thread, which is now gone.
I think Dave may have bitten off way more than he can chew. I have no idea what was in the original comments, or whether they were of a serious enough nature to merit the rather firm response by Frank Ward & Co, but Dave was given ample opportunity to back down. Of course one would understand not backing down as a point of principle if one had felt the original remark was fair comment or if the threat of legal action had been used to attempt to shut down all discussion of the matters at hand. But neither was the case. Dave removed it seems, the original comment and seems to have accepted it was inappropriate. Why didnt’ he just leave it at that? I suppose the approach from the lawyers flapped in front of him like a red rag. Still, he is a publisher and should have steadied himself. As Donagh says, the publication of the second letter is really raising the stakes and the rather naive defence relating to the location of the servers is likely to crumble in around him if the legal noose is tightened.
I’m not sure that any potential case here would ruin cyber debate in Ireland. The law would still apply - that there is freedom of expression but that reputions must be respected unless one is armed with facts or is at least basing ones opinion on a reasonable interpretation - fair comment basically.
Perhaps hitherto people have been a bit too casual about what they say on the web.
Although, I suppose the anonymity thing is the beauty of the internet discussion and Dave’s case may illustrate that the publisher cannot take too many risks and with large sites it’s going to be difficult to keep an eye on it . But still, so far, all this case shows is that if you cross the boundary, be careful, remove the material, treat the potential plaintiff with respect. Which I don’t think Dave did by publishing the second letter especially.
By the way - recall that Mc Dowell was going to reform the libel laws. And in parallel we were to get the press ombudsman - and we did. Did the libel law ever get updated or are we still hanging off the 1961 legislation?
Did the libel law ever get updated or are we still hanging off the 1961 legislation?
It was just passed in the Seanad a couple of weeks back, but they still have to go through the Dail and Committee stage.
See in the end all ye lefties want McDowell back
story gone national now. Ireland.com (so probably in the times tomorrow) and Last word on today fm.
[…] echo entirely Conor’s words on Dublin Opinion about the recent problems over at Politics.ie, not because I’m a wimpish […]
[…] you may want to subscribe to my site using a feedreader or email. Thanks for visiting - Damien.You couldn’t make this up. And I think it’s very very unfair. one of enormous significance for the Irish blogging […]
Really, I haven’t been following it? Well, tell me then Dan, what exactly was the outcome of that case? you know, the judgement that set the precedent that you seem to suggest took place?
I think Dan is pretty clear that the case is ongoing, meaning that there can obviously be no judgment yet. There are also plenty of other internet libel cases which haven’t seen the inside of a court.
Anyway, to answer one of your rhetorical questions above, I’m happy to argue for self-regulation of the web. Nothing that happened in the past few days weakens any of the essential arguments. The same arguments about “damaging the Irish blogging world” did the rounds when El Paso got themselves in trouble a few years ago, and I annoyed a few people by saying
“If El Paso defames someone, the victims have a remedy in libel. Let them seek such remedy if they wish, but don’t everyone else come the scold, bleating “you’re only ruining it for everyone else”.”
I think the same applies here. I agree with a lot of what you say specifically about P.ie Conor, but the idea that a need for regulation is the take-home point from all of this strikes me as vey odd
And you changed my viewpoint as a result Fergal. Hate that.
I’m not saying that regulation is the take-home point. The thought that was going through my head was that if this case goes as far as it could, we’re going to hear more and more about how comment on Irish websites needs to be regulated - and if those involved can’t show the maturity blah blah blah… you know, the argument the politicians make about journalism in Ireland - if it cannot regulate itself, then we’ll do it for them.
Now, that battle is going to come sooner or later, but to pretend that the events over the last 48 hours are the way to do it is, in my mind, simply madness.
That is why I was calling for a cooling-of period. I mean, I was with politics.ie until they went ahead and published the second letter from ryan solicitors.
I don’t care what anyone says, that was fucking stupid.
Fergal, I wasn’t around for el paso, so you’re going to have to forgive my ignorance on that one. I know nothing about it.
[…] everyone’s going crazy about […]
Conor, whatever happens with p.ie it won’t be the first nor the last incident whereby someone seeks or instigates legal action. So your pitch on this that how one person or entity chooses to deal with it is screwing everything for everyone else is completely off tone.
Read comment 17, Dan.
If you’re waiting for a noble and valient blogger to get sued, thus setting up a freedom of speech fight you can believe in, you’ll be waiting a long time. When Channel 4 ran a season on censorship a few years ago I was struck by how bad most of the censored stuff was - but then that’s the point, if rights don’t apply to the foolish and crude, then they’re not rights, but priveleges.
Conor, I did read it and I’m non the wiser as to what you’re on about and who are Ryan solicitors? This incident won’t set any major precedents (famous last words perhaps)
Also a cooling off period would have involved both parties and I’m not sure how from what I’ve understood to have occurred since Saturday in the AM I don’t get the feeling the compliant was interested in such a thing. There again, I’m somewhat one foot in and one foot outside when it comes to p.ie.
In Dave’s defence, he didn’t post the offending material himself, and he did apologise for it being posted on his website. There needs to be a clear distinction made between blogs and forums, since statements like “the case seemed to be one of enormous significance for the Irish blogging community” could give the false impression that a forum post on p.ie was in fact a post by Dave on a personal blog.
If Dave is held responsible for posts by third parties on a forum he maintains, then it of course follows that Dublin Opinion is similarly responsible for potentially libellous comments like Babs’ “a serious criminal awarded nearly €1 million” in Response 1 on this very blog. I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it falls in the same category.
My criticisms have been of the way politics.ie decided to handle this whole thing - and now it’s turning into a situation whereby the case in hand is somehow supposed to shield the way they have chosen to carry on with all of this.
Since yesterday, when the site came back up, they have launched into further comments about, well, I’m not going to repeat them here, but they include Ward & Co, FF, and Bertie Ahern.
The majority of comments are predicated on the assumption that Ward & Co shut down politics.ie. They did nothing of the sort. Dave Cochrane did that, and it’s he who banned further commentary on Bertie and the tribunal - even though the letter dealt with comments made against themselves, and nothing against FF or Bertie or the tribunal.
According to the second letter, Cochrane had come to a kind of agreement with Guidera and his own solicitors. He then broke that off, and flew up his jolly roger, sailing off to America and to commentary freedom.
I’m going to quote the last line of this post again:
“This whole debacle warrants a cooling-off period, some mature heads, and, dare I say it, a bit of fucking cop-on.”
It doesn’t matter who’s threatened with getting sued, the last thing you do is react in the way they have done.
Fergal, You cannot always pick your fights, but you can sure as hell pick the way you fight them. And the way politics.ie has picked to fight this one is immature, irresponsible, and, I believe, self-defeating.
Dan, That should read Ward & Co.
and can I ask you? Do you see the publishing of the second letter as a good tactic in all of this? One foot in and out nothwithstanding?
CiaránMac, David Cochrane didn’t write it, he published it, then he took it down.
Are you telling me to take comment one down?
Conor, you keep referring to how p.ie chose to handle this in the context of comments that people have made. That would be just people who posting on p.ie not p.ie as an entity dealing with the people who made the compliant. You’re blaming the p.ie entity for comments people make for their tone and content even if it is all legal and above board?
Also, the demand to hand over names and addresses was never agreed to. Honestly, it would appear you’ve not taken the time to sit down and read back through the time line and what happened when and who did what to whom.
Let’s
How is criticising the publication of the two letters from ward and co. a criticism of the coments? P.ie did that.
And you haven’t answered my question about tactics.
CiaránMac, my own view is that the law would treat a blogger and his comments in the same way as a discussion board and their posters, that is, as publishers.
conor, we all know that the owner of the site is the publisher but you say “he published it, then he took it down.” as if he was aware in advance of what the content was. which he couldn’t be. There is a marked difference in technology and use of a blog and discussion site like p.ie.
As for publishing correspondence, as far as I’m aware if you don’t have a prior agreement with someone they simply marking it as private and confidential and sending it to you isn’t legally binding. If we’re in the realm of tactics, what about the tactic of a legal firm demanding information that they should know someone is not legally able to give them such as names and addresses of users of a site that people have registered to use?
“Since yesterday, when the site came back up, they have launched into further libelous comments about, well, I’m not going to repeat them here, but they include Ward & Co, FF, and Bertie Ahern.
The majority of comments are predicated on the assumption that Ward & Co shut down politics.ie. ”
Who are they in this instance? P.ie or P.ie commentors?
You still haven’t answered my question about tactics. I think politics.ie have played this one extremely badly, and nobody seems willing to call them on it - if even in the hope that they may start seeing sense and actually planning a course of action, instead of just reacting all the time.
So. I don’t agree with them. (I don’t agree with ward and co.s tactics either, since you ask).
But. Do you agree with them? Do you think they have been correct in their way of approaching all of this?
Dan, with regard to your line about difference between publishing a blog and mediating a discussion board, see fergal, comment 29.
Ward’s tactics came first and set the responses in motion. In my view they have been heavy handed and overreached completely in demanding names and addresses without cause. There have been other aspects that I won’t go into here but you keep referring how it should have been played with a cooling off period and some common sense talking and as I said already that tango requires two and it doesn’t appear from my reading of it that Ward’s were interested in that approach.
Do you agree with the publication of the two letters, and with David Cochrane’s stance of not taking any further professional legal advice on this one?
To quote David:
“It is my decision not to nominate any solicitors to act on my behalf, I will exclusively enter into all correspondence on my own behalf - I reserve my right to fully disclose any communications unless legally required to not do so by a competent authority.”
http://tinyurl.com/3×3u4n
Just to add, David took to decision to dispense with professional legal advice after he received a letter from a law firm that said this:
“Your actions as set above have aggravated the original defamation.You have further allowed additional libels to be published !..
For the avoidance of any doubt you do NOT have our permission to reproduce this letter.Rather we insist that you remove the entire of last night’s Announcement and subsequent postings and clarify that no request was made by us on behalf of any of our clients to ‘gag’ responsible political debate.We require that in all the circumstances you provide us in advance for our approval a copy of this notice to be issued by you.Finally would you kindly advise as to the firm of solicitors you intend retaining to represent your interests. ”
so. after that, he says he’s dispensing with legal advice.
Dan, do you think that’s a good move?
From my own experience over the years I’ve found the best way to deal with a bully is to face them down public. My inclination in such situations would be to ensure that as much as possible things happen where others can see so as to ensure i have nothing to hide. So I would most likely have published them myself in the same situation. Now, do you agree that there is nothing illegal in what DC has done in publishing his correspondence?
Conor, there are some good reasons not to engage legal representation that I won’t go into here.
I don’t know if he has done anything illegal or not!
If I was in that situation, I’d get legal advice.
I most certainly wouldn’t dispense with it!
I mean, this is what I find so hard to accept. According to Ward and Co.s letter, there had been correspondence of some sort between Cochrane’s lawyers and Ward and Co. Then, some time on Sunday, Cochrane dispenses with that professional backup and, seemingly, decides to publish. Further to that, he states publicly that he is NOT going to be using the services of a lawyer!
What?
What you mean you can’t go into them here? You have the cheek to tell me this is about free speech on the net, and fighting the good fight even when it’s difficult, and getting all sanctimonious, and now - almost two hours later - you tell me that you have relevant information that you cannot divulge?
What’s wrong, Dan? The information you have doesn’t come “at a time and in a format that fits in with your schedule”?
Fuck that.
Dan Sullivan has asked if libellous comments were posted by “P.ie or P.ie commentors”. As if that makes a difference. If this was a site where the articles were largely written by David Cochrane and a small team of journalists then perhaps there would be more justification in defending them.
However politics.ie is largely made up of the lunatic fringe of the various political parties taking part in some form of on-line fight club. Rumours are posted as fact. Lies are posted to substantiate these rumours when challenged and the whole thing spiralled out of control as political fundamentalists fight it out.
Now if they limited their abuse to each other you might accept politics.ie as a humorous slice of internet life. However when a campaign gets going on an issue then the reputation of outside figures get dragged in and kicked around like a bad night outside Annabels nightclub. Flavour of the month is Bertie Ahern. A quick browse through politics.ie will yield dozens of pages by Fine Gael extremists launching personal attacks on the Taoiseach and on anyone ever associated with him. In response the Fianna Fail storm troopers barge in and soon the claims and counter claims reach libellous proportions.
David Cochrane set up a very valuable website to provide breaking news and to allow the wider population to have access to the numerous political rumours that flow through certain journalistic and political circles without ever seeing the light of day for ordinary people. However the mistake David made was allowing the lunatics take over the asylum. The political die hards who see the rival parties as the root of all evil in the world and who were given full vent to their paranoid imaginations on the discussion boards of politics.ie. As the site spiralled downward in a death spin the one thing that kept it together was David’s political neutrality. He destroyed that when he came out as a senior member of Libertas. Now the pro-europe parties saw him as a man with a political agenda rather than just a neutral commentator. It isn’t surprising that they were waiting in the long grass to take him down.
Free speech is not an absolute right anywhere outside the immature imaginations of a few internet nerds and first year college debaters. Free Speech has responsibilities and both “P.ie or P.ie commentors” crossed the line into abuse of that facility long ago. That they now run screaming around the place advocating their right to free speech is an insult to the millions of people around the world for whom any form of free speech is a distant dream.
Dan, I do have to agree with Conor on this. It seems the waters are being muddied a bit. Conor made pertinent points about the tactics used. You’re now suggesting that someone faced by a solicitors communication might dispense with legal representation and there ‘are good reasons for this’? Really? I can’t think of any off the top of my head, but a couple of hypothetical examples might set me to rights. You also argue that the way to deal with bullies is to face them down publicly. Well, yes… I guess that’s one way to do so if one is talking about issues not pertaining to alleged defamation. But in that context it seems a bit skew ways, or rather I would in such a hypothetical situation want at the very least legal advice to give me some read on whether this was a good, bad or indifferent strategy.
cmf, there is something in your analysis in my opinion, particularly about partisan politicking on P.ie…
Conor, where did I say this was about free speech on the net?
cmf, the distinct I was drawing between something that what commentors had posted and what DC had posted on p.ie was about how conor was referring to how p.ie had responded to the communication from the solicitors as if that was thought out tactic when in fact it is the response of a mob.
I would be the first to admit there is huge noise to signal issues on p.ie but I’ve also noted a consider smugness in some blogs about all those involved. P.ie is a much wilder place but it does have some actual discussion unlike much of the polemic that one finds on a considerabled number of blogs. It is very much a creature of all those that contribute for good or ill.
Also regarding with the dispensing with legal representation, I’m not aware from what I’ve read that Ward solicitors were in contact with any legal representation, it would appear that their sole contact was with DC himself. So I’m not aware that any legal representation was ever engaged at all. So my comment was about engaging with not dispensing with legal representation.
Also, as regards things I can’t go into, moving hosting and so on are probably not the only things that could happen and I’m not going to speculate in a manner that would be damaging to p.ie.
Dan, according to Ward and Co, Cochrane agreed to finalise the details of the apology with his lawyers. The quote from the letter.
“At 19.51 you unilaterally and without any notice to us published on your Home Page an ‘Announcement’.The same admitted that a serious and malicious defamation had occurred and contained a form of apology.We had agreed that any such action was to be discussed and agreed between our respective lawyers on Monday.”
Now, unlike you, I don’t have a foot in politics.ie, and again, unlike you, I do not have access to the confidential information that you do. But, when a law firm is demanding an apology, and you accept that one is due, and then you go ahead and dispense with the agreed route of a statement worked on with your lawyers, and go and publish two letters from the lawyers, and then allow comments on those two letters - comments that make serious allegations regarding Ward and Co - and fresh allegations at that - I call that, well, fucking daft.
Then again, Dan, I don’t have your genius for legal tactics.
Now, for me, in that situation - where a law firm is threatening me with a libel action - I’d seek legal advice before doing anything.
What politics.ie was done is spent the last few days doing is getting legal advice AFTER they have taken action. This whole shit about asking bloggers and commentators for legal advice after doing something , and I’m thinking of your comment here, Dan - http://tinyurl.com/327qk5 - when they could have asked THEIR OWN LAWYERS BEFORE is what makes this whole debacle the farce it has become.
And it is amazing,, simply amazing, that in the face of all that, you can make the comment that the reason you won’t discuss the stuff you know about why it is good to dispense with legal representation is down to tactics.
You call what politics.ie has done to itself over the weekend a tactic?
Oh and by the way, Dan. Why can’t you leave comments on Damien Mulley’s site? Can’t go into that either?
Man. for a blogger, there`s an awful fucking lot you cannot talk about.
Damien doesn’t allow any comments from me because of a set to we had in late December of his use of some terminology that I didn’t feel was kosher. I can talk about it and indeed have done so on my blog but only Damien can explain it. And I don’t want to be drawing things off topic.
Conor, the problem here is that you are working on the basis that everything as outlined in the emails from Ward & Co. is the entirely of how it all happened and then you’re trying to reconcile that version with what you’ve seen on p.ie. Perhaps you were to view the email as one version of the events and not holy writ then you might see how events may be somewhat different to how they are being painted.
Taking one example you quote the email saying “We had agreed that any such action was to be discussed and agreed between our respective lawyers on Monday” but then you say yourself “you go ahead and dispense with the agreed route of a statement worked on with your lawyers, and go and publish two letters from the lawyers, and then allow comments on those two letters” which presupposes that an agreed route actually existed. Neither I nor you know for a fact whether anything had been worked out.
I recieved a solicitors letter once while editing a university publication. It scared the student-shit out of me. My less than mature response at the time was to dodge calls from them go drinking and hide under some cloaks till i graduated.
Still all of this is making me feel like I reacted in the manner of a latter-day Sun Tzu.
From this newly aquired lofty perch i offer this modest suggestion as to what might have been a more effective approach to all this.
1. Remove the offending comments, the offending nature of which seems to be uncontested by either side.
2. Explain briefly to readers of P.ie why the comments have been taken down, without naming the law-firm.
3. Inform the solicitors in question that the offending comments have been removed but that the passing on of names and addresses of comment authors is impossible both in practice and in principal.
4. Get back to running a popular site.
you really are grasping at straws here, Dan. And still avoiding the issue. Pathetic.
They state it in black and white that a procedure had been agreed upon - not an outcome, but a procedure. One that Cochrane, for his own reasons, decided to break away from.
Of course, there could be legal reasons why Cochrane did that, but you cant talk about that, can you, Dan?
and this is what gets me about all of this. What exactly ARE Cochrane´s reasons? You called for blind support for Cochrane in your first comment here - despite the fact that, to many people, his actions have been questionable.
Why?
Conor, at no point in my initial comment did I call for support blind or otherwise. I simply suggested that you wouldn’t be someone to provide it unless the circumstances were perfect for you. I really think you’re much more into reading into the text of my comments.
That should have read “I really think you’re reading much more into the text of my comments.”
What is the issue for you?
Jesus man! did you not read my post? comment 55, and you have to ask me what the issue is.
And I addressed what was in your post, this incident has not “managed to damage at a fundamental level the Irish blogging world.” Perhaps it will shake the state to its foundations too.
Nor do I believe that “he seems to believes that the physical presence of the servers in America will somehow get him out of libel issues.”
“Put it this way, would YOU argue for self-regulation after this mess?” I would argue that we’ve not got self-regulation at the moment so your point is mute.
I honestly suspect most people are still trying to understand at this stage why you’ve been so hot under the collar about this. There again your comment that “the little tykes have rushed in like students at an occupation, demanding their RIGHTS and their FREE SPEECH!” would seem to indicate that you feel just a little self satisfied that p.ie is going to get what is coming to it, the little tart with her short skirts and cleavage. That feeling it would seem is primarily based on the fact because the discussion isn’t as erudite or considered as you might prefer. And you’re dead right it isn’t as learned as many sites. There is a hell of a lot of “partisan politicking” on p.ie as WbS noted but you know what, that’s what the real world is like in all its messy goodness.
Well you’re wrong about how i feel about I feel about politics.ie. It was the posting of the second letter that I believed was irresponsible, immature, and counter-productive. Furthermore, allowing anonymous comments on same was equally daft.
But hey, Dan, keep the straw men coming.
So you were ok with the posting of the first email?
Wow, Conor just got compared to an apologist of rape. Fucking hell.
Well Damien, seeing as you’re drawing attention to the comment, you said that Conor’s point about p.ie was more moronic than a so called comic who suggested that he would like to rape an audience member. Do you still stand by your original comment?
Dan, I’ve posted on numerous occasions my admiration and liking of DC and my belief that P.ie is a great resource for rolling news of political and other events. I know Conor and Donagh share that sense. So I don’t think it’s fair to impute on Conor any belief that P.ie (or more particularly DC) was ‘asking for it’. I think our critique would be that the manner of the tackling was the problem, not that DC was faced with a genuine headache (not incidentally of his making, although I have also critiqued the way that super-partisan voices from the FF/FG axis have often taken over discussion but pointed out that moderation is difficult in such a sprawling environment). I think it’s fair to say the Ahern/Tribunal nexus is one issue that inflames passions more than most and has the capacity for damage. The last thing I want is P.ie or DC damaged. That’s why it is entirely reasonable to critique the response to the letter. As for posting the emails. Nah, I wouldn’t do it. I’d pick up the phone to a mate in the legal world and ask their advice (both about the email and the best response) and if it were to hire a solicitor and send a letter straight back, fair enough. The point where this becomes messy is not the removal of the original problematic piece, that was as inevitable as it was mundane while there was a question mark over it, it was going thermonuclear on Ahern/Tribunal threads and publicising it. The real deal is the six names. That’s where a stand had to be, and thankfully was made. But there again, why go public immediately. First communicate with the six. Get legal advice (let them get it too) and then go public if the threat continued to stand.
Donagh, I think Damien was criticising Dan…
I have gone to the trouble of emailing a copy of Your blog and Mulleys blog to Mr. Liam Guidera. Hopefully he will crack his hole laughing at the amusing antics of the ‘Irish Blogosphere’ .
and
http://www.xkcd.com/386/
David Cochrane is not afraid of being sued, because,in his eyes you can not sue people who tell the truth,no need to get legal then.Another man not afraid of those who get legal is Joe Tiernan.Joe called to my door today,and hidden under his big coat was Joes Bible,The Dublin And Monaghan Bombings.I queried his sales tactics, as this seemed a tad unusual.He told me ,”its them Easons,they won’t put it on the shelves,its because i named the bombers,here they are”.He went on to show pictures of said men.I asked Joe if he was afraid of being sued.He held his book like a preacher,hand over head,his other hand pointing at me,”it was a terrible thing,a terrible injustice,the people need to know what happened,the truth needs to come out”.I thought,yea there you have it.Joe Teirnan stands over his blog,he binds it in paper , prints it in 3D,and adds a picture of himself to the back page.No hiding behind faceless monitor,hands free keyboard,and of course the mighty search engine,be it in the USA or IRELAND. And i wonder how many BLOGGERS in the www cosmos are truthful,how many are a legal nightmare.
Brien Keenan told last night,”the darkness was his hostage.”And in a way,all those who dive into the www cosmos,that place of infinite darkness,infinite digital highways,infinite legal argument,may find themselves in a dark,dark place from which we are all,HOSAGES.
Keep up the good work Conor.
Conor my comment about skirts and so on was in about people getting exposed for being all show and bluster and of no substance. I was thinking more of the old biddy mother in the series bread or 19th century western prohibitionist who wanted hussies run out on the rails. Not for one moment was i suggesting that you were an apologist for rape or anything like it. I apologise if you had thought that.
Dan, I didn’t think that in the least. Damien Mulley made that comment. There’s no need to apologise.
Dan, we’ve had our rows over the past two years, but this one, I dunno, it just feels different, you know? There’s a viciousness in it (i admit as well, both sides).
Let’s just drop this and agree to differ. We’re only going to end up hating each other.
It’s not worth it.
Thanks WorldbyStorm, my mistake.
I think yesterday’s developments are seriously bad news for David Cochrane and politics.ie. The only thing stopping them being sued was that it wouldn’t look good politically. If all Bertie has in his life after May 6th is fighting the tribunal then this restraint will disappear. Bertie and his team will be out to aggressively defend themselves from any allegation of wrong doing be that at the tribunal, in the media or on a website.
This will help Bertie sort out his housing issue. He’ll be living in David Cochrane’s house this time next year.
cmf, there was no suggestion from anyone that post in question was likely to cause Bertie himself to be a party to any suit. It was Frank Ward & Co.
Conor, we’re probably going to have more rows again in the future too so better to save the hate if it ever needed (I’ve found hate to be a considerable waste of effort, and not good for the old mental health) for something that might echo down the ages. I think we’re not likely to agree on this so agreeing to disagree as you suggest is the most sensible option, so I agree! I didn’t response earlier because despite spending the day surrounded by more hardware than many small states can muster I didn’t have any access myself. Latah.
Read the rest of politics.ie Slander and libel are par for the course and Bertie has been the main target. If it was any of us we would sue.
I normaly like to write about politics ,philosophy ,news ,
literature ,jokes hisory ,Ireland , France but I am so SICK of your debased language ,showing your debased minds ,and your debased culture ,and you think you are So Clever ,when in fact you are just ignorant adolescents with nothing in the upstairs department .It is all in the basement .If you are representative, ie you and your ‘fans’, of the New Ireland ,I will just stay in Europe.
No wonder the young have no where to turn, and get drunk and commit suicide with their cars or drugs ,when there is nothing to elevate their hearts and minds when all they get is such a pathetic excuse for culture .Ireland is a mess now ,and you and your kind
have obviously contributed to it.