[quote=âcroppy_boy, post: 738685, member: 306â]Not her familyâs though. Golden rule for for avoiding a defamation or libel case is to leave it out.
And âconfirmed on Twitterâ is about as reliable as saying âI heard in Coppers at 4amâ.[/quote]
The twitter comment was a joke.
You canât defame a dead person.
[quote=âRocko, post: 738698, member: 1â]The twitter comment was a joke.
You canât defame a dead person.[/quote]
you sure?
In a case such as this the estate of the deceased per son could take an action if the reporting was inaccurate or of a defamatory nature.
From the relevant legislation:
[SIZE=13px][FONT=arial]FONT=Calibri (a) References in this section to plaintiff shall, in the case of[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=13px][FONT=arial][FONT=Calibri]a plaintiff who is deceased, be construed as references to[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=13px][FONT=arial][FONT=Calibri]his or her personal representative.[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]
[quote=âcroppy_boy, post: 738708, member: 306â]In a case such as this the estate of the deceased per son could take an action if the reporting was inaccurate or of a defamatory nature.
From the relevant legislation:
[SIZE=13px][FONT=arial]FONT=Calibri (a) References in this section to plaintiff shall, in the case of[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=13px][FONT=arial][FONT=Calibri]a plaintiff who is deceased, be construed as references to[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=13px][FONT=arial][FONT=Calibri]his or her personal representative.[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/quote]
this is based on survivability of proceedings after the claim has been issued by a living plaintiff.
there is nothing anywhere in the 09 act which allows for the commencement of proceedings by personal representatives of the deceased
[quote=âcroppy_boy, post: 738708, member: 306â]In a case such as this the estate of the deceased per son could take an action if the reporting was inaccurate or of a defamatory nature.
From the relevant legislation:
[SIZE=13px][FONT=arial]FONT=Calibri (a) References in this section to plaintiff shall, in the case of[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=13px][FONT=arial][FONT=Calibri]a plaintiff who is deceased, be construed as references to[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=13px][FONT=arial][FONT=Calibri]his or her personal representative.[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/quote]
Thatâs just an out of context quote from the administration of cases underway when one party dies. It does not mean a dead person, or their estate or representatives, can bring a case of defamation. They canât.
Iâll refer to the case, The State V Foley, 2009, where it was found, in accordance with Section 7c, that Art Foley is a buck tooth mong.
All it needs if for one person to mount a serious action. The creaking system will fold to allow it in next to no time.
This is why RTE is vague on the reporting of âallegedâ suicides.
[quote=âcroppy_boy, post: 738718, member: 306â]All it needs if for one person to mount a serious action. The creaking system will fold to allow it in next to no time.
This is why RTE is vague on the reporting of âallegedâ suicides.[/quote]
so youve changed from being absolutely sure you could defame the dead, to quoting a section of the defamation act that refers to the survivability of actions to now saying is all it needs is a serious challenge and the whole thing will come crashing down so in short you wers wrong all alongâŚ
one of your funnier onesâŚ
What are you thoughts on Roe v Wade?
good decision
[quote=âcroppy_boy, post: 738718, member: 306â]All it needs if for one person to mount a serious action. The creaking system will fold to allow it in next to no time.
This is why RTE is vague on the reporting of âallegedâ suicides.[/quote]
What? The law is clear. A serious action will just result in the law being upheld.
Whether the law will ever be changed or not is another debate, but defamation of dead people was considered as part of the 2009 legislation and rejected so it wonât be changing anytime soon.
The law certainly wonât be changed by a challenge from outside the state and it wonât be changed to apply retrospectively.
RTĂ may have their reasons for not reporting this death as suicide but the risk of a defamation case is clearly not one of them.
[quote=âRocko, post: 738728, member: 1â]What? The law is clear. A serious action will just result in the law being upheld.
Whether the law will ever be changed or not is another debate, but defamation of dead people was considered as part of the 2009 legislation and rejected so it wonât be changing anytime soon.
The law certainly wonât be changed by a challenge from outside the state and it wonât be changed to apply retrospectively.
RTĂ may have their reasons for not reporting this death as suicide but the risk of a defamation case is clearly not one of them.[/quote]
Thatâs due to the fact that it hasnât been an issue in this State yet so far. There isnât an example of an outlet seriously defaming a member of the ranks of the formerly living.
The initial point I was making anyhow was that it would be idiotic for a media outlet to report something as suicide when this has not been proven and I stand by that.
Not like croppy boy to dig his heels in on something.
[quote=âcroppy_boy, post: 738731, member: 306â]Thatâs due to the fact that it hasnât been an issue in this State yet so far. There isnât an example of an outlet seriously defaming a member of the ranks of the formerly living.
The initial point I was making anyhow was that it would be idiotic for a media outlet to report something as suicide when this has not been proven and I stand by that.[/quote]
Your initial point was that they would be idiotic to do so because it would leave them wide open to legal action at the taxpayersâ expense. It isnât even a remote consideration in this example for a whole host of reasons (Is suicide defamation? Could a family outside the State take a case? Could anything in Ireland in Ireland have a material effect on her reputation that would impact her family?) but most obviously because itâs legally impossible.
[quote=âcroppy_boy, post: 738731, member: 306â]Thatâs due to the fact that it hasnât been an issue in this State yet so far. There isnât an example of an outlet seriously defaming a member of the ranks of the formerly living.
The initial point I was making anyhow was that it would be idiotic for a media outlet to report something as suicide when this has not been proven and I stand by that.[/quote]
yeah right. if your thoughts held any water hazel lawlor could have sued INM as a PR for liam lawlor but her suit is only in her name
Suicide isnât defamation but saying that someone committed it when they didnât would be.
Iâm not sure about the a family outside the State and Iâll admit that I was just responding to artfoleys post criticising RTE for not reporting the death as suicide. I had not got a bullâs notion who the singer was and presumed she was from somewhere in the Northwest where they like that sort of thing - country and western music that is.
It could affect the family in a number of way,off the top of my head as it would lead to question marks over a life insurance policy and there could be other instances of trauma suffered if the suicide claims proved incorrect.
RIP. He led a good life.
no it wouldnt, they are dead and undefamable
[quote=âcroppy_boy, post: 738743, member: 306â]
It could affect the family in a number of way,off the top of my head as it would lead to question marks over a life insurance policy and there could be other instances of trauma suffered if the suicide claims proved incorrect.[/quote]
yes, because insurance policies are settled off the back of RTE TEN reports and not police and coronerâs reports :rolleyes: in respect of the other point you can watch and see how the hazel lawlor vs INM case pans out
The dead know only one thing,itâs better to be alive.