• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Defamation of a corporate body is an offence-did you know and are you happy ?


cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,625
Website
www.google.com
The Defamation Act of 2009 in Ireland is a significant piece of legislation, it governs much of what goes on in the media (including here).

Were posters aware that it gives protection to corporate bodies ?
Defamation Act 2009
Defamation of a body corporate.

12.— The provisions of this Act apply to a body corporate as they apply to a natural person, and a body corporate may bring a defamation action under this Act in respect of a statement concerning it that it claims is defamatory whether or not it has incurred or is likely to incur financial loss as a result of the publication of that statement.
So this means government quangos, companies etc can sue

What do you think of the implications of this and do you agree with them ?

cYp
 


ManOfReason

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,328
Depends on implementaton. There needs to be something that protects Food company 'A' say from unfounded acquisitions from a competitor that there is pig manure in their product, but being Ireland it will probably be used to stifle criticism of the HSE for example. Unfortunatley we can't rely on the Irish Political and Legal cartel to put rights of freedom of speech of the individual ahead of vested interests.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,692
The Defamation Act of 2009 in Ireland is a significant piece of legislation, it governs much of what goes on in the media (including here).

Were posters aware that it gives protection to corporate bodies ?
Defamation Act 2009


So this means government quangos, companies etc can sue

What do you think of the implications of this and do you agree with them ?

cYp
Another draconian piece of legislation giving our country and our lives over to corporations.

Afaik, this legislation is right now being used against some posters on boredsdotie.

I have a good idea where law this originated and the corporation behind it.
Which corporation has received very bad publicity from members of the public in the last 10 years or so?
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,187
Another stupid law that needs to binned.

Do we want to see the entire country can be sued at this stage for giving out about Anglo Banglo, FAWSSS, Pravda, the HSE, etc....

An extremely stupid law. The creation of Lendahand, I understand.

Financial slavery was not enough. He had to have us silenced from free use of speech also.
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,307
It's not an offence which implies it's a crime.

It just means that if you defame a corporation that they can sue. This has always been the case, the 2009 Act just codified it.
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
24,199
So this means government quangos, companies etc can sue
Yeah but the problem with the quangos and the state/semi state sector generally is that whenever they're laid bare the reality is often much worse than anyone would ever have predicted or thought possible...

Personally I think the electorate should be able to sue the state for failing in so many areas...
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,692
Another stupid law that needs to binned.

Do we want to see the entire country can be sued at this stage for giving out about Anglo Banglo, FAWSSS, Pravda, the HSE, etc....

An extremely stupid law. The creation of Lendahand, I understand.

Financial slavery was not enough. He had to have us silenced from free use of speech also.
FF have ticked all the boxes when it came to selling out Ireland and this law suits a corporation that it was very chummy with. (Oops! Have I now defamed a body corporate?)
 

Kev408

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
5,123
FF have ticked all the boxes when it came to selling out Ireland and this law suits a corporation that it was very chummy with. (Oops! Have I now defamed a body corporate?)
No. It's only defamation if it's untrue.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,187
FF have ticked all the boxes when it came to selling out Ireland and this law suits a corporation that it was very chummy with. (Oops! Have I now defamed a body corporate?)
Well....FFinished could decide that they wanted to sue you...because your comments are in contradiction to their "right" (always a very dangerous word because of it's total nature) to "good name, and character".

Hilarious really.

Another reason why this law, and the rest of Irish defamation law should be binned.

Irish Defamation Law is a gombeen's charter to sue people who tell the truth.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,692

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,675
This isn't new - corporate bodies had the right to sue for defamation in common law.

This is the relevant section from the 1991 Law Reform Commission report on the law of defamation:

Corporate Bodies

12.15

We pointed out in the Consultation Paper that trading and non-trading corporations appear to be capable of suing in defamation in respect of defamatory allegations concerning their business capacity (trading corporations) and more general allegations (trading and non-trading corporations), including treatment of employees and sponsorship of public events.

12.16

We observed that the existing law had been criticised. Some commentators suggested that, in the case of trading corporations, an action for defamation should lie only in respect of proved financial loss and that a similar principle should apply to government departments and trade unions. Others, more radically, proposed that the right to sue be withdrawn in its entirety from all corporate bodies. It was urged that such bodies were already afforded an adequate remedy in the form of an action for injurious falsehood and, in any event, as public bodies were legitimate targets for criticism and comment. (We pointed out in this latter context, however, that it did not follow that they should also be defamed with impunity).

12.17

We rejected the proposal that the right to sue should be completely withdrawn from corporate bodies since we felt that, although the type of reputation which they enjoyed was somewhat different from that belonging to an individual, they undoubtedly did have reputations which could be unjustly assailed. Nor were we disposed to favour the less radical proposal, i.e. that such actions should be restricted to claims for financial loss. We considered that, in many cases, there would in fact be harm caused by a defamatory statement, but one which it might be almost impossible to prove. Thus, the financial loss sustained by a defamed company might be as a result of individuals or bodies deciding not to trade or associate themselves with it, which is notoriously a difficult type of loss to prove. In the result, we recommended no change in the law respecting corporate and quasi-corporate plaintiffs. We did, however, provisionally recommend that it be set out in statutory form that all such bodies have a cause of action in defamation irrespective of whether financial loss is consequent upon the publication or was likely to become consequent upon the publication.

12.18

The National Newspapers of Ireland supported the proposal for the abolition in its entirety of the right of action, which had been put forward earlier in the Boyle/McGonagle report on Press Freedom and Libel. While conceding that such actions were rare, they expressed concern as to the confusion which they claimed was present in the minds of juries as to damages when companies were co-plaintiffs with individual directors. They suggested that this gave such plaintiffs an unfair advantage in that sympathy is generated for the individuals while the issue of damages becomes confused in the minds of the jurors by the introduction of evidence alleging enormous financial loss on the part of the company.

12.19

We have no empirical evidence as to whether this latter contention is correct. Given, however, that the number of actions in which it arises is comparatively few, we doubt if the law is in any real need of reform. In any event, the confusion suggested to exist will be dispelled if our proposals as to the assessment of damages by judges alone are implemented.

12.20

We accordingly recommend that there should be no change in the law in this area. We recommend that there be a statutory provision, for the avoidance of doubt, that all corporate bodies have a cause of action in defamation irrespective of whether financial loss is consequent upon the publication or was likely to be consequent upon the publication.
Report on The Civil Law of Defamation
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,550
Yeah but the problem with the quangos and the state/semi state sector generally is that whenever they're laid bare the reality is often much worse than anyone would ever have predicted or thought possible...

Personally I think the electorate should be able to sue the state for failing in so many areas...
People can sue the state and do so all the time.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,550
Another draconian piece of legislation giving our country and our lives over to corporations.

Afaik, this legislation is right now being used against some posters on boredsdotie.

I have a good idea where law this originated and the corporation behind it.
Which corporation has received very bad publicity from members of the public in the last 10 years or so?
It's common sense and I doubt there is a Western State that Corporations can't sue for defamation. If you have proof to back up what you said then you should win. If you don't then you shouldn't have said it in the first place.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,187
FF have ticked all the boxes when it came to selling out Ireland and this law suits a corporation that it was very chummy with. (Oops! Have I now defamed a body corporate?)
No. You could not possibly defame them any more than Biffo, Berto, etc. have already done by their actions.

And then we have the Tribunals.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top