Fine Gael TD wants to make it an offence to comment on ongoing criminal cases:

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
44,960
Could be the sign of an impending GE. Newbie FGer wants to make a name with the Laura Norder FGers with Thoughtcrime legislation?
 


Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
It'll take a referendum.

Court cases are meant to be heard in public. It follows that members of the public are allowed to think about and discuss them.

FG fascists should stfu.
Which article needs to be amended to criminalise publication of comments on social media, during the course of a trial?
 

Franzoni

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
16,327
Could be the sign of an impending GE. Newbie FGer wants to make a name with the Laura Norder FGers with Thoughtcrime legislation?


The Fine Gaelers on this site have been shítting themselves since the result in the UK to the point of reactivating old sock accounts so you may well be right.....

Mehole cant afford to sit of the fence for too much longer either or it will be a case of did he jump or was he pushed....:D
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
But the impact is pretty much the same.
Private conversations are not in the same league as publicised opinions widely available to all.

I think you need to cultivate an ability to discern these matters correctly.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
It'll take a referendum.

Court cases are meant to be heard in public. It follows that members of the public are allowed to think about and discuss them.

FG fascists should stfu.
Court case are heard in public and will continue to be so heard.

The prohibition is on public discussion in the media of ongoing trials.

This is sensible to prevent miscarriages of justice.
 

Seán E. Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
871
Which article needs to be amended to criminalise publication of comments on social media, during the course of a trial?
Here's the last paragraph from the article linked in the OP: "The TD is now going to try and bring a bill to the Dail making it a statutory offence to comment on ongoing criminal cases."

The opening paragraph is similar.

The article only uses social media as an example of the type of free speech that the fascist wants to ban.

Article 34
Article 40 would be affected too.

And for good measure: ECHR Article 10.
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,353
Fine Gael TD Josepha Madigan is reported to be trying and bring a bill to the Dail making it a statutory offence to comment on ongoing criminal cases.

It follows the use of social media during the Jobstown trial and Josepha Madigan believes our laws need to be updated to cover the increased use of social media.

I am not questioning her right to bring this bill, I fully support that right and welcome it being teased out through each stage of the the bill and the discussions it will rise.

Breaking Irish News | Get The Latest News In Ireland


Seperate from the recent jobstown case.........

Will this include ALL cases, what will the impact be where people face a no-jury court? Will we no longer see reports like..........

Gardai objected to bail citing the seriousness of the offence and he told the Judge that the accused was affiliated to an organised crime gang etc etc........and it was alleged the accused was caught red-handed. He also objected to bail on the grounds the accused was a flight risk.
Actually your last paragraph would be interesting if muzzled.

We would still need some very tight guidance on serving the public interest vs the wholescale reporting. Jobstown and Graham Dwyer spring to mind, albeit two very different circumstances.
 

RodShaft

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
9,202
One wonders what she has to hide to bring this bill... nothing wrong with bringing a bill, but to stop people commenting on any case is simply stupid...
Well maybe she sent a text about the appointment of her parliamentary assistant along the lines of "oh, there's a process I'm supposed to follow for these appointments, but don't worry, I'm only following that for show, you've got the job"

And maybe she inadvertently sent that text to the wrong person. Stranger things have happened...
 

Dutch Gold and Sky

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 21, 2017
Messages
337
The blueshirt outrage because in their eyes the dregs had another win is palpable

It's now seriously embarrassing for the FG party and especially your leaders rethoric about the supposed wasters, it's going to come back and bite you in your bluebot harris big time
 

Zapped(CAPITALISMROTS)

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
6,493
Twitter
daxxdrake
Politics.ie will probably gets its very own Section in the Bill stating that the penalties will be applied 10 fold to posters here and that deportation to Saudi for up to 100 lashes if lawful. :)
Could prove very popular with the trend towards B.D.S.M light that is populating a few threads recently..:rolleyes:
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
Here's the last paragraph from the article linked in the OP: "The TD is now going to try and bring a bill to the Dail making it a statutory offence to comment on ongoing criminal cases."

The opening paragraph is similar.

The article only uses social media as an example of the type of free speech that the fascist wants to ban.

Article 34
Article 40 would be affected too.

And for good measure: ECHR Article 10.
That's poor journalism. Her bill is about social media comment. Articles 34,40 or 10 would no more prevent this bill than it restricts contempt of court hearings, in camera hearings or legislation criminalising interfering with jurors.

"Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public."
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
51,657
Tell you what, if you actually care about justice, Deputy Madigan, how about introducing a private members' bill to address our deficient perjury laws?
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
51,657
Didn't Fine Gael murmur a bit about Denis's bit of trouble with Dail privilege recently? I wouldn't want to see any Fine Gaeler ostensibly amending the processes of justice which might impact on Dail privilege either or be construed as an amendment to that privilege.

That privilege has been used well in recent Dail terms and it is there precisely to combat attempts by powerful vested interests in suppressing debate in the Dail.


It was Michael Martin who spoke up to defend the Dail, Enda Kenny vanished
 

Seán E. Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
871
That's poor journalism. Her bill is about social media comment. Articles 34,40 or 10 would no more prevent this bill than it restricts contempt of court hearings, in camera hearings or legislation criminalising interfering with jurors.

"Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public."
Sums it all up really.

One inarticulate gobshíte recording the babbling of another and then publishing it in Redacted's cradle of filth where it might masquerade as authoritative and as informing public opinion.
 

jpc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
4,252
Somebody better tell the smug bores in The Sh1te Rimes.

Frank McDonald even has advice for the Jury. ( I always thought that was the sole prerogative of a judge - what are Frank McDonald's qualifications again in relation to criminal justice ??? )
The media and political class detest social media.
They can't control the message.
Hence the furious huffing and puffing from both groups.
 

HYENA

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
2,998
Instead, make it an offence for political parties to accept money from dodgy moguls, that would have limited the corrupt practices of Cj Haughey and maybe remove the bulbous shadow behind FG.
 

Fullforward

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
8,549
Private conversations are not in the same league as publicised opinions widely available to all.

I think you need to cultivate an ability to discern these matters correctly.
I think YOU need to rethink that one, PUBLIC conversations have WAY less chance of being seen or heard than PRIVATE ones which are clearly much more influential on jury members.
 

Seán E. Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
871
Court case are heard in public and will continue to be so heard.

The prohibition is on public discussion in the media of ongoing trials.

This is sensible to prevent miscarriages of justice.
At the end of the day we're supposed to have an independent judiciary. It is the judge's duty to ensure that trials are not prejudiced. In the OP article it's pointed out that we don't know if what was posted influenced the jury. Thus the argument that follows is one based on ignorance. A diabolical fallacy. It was and is for the presiding judge to decide if a trial has been contaminated. Indeed, the DPP complained to the judge about Mr Murphy. He was not held in contempt and the trial was not postponed indefinitely. Thus we do know that the trial was not harmed by what was posted. The FG gobshíte not only bases her supposed reasoning on a lack of comprehension, she intends to draft a bill based on it.

There is plenty of law available to provide for those who contaminate trials. And in fairness, the judiciary are not slow in acting on it.
 


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top