Slashdot Mirror


Irish Judge Orders 'The Internet' To Delete Video

New submitter edanto writes "A young Irish man wrongly accused of jumping from a taxi without paying the fare has secured a judgement from an Irish court ordering the video removed from the entire Internet. Experts from Google, Youtube, Facebook, and others must tell the court in two weeks if this is technically possible. The thing is, the video is accurate, it is only a comment that wrongly identified Eoin McKeogh as the fare-jumper in the video that is inaccurate. It's not clear if the judge has made any orders about the comment."

13 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Sigh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    fuckin' people man...

  2. Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    3...2...1...

    1. Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But why? It's not like it's some celebrity using the judicial system as a bully. And there's not really any amusing or interesting content to the video. Is it just cause we don't like judicial orders here?

      True, but there's no denying that that video will be viewed a few more times than it would have been before the poor lad went to court to bitch about it. What he should have done is fire back on Facebook, Twitter, and various other social media. You know where all the people who care about useless shit like this will see it and know he's innocent.

    2. Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except he is innocent. So the Streisand effect is a good thing for him if it gets the word out that it wasn't him in the video.

    3. Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Internet vigilantism has only started to make an impact but will get tragically big real quick, it needs to get nipped in the bud asap.

      Internet vigilantism can't be nipped as long as "tough on crime" remains popular, since it's the same thing in different guise: people like letting their sadistic impulses out every now and then, and if they can pretend they're doing it for the sake of justice it's all the more enjoyable.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  3. Good luck with that... by jwthompson2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At least the court has asked it it's even technically feasible; good luck with that.

    --
    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
  4. learning time.. by zome · · Score: 1, Insightful

    in two weeks, they will learn two things: 1) how internet works, 2) what streisand effect is.

  5. A different perspective by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, the obvious spin the summary evokes is that the judge is one of those numbskull government bureaucrats, who thinks the Internet has a central authority that can respond to such requests. Let's all laugh at the silly judge and reinforce our anti-government hivemind.

    On the other hand, the judge likely ordered that the video be taken down, knowing perfectly well that it's impossible to be removed completely. However, those big companies make up the majority of the video's audience, so if they take down the video (and its associated accusation of Mr. McKeogh), the effect is to substantially reduce the harm to Mr. McKeogh's reputation... which is exactly the goal. Since the ruling is in Ireland, where those companies keep their double-Irish tax avoidance entities, the companies will of course want to stay in the good grace of the Irish courts.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  6. Re:I... um. Ok. by almitydave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Taking a stand against ridiculous court orders. Civil disobedience to promote awareness and justice. Defiance of an illegitimate order from a lawful authority.

    Basically, to point out the futility of what is frankly an idiotic order. The experts ought to tell the judge that once it's on the internet, it's there for all time.

    --
    my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
    I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  7. Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google and them do a lot of business through Ireland, it might not be so easy for them to just ignore an order from an Irish judge.

  8. Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google threatening to relocate its business to a friendlier European state is probably enough to make Irish politicians crap themselves and change the law to suit Google.

    Except Google uses Ireland as a tax haven, so first they'd need to find another jurisdiction in which it would be beneficial for them. And I'm not sure they'll easily find one.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  9. Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google like many others were using Ireland as a tax dodge and as we have seen in the USA what happens when you put the corps in the driver seat now Ireland has a collapsing economy and companies like Google are slowly but surely bailing like rats from a sinking ship.

    This is of course the reason why free trade and globalism will cause a worldwide economic collapse, it forces every country on the planet to be as weak and powerless as the most broken third world country because thanks to the ability to send a trillion dollars around the world in seconds there really is no loyalty to ones home anymore.

    Our founding fathers saw this coming all those years ago, too bad we didn't listen. Thomas Jefferson: "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  10. Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Jahta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stupid judge, you can't order that, you ignorant ninny...

    Sadly this is not that uncommon. In the UK last year there was a spate of so-called "super injunctions" being issued to various celebs; these were meant to not only prohibit publishing details of the subject under injunction but also any reporting of the mere fact that an injunction had been granted.

    At one stage the High Court granted a permanent injunction against the "whole world" to prevent details of a married celebrity’s affair from being revealed (Super injunctions and the law). Much hilarity ensued.