Published Friday, 30 November 2012
We’re sorry. This video is unavailable from your location.
Are you in Northern Ireland?
1. Why is my postcode required?
We are asking you to insert your postcode before watching some videos to confirm
you can access the video content via u.tv.
This is because some videos on u.tv
are only available in Northern Ireland.
Don't worry, we won't store or use this information for any other purpose.
If you are not in Northern Ireland, the content may be available to watch at itv.com or stv.tv.
2. Why am I directed to itv.com
or stv.tv when I try to view certain
The videos, which are not available on u.tv
to users outside Northern Ireland, will be available to those users on itv.com (for users in England and Wales) or stv.tv (for most users in Scotland).
We need to know where you are in order to make sure you are getting the right content.
If you think we've got your location wrong, then please
Need more help? Contact us
Facebook has been given 72 hours to take down the page at the centre of the case.
The offender, who cannot be identified, found his photo published on the website - alongside threatening comments - following his release from prison on licence.
He had been serving a six-year sentence for a string of child sex offences, including indecent assault and gross indecency, committed more than two decades ago.
He claimed the publication of his personal details amounted to harassment, misuse of private information, and breached his right to privacy and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment.
The court head that he fears being attacked or burnt out of his home.
A judge has now ruled that some content of the Facebook page amounted to prima facie harassment and risked infringing on the man's human rights.
The order of the court will be that the removal from Facebook ... is to be effected within 72 hours.
Mr Justice McCloskey
Granting an interim injunction, Mr Justice McCloskey said: "Society has dealt with the plaintiff in accordance with the rule of law.
"He has been punished by incarceration and he is subject to substantial daily restrictions on his lifestyle."
While the photo and corresponding comments were removed by Facebook, the offender continued to seek the closure of the page and the disclosure of the identity of those who set up and ran it.
Lawyers for Facebook argued that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to remove a page used by 4,000 people.
After details of the case were made public, more comments were made online and some were read to the court.
One said: "So the man, or I mean mess of a human being, that's taken this page to court, he must want to be the head paedophile and rule over all sex offenders. He will be like a god to them."
Another stated: "Put him down like an animal."
In making his ruling, the judge concurred that "the pendulum of the rule of law swings in the plaintiff's favour" and that granting the interim order would cause minimal disruption to Facebook.
A spokeswoman for Facebook said: "We are considering our next steps in light of the court judgment and we have nothing further to add at this stage."