Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Where to draw the line on free speech?

1235»

Comments

  • #122
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    And it is all about respect. Fascist thugs who abuse religion and power for their own greedy ends (e.g. the Saudi regime) I don't respect and couldn't care less if they were offended or not. The right to stand up to thuggery and to have a government answerable to the people is something a person should be able to do no matter where they are from.

    Regimes like Saudi Arabia should not exist in today's world. Ironically, what they do and what they stand for offend people not even living there. It is horrible to see a devil worshipping satanic regime like this that is the basically the devil get away with anything it likes because the world needs their oil. Medieval satanism and devil worship cults like this would not last long in a country with no oil I would feel let alone be tolerated by the whole world.


    So who decides what is bullying and/or harassment ?


  • #123
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    marienbad wrote: »
    So who decides what is bullying and/or harassment ?

    It is obvious when you see something that is bullying or harassment and it is obvious when you see something that is not.

    Satan is real and Saudi Arabia, ISIS, etc. are 100% proof of this. Making a statement about a satanist regime like the above is an example of something that would offend devil worshipping terrorists and fascists. The same evil lowlives who bully and harass and who do not value life.

    ISIS shooting someone dead because they disagree with their satanic cult is an example of the 2 sides of the same coin.


  • #124
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    It is obvious when you see something that is bullying or harassment and it is obvious when you see something that is not.

    Satan is real and Saudi Arabia, ISIS, etc. are 100% proof of this. Making a statement about a satanist regime like the above is an example of something that would offend devil worshipping terrorists and fascists. The same evil lowlives who bully and harass and who do not value life.

    ISIS shooting someone dead because they disagree with their satanic cult is an example of the 2 sides of the same coin.

    It is not obvious , you are just focusing on the extremes . Take a different example - the so 'Gay Agenda'- quite a few people and organisations in this country find any gay expression offensive . What should we do about that ?


  • #125
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Originally Posted by BuilderPlumber View Post
    It is obvious when you see something that is bullying or harassment and it is obvious when you see something that is not.

    Satan is real and Saudi Arabia, ISIS, etc. are 100% proof of this. Making a statement about a satanist regime like the above is an example of something that would offend devil worshipping terrorists and fascists. The same evil lowlives who bully and harass and who do not value life.

    ISIS shooting someone dead because they disagree with their satanic cult is an example of the 2 sides of the same coin.
    marienbad wrote: »
    It is not obvious , you are just focusing on the extremes . Take a different example - the so 'Gay Agenda'- quite a few people and organisations in this country find any gay expression offensive . What should we do about that ?

    So two gay men are walking down the street holding hands and kissing. A religious person attempts to intervene because he / she finds this offensive and bullying because it is attempting to force him / her to accept something unacceptable. A policeman intervenes because he / she sees a possible breech of the peace by the religious person. Which of these people is being bullied here?


  • #126
    Alexis Sanchez
    Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭Alexis Sanchez


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    And it is all about respect. Fascist thugs who abuse religion and power for their own greedy ends (e.g. the Saudi regime) I don't respect and couldn't care less if they were offended or not.

    Abuse religion?? If you weren't so naive you'd realise it's religion that abuses the people; brainwashing people into believing that "god" forbids sodomy and sex before marriage, among with a whole host of oppressive instructions.

    I saw your idiotic thread in the Politics Café, where you blame America for ISIS, among other stupid statements. ISIS are trying to create a caliphate. If you follow that Wikipedia link, you'll see a list of caliphates in the past and they existed long before America was discovered. ISIS exist because of Islam. The prophet of Islam was a military general who raised an army and conquered Arabia, thus forcing everyone in the region to convert to Islam. Successive caliphs then took over from Muhammad and continued to spread Islam throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

    Does that sound familiar to you? The leader of ISIS is just a modern Muhammad.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    Alexis Sanchez wrote: »
    Abuse religion?? If you weren't so naive you'd realise it's religion that abuses the people; brainwashing people into believing that "god" forbids sodomy and sex before marriage, among with a whole host of oppressive instructions.

    I saw your idiotic thread in the Politics Café, where you blame America for ISIS, among other stupid statements. ISIS are trying to create a caliphate. If you follow that Wikipedia link, you'll see a list of caliphates in the past and they existed long before America was discovered. ISIS exist because of Islam. The prophet of Islam was a military general who raised an army and conquered Arabia, thus forcing everyone in the region to convert to Islam. Successive caliphs then took over from Muhammad and continued to spread Islam throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

    Does that sound familiar to you? The leader of ISIS is just a modern Muhammad.

    Religion is a product of its times. And my thread is not 'idiotic' as you say. I am fully aware of religion's history and am fully aware of the complexities of different issues.

    I have said many times I am NOT the typical 'blame everything on America' type. Either am I going to pretend all that America (or any world power for that matter) does is always the right thing.

    Mohammed was a rebel leader. So too was Jesus. So too was Pearse and Connolly. Christianity, Islam, etc. were always as much political as religious. I am aware of previous Islamic caliphates and am also aware that many of them were preferable to what was going on in medieval Christianity. I am aware that every religion is a product of its times as said meaning that the values of that time are what is written down. Are they the law of god? No, they are the laws of a rebel movement. Some good, some not.

    ISIS are an evil terrorist group and regimes like Saudi Arabia are almost as vile. They use Islam but are inherently voodoo (meaning tribal based) and are satanic in nature. Religion sometimes abuses people yes but that does not stop evil people abusing religion and adding to it.

    Anyone who does not see America's role in helping spread what we now call 'Islamic fundamentalism' (IF) has their head buried in the sand. I have never said it was the only helper of it. But it helped. IF was always there but it was helped along the way by US support for the Afghan resistance, the various wars against Iraq and the whole Israel v Palestine conflict. Colonialism by various European powers also added to it and IF became (along with pan Africanism, Arab nationalism, etc.) part of the wider anti-imperialism movements. To balance things out, it was also encouraged by the actions of the USSR (Afghan invasion and suppression of religious freedom), modern day Russia (the Chechnya wars), support from the Nazis, secular dictators and traditional hatred between factions.

    But black magic/voodoo based warped religion is a problem problem. It took many years and many poor decisions (by America, USSR, other powers and by the countries themselves) to form. But it does need to be sorted. Again, I am not against every war. Preferably, there should be no war but I support one to eradicate ISIS or al Qaeda as they are a grave threat to everyone. The 2003 Iraq invasion on the other hand was totally the wrong thing to do. It made things much worse. The old argument is that in 30 years time, Iraq will be democratic and 'it will all be worth it'. The lyrics of Paul Brady's The Island come to mind ... 40-50 years of hell to turn a place into a democracy in the future is no comfort for those who have to live through the hell that is modern day Iraq.

    People can make up their own mind about things like sex before marriage. Pragmatic reasons rather than religious dictate more to why people choose not to.


  • #128
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    marienbad wrote: »
    It is not obvious , you are just focusing on the extremes . Take a different example - the so 'Gay Agenda'- quite a few people and organisations in this country find any gay expression offensive . What should we do about that ?

    Truly offensive things are extremes. Anyone who finds minor things offensive simply have nothing better to do with their time and their lives are empty.


  • #129
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    Truly offensive things are extremes. Anyone who finds minor things offensive simply have nothing better to do with their time and their lives are empty.

    You are not answering my question , and this is my third time asking , So again who decides what is bullying and/or offensive ?

    And forget Isis and the extremes, we all know the answer to that, but things like a cartoon or a book or a poster in Western Europe today .


  • #130
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    The Abuse of Satire
    Garry Trudeau on Charlie Hebdo, free-speech fanaticism, and the problem with “punching downward”


    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-abuse-of-satire/390312/?utm_source=SFTwitter


  • #131
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    porsche959 wrote: »


    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-abuse-of-satire/390312/?utm_source=SFTwitter

    Some clarifications.
    Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence.

    By inciting we mean directly telling or suggesting to people that they should be violent, not just upsetting them to the point where they choose to be violent.
    What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain

    One does not have to offend but that does not mean one should not be allowed to offend. The offendees are indeed allowed to feel outrage and pain. They are not allowed to assault / kill the offender.

    The only acceptable response to offence is to be similarly offensive. This means that a response which includes physical violence is only acceptable when the original offense included or threatened physical violence.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    obplayer wrote: »
    Some clarifications.



    By inciting we mean directly telling or suggesting to people that they should be violent, not just upsetting them to the point where they choose to be violent.



    One does not have to offend but that does not mean one should not be allowed to offend. The offendees are indeed allowed to feel outrage and pain. They are not allowed to assault / kill the offender.

    The only acceptable response to offence is to be similarly offensive. This means that a response which includes physical violence is only acceptable when the original offense included or threatened physical violence.

    Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you, it doesn't guarantee people won't hate your guts for the stuff you come out with.

    You may be entitled to express yourself but you are not entitled to an audience or anyone's approval.


  • #133
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you, it doesn't guarantee people won't hate your guts for the stuff you come out with.

    You may be entitled to express yourself but you are not entitled to an audience or anyone's approval.

    You are entitled to not having your potential audience reduced to zero by law because someone may be offended. As for approval, no one can demand or even necessarily expect that.

    An article on a closely related area.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/katie-hopkins/katie-hopkins-trolling_b_7040890.html?utm_hp_ref=beyond-the-ballot
    "Reported!" they tweet, followed with a snazzy tag for @metpoliceuk.

    A huge number of my tweets cause people to take offence and go running to the boys in blue to share their outrage.

    I have been reported for everything from ebola to the Palestine conflict, from fascism to anti-Semitism and am yet to see the benefit of this to the British taxpayer. Even Simon Danczuk (the MP for Rochdale) went crawling off to his local IPCC mate to see if an offence had been committed when he didn't like my feed.

    But I remain unconvinced. Twitter is not the business of the police, and users should not be reporting people for what they say.

    New communication laws have curtailed our right to talk freely. As one detective inspector explained on my phone at 2am: "people have taken offence, and therefore an offence may have been committed".

    This sums up Nation Outrage perfectly.

    However, the distinction between what is offensive (legal) or grossly offensive (illegal) is a fine line - and a subjective one - which protects our right to freedom of expression: "that includes the right to say things or express opinions... that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population."

    We have to accept that opinions are not right or wrong. No one is the guardian of the correct answer. This is not and exam and you are not the invigilator.

    People's usual grounds for establishing whether something is right or wrong is whether they agree with it personally. If they agree - it is right. If they disagree - it is wrong. This is an arbitrary system based on their own dubious beliefs.

    I believe we should all be free to say as we please. As long as we are prepared to accept there is an equal and opposing view and respect the right of others to disagree.

    You cannot oblige people to conform. This predilection for group-think became woefully apparent during the IVF debate between Dolce and Gabbana and Elton John.

    No matter with whom you agree, both have an equal right to a view and we should be tolerant of it. Demanding a boycott in response to an opinion is one step away from censorship.

    Life is not a beauty pageant and you cannot demand the beauty pageant answer. I don't want to save the world or negotiate world peace. And I look crap in swim wear. Deal with it.

    I just want to continue to have my basic human right to say what I think on Twitter.

    If you disagree and your best comeback is that you are going to rape me with a machete - then that is indicative of your lack of intelligence.

    But be reassured. I won't be reporting you to the police. I am holding on to the belief they have better things to do. I suspect you still live at home with your mum and floss your teeth with your toe nails.

    If you can't handle the debate, stay away from Twitter. If you want to scream "Reported!", be sure to copy @metpoliceuk. You never know, it might make you feel powerful.

    Beyond The Ballot is The Huffington Post UK's alternative take on the General Election, taking on the issues too awkward for Westminster. It focuses on the unanswered questions around internet freedom, mental health and housing. Election news, blogs, polls and predictions are combined with in-depth coverage of our three issues including roundtable debates, MP interviews and analysis


  • #134
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    obplayer wrote: »
    You are entitled to not having your potential audience reduced to zero by law because someone may be offended. As for approval, no one can demand or even necessarily expect that.

    I phrased that badly. What I mean was, one may have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean I have to listen.


  • #135
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    I phrased that badly. What I mean was, one may have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean I have to listen.

    Fine, then don't.


  • #136
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,830 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    Regimes like Saudi Arabia should not exist in today's world. Ironically, what they do and what they stand for offend people not even living there. It is horrible to see a devil worshipping satanic regime like this that is the basically the devil get away with anything it likes because the world needs their oil. Medieval satanism and devil worship cults like this would not last long in a country with no oil I would feel let alone be tolerated by the whole world.

    What is all this nonsense about satanism for?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #137
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    marienbad wrote: »
    You are not answering my question , and this is my third time asking , So again who decides what is bullying and/or offensive ?

    And forget Isis and the extremes, we all know the answer to that, but things like a cartoon or a book or a poster in Western Europe today .

    Who actually decides? Ultimately, the courts or legal system. This will differentiate the easily offended from the bullied. Anyone who is offended by what most would call tame satire frankly has nothing to do and is trying to find things to fill their empty lives.


  • #138
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    What is all this nonsense about satanism for?

    Satanism exists. Call it what you want but it is everywhere. The spirit of evil. It often hides behind religious or other systems of belief. It corrupts, destroys, kills and represses. It takes advantage of free speech yet silences discenting voices. It pretends to be on the side of the weak while it aids the strong. It unfortunately is not nonsense but is very real. Graham Dwyer, ISIS, Joe Reilly, LRA and Boko Haram are a few examples. Try telling relatives of its victims that it is nonsense. It is a depraved reality and is not confined to one culture, race or creed.


  • #139
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    Who actually decides? Ultimately, the courts or legal system. This will differentiate the easily offended from the bullied. Anyone who is offended by what most would call tame satire frankly has nothing to do and is trying to find things to fill their empty lives.

    There you go then , this is what we were saying pages back, say what you like and if you step over the line let the law decide. Let the offended just be offended and the rest us get on with our lives


  • #140
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,830 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    Satanism exists. Call it what you want but it is everywhere. The spirit of evil. It often hides behind religious or other systems of belief. It corrupts, destroys, kills and represses. It takes advantage of free speech yet silences discenting voices. It pretends to be on the side of the weak while it aids the strong. It unfortunately is not nonsense but is very real. Graham Dwyer, ISIS, Joe Reilly, LRA and Boko Haram are a few examples. Try telling relatives of its victims that it is nonsense. It is a depraved reality and is not confined to one culture, race or creed.

    I'm hardly going to take your word for it any more than I would if you said god exists. It's irrelevant to this discussion imho anyway.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #141
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Shameful new blasphemy law introduced “by the back door” http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1508/S00077/shameful-new-blasphemy-law-introduced-by-the-back-door.htm Communication principles
    6 Communication principles New Zealand's Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 Principle 10
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html
    A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.
    denigrate vs incite hate

    denigrate
    to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denigrate


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,234 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    that's technically not blasphemy though, no?
    blasphemy is insulting a religion, and that seems to be about attacking the person.

    not that it necessarily makes good law anyway.


Advertisement