Free speech and the fear of outside perception

Shea O'Meara

Apologies if covered all ready, but not seen it.

Authorities in Dublin have banned street campaign posters in a city-wide clean up, ahead of the visits of the Queen and US President Barack Obama.

The poster ban will limit dissident republicans, left-wing parties, fringe political and anarchist groups and environmental campaigners from displaying posters and will take effect from May 16.

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/19514452/

Although the Council are the care takers of the city, I did not realise they had the authority to censor free speech.
Regardless of ones feelings towards Obama or the Queen, this can't be considered just.
If I want to post 'I heart Obama' everywhere, will that be banned also?
Are the Labour party banned from posting anything?

Discussing this I've been reminded of what has, I'm sad to say, has become very common of late. That being the knee jerk reaction of people to anything seeming to stir the collective pot.
I've witnessed conversations were someone will state how much they dislike cricket only to be told 'you can't be anti-english these days'. When the point was the person was not fond of cricket, that's all.
There seems to be a fear of being seen as backward or hateful if professing views, which at a stretch could be deemed 'anti' or against the mainstream grain.
This is worrisome and ironically proves the initial reasoning behind my recent rail on the censorship of free speech in regard to the visits of Obama and the Queen, where I was told I can't live in the past, we should welcome the Queen and we can't afford Northern Ireland and so on....
I used the above quoted report as a jumping off point and due to it's content was perceived to be ranting about the Queen's visit, when I mentioned Obama and herself all but one time.
We've blinkered bigoted folk on all sides, but should we allow ourselves be silenced in the fear of being perceived as such? This is the trap I feel Dublin City Council have fallen into, bringing in censorship in the fear free speech may make us seem foolish or backward to those outside.
How can we decide what speech is acceptable if we only hear one side?
I think it's wrong and regardless of Obama or the Queen, not something a democratic society, not wanting to seem backward, should allow.

mikemac

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Although the Council are the care takers of the city, I did not realise they had the authority to censor free speech.
Regardless of ones feelings towards Obama or the Queen, this can't be considered just.

The council own or at least are responsible for many of the walls and all of lamp posts around the city. Or maybe it's the ESB? If you want to hang your poster then you need permission.
You would not want anyone hanging posters from your personal property without permission.

If a protester along the route owns property along the route or in Dublin city centre they can hang their poster and have their free speech once it's not breaking one of the incitement laws

It's a bit much to claim the council are denying free speech by refusing to have posters on their property.

Shea O'Meara

feelingstressed wrote: »

It's a bit much to claim the council are denying free speech by refusing to have posters on their property.

I'm not up on the ownership as such, but would have thought the tax payer and or state owned all of it?
The main issue I have is it's the fact that it's specific on who can't, left wing etc. meaning if you're right wing, (what ever that means in this context) you can post what you like. I find that to be selective censorship.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

This strikes me as an attempt to look good in front of the foreign leaders, and stifle any criticism of their visit. As such I'd be strongly opposed to this move.

steelcityblues

The groupie mentality is alive and well amongst our betters.

Wait until you hear the TV coverage were said commentators will lose the run of themselves when Obama has a pint down in Moneygall, saying 'he really is one of us', or some tripe. Then, the by now obligatory 12 page pullout the next day in all of the country's major rags.

Any critical mention as to why so much State money is being invested towards the visits of two of the world's biggest frauds, will be immediately hammered down by the messenger boys/girls associated with RTE, Irish Indo, Irish Times, etc.

Heaven forbid anyone living around Moneygall who could give less of a f*ck to come out and wave a Stars and Stripes on the day - probably will be given a strange look by one of the gombeens whose year will be made if he/she gets a handshake from St. Obama.

Times like this gives you an indication as to who is 'real', and who is not.

The Waltzing Consumer

steelcityblues wrote: »

The groupie mentality is alive and well amongst our betters.

Wait until you hear the TV coverage were said commentators will lose the run of themselves when Obama has a pint down in Moneygall, saying 'he really is one of us', or some tripe. Then, the by now obligatory 12 page pullout the next day in all of the country's major rags.

Any critical mention as to why so much State money is being invested towards the visits of two of the world's biggest frauds, will be immediately hammered down by the messenger boys/girls associated with RTE, Irish Indo, Irish Times, etc.

Heaven forbid anyone living around Moneygall who could give less of a f*ck to come out and wave a Stars and Stripes on the day - probably will be given a strange look by one of the gombeens whose year will be made if he/she gets a handshake from St. Obama.

Times like this gives you an indication as to who is 'real', and who is not.

I think the begrudging mentality is a lot more alive then the groupie mentality. I really hate posts like yours that are just written in such a sneering and begrudging way that are only written to try and be immature (it reminds me of sneering school brats looking down at other kids for what they wear or what the like and they feel they have to share this with the kid in an effort just to knock their confidence and get their kicks from it).

So wow, some people and news media will be excited at state visits. Who cares? Stop begrudging them.

It would just be hilarious if you worked for an American or British company that probably came to Ireland through networking at a political or state visit.

red_red_wine

steelcityblues wrote: »

Any critical mention as to why so much State money is being invested towards the visits of two of the world's biggest frauds, will be immediately hammered down by the messenger boys/girls associated with RTE, Irish Indo, Irish Times, etc.

Yet they still print letters to the editor criticising the visits and if there hasn't already been an editorial/opinion finding fault with the expense of the trips, I have no doubt that one will appear in one of the aforementioned newspapers over the next few weeks.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/0420/1224295066084.html

steelcityblues wrote: »

two of the world's biggest frauds

Obama has been and is still the subject of intense scrutiny both during the presidential campaign and during his time in office; following claims that he had deceived the public about his birth place, his long birth certificate was released; little evidence of him being a 'fraud' has arisen.

steelcityblues

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I think the begrudging mentality is a lot more alive then the groupie mentality. I really hate posts like yours that are just written in such a sneering and begrudging way that are only written to try and be immature (it reminds me of sneering school brats looking down at other kids for what they wear or what the like and they feel they have to share this with the kid in an effort just to knock their confidence and get their kicks from it).

So wow, some people and news media will be excited at state visits. Who cares? Stop begrudging them.

It would just be hilarious if you worked for an American or British company that probably came to Ireland through networking at a political or state visit.

Nope. I just hate to see sycophancy on a grand scale, when we should be focusing more on ourselves and the welfare of our own citizens. news bulletins often contain propaganda after all.

Certainly have nothing against American or British companies here, as long as they play by the rules like any good company.

Shea O'Meara

Thanks for the Irish Times link.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is censorship unless the commentary is deemed illegal/hateful/insighting public disorder/libelous etc. in which case the grounds would be just.
Otherwise people should be allowed post anything they like. The council let MCD litter the city with what could not be considered anything of worth, so the council getting picky all of a sudden doesn't stand up.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's an Eircom quote, (see below).

The poster ban will limit dissident republicans, left-wing parties, fringe political and anarchist groups and environmental campaigners from displaying posters and will take effect from May 16.
http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/19514452/

So we have Eircom saying no left wing or republicans allowed post and later, the Irish Times quoting the Council stating no posting of any kind will be allowed to keep the city clean. If true, this is more even handed but it means they believe the city usually looks thrashy due to advertisment posters, but that's okay when Obama and the Queen aren't about.
I think they are changing their story to avoid any controversy and potential civil rights issues.

Permabear wrote: »

The reason that only left-wing groups are being denied permission seems to indicate that they are the only groups which have applied for it.

Again, the Eircom report may be the Councils earlier view, and it states the conscious decision to refuse left wing, republicans and environmentalists. Which is very blinkered and wrong. It's so ignorant to bundle anything left of centre into a hodge podge of fringe elements whom society should be protected from, you know like the Labour Party, Amnesty International, them gays and the Muslims:rolleyes:
I guess our guests will only meet the cap tipping variety anyway, but if people want to protest peacefully no censorship will stop it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

micdug

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I'm not up on the ownership as such, but would have thought the tax payer and or state owned all of it?

And what of it? Do you get to stay in Farmleigh because you are a taxpayer? The State owns it, that gives you no rights to it. So the Council are pefectly entitled to stop the constant littering of the City Centre with unsightly posters plastered everywhere.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

The main issue I have is it's the fact that it's specific on who can't, left wing etc. meaning if you're right wing, (what ever that means in this context) you can post what you like. I find that to be selective censorship.

Sigh.... untrue, maybe you are misled because the right wing don't consider it their God given right to plaster their vacuous opinions everywhere. That doesn't mean that this is an anti-ultra left wing action. It's various property holders (ESB, Eircom) and the council stating they don't want their property defaced. The Council is entitled to come to a commercial arrangement with MCD, advertising agencies, allow election posters if they so choose.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Which is very blinkered and wrong. It's so ignorant to bundle anything left of centre into a hodge podge of fringe elements whom society should be protected from, you know like the Labour Party, Amnesty International, them gays and the Muslims

I can't see anywhere where the council has banned any of the above. A statement by DCC that it's illegal to post posters on its property is now an anti muslim/gay/labour party/amnesty attack?? This is just the sort of untruth's one gets to expect from those with fringe political beliefs.

The state through a democratically elected representative Government has invited President Obama and the Queen of England to Ireland. You don't have some unlimited right to freedom of speech, or right to push your minority viewpoint on the vast majority of people on this state. The state is perfectly entitled at a certain point to say that the argument is over and curtail deliberately offensive opinions. There is NO unlimited entitlement to freedom of speech in this country with good reason.

Personally I am fed up listening to people like you. You lost the election gaining a tiny number of seats. We (the vast majority of people in this state >80% including supporters of left of centre parties such as Labour) heard your "arguments" don't agree with them and want to move on. You'll have another chance in 4 years, but I suspect your views will again be rejected.

We are entitled to see that both the US President and the British Queen get a courteous welcome when they are guests in this country and that a tiny minority don't hijack this event.

Get over it.

steelcityblues

micdug wrote: »

And what of it? Do you get to stay in Farmleigh because you are a taxpayer? The State owns it, that gives you no rights to it. So the Council are pefectly entitled to stop the constant littering of the City Centre with unsightly posters plastered everywhere.



Sigh.... untrue, maybe you are misled because the right wing don't consider it their God given right to plaster their vacuous opinions everywhere. That doesn't mean that this is an anti-ultra left wing action. It's various property holders (ESB, Eircom) and the council stating they don't want their property defaced. The Council is entitled to come to a commercial arrangement with MCD, advertising agencies, allow election posters if they so choose.


I can't see anywhere where the council has banned any of the above. A statement by DCC that it's illegal to post posters on its property is now an anti muslim/gay/labour party/amnesty attack?? This is just the sort of untruth's one gets to expect from those with fringe political beliefs.

The state through a democratically elected representative Government has invited President Obama and the Queen of England to Ireland. You don't have some unlimited right to freedom of speech, or right to push your minority viewpoint on the vast majority of people on this state. The state is perfectly entitled at a certain point to say that the argument is over and curtail deliberately offensive opinions. There is NO unlimited entitlement to freedom of speech in this country with good reason.

Personally I am fed up listening to people like you. You lost the election gaining a tiny number of seats. We (the vast majority of people in this state >80% including supporters of left of centre parties such as Labour) heard your "arguments" don't agree with them and want to move on. You'll have another chance in 4 years, but I suspect your views will again be rejected.

We are entitled to see that both the US President and the British Queen get a courteous welcome when they are guests in this country and that a tiny minority don't hijack this event.

Get over it.

One critical fact missing from your argument - the Irish population had absolutely no say in electing either President Obama or Queen Elizabeth 2.

Stop with the 'we' nonsense to force your argument - a fair chunk of the country voted for other parties/independents, or didn't vote at all.

Fascism with a velvet glove isn't much better than the real thing.

micdug

steelcityblues wrote: »

One critical fact missing from your argument - the Irish population had absolutely no say in electing either President Obama or Queen Elizabeth 2.

What??? we shouldn't invite foreign leaders unless we vote for them? That makes no sense whatsoever? Bizarre statement to make...

steelcityblues wrote: »

Stop with the 'we' nonsense to force your argument - a fair chunk of the country voted for other parties/independents, or didn't vote at all.

Fascism with a velvet glove isn't much better than the real thing.

All major parties excluding SF are happy to see her visit. That's 133 out of 166 Dail deputies! 80% is a overwhelming unarguable majority (and thats leaving aside independents like Shane Ross, Stephen Donnelly and a couple who don't care either way) so >80%. I'm perfectly entitled to state "We the people". You on the other hand represent a tiny minority that the overwhelming majority of Irish People have rejected at every vote including the GFA.
If you didn't vote I don't care what your opinion is.

Your comment on fascism is ironic. It was "Nationalist" "Socialist's" that gave birth to Fascism. Don't forget that Hitler won power democratically, indeed with his populist public works much like the nationalist and socialist "left" in Ireland (bankrupting Germany in the process making war inevitable). Perhaps if the Weimer Republic had dealt with this rabble History would be very different.

steelcityblues

micdug wrote: »

What??? we shouldn't invite foreign leaders unless we vote for them? That makes no sense whatsoever? Bizarre statement to make...



All major parties excluding SF are happy to see her visit. That's 133 out of 166 Dail deputies! 80% is a overwhelming unarguable majority (and thats leaving aside independents like Shane Ross, Stephen Donnelly and a couple who don't care either way) so >80%. I'm perfectly entitled to state "We the people". You on the other hand represent a tiny minority that the overwhelming majority of Irish People have rejected at every vote including the GFA.
If you didn't vote I don't care what your opinion is.

Your comment on fascism is ironic. It was "Nationalist" "Socialist's" that gave birth to Fascism. Don't forget that Hitler won power democratically, indeed with his populist public works much like the nationalist and socialist "left" in Ireland (bankrupting Germany in the process making war inevitable). Perhaps if the Weimer Republic had dealt with this rabble History would be very different.

Your point earlier about certain opinions having to be curtailed is exactly the type of thing a wanabee fascist leader would love to hear. An opinion is not meant to be curtailed in a democracy.

'The people' is everyone from FF or FG or LAB or SF or anyone else supporters - Catholic, Protestant, Jew, so on. Fascists are fascists of course and go beyond the definitions of left or right once they completely 'lose it'.

The GFA? Obviously you forgot about the huge number of republicans who voted in favour of that Agreement. Those people wouldn't exactly have union jack pillow cases lying at home, lol!

What do you consider to be a respectable issue(s) to protest publicly about anyway, if State visits are not?

Shea O'Meara

micdug wrote: »

And what of it? Do you get to stay in Farmleigh because you are a taxpayer? The State owns it, that gives you no rights to it. So the Council are pefectly entitled to stop the constant littering of the City Centre with unsightly posters plastered everywhere.

Well it would make it state/public property and decisions regarding it would not fall under the laws of private property, y'know that kind of thing.
If it's a pure litter issue, I expect to see no more postering about the city after they've gone so.

micdug wrote: »

Sigh.... untrue, maybe you are misled because the right wing don't consider it their God given right to plaster their vacuous opinions everywhere.

You believe it untrue yet seem to argue on the basis that it is and justify it by attempting to speak for the right making a left/right argument on the issue

micdug wrote: »

That doesn't mean that this is an anti-ultra left wing action. It's various property holders (ESB, Eircom) and the council stating they don't want their property defaced. The Council is entitled to come to a commercial arrangement with MCD, advertising agencies, allow election posters if they so choose.

Yes, but in a democratic society a publicly owned caretaker body should not be able to pick and choose once laws are adhered to, which is my point.
So by your reasoning, they can allow one political party post advertisments and not another, one radio station and not another and that's okay?

micdug wrote: »

I can't see anywhere where the council has banned any of the above. A statement by DCC that it's illegal to post posters on its property is now an anti muslim/gay/labour party/amnesty attack?? This is just the sort of untruth's one gets to expect from those with fringe political beliefs.

I was making the point that the description of the left seemed very broad as if anybody not waving the stars and stripes or union jack was automatically on the left. I used them as examples of how broad it seemed and obviously, (at least I assumed) never claimed it was a quote.

micdug wrote: »

The state through a democratically elected representative Government has invited President Obama and the Queen of England to Ireland. You don't have some unlimited right to freedom of speech, or right to push your minority viewpoint on the vast majority of people on this state. The state is perfectly entitled at a certain point to say that the argument is over and curtail deliberately offensive opinions. There is NO unlimited entitlement to freedom of speech in this country with good reason.

You're providing an example of my other point, the knee jerk panic of the tip of the cap lest we seem stuck in 1916 brigade. Thanks, I guess, for proving my point....or can you quote me where I actually state anything other than my issues with free speech or lack there of?
Also, because some people want to voice opposition to something or someone does not make it automatically or deliberately offensive, but then we'll never know.

micdug wrote: »

Personally I am fed up listening to people like you. You lost the election gaining a tiny number of seats. We (the vast majority of people in this state >80% including supporters of left of centre parties such as Labour) heard your "arguments" don't agree with them and want to move on. You'll have another chance in 4 years, but I suspect your views will again be rejected.

:eek: Have we met in some ficticious reality of your making? How on earth did you glean these 'facts' about me from what I feel is no more than my attempt to raise the issue of free speech?
Again proving my point, the fear of how people from abroad perceive us. If I defend gay or immigrant rights am I automatically a gay Nigerian chap?
This is why we need hear from everybody.

micdug wrote: »

We are entitled to see that both the US President and the British Queen get a courteous welcome when they are guests in this country and that a tiny minority don't hijack this event.

Get over it.

You seem a little confused here. Read my first post. The thread is about free speech and our ever more common belief that we must be seen to be playing ball at all costs. I've no idea whether supporters of the Queen's visit are in a majority or minority and I had not planned on posting for either view point.
In my country people are free to protest peacefully. It's a sign of a progressive modern society. If people protest either visit it will be part of the event as people are not robots. Some will present flowers, others will scorn, people are interesting like that.

Red Alert

I see that comical Dobbo has started the propaganda campaign on RTE1. In all seriousness, Enda Kenny's remarks about putting the best foot forward were reminiscent of the kind of pep talk you'd get in secondary school.