Is it time for free speech?

Undividual

"Freedom of speech is protected by Article 40.6.1 of the Irish constitution. However the article qualifies this right, providing that it may not be used to undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of "seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Ireland


It seems to me that we had a taste of freedom of speech with the introduction of the internet. Now it looks that we are seeing the introduction of regulations and censorship at a increasing rate:

• NZ legally pursuing individuals who viewed the recent shooter's manifesto
• Ireland introducing a quango aimed at 'internet safety' :rolleyes:
• Mark Zuckerberg pushing the US government to regulate social media

Those examples are not all necessarily specific to censorship, but they could all be used in order to enact it.

I would much prefer that we followed a US approach to free speech. My view is that a word never killed anyone. Additionally, if I told a person to commit a crime, I don't believe that the person committing that crime is my responsibility.

Ultimately, we are either autonomous individuals or we are not.

Interested to know peoples' thoughts.

Mitch Connor

Undividual wrote: »

Interested to know peoples' thoughts.

Why?

Ultimately, we are either autonomous individuals or we are not.

EmmetSpiceland

Everyone should be entitled to free speech but no one should be forced to give anyone a platform to speak from.

Outlaw Pete

[Redacted]

IAMAMORON

It is always time for free speech ?

suicide_circus

yes unless the person is engaging in wrongthink as defined by the high priesthood. Amen.

mad muffin

mmmm! mmmmm mm mmmm! mmmmm mmm mmm!!!

suicide_circus

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Everyone should be entitled to free speech but no one should be forced to give anyone a platform to speak from.

agreed. but once a platform takes an editorial stance they should be held liable for all content.

MrFresh

Undividual wrote: »

My view is that a word never killed anyone.

If you were standing before a firing squad the word "fire" may not kill you itself but you certainly wouldn't survive it.

Jurgen Klopp

I fully believe in freedom of speech even when I absolutely detest what's been said

The only thing obviously is when it comes with direct threats of violence or harm. Such as a religious cleric screaming "we need to kill them all!" Or similar towards any group

Am also completely against censorship in regards to moving of goalposts as to what constitutes what "hate speech" these days which will be co opted be various agendas

I honestly think the USA hits it right even the most detestable views are allowed freedom of speech whether they are Nazis, raging Communists or Islamic extremists providing they are directly calling for violence

The internet troubles me as while they are private corporations whether the website or hosting site it's such a fundamental part of life now. Like years ago if a newspaper wouldn't print a view you could take to the streets with leaflets and that. But nowadays if a websites, it's host or even a TV station doesn't agree with your view it's blackout. A few leaflets ain't gonna make a difference these days

MrFresh

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

I fully believe in freedom of speech even when I absolutely detest what's been said

The only thing obviously is when it comes with direct threats of violence or harm. Such as a religious cleric screaming "we need to kill them all!" Or similar towards any group

Am also completely against censorship in regards to what some consider "hate speech" these days which will be co opted be various agendas

Seems a little contradictory. Is the religious cleric not using hate speech?

RayCun

It's surprising (or maybe not) how many people in favour of free speech get upset when other people use their free speech to say they are racist, sexist, stupid...

A lot of people seem to think "freedom of speech" means they get to say whatever they like, and everyone else has to listen and not talk back.

sk8erboii

I think its time for bitter losers to stop fantasizing revolutionary scenarios to sublimate an escape from their pathetic lives.

Take Rowan Croft for example. Being a failed carpenter and living in his moms shed, he writes about changing Ireland and ‘going feral.’

In reality, its docile men who go on afterhours and youtube to vent their frustrations because theyre failures at life.

Ray Bloody Purchase

Once, there was this kid, who got into an accident and couldn't come to school.

mad muffin wrote: »

mmmm! mmmmm mm mmmm! mmmmm mmm mmm!!!

Jurgen Klopp

MrFresh wrote: »

Seems a little contradictory. Is the religious cleric not using hate speech?

I'm referring to the constant moving of goal posts in what constitutes "hate speech" for instance calling for some one or group to be physically harmed is one thing

When you have people and no doubt certain quangos wanting any criticism or negative views expressed about various from Islam to immigration etc suppressed as hate speech then I have a problem with it

You will have certain groups or people classing a person who says a male to female transexual as not a real woman as "hate speech" no it isn't.

Saying "people go out and punch a tranny" is a threat of violence

MrFresh

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

I'm referring to the constant moving of goal posts in what constitutes "hate speech" for instance calling for some one or group to be physically harmed is one thing

When you have people and no doubt certain quangos wanting any criticism or negative views expressed about various from Islam to immigration etc suppressed as hate speech then I have a problem with it

So if a person directly tells someone to harm a group it's bad but if they radicalise him with propaganda about how bad and dangerous a group of people are and then they go out and harm them then it's ok.

Fr_Dougal

i hate these feckin spoilers

jimgoose

RayCun wrote: »

It's surprising (or maybe not) how many people in favour of free speech get upset when other people use their free speech to say they are racist, sexist, stupid...

A lot of people seem to think "freedom of speech" means they get to say whatever they like, and everyone else has to listen and not talk back.

Indeed. The wannabe-feral-neckbeard may say whatever he pleases to me. I may choose to deny him platform or, alternatively, to break his face with my elbow in the Wing-Chun style.

nthclare

jimgoose wrote: »

Indeed. The wannabe-feral-neckbeard may say whatever he pleases to me. I may choose to deny him platform or, alternatively, to break his face with my elbow in the Wing-Chun style.

I'd like to see you try it

jimgoose

nthclare wrote: »

I'd like to see you try it

Tickets from the usual outlets.

James Brown

Free speech is in the ear of the beholder. Society has to draw a line under whats acceptable. Not everyone will be happy. What we've got here ("is a failure to communicate") is a mix of bigots upset they can't spew their previously local brand of bile on the relatively new international platform of social media and times changing as happens. Pinching a girl's arse is no longer just having a laugh. If you're talking sh*te down the local or in your living room, people may or may not be offended and tell you as much, this is society and or Facebook doing same. It's not necessarily that you are wrong or behaving illegally, just most of us don't want to hear it.

Nic_Col

Never ceases to amaze me just how many people seem to confuse "freedom of speech" with "I want to be able to say whatever I want and not be in any way held accountable".

Undividual

MrFresh wrote: »

Seems a little contradictory. Is the religious cleric not using hate speech?

Hate speech seems like a ridiculous concept to me. If you are talking about directly threatening someone, fair enough.

To quote Jordan Peterson, who decides what is classified as hate?

Also, would you agree that it is acceptable to hate Nazis or pedophiles?

Undividual

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Free speech is in the ear of the beholder. Society has to draw a line under whats acceptable. Not everyone will be happy. What we've got here ("is a failure to communicate") is a mix of bigots upset they can't spew their previously local brand of bile on the relatively new international platform of social media and times changing as happens. Pinching a girl's arse is no longer just having a laugh. If you're talking sh*te down the local or in your living room, people may or may not be offended and tell you as much, this is society and or Facebook doing same. It's not necessarily that you are wrong or behaving illegally, just most of us don't want to hear it.

What if you're not just talking shyte? What if instead you're criticizing EU policy / pro Brexit / pro Trump and your speech is flagged as offensive? Worse still, what if you're booted off the platform / medium?

When you say society must deem what is acceptable, how is this currently done?

To use your analogy, it could be the equivalent of not being allowed in any pubs for having unacceptable beliefs/opinions.

RayCun

Undividual wrote: »

To quote Jordan Peterson,

jaysus

'autonomous individuals' who get their opinions from Youtube

RayCun

Undividual wrote: »

Worse still, what if you're booted off the platform / medium?

I hate to break it to you kid* but boards, youtube, twitter, facebook... are all private bodies. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have a right to an account on any of them, any more than it means the Irish Times has to print your letters or Newstalk has to put you on air.

You are not owed a platform.


* no, that's a lie

Grayson

Undividual wrote: »

Hate speech seems like a ridiculous concept to me. If you are talking about directly threatening someone, fair enough.

To quote Jordan Peterson, who decides what is classified as hate?

Also, would you agree that it is acceptable to hate Nazis or pedophiles?

The difference with the examples you gave is that people hate them because of what they've done. Most hate speech is directed at people because of who they are and what ethnic/social group they belong to, rather than any action.

Hannah Arendt classified crimes like that as ontological crimes. For example a jewish person was hated by the nazi's, not because of what they did but what they were. It doesn't matter what that jewish person does, they will still be hated. There is nothing they can do which will lessen or get rid of that hate.

The same goes for racism. A member of the KKK would hate black people. Not matter what the person does, they would still be hated.

Undividual

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Why?

Ultimately, we are either autonomous individuals or we are not.

To inform my personal philosophy so that I may act appropriately in the future.

Undividual

Grayson wrote: »

The difference with the examples you gave is that people hate them because of what they've done. Most hate speech is directed at people because of who they are and what ethnic/social group they belong to, rather than any action.

Hannah Arendt classified crimes like that as ontological crimes. For example a jewish person was hated by the nazi's, not because of what they did but what they were. It doesn't matter what that jewish person does, they will still be hated. There is nothing they can do which will lessen or get rid of that hate.

The same goes for racism. A member of the KKK would hate black people. Not matter what the person does, they would still be hated.

I take your point, but both categories fall under what is commonly understood as hatred. Is it hate speech if you say something hateful about a group because of their race for example, but not hate speech if you say something hateful about a group because of their behaviour?

Would you agree that hate speech is a dangerously vague term?

ArchXStanton

You forgot the EU regimes article 13,i think it's a bid to stop rising EU scepticism




Result: more EU sceptics

Lux23

I hate when people say they're entitled to their opinion. As if that means, you can't tell them their opinions are bags of s***e.

Undividual

RayCun wrote: »

jaysus

'autonomous individuals' who get their opinions from Youtube

Google autonomous.

Undividual

RayCun wrote: »

I hate to break it to you kid* but boards, youtube, twitter, facebook... are all private bodies. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have a right to an account on any of them, any more than it means the Irish Times has to print your letters or Newstalk has to put you on air.

You are not owed a platform.


* no, that's a lie

Did I say I had a right to an account on any of those platforms? I think you've confused me with someone else.

Undividual

sk8erboii wrote: »

I think its time for bitter losers to stop fantasizing revolutionary scenarios to sublimate an escape from their pathetic lives.

Take Rowan Croft for example. Being a failed carpenter and living in his moms shed, he writes about changing Ireland and ‘going feral.’

In reality, its docile men who go on afterhours and youtube to vent their frustrations because theyre failures at life.

Meta

SexBobomb

jimgoose wrote: »

Tickets from the usual outlets.

ooh you're hard

Undividual

SexBobomb wrote: »

ooh you're hard

What, against karate?

Undividual

Lux23 wrote: »

I hate when people say they're entitled to their opinion. As if that means, you can't tell them their opinions are bags of s***e.

Well... I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

MOH

Undividual wrote: »

What if you're not just talking shyte? What if instead you're criticizing EU policy / pro Brexit / pro Trump and your speech is flagged as offensive? Worse still, what if you're booted off the platform / medium?

When you say society must deem what is acceptable, how is this currently done?

To use your analogy, it could be the equivalent of not being allowed in any pubs for having unacceptable beliefs/opinions.

Undividual wrote: »

Did I say I had a right to an account on any of those platforms? I think you've confused me with someone else.

You said "what if you're booted off the platform". You're not owed a platform.

Similarly I'm fairly sure any publican is free to bar you for having beliefs/opinions they don't like (unless it's something that falls under discrimination legislation).

Also note that 40.6.1 doesn't contain the word "anonymously" anywhere:

Bunreacht na hEireann wrote:

1° the state guarantees liberty for the exercise of
the following rights, subject to public order and
morality: –
i the right of the citizens to express freely
their convictions and opinions.
the education of public opinion being,
however, a matter of such grave import to
the common good, the state shall
endeavour to ensure that organs of public
opinion, such as the radio, the press, the
cinema, while preserving their rightful
liberty of expression, including criticism
of Government policy, shall not be used
to undermine public order or morality or
the authority of the state.
the publication or utterance of seditious
or indecent matter is an offence which
shall be punishable in accordance with
law.

RayCun

Undividual wrote: »

Google autonomous.

I know what autonomous means.

Do you know what a book is?

Undividual

Undividual wrote: »

"My view is that a word never killed anyone.

You never hear the phrase,
It's often that a man's mouth broke his nose
I've seen it happen plenty of times.

Also words have been used throughout history to incite genocide.

Blitzkrieger

We don't really have free speech in Ireland, and though I'm usually anti-censorship and pro-free speech, I think sadly as a society we need some laws governing the Internet and media, in this day and age of fake news, hate campaigns and Russian election trolls.

MrFresh

MrFresh wrote: »

So if a person directly tells someone to harm a group it's bad but if they radicalise him with propaganda about how bad and dangerous a group of people are and then they go out and harm them then it's ok.

Yes - the person being radicalised is not some passive slug being controlled, they have free will to listen to whoever they want for alternative viewpoints - because of free speech. Also others can see what a dickhead this indoctrinator is - again due to free speech. Suppressing them only gives fuel to the conspiracy nuts and makes it more likely for them to believe their crap.

jimgoose

SexBobomb wrote: »

ooh you're hard

The point, Grasshopper, is that "Free Speech" means the State won't throw you in jail for saying stuff they decide they don't like, with certain exceptions. Think of it as something like third-party only insurance - it's enough to get you past the Gardaí, and beyond that you're pretty much on your own. Shooting one's mouth off unmoderated in the real world just might get one a good thumping.

Blitzkrieger

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

We don't really have free speech in Ireland, and though I'm usually anti-censorship and pro-free speech, I think sadly as a society we need some laws governing the Internet and media, in this day and age of fake news, hate campaigns and Russian election trolls.

I agree there needs to be some regulation of outright lies - but this is across the board. I read a ridiculous story about Trump being inspired by some evil Batman character in the Guardian.. It was total nonsense. He went to see the batman film in question and then in is inauguration speech there was one sentence vaguely similar to something that character said. It was total rubbish.

Maybe some sort of points system by a rigorous fact checker rather than banning entirely. A truth ranking so to speak.

kowloon

It's unfortunate that some of the people most visibly championing freedom of speech are doing it because they're arseholes who want to believe they have a cause that's bigger than just wanting to be arseholes to people. Their support undermines anyone genuine about the necessity of freedom of speech.

Grayson

Undividual wrote: »

I take your point, but both categories fall under what is commonly understood as hatred. Is it hate speech if you say something hateful about a group because of their race for example, but not hate speech if you say something hateful about a group because of their behaviour?

Would you agree that hate speech is a dangerously vague term?

I think people's understanding of hate speech is vague. Legally in most jurisdictions it's pretty specific.

But people also tend to lump groups in together. For most of the islamophobes there's no difference between ISIS and your average muslim. When ISIS are criticised for their actions and beliefs, that's fine. The two things are tied together. They believe everyone who doesn't follow their code should be enslaved and/or killed. And they follow through on it. Criticising them is perfectly valid.

However islamaphobia is based on lumping the worst actions of the worst people within a group and saying they're all like that.

The same goes for anti semitism. There are policies of israel and hardcore zionists which are horrible and can be criticised. However if you expand that to all jews then it's antisemitism. And there's a thin line there.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

We don't really have free speech in Ireland, and though I'm usually anti-censorship and pro-free speech, I think sadly as a society we need some laws governing the Internet and media, in this day and age of fake news, hate campaigns and Russian election trolls.

The problem there is with handing the government the power to define criticism of the government or its policies as "hate speech" or "fake news."

Your Face

Undividual wrote: »

"Freedom of speech is protected by Article 40.6.1 of the Irish constitution. However the article qualifies this right, providing that it may not be used to undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of "seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Ireland


It seems to me that we had a taste of freedom of speech with the introduction of the internet. Now it looks that we are seeing the introduction of regulations and censorship at a increasing rate:

• NZ legally pursuing individuals who viewed the recent shooter's manifesto
• Ireland introducing a quango aimed at 'internet safety' :rolleyes:
• Mark Zuckerberg pushing the US government to regulate social media

Those examples are not all necessarily specific to censorship, but they could all be used in order to enact it.

I would much prefer that we followed a US approach to free speech. My view is that a word never killed anyone. Additionally, if I told a person to commit a crime, I don't believe that the person committing that crime is my responsibility.

Ultimately, we are either autonomous individuals or we are not.

Interested to know peoples' thoughts.

I'd take the qualifications to Article 40.6.1 above as dealing with serious threats to the State.

Scotty #

Undividual wrote: »

My view is that a word never killed anyone.

Ready...... Aim....... FIRE!!!!!

Scotty #

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

We don't really have free speech in Ireland, and though I'm usually anti-censorship and pro-free speech, I think sadly as a society we need some laws governing the Internet and media, in this day and age of fake news, hate campaigns and Russian election trolls.

+1

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Undividual wrote: »

To quote Jordan Peterson, who decides what is classified as hate?

Oh my god that's PRICELESS. I know the man has never had an original or insightful thought in his life but I didn't know his acolytes were quite so much enthralled that they'd be compelled to attribute banal nonsense like that to him. I mean just change your sig to I Peterson if you NEED people to know you watch his videos.

"That's life" Jordan Peterson
"Just goes to show you can never tell" Jordan Peterson.