Hate Speech Public Consultation

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118505970#Comment_118505970

I'm not offended either. I think it's a stupid article because I don't agree with Finlay's views (that all men should feel shame for what happened to Aisling Murphy). I think most men would feel sorry that it happened to her for sure, but I don't see why they should feel ashamed.

But bringing it back to hate speech. I wouldn't consider any aspect of that article to be hate speech and supposing nobody was offended, does that mean that it isn't hate speech? Does it become hate speech if one person/two people/millions of people find it offensive?

And because it's broad (all men) does that mean it's not hate speech? What if he changed it to Slovakian men? Would it then become hate speech?

In my mind all of the above questions are unanswerable questions because the legislation hasn't been introduced and we don't know how it's going to be interpreted. I believe that the legislation is too grey and is very very subjective and we've seen instances of it being used in an over the top way across the water and elsewhere so I think it's reasonable for us to fear the same here.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506155#Comment_118506155

I agree chief. It's not hate speech at all. It's a **** pandering article that the writer did to capitalise and profit on a horrific tragedy.

But as you quite rightly said, a lot of people who are clamoring for harsher hate speech would salivate over this and be rabid in their insistence that this is clear hate speech if any other descriptor was added in front of the word men or if it was describing literally any other group.

Which is why I tried to shine a light on the obvious hypocrisy.

WrenBoy

I would be annoyed at such a bullshit article basically saying that this poor girls murder at the hands of a poor excuse for a man, is because of all the men in Ireland. No one is under the illusion that if any other group of people bar white men were being lumped together and tarred with the same brush it would be deemed "hate speech" and at the very least ignorant or unfair.

Its fairly obvious that Hate speech laws in this country will never be used to protect white Irish straight men, I don't think anyone was ever under that illusion.

Queue the "aw poor white men memes" just further proves the point.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506297#Comment_118506297

There's a difference between disagreeing with something and being offended by something. It's getting more common nowadays that people are mixing up the two.

BattleCorp1

Hate speech risks making offending people a crime.

Here's what should happen when people are offended and I'm including myself in this.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506511#Comment_118506511

oooooooh likes like someone is offended by hate speech....

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506411#Comment_118506411

Indeed and the quotes I already posted do not seem like the opinion of someone merely disagreeing.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506528#Comment_118506528

I'm offended by that remark. Off to jail with you. 🤣

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506546#Comment_118506546

One can disagree passionately without being offended.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506224#Comment_118506224

Any sign of those memes yet?

WrenBoy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506554#Comment_118506554

Is that a response ?

Any sign of those consistent standards ?

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506560#Comment_118506560

Yes.

What!

WrenBoy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506573#Comment_118506573

Then thats a pathetic response to my position 🤣🤣🤣

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506554#Comment_118506554

How about this. ☺️

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506862#Comment_118506862

I'm asking would it fall under hate speech by their own standards. That standard being: an unfair generalisation of a protected category of people (gender) in its entirety based on the actions of a small minority of said group.

Nothing more and nothing less Jack.

I'm not frustrated at all. It's not a gotcha. It's just trying to figure out why people in favour of strengthening the laws with regards hate speech would apply the standard in one scenario and not another.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506925#Comment_118506925

It’s an attempt at a gotcha, and it isn’t working because the people you thought should be offended by the article, aren’t.

It’s your own being dishonest and disingenuous in pretending you can’t figure out why what anyone doesn’t consider the article constitutes hate speech.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118506925#Comment_118506925

Seems like you are defining the standard there not asking people to see if this meets their own standards.

So it does seem as one eyed Jack is saying that you set out with a preconceived notion of how people should think and are now upset that they are not taking your gotcha bait and thinking the way you want them to.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118507185#Comment_118507185

It is an attempt at a gotcha when you’re presenting an example of an article that you thought other people would consider hate speech, and making out that they’re hypocrites because they don’t. It’s not that difficult to answer the question for yourself, that if you don’t consider it hate speech, why would anyone else, if we’re all operating from the same standard?

The reason I said you were getting frustrated is because you wrote a response to Robbie and then redacted part of it claiming that you would be banned if you had said it. I’m not upset at all because I see your attempt to point fingers and play the victim for what it is. It’s a petty attempt to point out what you perceive is the hypocrisy of people who don’t share your opinions.

They’re not the people pointing to an article and claiming other people should agree with you that if it’s taken out of context, it would constitute hate speech. They’re pointing out exactly why they don’t consider the article amounts to hate speech, and you’re trying to claim it’s hypocritical not to consider something hate speech when it’s taken out of context.

Can you see the problem with your argument now?

Luxembourgo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118507010#Comment_118507010

I would be offended by it but it's par for course in Ireland. It's grand to write negatively using broad statements about one gender based on the actions of a minority.

Its an awful opportunistic, empty article.

And the demonisation of an entire gender based on the actions of one (when at the time gender wasn't confirmed) hasnt been lost on my social circle either.

Chips Lovell

It's important to keep sight of the fact that "someone getting offended" will not lead to prosecution under the proposed legislation. The bar is way higher than that.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118507454#Comment_118507454

I’m keeping very well thanks for asking 😁

Look, I get why you brought up that article specifically, but I don’t consider it hate speech because when I consider it in the broader context of Irish society, I wouldn’t consider it amounts to promoting or inciting prejudice and discrimination against men.

Substituting any other group into the same article changes it’s context, so say for example if I were to substitute women instead of men in that article, for one thing it just wouldn’t make any sense, and secondly it still wouldn’t amount to hate speech. It’d just make no sense. Substitute in any group you like in the same article, and it would make even less sense.

Different situations have different contexts, and the same standards still apply, that is the whole point and purpose of hate speech legislation. The article doesn’t constitute the existing offence of incitement to hatred because what is written doesn’t meet the standard required in Irish law which would constitute an offence -

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

The only person who imagines it should be offensive, to other people, is you! You’re not offended by it yourself, but you imagine other people should find it offensive, and you’re making out you can’t understand why they appear to be applying a double standard when it’s actually you is applying the double standard by taking what was said out of context and trying to suggest it would be offensive in a different context, but you wouldn’t be offended then either, and still you’d expect other people should be!

Your efforts remind me of the idiot who made a complaint to the authorities about what Stephen Fry said to Gay Byrne during an interview about the meaning of life -

He said he was asked by the garda if he had been personally offended by the programme and If he wished to include this in the written statement. 

"I told the Garda that I did not want to include this as I had not personally been offended by Fry's comments - I added that I simply believed that the comments made by Fry on RTÉ were criminal blasphemy and that I was doing my civic duty by reporting a crime."

That’s what’s called a shìt-stirrer. They’re easily spotted by the fact that they make the point they’re not offended themselves, but other people could be. As it turned out, nobody was actually offended by it. You’re basically looking for an argument where there isn’t one, no more than there was anyone actually offended by BlindBoys “haunted bread” comments -

https://www.thejournal.ie/rubberbandits-late-late-complaints-3528184-Aug2017/?amp=1

It’s shouldn’t be difficult to understand why people were offended by RTE choosing to broadcast this sketch, and why they received a large number of complaints about it -

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1187296/

It still didn’t constitute incitement to hatred, as distasteful and offensive and all as it was. I found it offensive, other people didn’t.

What I didn’t do however, was what you’re doing in assuming that other people should find your example constitutes hate speech, and if they don’t, that somehow makes them a hypocrite.

Don’t pretend that’s not a gotcha.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118507743#Comment_118507743

I'm not pretending anything.

At the risk of repeating myself jack, the only reason I asked if this could be considered hate speech is because people who are in favour of hate speech laws would usually consider a whole of a community/group/gender/sexuality being discriminated against or unfairly blamed for the actions of a tiny number of that same group, as hate speech.

I genuinely believe that article was an example of men being unfairly generalised and was in poor taste and wondered why it might not be seen as hate speech against men by people who are very pro-hate speech legislation.

I won't be able to, nor do I want to convince you otherwise.

I will honestly leave it there.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118507884#Comment_118507884

You certainly are pretending that you don’t understand why people wouldn’t consider an example which you provided would constitute hate speech.

You refuse to accept the explanation from anyone that in their opinion it doesn’t constitute hate speech because it doesn’t promote or incite hatred, prejudice or discrimination against men. I certainly do agree with you that it’s opportunistic, distasteful and I personally found it offensive, but those elements on their own do not constitute hate speech.

That’s why I don’t consider that article in particular amounts to hate speech. The degree to which I found it offensive is about the same level as I find your attempts to pretend you have the intellectual capacity of a cantaloupe; ie - I don’t actually care so much about needing to prove it’s offensive as you do.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118508044#Comment_118508044

As I said, I'll leave it there jack. I've said my piece and you can choose to not believe me.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118508067#Comment_118508067

I can’t choose not to believe you. Whether I believe you or not isn’t a choice, it’s dependent upon evidence.

The reason I find the article offensive is because the fundamental premise of it is based upon the same fallacious argument that you yourself have used on many occasions in relation to other groups in Irish society - people who are transgender, travellers, etc.

An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of association fallacies are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association.

Being offensive in and of itself does not constitute a criminal act under Irish law, nor does it follow that speech or expressions of opinion which anyone finds offensive, amounts to hate speech - something which I have no doubt you were well aware of already.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118507540#Comment_118507540

How do you know?

Annasopra

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/far-right-troll-jailed-after-22804136

This is good news and exactly why we need to update the 1989 Act. Something like this couldnt be prosecuted because the 1989 Acr is so restrictive

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118520307#Comment_118520307

the act is fine, such incidents like this one can be prosecuted under it as it is insitement.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118521022#Comment_118521022

They cant. Stop making things up. I have already shown an example of how the act make it difficult to prosecute. At this stage you are shameless in your lies.

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118523372#Comment_118523372

insitement is a crime and is prosecutable.