Hate Speech Public Consultation

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118523645#Comment_118523645

There are problems with the 1989 law which often make it unprosecutable. You know this. I have explained it to you.

eagle eye

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

Obviously you haven't spent much time in the courts.

eagle eye

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

I think banning social media is a better solution.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118524159#Comment_118524159

Maybe regulation of social media

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118524161#Comment_118524161

No, ban all those major social media sites.

There's laws broken by thousands of people everyday on those sites. What they post mightn't be illegal in the country where they posted it but as soon as somebody accesses the information in a country where it is illegal then it's a law broken.

Also the dumb people who would be incited and/or act on said incitement won't get the information in the first place.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118524172#Comment_118524172

Thats not a practical or workable or desirable solution for anyone.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118524186#Comment_118524186

Far more workable, practical and money saving solution than hate speech laws.

Hate speech laws will only clog up the already over-burdened courts and add to the free legal aid bill.

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118524153#Comment_118524153

there aren't, actual insitement is prosecutable.

what you are looking for to be prosecuted is way below insitement, excluding the particular case you posted which i have no doubt if proper evidence could be got together which i reccan is easy enough, it will be prosecuted.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118524155#Comment_118524155

Lol.

Go ask women who have been sexually assaulted what their experience has been in seeing those who attacked them successfully prosecuted.

WrenBoy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118524868#Comment_118524868

So, more wide reaching hate speech laws because your not happy with the courts handling of sexual assault cases ?

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118524967#Comment_118524967

You added 2 + 2 and got 7, didn't you?

My post you responded to was directly pointing out the nonsense that simply wanting to have someone prosecuted is enough for that to happen.

Hate speech laws are needed because any functioning society looks at ways that people are being hurt or treated unfairly and looks to deal with that.

WrenBoy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118525025#Comment_118525025

A poster stated that the bar for prosecution under the new hate speech laws would be higher than other posters are alluding to.

Another poster said they disagreed.

Then you came in with the big emotive argument about women and sexual assault cases (a topic which has it problems absolutely but quite a separate discussion), that doesn't have any connection to hate speech laws whatsoever. I wouldn't be so uncharitable as to suggest you were somehow trying to link the two as being remotely similar.

You don't seem aware but we already have Hate Speech laws. There is now a re-wording of that law happening and people have different opinions on it. Hope that helps with your maths 😉

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118525484#Comment_118525484

Ah yes, more of the cherry picking of court experiences to ignore the evidence that refutes the point.

Carry on.

WrenBoy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118525617#Comment_118525617

What did I cherry pick !? What evidence ? you literally said to ask women dealing with the courts in sexual assault cases if the Hate Speech laws will result in a "high" or "low bar" being used when deciding to prosecute.

You do no-one favours by being so disingenuous and conflating the two unless your trying to use some emotive argument, "if you're against these new hate speech law changes you're probably against women dealing with sexual assault cases too, blah blah'', nonsense.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118525802#Comment_118525802

No the post I responded to suggested getting offended was sufficient to secure a prosecution. Hate laws or otherwise that is far from the case.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118524673#Comment_118524673

So you keep saying. But you have no evidence of your assertions whereas I have provided evidence. Its laughable that you think you know more than the Law Reform Comission. You are actually just lieing now at this stage with the nonsense you are coming out with.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118524868#Comment_118524868

You do realise that there's criminal and civil courts?

In a criminal case with a jury it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed.

In civil cases it's a judgement call with no obligation to have reasonable doubt to dismiss or find guilty.

We'll have a multitude of criminal cases from those who intend to take civil cases as they'll hope to get a conviction in a criminal case to ensure their payday in a civil suit.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118528211#Comment_118528211

But if they get a conviction in criminal court, then someone is guilty of an offence against them, so why shouldn't they look for damages?

How often does it happen?

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118528211#Comment_118528211

We'll have a multitude of criminal cases from those who intend to take civil cases as they'll hope to get a conviction in a criminal case to ensure their payday in a civil suit.

Individuals don't get to decide whether or not a criminal prosecution is sought.

BattleCorp1

Here's my problem with hate speech legislation in general. It's way too subjective. And it looks like saying something that someone finds offensive is going to be a crime in the UK. Well, that seems to be the way it's heading.

Latest example: Jimmy Carr tells a joke. A fcuking joke. And depending on your taste in comedy you can view it 3 ways. You like it, you hate it or you don't give a fcuk.

But then you have a UK lawmaker (Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries) calling Jimmy's joke hate speech.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1561630/jimmy-carr-nadine-dorries-netflix-show-holocaust-comedy-gypsies

Carr, 49, has caused uproar for the joke in his Netflix show. Ms Dorries said the Government could legislate to stop offensive remarks - such as those made by Carr - being shown on Netflix. And under the beefed-up Online Safety Bill, tech moguls such as Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg could end up behind bars if their companies fail to remove illegal content, she warned.

I know people will say that our legislation isn't going to be the same as the UK legislation. I say it's the thin edge of the wedge and we'll wind up with something pretty similar sooner rather than later.

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118603210#Comment_118603210

to be fair while i agree with you, there is not a chance any of the tech mogals will end up behind bars in the UK for not removing stuff from the international platforms they operate.

that's just not going to happen because of the complexities involved as they can simply move content to servers in countries where such laws won't apply.

sure the UK government could theoretically force the ISPS to block sites but blocks are got around.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj4vc_Khb9k

Tracey O' Mahony, Barrister and Founder of ICHR

This video outlines laws passed and laws pending which seek to eradicate free speech in lreland.

The laws/proposals considered in this video include:

1. Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020
2. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person (Amendment) (Stalking) Bill 2021
3. Proposal for a Council Decision on Hate Speech and Hate Crime
4. Criminal Justice (Hate Crime) Bill 2021
5. Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill 2022

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118971879#Comment_118971879

Imagine posting this and thinking it's just about getting rid of your precious 'free speech'.

It's absolutely baffling how people can read those bills and think they aren't needed.

Before anyone asks, no I'm not going into it again. It's been done to death and, truth be told, anyone who doesn't agree with these bills only wants to argue a toss and not have a genuine discussion in good faith.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118972002#Comment_118972002

Ahh well, I don't believe we need more laws to control people's behaviours. We need the laws we already have to be enforced, without bias, and without any manner of agenda being played out.

You see, I've lived in countries where speech is strictly controlled by either laws in place, or society/culture.. and it's not healthy. Not even slightly, because invariably those rules protect certain preferred groups, while targeting others unfairly. It's no different to the way that Black people call each other N*, but if a White person uses it, it's automatically hate speech, regardless of intent or context. As long as someone somewhere gets offended, then, you can be done under one of those laws you support.

The problem, for me, is that Ireland is not a particularly racist nation. It has no history of racial superiority. No history of racial violence. None. Instead, we have the media, activists, and the government projecting the belief that racism is somehow out of control, and that our current laws are not adequate.. except they are.

The issue here is someone somewhere will always be offended. Someone somewhere will always interpret something as hate, or some other extreme expression, because we live in such a world. It's come in from abroad, and it's here to stay. Thus intolerance of others opinions, and the need to shut them down.

And that's what many of these laws, and how they will be interpreted (as some are rather vague, but at the same time, specific about who they don't apply to) will do. They'll be used to shut down differing opinions, on what has been approved as the accepted narrative, when it comes to race, ethnicity, nationality, immigrants, women, etc. It will only bring about another introduction of a PC reality... just like the US went through, and is staggering out of.

Oh, and as for your last sentence... I find exactly the same about those who support these bills or proposed laws. There is no middle ground allowed. No allowance for discussion. So.. yeah... I won't be bothering my ass to argue with you either.

Isn't free speech nice? Having that choice to speak or not to?

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118972104#Comment_118972104

See if you can't understand the difference between black people saying the n word compared to a white person saying it, it tells me that you are in no way interested in having any discussion in good faith.

Imagine making that argument in 2022 and pretending you don't know the difference. You put a lot of work into your posts so you're not fooling me into thinking you haven't a clue what the story with it is. You know what the difference is but you're putting on an act as if you don't know..

If you want to call black people n words or gay people f words then go ahead, nobody is stopping you from doing it. You can literally say whatever you like.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118972186#Comment_118972186

Before anyone asks, no I'm not going into it again. It's been done to death and, truth be told, anyone who doesn't agree with these bills only wants to argue a toss and not have a genuine discussion in good faith.

Actually, most people do want to have a genuine discussion about the possible effects of this bill in good faith. But you don't want to hear that, because you don't agree with them. Maybe, just maybe, anyone who doesn't agree with these bills can see the potential for harm that you can't see.

This is where I fear we are heading and unfortunately people like you want to shut down the discussion because you think we aren't acting 'in good faith'.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118972186#Comment_118972186

See if you can't understand the difference between black people saying the n word compared to a white person saying it, it tells me that you are in no way interested in having any discussion in good faith.

Regardless of intent and context. Just as you have done.

Imagine making that argument in 2022 and pretending you don't know the difference.

Ahh but I do know the difference. I never said otherwise. You projected. You didn't take what I wrote at face value, and decided to reinterpret it to mean that I didn't understand. Which is why these laws are dangerous.

If you want to call black people n words or gay people f words then go ahead, nobody is stopping you from doing it. You can literally say whatever you like.

Indeed I could. However, the consequences matter...

For all your talk about not getting a balanced discussion, I'm beginning to see why... as you're not approaching the discussion honestly yourself.

eagle eye

Laws are not the answer to problems like racist, homophobic slurs etc.

Education is how you battle these issues.

TomTomTim

https://twitter.com/gardainfo/status/1538133173132992514?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1538133173132992514%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

https://twitter.com/gardainfo/status/1538081095706898432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1538081095706898432%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

https://twitter.com/gardainfo/status/1538106749902888962?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1538106749902888962%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

This is worrying to say the least. As usual, we seem to be copying our neighbors, where the police care more about words on the internet than crime on the streets.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119220384#Comment_119220384

It's an ignorant position too.

The holocaust started with differences. Differences in culture, the manner of dress, the type/manner of worship, etc. All the things that set people apart from the mainstream society, reinforced the impression that they didn't belong. Tribalism is real. It's the same reason that European nations expelled the Jews, seizing their properties, and why various countries had histories of burning out Jewish/Gypsy communities long before the holocaust. Secondly, culture kicked in with the cultural/national belief in superiority.. something that both the Germans and the Jews had in spades.

Pointing to words or language used for the holocaust is incredibly simplistic, and is, essentially, agenda driven.

Hate speech is too subjective (as is the judgment as to what constitutes it), and has become used as a stick to beat others with. That's been shown time and time again over the last two decades when it comes to the Trans debate. Language has become less nuanced, and people less patient with understanding what people mean to say, as opposed to what they think they heard. It's amazing because on a daily basis, people speak and are misunderstood dozens or even hundreds of times. People just nod and pretend they heard the full sentence, or guess the meaning based on the context, but a lot of the time, people are wrong. Badly wrong sometimes.. but when we live in a more patient society, those mistakes can be dismissed and people can move on with life. However, when people jump to believing that hate speech is a likely possibility in daily communication, and the term is so vague, we're going to find ourselves in a far less patient/tolerant society.

This is going to break down society, and ensure that people only really speak freely with those they trust completely. It's going to encourage a world of paranoia because you won't know that other people won't take your meaning, the way you intended it to be, rather than what they thought they heard, or how they interpreted it based on their own individual circumstances (or even their emotional state at that given moment).