Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 - Read OP

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119819204#Comment_119819204

You're saying exactly the same thing without reading my post in order to avoid the question.

The organisation has not formed yet - individuals are handing out propadanga and attracting followers. You're fine with this? You're ok to wait until they actually form an organisation before you act?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119819204#Comment_119819204

You haven't read the post you replied to, I'll try again.

There IS no organisation. There are a few hundred individuals are handing out hate-speech filled propaganda. They don't even have a name. If it goes well, they'll band together. Most likely in secret. Then they'll put together a manifesto and pick a name. Then they'll act. Then they'll announce themsleves by commiting terrorist acts and presenting themselves at the same time.

And you're ok with waiting until they act before banning them? Because I'm not.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119819700#Comment_119819700

Offensive speech has always been allowed.

Just look at what fundamentalist Christians and Muslims say about women and gay people. We tolerate it, as outrageous as their remarks are. Think of how some preachers talk about gay people burning in hell. That sounds pretty hateful to me, but I wouldn't seek to prosecute these people and throw them in jail. Let them have their mad beliefs. I just laugh at them.

I don't personally like Noam Chomsky, but what he said about free speech is spot on:

If you don't believe in free speech for people you despise, you don't believe in it at all.

So yes, unless those few hundred individuals are inciting violence, we must tolerate their mad beliefs. And even then, they can be prosecuted under extant legislation. If an organization develops from that, which has violence etched into its DNA, we can seek to ban the organization, as we have done for decades.

At no point in what I've just said is hate speech legislation required.

Society works perfectly well without it. Let's keep it that way.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119819735#Comment_119819735

Fair enough then, I disagree - I'd rather the State had the powers to act before the terorrists commited their acts. End of discussion.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119819947#Comment_119819947

But it's not about terrorism, is it?

As we've seen with what's transpired in the UK, hate speech legislation ends up with police officers knocking on the door of people because of something they've said on Twitter or Facebook.

That's an absurdity. That's the real-life implications of this hate speech legislation.

It's not about terrorism or terroristic organizations.

Hate speech legislation is widely endorsed by many for the simple reason that it means people can be prosecuted for saying the "wrong thing" on the gender question. Or to impose a chilling effect.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119821668#Comment_119821668

What makes you think it's ONLY about gender?

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119821668#Comment_119821668

As we've seen with what's transpired in the UK, hate speech legislation ends up with police officers knocking on the door of people because of something they've said on Twitter or Facebook.

So do you believe that anything and everything posted on social media should come with immunity?

archfi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119817861#Comment_119817861

Agreed.

I think this new legislation *may* give thinking like the 'murdered by sharks' guy a feeling they have carte blanche to initiate their hyper censorious tendencies via that legislation.

Hopefully that's not an unintended outcome because that would be crazy.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119822568#Comment_119822568

Nobody has suggested any such thing. Stop making things up.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119822942#Comment_119822942

I didn't make anything up, I posed a question. I fail to see how that could be confusing.

But, would you mind at least attempting an answer.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119822951#Comment_119822951

When people send death threats and that kind of incitement, existing legislation deals with it.

Hateful speech is subjective. For instance; a radical preacher talking about gays burning in hell on social media is hateful, but that's also just offensive speech. I don't believe he should be prosecuted. He's a natural loser and unfortunate enough to have a creepy belief system. That's punishment enough as far as I'm concerned.

So limits are already in place, both in terms of Twitter's terms of use, and existing legislation against incitement to violence and so on.

That said, with this legislation to pass, let's hope that those sending hate and death threats to JK Rowling are not forgotten. And it isn't limited to this. Go through social media today on this subject and you'll find the same threats levelled against anyone who is considered gender critical.

The funny thing is, that nobody on this thread ever talks about this speech, which comes from their own side.

Presumably, they're cool with it - and just want to focus on the speech of the perceived enemy.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119823006#Comment_119823006

But hang on, you said

As we've seen with what's transpired in the UK, hate speech legislation ends up with police officers knocking on the door of people because of something they've said on Twitter or Facebook.

There has been 100s of prosecutions in the UK based on existing legislation from comments on social media.

So now you agree that police are fully entitled to know at someones door?

Hateful speech is subjective

So you just don't want police investigating things that have been posted that you have no problem with?

That is unworkable though isn't it?

Re JK Rowling, I assume she reported the death threats to the police and they were investigated? If not, why not?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119823047#Comment_119823047

Death threats are incitement to violence. Therefore, they must be followed up by law enforcement.

Something can be both offensive (subjective) and incitement to violence (not subjective). The former should not be grounds for a criminal offense, the latter should be - and is.

It's not hard to understand.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119823080#Comment_119823080

Death threats are incitement to violence. Therefore, they must be followed up by law enforcement.

Well no, crimes by and large have to be reported, the actual Police can't police everything published on the internet, So you know for a fact she reported them and they were investigated, what's the problem so?

Something can be both offensive (subjective) and incitement to violence (not subjective). The former should not be grounds for a criminal offense, the latter should be - and is.

Well I could find something subjective but it may also be criminal, isn't that why we have the criminal justice system? Unless you want me to run it?

I'm not overly familiar with Rowlings musings, but she is quite opinionated AFAIK and also based in the UK, has she ever been arrested or investigated for holding those opinions under existing or amended law?

Faugheen

https://twitter.com/independent_ie/status/1587782808243765248?s=46&t=1CoxMJ-ijogKwPSGFZ5u8A

This hateful bastard would literally be worshipped by some here. Horrible person.

Ham_Sandwich

Gas how the same people moaning about "free" services and housing for disadvantaged people suddenly care about "free" speach.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119823080#Comment_119823080

But you can have inctement to violence without making a death threat.

Case in point: Alex Jones.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119823655#Comment_119823655

And incitement to violence is already a crime.

Yet again, a case where we simply do not require hate speech legislation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119823155#Comment_119823155

Quite amazing how, if someone misgenders another person, they are considered "hateful" and must be effectively expelled from polite society.

Yet JK Rowling receives the vilest of hate-filled abuse, death threats and so on - and your response is very, very watered down.

It's abundantly clear that you only care about so-called "hate speech" (i.e. comments I find subjectively "offensive", so I'll relabel them as "hateful") when it impacts the cause you support.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119823731#Comment_119823731

Quite amazing how, if someone misgenders another person, they are considered "hateful" and must be effectively expelled from polite society.

Hang on, come back with those goal posts. We are discussing criminal lability here. So she is perfectly allowed to express her opinions without being prosecuted? So what's your problem exactly with the UK legislation?

Yet JK Rowling receives the vilest of hate-filled abuse, death threats and so on - and your response is very, very watered down.

Huh? I asked you a simple question about incidents you brought up?

Everyone of them if possible should be prosecuted under the law, if in fact they broke the law.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119818578#Comment_119818578

What specific part of the bill is going to create this scenario?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119823731#Comment_119823731

As I've explained before - it's not about creating a crime, it's about making it easier to posecute one.

Unless you have a problem with incitement being a crime in the first place...?

Let's go back to the guy who made the travellers babies/shark food comment: we both agree that the judge made the correct call in that one BUT if he'd persisted and actually turned it into a sustained campaign, do you think it should be a crime?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119824008#Comment_119824008

I always refer back to the fundamentalist Muslim and Christian.

They have had a decades long "sustained campaign" in terms of preaching things such as gays burning in hell, and all that hate-fest nonsense.

We don't criminalize them. Nobody has argued that they should be jailed. So if we're to be consistent, we must apply that principle across the board.

That means allowing offensive language in society. And to quote that awful leftist, Chomsky - if free speech means anything, it must apply to people we despise, otherwise we don't believe in freedom of speech at all.

Moreover, you are portraying this in a very philosophical way. We've already seen the practical, real-life reality of these laws in the UK. It means people offering gender critical views on social media and these people being reported by activists as "hate crimes", so that police knock on their doors and arrest them.

All this talk of terrorism and travellers / sharks is a sleight of hand.

We all know why you and others support this legislation.

It's certainly not to censor or prosecute the fundamentalist Muslim and Christian, of that I'm sure.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119824710#Comment_119824710

All irrelevant. How many times are you going to change the word "incitement" to "offensive language" and then ignore the corrections you get?

You harping on about religion and gender is what's sleight of hand in order to hide the fact that, well....

... you don't actually know what this act is about, do you?

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119824887#Comment_119824887

It's a small step though from offensive language to someone claiming they were harmed by the offensive language, and that strays into the realms of subjectivity. And subjectivity is what has the UK in the sh1t with their hate speech legislation.

I'm not a solicitor but this has me concerned. It reads to me that you can be convicted even if you don't incite hatred and if you don't cause any harm or unlawful discrimination.

(7) A person may be found guilty of an offence under this section irrespective of;

(a) whether or not the communication the subject of the offence was successful in inciting any other person to hatred, and,

(b) whether or not any actual instance of harm or unlawful discrimination is shown to have occurred, or to have been likely to occur, as a result.

https://assets.gov.ie/132606/94b418bb-83ae-49f6-bf51-cf38cf15c805.pdf

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119824928#Comment_119824928

I'm not a solicitor but this has me concerned. It reads to me that you can be convicted even if you don't incite hatred and if you don't cause any harm or unlawful discrimination.

If you attempted to maliciously and knowingly incite hatred but no one took the bait it's still a crime.

I don't really see the problem in that TBH.

It would be far worse if you could be prosecuted if some lunatic misunderstood you and acted criminally because of it.

And subjectivity is what has the UK in the sh1t with their hate speech legislation

In what way?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119825023#Comment_119825023

Let's take a practical example:

If a woman on Twitter created a thread, in which they argued against core elements of transgenderism - including a claim that changing genders/sex was an impossibility, would you consider that to be a hate crime?

That's what JK Rowling has repeatedly done.

Is she guilty of inciting hatred?

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119825057#Comment_119825057

Is she guilty of inciting hatred?

Has she been arrested and prosecuted? No.

So Under UK law, I guess it isn't.

So what's the problem?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119825061#Comment_119825061

What a disingenuous response. I didn't ask if she was arrested and prosecuted.

I asked whether you would consider her actions to be inciting hatred.

BruteStock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119823924#Comment_119823924

Are you familiar with Amy Gallaher? Tavistock tired to get her struck off as a NHS nurse because of hate speech. What Tavistock deemed to be "hate speech" is described in the segment below. Which side are you on in relation to this matter?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybkpmdGNNk&ab_channel=GBNews

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119825070#Comment_119825070

It's not disingenuous at all. In a discussion about the law, I am referencing the actual law. You want to drag the debate down to emotional opinion.

You asked me, to be clear

Is she guilty of inciting hatred?

In order for her to be guilty, she would have first needed to be arrested, prosecuted and the have a trial, where she would have been found guilty or not guilty.

None of that has happened, so in the UK she has committed no crime, so she can't be guilty by definition.

So please tell me, what is your actual problem and why do you continue to pretend this woman is being hounded by the law for tweeting her opinion.