Senator Lynn Ruane Wants to Ban Comments on Articles

Yourself isit · 07-01-2017 12:17pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For it to be an attack on free speech, she'd have to be trying to block what people are saying.

That's what she is doing.

If people can go elsewhere and shout the exact same views then they're hardly being censored, are they?

Until she bans those as well.

Fleawuss · 07-01-2017 12:22pm

_Jamie_ wrote: »

I'm not spinning, I have no affiliation to her whatsoever. My opinion is different from yours. Are you trying to shut that down, hmmm?

Comments sections do need to be better moderated though. So much trollish crap on so many of them, masquerading as free speech. As often-repeated on boards.ie, we don't actually have free speech like we think we do in Ireland anyway. And there are SO many avenues to have one's views heard, moreso than ever!

Where did I attempt to shut down debate? Where did I try to stop you posting your defense of a politician who attacked democracy? Stop trying to twist my defense of democracy into her attack on it.

"Trolling crap masquerading as free speech". The reason we have free speech is that people can say things which others find uncomfortable. As the Brit ambassador who resigned said recently there have to be people who speak truth to power. Just because you and Senator Ruane consider it trolling doesn't mean it is.

And that tired old argument of "so many" other avenues has been demolished in this thread many times before now. I hope the mods don't think it's repetition is trolling.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-01-2017 12:29pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Slippery slope, once its banned one place and the problem as she and other nimby busy bodies view it moves somewhere else the door is now open to ban that cus of original legislation

... at which point I'd accept she's trying to block free speech, as specifcied in my original post.

Out of ineterest, where does the not-in-my-backyard reference fit in?

dav3 · 07-01-2017 12:35pm

I'm not sure why people are pissing their knickers in outrage over one tweet. Some people must have been asleep for the past few months with regards to incoming censorship in Ireland.

There is a new law about to be passed dealing with 'online harassment' in Ireland. Of course it's bundled together with last year's sexy topics of 'revenge porn' and 'cyber stalking', but it's there and it's on the way.

I imagine it'll be mainly used and abused by senators, TDs, failed politicians and corrupt billionaires with a penchant for mobile phone licences.

Under the Law Reform Commission proposals, revenge porn, harassment and cyber stalking laws would carry an unlimited fine and/or a jail term of up to seven years in cases tried on indictment in the Circuit Court.

Less serious forms of those offences, tried in the District Court, would carry a maximum fine of €5,000 and/or up to 12 months in prison.

Stop getting worked up over one tweet. Censorship is already on the way and they're always bundled in with other offences to make it almost impossible to speak out against.

Fleawuss · 07-01-2017 12:38pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... at which point I'd accept she's trying to block free speech, as specifcied in my original post.

Out of ineterest, where does the not-in-my-backyard reference fit in?

Democracy can't afford naïveté on this level. An attack on free speech is one area is attempting to do it on all. I'll shut down the Indo but there's still the IT. Or maybe after the alt right article it's a case of I'll shut down the IT and the comments section on articles. And I'll no platform people whose ideas aren't the same as me on third level campuses.

Demanding one area to be shut down is an exercise in attacking democracy. Defending it as only one area is an exercise in dangerous naïveté.

VinLieger · 07-01-2017 12:47pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... at which point I'd accept she's trying to block free speech, as specifcied in my original post.

Out of ineterest, where does the not-in-my-backyard reference fit in?

Once the door is open its very difficult to shut it so i disagree that is in any way a realistic way things could happen.

Its nimby cus this will only affect the very very tiny amount of irish news sites that allow comments so basically the ones she sees therefor nimby, and again it will still happen here or on twitter or facebook or the countless other ways people discuss things online. Shes clueless about the Internet to the extent i wouldnt be surprised if i heard her trying to describe it as a series of tubes

hatrickpatrick · 07-01-2017 1:26pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For it to be an attack on free speech, she'd have to be trying to block what people are saying. If people can go elsewhere and shout the exact same views then they're hardly being censored, are they?

That's still censorship. Censorship doesn't have to be absolute or global to be censorship.

Calhoun · 07-01-2017 1:27pm

I love the changing narrative of the progressives always trying to shut down debate, love how they now try to use the neo nazi label to shut down discussion.

Glad to see folk are ignoring them and continuing on anyway.

The comments section are quite interesting I find them to be a decent barometer for how the wider public is feeling you can generally get a read from them on how folk are thinking. Sometimes they even do more journalism than the authors themselves, case in point is the nearly monthly sob stories about an egyptian chap who is locked up over there. Due to his religion allot of questions around how he got over there is overlooked but the comments generally keep you honest.

_Jamie_ · 07-01-2017 1:44pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

Where did I attempt to shut down debate? Where did I try to stop you posting your defense of a politician who attacked democracy? Stop trying to twist my defense of democracy into her attack on it.

And stop trying to say that my comments are spin. Ta.

Fleawuss wrote: »

"Trolling crap masquerading as free speech". The reason we have free speech is that people can say things which others find uncomfortable.

Free speech is not actually enshrined in this country.

road_high · 07-01-2017 1:48pm

I don't know her but just a quick google indicates to me she's exactly the type of anarchist loon that comments on stuff 24/7. Does she want to shut herself up?

donkeykong5 · 07-01-2017 1:57pm

Did anyone see how ignorant and rude she was to a student who had actually voted for her. It was some rte programme recently. Think it was claire byrne.

Fleawuss · 07-01-2017 2:05pm

_Jamie_ wrote: »

And stop trying to say that my comments are spin. Ta.

Free speech is not actually enshrined in this country.

Your comments are spin. Attempting to redefine the issue to minimize and /or trivialize it.

Free speech isn't unconditional in that there are laws of defamation etc. Agreed. Which is the way to deal with objectionable comments. Not Senator Ruane's attack. And you only have to look at this site to see the row over people attempting to redefine a religion as a race. What needs to be seen is that you cannot redefine reality to advance an ideology without ordinary people getting pissed off. And when you have a left wing Senator elected by an elite constituency demanding an attack on free speech ....

donkeykong5 · 07-01-2017 2:13pm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Whatever about her ridiculous plan and subsequent deletion of her tweet upon realising how stupid it indeed is, I cringe at her continued spelling of 'definitely' as 'defiantly'.

Please for the love of God can someone in the Seanad tell her the difference between those words.

Not her fault she was joy riding when she was supposed to be in school. True.

Fleawuss · 07-01-2017 2:18pm

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Did anyone see how ignorant and rude she was to a student who had actually voted for her. It was some rte programme recently. Think it was claire byrne.

I think a certain viewpoint would call that an assertive statement from a strong woman engaged in the class struggle against the vestiges of the patriarchy. Let's hope the student learned the lesson.

Grayson · 07-01-2017 2:30pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

People whinge about Americans and their right to bear arms but without doubt it was the single greatest piece of legislation in the history of the world.

The purpose of the legislation isn't to hunt or the protect your home, it is the ensure that people in office can never get so powerful that they can suppress the people through their mad cap ideologies.

This is why they have low tax rates, why they do not have a nanny state interfering with people's lives, why they have absolute freedom of speech.

Here in Ireland, because we were not as forethinking as those truly great men that pieced together the US constitution, we are constantly under threat from authoritarianists like Ruane.

Now people can say we are going over the top, but is it really outlandish to say that there are not more Ruane's in office? What happens if all the fair thinking senators are replaced with right-wing or more left wing Fascists?

Our constitution is very, very weak. There are far too many exceptions in it. There are far too many loop holes that sinister parties can exploit to shut people down. And without the right to bear arms, we are screwed.

The US had high tax rates until the time of Regan. And the right to bear arms was never seen as a right for people to own semi automatic weapons. Until very recently the Supreme court said so. Even the NRA agreed until recently.

That's the problem with someone who has an ideology, they can actively ignore history to defend their ideology.

btw, when there's 4 states currently tabling laws over bathrooms you can't really say it's not a nanny state.

donkeykong5 · 07-01-2017 2:34pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Did anyone see how ignorant and rude she was to a student who had actually voted for her. It was some rte programme recently. Think it was claire byrne.

I think a certain viewpoint would call that an assertive statement from a strong woman engaged in the class struggle against the vestiges of the patriarchy. Let's hope the student learned the lesson.

Hardly. It was a rude uneducated know all been extremely rude to a well.mannered student who had been stupid enough to vote for her.

Clarebelly · 07-01-2017 2:35pm

She has gone into lockdown now.
Tweets protected...... only approved users have access.

http://i.imgur.com/pyIJdPD.png

All together now........... "SAFE SPACE"

gctest50 · 07-01-2017 2:50pm

If that's the sort of spew The Seanad comes out with, and this is how they handle it :

Clarebelly wrote: »

She has gone into lockdown now.
Tweets protected...... only approved users have access.

http://i.imgur.com/pyIJdPD.png

All together now........... "SAFE SPACE"

it's time to get rid of it and do a bit of restructuring

What sort of dog barks once every 50 years and is left sh!t all over the floor the other 49

Fleawuss · 07-01-2017 3:56pm

Clarebelly wrote: »

She has gone into lockdown now.
Tweets protected...... only approved users have access.

http://i.imgur.com/pyIJdPD.png

All together now........... "SAFE SPACE"

I saw that. What alarmed me was that she has 7000 followers. Now they don't all support her obviously and not all support her in everything but there's enough there that give a basis for a Dail seat. Senator Ruane will return to her agenda. Pity I can't find it on Twitter!

TheAnalyst_ · 07-01-2017 3:59pm

They should shut down the Trinity access programs as it just seems to breed people like her.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-01-2017 4:42pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's still censorship. Censorship doesn't have to be absolute or global to be censorship.

The owner of a forum has the right to delete comments at their discretion - the moderators at boards.ie do it all the time - is this censorship? Or to put it more topically, is this an attack on your free speech?

Fleawuss · 07-01-2017 4:52pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The owner of a forum has the right to delete comments at their discretion - the moderators at boards.ie do it all the time - is this censorship? Or to put it more topically, is this an attack on your free speech?

Of course it is. But as they say it's their garden, their rules. It's not a newspaper inviting comment then having an elected senator calling for commentary to be shut down completely on news articles. There is plenty of provision to deal with comments already.

This entire site is commentary. Let's shut down the site because someone might make a comment I don't like.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-01-2017 5:09pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

Of course it is. But as they say it's their garden, their rules. It's not a newspaper inviting comment then having an elected senator calling for commentary to be shut down completely on news articles. There is plenty of provision to deal with comments already.

This entire site is commentary. Let's shut down the site because someone might make a comment I don't like.

How can it be an attack on your free speech if you can log onto a different site and say the exact same stuff?

She can call for whatever she likes - this works both ways - the newspaper doesn't have to listen to her.

Fleawuss · 07-01-2017 6:08pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How can it be an attack on your free speech if you can log onto a different site and say the exact same stuff?

She can call for whatever she likes - this works both ways - the newspaper doesn't have to listen to her.

Your first point was demolished earlier. If you refuse to accept that it has no basis then I move on.

She can call for whatever she likes by my standard of free speech but as an elected representative calling for an attack on democracy she should resign. By her standards if you say objectionable things then the platform needs to be removed then twitter needs to be removed.

donkeykong5 · 07-01-2017 11:40pm

She is like a common version of una mullally.

PolMcShane · 08-01-2017 10:44am

We should have closed down the senate when we had the opportunity.

hatrickpatrick · 08-01-2017 8:02pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

I saw that. What alarmed me was that she has 7000 followers. Now they don't all support her obviously and not all support her in everything but there's enough there that give a basis for a Dail seat. Senator Ruane will return to her agenda. Pity I can't find it on Twitter!

To be fair, many of my friends follow The Donald while having absolutely nothing but disdain for his ideology and politics. They follow him because his occasional random brain farts and late night rampages can be quite amusing.

Fidelma Healy Eames falls into a similar category, as does Sarah Palin. People pay attention to them not because they agree with the ideologies expressed but because there can be some comedy gold from extremists.

Fleawuss · 08-01-2017 8:08pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To be fair, many of my friends follow The Donald while having absolutely nothing but disdain for his ideology and politics. They follow him because his occasional random brain farts and late night rampages can be quite amusing.

Fidelma Healy Eames falls into a similar category, as does Sarah Palin. People pay attention to them not because they agree with the ideologies expressed but because there can be some comedy gold from extremists.

Agreed. I tried following her since the lock went on but they haven't even replied! Guess I'm persona non grata in Ruane virtual gated community.

donkeykong5 · 09-01-2017 6:30pm

Fleawuss wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To be fair, many of my friends follow The Donald while having absolutely nothing but disdain for his ideology and politics. They follow him because his occasional random brain farts and late night rampages can be quite amusing.

Fidelma Healy Eames falls into a similar category, as does Sarah Palin. People pay attention to them not because they agree with the ideologies expressed but because there can be some comedy gold from extremists.

Agreed. I tried following her since the lock went on but they haven't even replied! Guess I'm persona non grata in Ruane virtual gated community.

No doubt she will be on some chat show shouting her mouth off during the week.

Annasopra · 10-01-2017 12:00am

midnight city wrote: »

In the comment section you get both sides of the argument. Its up to you to decipher the truth. If the overwhelming number of comments on an article are against it. What does that tell you? It tells you the article was bull.

It often doesnt tell you that at all. Comments can be lead by people with an agenda e.g. Shinner bots. I would never take comments at face value.