Is it time for free speech?

Undividual · 11-04-2019 02:04PM #1

"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 · 11-04-2019 02:09PM

Undividual wrote: »

Interested to know peoples' thoughts.

Why?

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

EmmetSpiceland · 11-04-2019 02:09PM

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

Outlaw Pete · 11-04-2019 02:10PM

[Redacted]

IAMAMORON · 11-04-2019 02:11PM

It is always time for free speech ?

suicide_circus · 11-04-2019 02:13PM

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

mad muffin · 11-04-2019 02:15PM

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

suicide_circus · 11-04-2019 02:17PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:10PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:15PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:17PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:19PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:19PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:21PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:22PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:24PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:24PM

i hate these feckin spoilers

jimgoose · 11-04-2019 03:31PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:44PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:45PM

nthclare wrote: »

I'd like to see you try it

Tickets from the usual outlets.

James Brown · 11-04-2019 03:47PM

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 · 11-04-2019 03:50PM

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 · 11-04-2019 04:18PM

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 · 11-04-2019 04:22PM

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 · 11-04-2019 04:23PM

Undividual wrote: »

To quote Jordan Peterson,

jaysus

'autonomous individuals' who get their opinions from Youtube

RayCun · 11-04-2019 04:26PM

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 · 11-04-2019 04:28PM

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 · 11-04-2019 04:49PM

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 · 11-04-2019 04:53PM

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 · 11-04-2019 04:54PM

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

Result: more EU sceptics

Lux23 · 11-04-2019 04:55PM

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.

Is it time for free speech?

Comments