Is it time for free speech?

Undividual · 11-04-2019 04:58PM

RayCun wrote: »

jaysus

'autonomous individuals' who get their opinions from Youtube

Google autonomous.

Undividual · 11-04-2019 05:00PM

RayCun wrote: »

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

Did I say I had a right to an account on any of those platforms? I think you've confused me with someone else.

Undividual · 11-04-2019 05:06PM

sk8erboii wrote: »

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.

Meta

SexBobomb · 11-04-2019 05:11PM

jimgoose wrote: »

Tickets from the usual outlets.

ooh you're hard

Undividual · 11-04-2019 05:13PM

SexBobomb wrote: »

ooh you're hard

What, against karate?

Undividual · 11-04-2019 05:14PM

Lux23 wrote: »

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.

Well... I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

MOH · 11-04-2019 05:27PM

Undividual wrote: »

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.

Undividual wrote: »

Did I say I had a right to an account on any of those platforms? I think you've confused me with someone else.

You said "what if you're booted off the platform". You're not owed a platform.

Similarly I'm fairly sure any publican is free to bar you for having beliefs/opinions they don't like (unless it's something that falls under discrimination legislation).

Also note that 40.6.1 doesn't contain the word "anonymously" anywhere:

Bunreacht na hEireann wrote:

1° the state guarantees liberty for the exercise of
the following rights, subject to public order and
morality: –
i the right of the citizens to express freely
their convictions and opinions.
the education of public opinion being,
however, a matter of such grave import to
the common good, the state shall
endeavour to ensure that organs of public
opinion, such as the radio, the press, the
cinema, while preserving their rightful
liberty of expression, including criticism
of Government policy, shall not be used
to undermine public order or morality or
the authority of the state.
the publication or utterance of seditious
or indecent matter is an offence which
shall be punishable in accordance with
law.

RayCun · 11-04-2019 06:37PM

Undividual wrote: »

Google autonomous.

I know what autonomous means.

Do you know what a book is?

11-04-2019 11:26PM

Undividual wrote: »

"My view is that a word never killed anyone.

You never hear the phrase,
It's often that a man's mouth broke his nose
I've seen it happen plenty of times.

Also words have been used throughout history to incite genocide.

Blitzkrieger · 12-04-2019 11:29AM

We don't really have free speech in Ireland, and though I'm usually anti-censorship and pro-free speech, I think sadly as a society we need some laws governing the Internet and media, in this day and age of fake news, hate campaigns and Russian election trolls.

12-04-2019 11:41AM

MrFresh wrote: »

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.

Yes - the person being radicalised is not some passive slug being controlled, they have free will to listen to whoever they want for alternative viewpoints - because of free speech. Also others can see what a dickhead this indoctrinator is - again due to free speech. Suppressing them only gives fuel to the conspiracy nuts and makes it more likely for them to believe their crap.

jimgoose · 12-04-2019 11:47AM

SexBobomb wrote: »

ooh you're hard

The point, Grasshopper, is that "Free Speech" means the State won't throw you in jail for saying stuff they decide they don't like, with certain exceptions. Think of it as something like third-party only insurance - it's enough to get you past the Gardaí, and beyond that you're pretty much on your own. Shooting one's mouth off unmoderated in the real world just might get one a good thumping.

12-04-2019 11:48AM

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

We don't really have free speech in Ireland, and though I'm usually anti-censorship and pro-free speech, I think sadly as a society we need some laws governing the Internet and media, in this day and age of fake news, hate campaigns and Russian election trolls.

I agree there needs to be some regulation of outright lies - but this is across the board. I read a ridiculous story about Trump being inspired by some evil Batman character in the Guardian.. It was total nonsense. He went to see the batman film in question and then in is inauguration speech there was one sentence vaguely similar to something that character said. It was total rubbish.

Maybe some sort of points system by a rigorous fact checker rather than banning entirely. A truth ranking so to speak.

kowloon · 12-04-2019 12:09PM

It's unfortunate that some of the people most visibly championing freedom of speech are doing it because they're arseholes who want to believe they have a cause that's bigger than just wanting to be arseholes to people. Their support undermines anyone genuine about the necessity of freedom of speech.

Grayson · 12-04-2019 12:09PM

Undividual wrote: »

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?

I think people's understanding of hate speech is vague. Legally in most jurisdictions it's pretty specific.

But people also tend to lump groups in together. For most of the islamophobes there's no difference between ISIS and your average muslim. When ISIS are criticised for their actions and beliefs, that's fine. The two things are tied together. They believe everyone who doesn't follow their code should be enslaved and/or killed. And they follow through on it. Criticising them is perfectly valid.

However islamaphobia is based on lumping the worst actions of the worst people within a group and saying they're all like that.

The same goes for anti semitism. There are policies of israel and hardcore zionists which are horrible and can be criticised. However if you expand that to all jews then it's antisemitism. And there's a thin line there.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 12-04-2019 12:19PM

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

We don't really have free speech in Ireland, and though I'm usually anti-censorship and pro-free speech, I think sadly as a society we need some laws governing the Internet and media, in this day and age of fake news, hate campaigns and Russian election trolls.

The problem there is with handing the government the power to define criticism of the government or its policies as "hate speech" or "fake news."

Your Face · 12-04-2019 12:34PM

Undividual wrote: »

"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.

I'd take the qualifications to Article 40.6.1 above as dealing with serious threats to the State.

Scotty # · 12-04-2019 12:35PM

Undividual wrote: »

My view is that a word never killed anyone.

Ready...... Aim....... FIRE!!!!!

Scotty # · 12-04-2019 12:37PM

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

We don't really have free speech in Ireland, and though I'm usually anti-censorship and pro-free speech, I think sadly as a society we need some laws governing the Internet and media, in this day and age of fake news, hate campaigns and Russian election trolls.

+1

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 12-04-2019 12:58PM

Undividual wrote: »

To quote Jordan Peterson, who decides what is classified as hate?

Oh my god that's PRICELESS. I know the man has never had an original or insightful thought in his life but I didn't know his acolytes were quite so much enthralled that they'd be compelled to attribute banal nonsense like that to him. I mean just change your sig to I

Peterson if you NEED people to know you watch his videos.

"That's life" Jordan Peterson
"Just goes to show you can never tell" Jordan Peterson.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 01:27PM

Morgan Early Watermelon wrote: »

Oh my god that's PRICELESS. I know the man has never had an original or insightful thought in his life but I didn't know his acolytes were quite so much enthralled that they'd be compelled to attribute banal nonsense like that to him. I mean just change your sig to I Peterson if you NEED people to know you watch his videos.

"That's life" Jordan Peterson
"Just goes to show you can never tell" Jordan Peterson.

Sadly when Peterson is mentioned that is all some people hear. I can never understand the vitriol he receives.

But in all and anyways.... why not deal with the point instead? Who decides what is 'offensive' speech for example? It is not the public.

jimgoose · 12-04-2019 01:31PM

Morgan Early Watermelon wrote: »

Oh my god that's PRICELESS. I know the man has never had an original or insightful thought in his life but I didn't know his acolytes were quite so much enthralled that they'd be compelled to attribute banal nonsense like that to him. I mean just change your sig to I Peterson if you NEED people to know you watch his videos.

"That's life" Jordan Peterson
"Just goes to show you can never tell" Jordan Peterson.

Valid question, though - I was told that "what I was speaking was pure hate!" by some earnest young Beard on Ye Booke of Feces a couple of months or so back when I said something along the lines of not trusting the average Traveler for too long near a good gate. FFS! :pac::pac::pac:

Grayson · 12-04-2019 01:33PM

Keanu Obnoxious Tiger wrote: »

The problem there is with handing the government the power to define criticism of the government or its policies as "hate speech" or "fake news."

That's a slippery slope argument. It's like when people said if we allow gay people to marry, we'll have to allow people to marry animals.

It's perfectly possible to legislate against fake news and hate speech online without outlawing criticism. We've already done it for hate speech in the real world.

We need that legislation because fake news is getting out of hand. There's so many people who get their news through facebook/snapchat/etc where there's no quality control.

Just look at the mob that chased a guy out of town because they thought he was a paedophile. There have to be consequences for creating and spreading that sort of crap.

suicide_circus · 12-04-2019 01:37PM

hate speech is defined by the elites.

the elites used to be conservative hereditary types taking their moral lead from a small cabal of rabid zelots in Rome

at the moment the elites take their moral lead from a small cabal of liberal post-modernist morally relativistic zelots in academia and the media.

in a few years....who knows. but be careful about what restrictions you place on speech while your groups is in the ascendancy because they will be used against you in the future.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 01:37PM

Grayson wrote: »

I think people's understanding of hate speech is vague. Legally in most jurisdictions it's pretty specific.

But people also tend to lump groups in together. For most of the islamophobes there's no difference between ISIS and your average muslim. When ISIS are criticised for their actions and beliefs, that's fine. The two things are tied together. They believe everyone who doesn't follow their code should be enslaved and/or killed. And they follow through on it. Criticising them is perfectly valid.

However islamaphobia is based on lumping the worst actions of the worst people within a group and saying they're all like that.

The same goes for anti semitism. There are policies of israel and hardcore zionists which are horrible and can be criticised. However if you expand that to all jews then it's antisemitism. And there's a thin line there.

I don't really believe in the word Islamophobia tbh. I guess I don't see the irrationality of peoples' fears. Like, is there more or less 'islamophobia' since 9/11?

I know what you mean and I don't want to go down the road of 'All X are like this". That's not where I'm coming from, I just worry about the exclusion of opinions that are suddenly inconvenient and subsequently censored or de-platformed. The NZ shooter is a sign of the growing social tension that currently exists, in part due to censorship and the overuse of accusations of racism.

jimgoose · 12-04-2019 01:43PM

I find this oddly relevant:

"...there's still a charming story about finding love online, even if its most unbelievable escapist element is no longer "Wow, a woman finds love on the internet!" but rather "Wow, a woman finds love on the internet without first being bombarded by dick pics from men ranting about the need to maintain a pure Aryan race!"" -- Mark Hill on "You've Got Mail", cracked.com

:pac::pac::pac:

RayCun · 12-04-2019 01:46PM

Undividual wrote: »

Sadly when Peterson is mentioned that is all some people hear. I can never understand the vitriol he receives.

It's because he hasn't said anything original or interesting but some people treat him as an oracle.

Undividual wrote: »

But in all and anyways.... why not deal with the point instead? Who decides what is 'offensive' speech for example? It is not the public.

That question doesn't cut very deep.

If you're a guest in my house, I decide.

If you are in a pub, the barman/landlord decides.

If you're on facebook or youtube, they decide.

If you're speaking in public in Ireland, the gardai and the courts and the legislature decide.

Does the public decide?

They elect the legislature, who appoint the courts and hire the gardai. If the public have a very different idea of what is offensive, the law/enforcement changes.

Facebook and youtube respond to public pressure. They aren't interested in some platonic ideal of offensiveness, they care about maximising user engagement.

If you're in a pub, the bar staff are balancing what they find to be offensive, what they think other customers will find offensive, and the desire not to lose too much business by barring anyone they think is an annoying idiot.

In my house, my decisions are weighed against other social obligations.

Undividual · 12-04-2019 01:48PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

You never hear the phrase,
It's often that a man's mouth broke his nose
I've seen it happen plenty of times.

Also words have been used throughout history to incite genocide.

I've never heard that expression, but its not bad.

By your own example you've said that words incite genocide. Incite obviously means to encourage or persuade. If I encourage someone to cheat on their spouse, am I responsible for that person cheating? Of course not. Doesn't mean I'm not morally wrong.

RayCun · 12-04-2019 01:52PM

Undividual wrote: »

I don't really believe in the word Islamophobia

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islamophobia

Noun: Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

Origin
1920s: from Islam + -o- + -phobia.

The word exists.

Undividual wrote: »

The NZ shooter is a sign of the growing social tension that currently exists, in part due to censorship and the overuse of accusations of racism.

Oh come on.

You think hate speech is a ridiculous concept, but you think censorship and accusations of racism lead to people committing mass murder.

That's pathetic.

Grayson · 12-04-2019 01:54PM

Undividual wrote: »

Sadly when Peterson is mentioned that is all some people hear. I can never understand the vitriol he receives.

But in all and anyways.... why not deal with the point instead? Who decides what is 'offensive' speech for example? It is not the public.

He's an idiot. For anyone with training it's easy to spot the rhetorical slights of hand that he uses to justify his views. He's not held in high regard amongst academics.

And there's already good mechanisms around the world for deciding what hate speech is. Offensive speech is not the same so it's a bit of a straw man. people should have the right to be offensive.

There was a report back in the 60's I think, in the UK. It was about legalising homosexuality. One if the key points of it was basically that the man in the street might find it offensive, but the man in the street could be an idiot. And even if he didn't, could offensiveness be a reason for outlawing something?

So in that case two men having sex is not illegal, no matter how much offensive you, me, or anyone took.
However calls to lock up gay men or strip them of rights would be hate speech since it's targeting someone based on who they are.

Criticising the government about the handling of the rotherham case is valid. Hating the guys who did it isn't illegal. Calling for them to be locked up isn't hate speech. Neither id demanding a full investigation into how it happened. However if someone starts starts saying that all muslims are like that, it turns into hate speech.
That's because they are hated because they are muslims and some other muslims did something bad. It doesn't matter what the innocent muslims say or do. It doesn't matter that they have never abused anyone, hate the abusers and fully reject abusers. SImply by association they are considered a threat because of something not under their control.

Is it time for free speech?

Comments