Hate Speech Public Consultation

_Kaiser_ · 17-12-2020 11:05AM

Wibbs wrote: »

And that's the major problem. One person's hate speech is another's fair comment or debate. If someone says "all Travellers are criminals" that's pretty obvious, but if another says "Travellers have a wildly disproportionate level of criminality compared to the rest of the population" that's a fact, but some will undoubtedly call that "hate speech". And that's a pretty clear cut pair of examples. In even greyer areas things can get even more troublesome.

Legislation like this is worrying in my humble. Starts off with good intentions and political optics of course, but can be too easily corrupted down the line and is harder to row back on. Any pushback will garner the "So I hear you approve of hate now?" kinda thing. In essence it's another blasphemy law in all but name.

Agreed (as usual) W... I can see it getting even murkier say on the topic of trans-rights.

Let's say I, as a straight male, am only interested in dating women who were born as such and would be both angry and offended if I discovered a potential partner had kept the point that they were born male from me.

Am I entitled to that view or am I now being discriminatory and "hateful".

This all has the potential to get very messy very quickly.

Mules · 17-12-2020 11:06AM

Hopefully they mean what they say about it not being subjective. It will be a right mess if they allow the definition to be subjective. There is also the question of what exactly counts as hate speech.

Wibbs · 17-12-2020 11:16AM

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Legislation yet to be published, but I gather they're specifically trying to avoid prosecution because "someone got offended".

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I wouldn't worry, another unenforceable law and TDs will get slaughtered for it once a few high profile case passes.

Hopefully both these scenarios play out. I suspect they will. The Irish psyche is thankfully avoidant of extremes and this is just some political optics scoring.

CtevenSrowder · 17-12-2020 11:17AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Agreed (as usual) W... I can see it getting even murkier say on the topic of trans-rights.

Let's say I, as a straight male, am only interested in dating women who were born as such and would be both angry and offended if I discovered a potential partner had kept the point that they were born male from me.

Am I entitled to that view or am I now being discriminatory and "hateful".

This all has the potential to get very messy very quickly.

We had such discussions in one of the trans-threads with one poster. The response we got was that it is only hateful if you say you are angry and offended to the trans-person in question. But really, there is a thread dedicated to trans topics, lets try keep this one away from it!

osarusan · 17-12-2020 11:23AM

Chips Lovell wrote: »

It almost sounds like some people want this legislation to be repressive in order to have something to complain about.

CA in a nutshell, posters who are only happy when arguing the world is going to sh!t.

Sharing something does not always mean endorsing it, it can be done to highlight its racism/xenophobia/etc.

So I wonder will this be a zero tolerance thing or will there be an examination of why it was shared - somebody sharing a quote from say a member of the National Party and saying 'look at the utter crap this loon is coming out with' is very different from somebody sharing the same quote and saying 'Agree completely'.

drunkmonkey · 17-12-2020 11:25AM

What's the motivation around this, who's calling for it and why?
Leo is a perfect example, on one hand he'd have a case against another TD but the church would also have one against Leo.

biko · 17-12-2020 11:25AM

I'm all for it, as long as I get to decide what constitutes hate speech.

screamer · 17-12-2020 11:30AM

Let the self flagellation begin. If you’re white, and have a job in this country- ie Irish and privileged, get out your car of nine tails, you’re in for it.

biko · 17-12-2020 11:32AM

From the article

The planned law will, for the first time, provide protection to trans and disabled people alongside ethnic and religious minorities, immigrants and other members of the LGBT community.

I see a group missing here, the Irish majority.

If someone of another ethnicity says to me "you white bastard", "Irish bastard" or "I don't like white or Irish people", is that covered under the new hate speech law?

drunkmonkey · 17-12-2020 11:51AM

From what I understand they can put you in the box and cross examine you to see if you are actually one.
Isn't this why the Norah case with facebook didn't go ahead, they get to cross examine the parents to establish if they did actually have any part in what happened.

keano_afc · 17-12-2020 11:53AM

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea immediately rules themselves out of being taken seriously in any discussion.

conorhal · 17-12-2020 11:54AM

biko wrote: »

From the article

I see a group missing here, the Irish majority.

If someone of another ethnicity says to me "you white bastard", "Irish bastard" or "I don't like white or Irish people", is that covered under the new hate speech law?

Exactly, to the people saying "don't worry, it won't be subjectively applied", I'd say, it's already being subjectively applied. If Ebun Joseph, an 'academic' (LOL) and part of several 'protected categories of person' can call all irish or white people whatever negative adjective she chooses without consequence, but can call for the prosecution of anybody that does something similar in response who's not on the special exemptions list, then the law is inherrently subjective.
Some animals are now more equal then others with this orwellian legislation and anybody that imagines this won't be applied in an equally subjective manner are deluding themselves.

PhilOssophy · 17-12-2020 11:54AM

I hate hate speech, is that hate speech?

biko · 17-12-2020 11:55AM

From the article

Hate speech would also not necessarily have to be threatening or abusive in nature.

This means you don't have to say something bad, it could just be something opposite of praise to qualify as hate speech.

To me this is suppression of critics of the governments policies.

"Mass immigration is a problem"
"Puberty suppressors to minors is a bad idea"
"Roma beggars are a nuisance"
probably all will be classed as hate by the governments NGO screeners, none of which will be conservatives.

Atlantic Dawn · 17-12-2020 11:56AM

Will discrimination against settled people still be allowed?

WrenBoy · 17-12-2020 11:58AM

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Will discrimination against settled people still be allowed?

Encouraged, most likely.

JimmyVik · 17-12-2020 12:02PM

I have a friend who is always disrespecting peoples religious views.Now im an athiest myself but I dont mind if someone believes in gos or whatever makes them happy.

So my friend is venemous and practically attacks little old ladies if they mention jesus or god. I asked him one day why he does this and he says he just hates people being so thick that they need religion.

To me that is discrimination bordering on hate speech. I dont like it, but at the same time if he was more civil about it then I think he should be allowed to express his views.

keano_afc · 17-12-2020 12:04PM

conorhal wrote: »

Exactly, to the people saying "don't worry, it won't be subjectively applied", I'd say, it's already being subjectively applied. If Ebun Joseph, an 'academic' (LOL) and part of several 'protected categories of person' can call all irish or white people whatever negative adjective she chooses without consequence, but can call for the prosecution of anybody that does something similar in response who's not on the special exemptions list, then the law is inherrently subjective.
Some animals are now more equal then others with this orwellian legislation and anybody that imagines this won't be applied in an equally subjective manner are deluding themselves.

Yep, the law itself is glaringly discriminatory.

FGR · 17-12-2020 12:08PM

And the ironic thing is they'll more than likely expect the guards to investigate it - an organisation that is overstretched as it is and has an outdated, restricted IT system that does not allow them to even access said social media.

GarIT · 17-12-2020 12:10PM

biko wrote: »

From the article

I see a group missing here, the Irish majority.

If someone of another ethnicity says to me "you white bastard", "Irish bastard" or "I don't like white or Irish people", is that covered under the new hate speech law?

Have you been asleep these last few years? That's called empowerment now.

Working class heroes · 17-12-2020 12:10PM

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It has been said that hate speech laws are just blasphemy laws for secular societies.

By who, you?

FGR · 17-12-2020 12:13PM

The difficulty here is that if an individual of a certain community or ethnicity were to commit a crime against someone - such as any white, Irish person could commit - there will always be the anticipated counter argument that the complainant was using hate speech towards them.

Even if the victim of the crime didn't use hate speech and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise it will still have to be put to them; something that will be held over them with a great stigma that will be publicly called out in court in defence of the perpetrator.

I do not like where this legislation is going.

biko · 17-12-2020 12:18PM

In this forum we like to compare ourselves to the yanks*

The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

There are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group.

*hate speech

Kivaro · 17-12-2020 12:45PM

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I wouldn't worry, another unenforceable law and TDs will get slaughtered for it once a few high profile case passes.

Just as well it wont be retrospective or most SF TDs would be in court!

I would be worried.
For those who are telling us that the legislation will be fine-tuned by the politicians in Ireland, so as not to be too draconian; I say to you look at how these same politicians who are trying to undo the 27th amendment to the Irish Constitution that 80% of us voted for. I simply do not trust them.

This new "hate" speech legislation will give a bully pulpit to racists like Ebun Joseph, who will be exempt under this new legislation because she is in academia. It will allow her to continue her vile and racist propaganda against the Irish people.

17-12-2020 12:47PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So it seems McEntee is about to bring forward new laws to prosecute those who share "hate speech" online

The platforms themselves though will be immune .. cute!

McEntee is doing a carbon copy doctrine of Susan Wocicki in YouTube.

Utter Hamfisted and reactive.

Sir Oxman · 17-12-2020 12:58PM

biko wrote: »

From the article

This means you don't have to say something bad, it could just be something opposite of praise to qualify as hate speech.

To me this is suppression of critics of the governments policies.

"Mass immigration is a problem"
"Puberty suppressors to minors is a bad idea"
"Roma beggars are a nuisance"
probably all will be classed as hate by the governments NGO screeners, none of which will be conservatives.

This is the danger, they'd all be under 'coded' I guess.

KiKi III · 17-12-2020 12:59PM

The amount of women in the public eye that get rape threats regularly is frightening and awful. Very much in favour of legislation that covers that kind of thing.

Muslim values are not compatible with western culture = opinion

All Muslims are scumbag paedos = hate speech

It’s not that hard to discern between the two.

There are already numerous restrictions on freedom of speech, no country allows people 100% unrestricted freedom of speech.

Sir Oxman · 17-12-2020 01:00PM

JimmyVik wrote: »

I have a friend who is always disrespecting peoples religious views.Now im an athiest myself but I dont mind if someone believes in gos or whatever makes them happy.

So my friend is venemous and practically attacks little old ladies if they mention jesus or god. I asked him one day why he does this and he says he just hates people being so thick that they need religion.

To me that is discrimination bordering on hate speech. I dont like it, but at the same time if he was more civil about it then I think he should be allowed to express his views.

I think it's okay if it's Christian believers hate speeched - I believe that's the way it works according to the theory.

ElJeffe · 17-12-2020 01:04PM

Really worrying that's the direction we are headed in. Who decides what hate speech is?

KiKi III · 17-12-2020 01:06PM

ElJeffe wrote: »

Really worrying that's the direction we are headed in. Who decides what hate speech is?

The same people who decided that copyright infringement and slander and incitement to violence were to be outlawed forms of expression.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, there never was.

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments