Hate Speech Public Consultation

ThewhiteJesus · 17-12-2020 03:25PM

a trans person doesn't exist imo, its a man or woman getting surgery to look like the opposite sex. A costume if you like, so even though this is fact will we not be able to discuss matters such as these anymore ?
The world is so dam precious now imagine some of these snowflakes working on a building site with the banter that go's on there.

GarIT · 17-12-2020 03:26PM

WrenBoy wrote: »

I'll call it now there will be a rise of "far right" groups and organisations in Ireland in the next 10-20 years and they will all be on Prime Time saying "how did this happen ? whats wrong with these people ?"
This is the type of stuff that gives people disillusioned or angry with the world cause to focus their ire on the "other"
Social engineering of this type causes resentment by implying special treatment to some elements of our society over others, these tactics artificially force cohesion and unity on the surface whilst not addressing causes and roots of friction or division.
Im not saying this alone but it can be viewed as part of a collection of initiatives to force cohesion.

Tbh these type of things and people telling me I can't experience discrimination as a straight white man is pushing me to the far right even though I'm liberal on most things like gay marriage, abortion, sex work, euthanasia and drugs. I'm even for equal rights between genders and ending racism but I'm strongly against quotas and censorship of non-volient things.

Sir Oxman · 17-12-2020 03:26PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can't say I'm super surprised at which posters seem to be worried about this legislation.....

Anyone with half a brain should have questions about proposed legislation that has a lot of unknown consequences and relies on <unknown groups/persons> definition of what constitutes 'hate speech'

BattleCorp · 17-12-2020 03:27PM

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

a trans person doesn't exist imo, its a man or woman getting surgery to look like the opposite sex. A costume if you like, so even though this is fact will we not be able to discuss matters such as these anymore ?
The world is so dam precious now imagine some of these snowflakes working on a building site with the banter that go's on there.

A trans person doesn't need to get or want surgery to be trans.

BattleCorp · 17-12-2020 03:29PM

I think there should be a very very narrow definition of what hate speech is.

I would consider calling for violence against a certain group of people to be hate speech and I'd agree that that kind of speech should be illegal. I'm not a fan of travellers for example but I still think it should be illegal to call for violence against them.

Criticising a certain group of people wouldn't be hate speech in my book. Criticising travellers for their lifestyle should be fine in my book.

Big difference between criticising a group and calling for violence against them. This legislation has the potential to muddy the waters there.

ThewhiteJesus · 17-12-2020 03:38PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

A trans person doesn't need to get or want surgery to be trans.

really, so what does the trans mean then ?
without surgery they take hormones then i take it, so if you have mammaries and a pipe what does that make you, a ladyboy ?
I'm confused there will always only be two genders for me.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 03:48PM

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Anyone with half a brain should have questions about proposed legislation that has a lot of unknown consequences and relies on <unknown groups/persons> definition of what constitutes 'hate speech'

Why is it just the usual suspects that are concerned?

GarIT · 17-12-2020 03:49PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why is it just the usual suspects that are concerned?

Who are the usual suspects? Got anything useful to say or just this nonsense?

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 03:50PM

GarIT wrote: »

Who are the usual suspects?

The ones with "concerns" about various minority groups.

BattleCorp · 17-12-2020 03:51PM

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

really, so what does the trans mean then ?
without surgery they take hormones then i take it, so if you have mammaries and a pipe what does that make you, a ladyboy ?
I'm confused there will always only be two genders for me.

Don't need surgery, don't need hormones. All you need to do if you were born a man (with a penis) is to call yourself a woman and hey presto, you are now trans. If you were born a woman (with a vagina), then all you have to do is call yourself a man and hey presto, you are now trans. I know there's a few complications such as intersex people but that covers the majority of trans people.

No surgery, no hormones, no psychological/psychiatric testing needed. You just need to call yourself a member of the opposite sex and now the laws in Ireland say that you are a member of the opposite sex.

suicide_circus · 17-12-2020 03:52PM

https://in.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-hatelaw-specialrep/special-report-venezuela-wields-a-powerful-hate-law-to-silence-maduros-remaining-foes-idUSKBN28O1DX

Here we have Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro using his recently minted Hate Speech laws to silence political opponents.

For a long time in Ireland, what we could say publicly was controlled and influenced by the old Church. Well the new Church has arrived in town so no blasphemeing or heresies out of any of yee or the new clergy will ****ing destroy you.

GarIT · 17-12-2020 03:52PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

The ones with "concerns" about various minority groups.

Because it's concerning that minority groups are trying to control what the majority can say

And the usual troublemakers are celebrating on twitter that they can't be called out for their bull**** anymore.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 03:53PM

GarIT wrote: »

Because it's concerning that minority groups are trying to control what the majority can say

What minority is HelenMcEntee a member of?

suicide_circus · 17-12-2020 03:55PM

Can i still blaspheme using a vpn?

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 03:55PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

What minority is HelenMcEntee a member of?

The "Politicians who are willing to bring in regressive and repressive laws to give themselves unlimited power to control what the proles say" minority.

Not many of them, but they sure have left their mark on history.

GarIT · 17-12-2020 03:55PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

What minority is HelenMcEntee a member of?

Not but she is pandering to them. That's the policy of the major parties now, do what twitter says.

Tell me how · 17-12-2020 03:56PM

_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!

In theory of course this is a good thing but the lack of detail of what constitutes "hate speech", and who decides what is a legitimate opinion vs overstepping the mark (although more here which does sound more reasonable) is a question, but I have concerns that we're putting laws in place to deal with "hurt feelings"

I can see many threads or legitimate topics and points of discussion in CA alone being closed pre-emptively, and future discussion on "controversial" topics banned if this passes

So.. good thing, or bad thing?

Bits in Bold seem to conflict with each other.

There are several cases of people suffering extreme mental health difficulties because they have been targeted in this way. Unfortunately this abuse has led some to take their own lives. Isn't that what government ministers are supposed to do? See a need, enact legislation to meet that need.

Would be interested to hear how posters think people who target and bully people online should be treated rather than vague predictions about a future where they think some views will be shut down without any evidence that that is why this is being introduced.

GarIT · 17-12-2020 03:56PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Can i still blaspheme using a vpn?

Don't know, apparently we were anonymous before but this legislation will change that. Haven't the foggiest how though.

jam_mac_jam · 17-12-2020 03:57PM

Its not minorities that are pushing for this. Its mainstream parties and members of majority populations.

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 03:57PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Bits in Bold seem to conflict with each other.

There are several cases of people suffering extreme mental health difficulties because they have been targeted in this way. Unfortunately this abuse has led some to take their own lives. Isn't that what government ministers are supposed to do? See a need, enact legislation to meet that need.

Would be interested to hear how posters think people who target and bully people online should be treated rather than vague predictions about a future where they think some views will be shut down without any evidence that that is why this is being introduced.

Do you not see any issues at all with a law which, going by the report, will not need to prove you guilty in order to convict?

One eyed Jack · 17-12-2020 03:57PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I have concerns that we're putting laws in place to deal with "hurt feelings"

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

It really hasn’t the potential to get messy at all. Considering your own example where you have concerns we’re putting laws in place to deal with hurt feelings, but when your own feelings are hurt, you’re asking are you entitled to that view. Surely if you feel you’re entitled to your views, everyone else is equally entitled to their views.

These new provisions won’t mean anything to most people, Blindboy will still be able to refer to haunted bread, edgelord that he is, RTÉ will still be sued when Rory O’ Neill calls people homophobic, and Stephen Fry will still be as prissy and easily offended as he always is in spite of his observation that “I’m offended by that” is nothing more than a whine.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 03:58PM

GarIT wrote: »

Not but she is pandering to them. That's the policy of the major parties now, do what twitter says.

She is "pandering" to the majority who wouldn't even bothered be using boards (or at least CA forum) because they know exactly the kind of hate they'll encounter.

Don't kid yourself that the 20 or so "majority" on each thread are equivalent to an actual majority opinion.

GarIT · 17-12-2020 03:59PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Bits in Bold seem to conflict with each other.

There are several cases of people suffering extreme mental health difficulties because they have been targeted in this way. Unfortunately this abuse has led some to take their own lives. Isn't that what government ministers are supposed to do? See a need, enact legislation to meet that need.

Would be interested to hear how posters think people who target and bully people online should be treated rather than vague predictions about a future where they think some views will be shut down without any evidence that that is why this is being introduced.

They absolutely should be pursued but "hate speech" isn't it. Especially with how it has been defined in the various articles reporting on it.

If someone wants to call someone a cnut they should be allowed to do so. If someone wants to make a vague statement about de forideners they should be allowed to. If someone, stalks, bully's, harasses or threatens an individual they should be pursued legally.

WrenBoy · 17-12-2020 04:00PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Bits in Bold seem to conflict with each other.

There are several cases of people suffering extreme mental health difficulties because they have been targeted in this way. Unfortunately this abuse has led some to take their own lives. Isn't that what government ministers are supposed to do? See a need, enact legislation to meet that need.

Would be interested to hear how posters think people who target and bully people online should be treated rather than vague predictions about a future where they think some views will be shut down without any evidence that that is why this is being introduced.

No one is in favour of suicide, bullying or harassment but this has huge scope for over reach and to be abused.

storker · 17-12-2020 04:03PM

KiKi III wrote: »

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

It's very likely to be, because...

Hate speech would also not necessarily have to be threatening or abusive in nature. “So, a broadcast or speech which is clearly designed to incite hatred, but is couched in polite or coded language, would be covered by the new offence"

How a statement can be couched in polite or coded language yet still be clearly designed to incite hatred seems very unclear.

Sir Oxman · 17-12-2020 04:03PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

https://in.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-hatelaw-specialrep/special-report-venezuela-wields-a-powerful-hate-law-to-silence-maduros-remaining-foes-idUSKBN28O1DX

Here we have Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro using his recently minted Hate Speech laws to silence political opponents.

For a long time in Ireland, what we could say publicly was controlled and influenced by the old Church. Well the new Church has arrived in town so no blasphemeing or heresies out of any of yee or the new clergy will ****ing destroy you.

This is what the 'nothing to see here people' do not appear to grasp - they may feel comfortable and secure that they are okay in perhaps their <<current virtue>> right now (they're not) but a tweak here, an amendment there when the political climate changes inevitably is easily achievable.

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 04:03PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

She is "pandering" to the majority who wouldn't even bothered be using boards (or at least CA forum) because they know exactly the kind of hate they'll encounter.

So we need laws so that people who are afraid to use a particular forum on a particular website need to have the entire country held to ransom in case their feelings get hurt?

Sounds like an excellent basis for legislation alright.

17-12-2020 04:05PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Its not minorities that are pushing for this. Its mainstream parties and members of majority populations.

What the hell kind of identity politics bs is this?

Some individuals are calling for nonsense legislation but because they look like me that amounts to some kind of tacit endorsement on my behalf?

Bollocks

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 04:05PM

RandRuns wrote: »

So we need laws so that people who are afraid to use a particular forum on a particular website need to have the entire country held to ransom in case their feelings get hurt?

Sounds like an excellent basis for legislation alright.

Who said anything about holding a country to ransom....

jam_mac_jam · 17-12-2020 04:06PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Bits in Bold seem to conflict with each other.

There are several cases of people suffering extreme mental health difficulties because they have been targeted in this way. Unfortunately this abuse has led some to take their own lives. Isn't that what government ministers are supposed to do? See a need, enact legislation to meet that need.

Would be interested to hear how posters think people who target and bully people online should be treated rather than vague predictions about a future where they think some views will be shut down without any evidence that that is why this is being introduced.

I would personally be in favour of legislation on online harassment or bullying. While I am fully in favour of free speech there has to be limitations on speech as well if it harms somebody.

I don't think a joke online should be an offense but if I am directing abuse at somebody it should be an offense. I think its dangerous in a democracy to limit speech.

But it depends on how far it goes, if it is directed directly at those making a racist statement towards somebody then I can see the logic, if its making a statement about a race in general then I don't think it should be banned.

Even if its wrong, even the case of holocaust denial, which is a view that I see as disgusting view, I don't think that should be an offense.

We are a democracy so any limits on speech can also limit the human rights of those to express themselves.

Its difficult to define as well, is saying that Isreal shouldn't exist hate speech? A lot of people think it would be. (I don't agree with the point, its an example). Is criticizing the behavior of Isreal's government hate speech? I don't think it is but another person might.

So the problem is how far it goes and how subjective it is.

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments