Hate Speech Public Consultation

LLMMLL wrote: »

This is absolutely untrue. Any expansion would need a change in legislation. If they could bring in that change then they could bring in a whole new legislation. This existing legislation would make no difference.

Bad slippery slope argument.

You're wrong.

From the report on the proposed legislation:

"Additional elements may be needed to help ensure the new legislation is effective, such as allowing alternative verdicts for juries where the aggravating ‘hate’ element is not proven, and including a general provision (for crimes that are not specific hate offences)"

(emphasis mine)

The above allows any statement, whether it is "hate speech" or not, and whomever it is directed against, to be deemed illegal.

I know you really, really, want this to be a precision weapon against those you perceive as your enemies, but it is not.

GarIT wrote: »

Don't need new legislation to change what falls under the headline of hate.

Especially when the definition of hate is clarified with, not necessarily hateful and even if said constructively and politely. As has been in this case.

I didn't say you would need new legislation.

To amend old legislation would need orieachtas approval. To bring in entirely new legislation would need orieachtas approval.

If you could successfully expand existing legislation to criminalise critiquing fine Gael then you could just as easily bring in new legislation to criminalise it.

Existing legislation makes no difference.

GarIT

LLMMLL wrote: »

This is absolutely untrue. Any expansion would need a change in legislation. If they could bring in that change then they could bring in a whole new legislation. This existing legislation would make no difference.

Bad slippery slope argument.

Don't need new legislation to change what falls under the headline of hate.

Especially when the definition of hate is clarified with, not necessarily hateful and even if said constructively and politely. As has been in this case.

biko

Farmer Michel comedian removed from FB from "hate speech". It can happen to anyone, and will.
If you give an idiot a hammer they will start using it, because they want to, and also to show they are productive and they have earned the hammer..

https://twitter.com/SirStevoTimothy/status/1321424588702654472?s=20

RandRuns wrote: »

Unlikely. There's a word.

This law will cover anything the authorities deem to be hate speech (in fact, it doesn't even have to meet the criteria for hate!). Today that may be "hate speech against minorities" but tomorrow it could be criticism of the ruling party, or questioning a new peice of legislation, or anything else they choose it to mean.

You are very shortsighted if you think this will only be used against "the other" - someday you may be the other yourself.

This is absolutely untrue. Any expansion would need a change in legislation. If they could bring in that change then they could bring in a whole new legislation. This existing legislation would make no difference.

Bad slippery slope argument.

Nermal

Tell me how wrote: »

There are several cases of people suffering extreme mental health difficulties because they have been targeted in this way.

Use the ignore button.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Thus the new legislation will cover that lacuna and we will see prosecutions for threats and hate. The use by the aforementioned authorities will have a high threshold and their use will not be for minor offences.

Nobody believes you. Experience in other jurisdictions shows how these laws are interpreted.

BattleCorp

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't make hate speech against minority groups so no it's unlikely to be used against me.

What about making hate speech against majority groups? Surely that would be against the hate speech laws too?

[Deleted User]

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about here. The justice minister is a white woman in a mainstream party. So I am not really sure what minorities are calling for this. Its woke white people not anything else.

I never said anything about minorities. I’m disputing the idea that her being a member of a majority population has any relevance to the support for this legislation within said majority.

Sir Oxman

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't make hate speech against minority groups so no it's unlikely to be used against me.

But you don't know what the criteria is, same as everyone else.
You may think you do and your dreams indeed may come true. This time.

Now think down the line and think of the expansive possibilities that could be added extremely easily.

briany

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.

Probably, yeah.

I wouldn't say it's a hate speech statement to say that in isolation. As you say, it's a fact. There are statistics to back it up. The question is more where you go with that statement.

For example, if we say, to stay on the Traveller example, that there is a statistically higher amount of crime emanating from Traveller communities, you could use that statement as a jumping off point to talk about why that is and how it could be solved in a way that keeps everyone happy. Or, to jump to the other end, you could use it as a jumping off point for stoking mistrust, fear and hatred of the Traveller community in general.

I think common sense should prevail on this. If someone starts off with an unpleasant fact or statistic about a certain sector of the population, they shouldn't be immediately shouted down or cancelled. But nor should they be allowed to use that fact as cover to make unfounded and crass generalisations, and then when they're called out on it, they act like the PC brigade was taking issue with the facts instead of the other unfounded stuff or extreme solutions being proposed.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't make hate speech against minority groups so no it's unlikely to be used against me.

Neither do I. However I still believe in people's rights to express themselves.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't make hate speech against minority groups so no it's unlikely to be used against me.

Unlikely. There's a word.

This law will cover anything the authorities deem to be hate speech (in fact, it doesn't even have to meet the criteria for hate!). Today that may be "hate speech against minorities" but tomorrow it could be criticism of the ruling party, or questioning a new peice of legislation, or anything else they choose it to mean.

You are very shortsighted if you think this will only be used against "the other" - someday you may be the other yourself.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are you showing hatred towards woke white people? :eek::eek::eek:

Seize him/her/they.

Yes, yes I am. I have voted left or far my whole life and suddenly I woke and I am a Nazi.

Kivaro

suicide_circus wrote: »

Can i still blaspheme using a vpn?

Helen McEntee will have a whole squad of Gardai out looking for you if you do that.

RandRuns wrote: »

A law that doesn't need to meet the burden of proof to convict, and that one can be charged with even if one doesn't actually break it is a law that can be used to hold the country to ransom.

Just because you think it will be only used against people you don't like doesn't mean it is good.

Someday, the same law could be used against you, by the same people you think are on your side now. History has a lot to teach us.

I don't make hate speech against minority groups so no it's unlikely to be used against me.

BattleCorp

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about here. The justice minister is a white woman in a mainstream party. So I am not really sure what minorities are calling for this. Its woke white people not anything else.

Are you showing hatred towards woke white people? :eek::eek::eek:

Seize him/her/they.

Batrachotox wrote: »

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

I have no idea what you are talking about here. The justice minister is a white woman in a mainstream party. So I am not really sure what minorities are calling for this. Its woke white people not anything else.

Sir Oxman

RandRuns wrote: »

A law that doesn't need to meet the burden of proof to convict, and that one can be charged with even if one doesn't actually break it is a law that can be used to hold the country to ransom.

Just because you think it will be only used against people you don't like doesn't mean it is good.

Someday, the same law could be used against you, by the same people you think are on your side now. History has a lot to teach us.

BiB ^This

Eric Cartman

This is 100% being timed to suppress any oposition to labour riding roughshod over the democratic wishes of the irish people and legislating for birthright cotizenship

James Brown

McEntee, an appointer of cronies to top jobs and likely spinning yarns to cover, answering to a man who lies in the Dail and posts abusive and childish tweets, is the perfect spokesperson for this kind of thing

It's like Trump complaining about twitter content.

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

A law that doesn't need to meet the burden of proof to convict, and that one can be charged with even if one doesn't actually break it is a law that can be used to hold the country to ransom.

Just because you think it will be only used against people you don't like doesn't mean it is good.

Someday, the same law could be used against you, by the same people you think are on your side now. History has a lot to teach us.

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.

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....

[Deleted User]

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 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.

Sir Oxman

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.

storker

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.

WrenBoy

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.

GarIT

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.