Hate Speech Public Consultation

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 04:09PM

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.

James Brown · 17-12-2020 04:09PM

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.

Eric Cartman · 17-12-2020 04:09PM

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

Sir Oxman · 17-12-2020 04:10PM

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

jam_mac_jam · 17-12-2020 04:11PM

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.

BattleCorp · 17-12-2020 04:14PM

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.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 04:15PM

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.

Kivaro · 17-12-2020 04:15PM

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.

jam_mac_jam · 17-12-2020 04:17PM

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.

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 04:19PM

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.

jam_mac_jam · 17-12-2020 04:19PM

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.

briany · 17-12-2020 04:19PM

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.

Sir Oxman · 17-12-2020 04:19PM

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.

17-12-2020 04:20PM

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.

BattleCorp · 17-12-2020 04:24PM

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?

Nermal · 17-12-2020 04:27PM

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.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 04:39PM

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.

biko · 17-12-2020 04:42PM

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

GarIT · 17-12-2020 04:52PM

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.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 05:06PM

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.

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 05:08PM

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.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 05:11PM

RandRuns wrote: »

You're wrong.

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

.

It really doesn't.

Gatling · 17-12-2020 05:14PM

I'd imagine we'll get a new cohort of posters terminally offended quoting legislation to get threads and posters removed .

WrenBoy · 17-12-2020 05:14PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

It really doesn't.

Well thats me convinced

RandRuns · 17-12-2020 05:16PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

It really doesn't.

Just because you want to pretend that is the case, dosen't make it reality.
I have submitted extracts from the report to back up what I have said.

You have submitted no evidence whatsoever for your opinion.

"That which is asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence"

griffin100 · 17-12-2020 05:18PM

I would have serious concerns about any legislative body that counts Aodhan O'Riordain and Ivana Bacik amongst it's members deciding what is and isn't hate speech.

Tell me how · 17-12-2020 05:19PM

Nermal wrote: »

Use the ignore button.

That doesn't work when some people are deliberately targeting other and setting up new accounts to do so does it?

biko · 17-12-2020 05:20PM

A judge in Ireland can already give a harsher sentence in case he/she thinks hate is a factor.

Currently in Ireland, in sentencing for any offence, a judge may consider a hate motive to be an aggravating factor and may reflect this in the sentence handed down.

LLMMLL · 17-12-2020 05:20PM

RandRuns wrote: »

Just because you want to pretend that is the case, dosen't make it reality.
I have submitted extracts from the report to back up what I have said.

You have submitted no evidence whatsoever for your opinion.

"That which is asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence"

You've submitted no evidence. You've submitted some lines from a report that give zero evidence that any statement could become illegal.

Your interpretation of lines in a report are not fact not are they evidence.

In fact your interpretation is not only.implausible, but incredibly extreme

Tell me how · 17-12-2020 05:22PM

RandRuns wrote: »

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?

According to which report? Don't see that in the Times article.

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments