Hate Speech Public Consultation

BattleCorp · 18-12-2020 01:54PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Id disagree you should be prosecuted for it, horrible thing to say but it shouldn't be illegal.

I disagree with hate speech legislation.

But I do think there has to be some curb on what you can write.

I think it should be fine to criticise any group you like, mercilessly if you like, without care for their feelings, but that's very different to calling for their death like I did in my example.

18-12-2020 01:54PM

Mad_maxx wrote: »

could easily see myself up on a charge in the future , not bothered though as i know i would be one of many

Ahh well, I am concerned, because it might impact on employment. Companies pressured into firing/cancelling employees for remarks that don't fit the accepted worldview. This legislation gives ammo to those who have embraced the cancel culture.

There are so many ways that this legislation will seep into mainstream society and affect interpersonal communication, or workplaces, even without people actually being successfully prosecuted.

Nermal · 18-12-2020 01:54PM

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Does anyone else wonder where the demand for this legislation is coming from? I don't think it's really from the clodhoppers in Fine Gael who are helping it along. It's certainly not coming from the electorate.

That's the only interesting part of the debate, really, and the answer seems to be the Department of Justice/EU institutions.

So much of our culture is US-centric, we forget how different most nations are to the US in respect of free speech protections, and we're definitely moving away from the US interpretation.

I think we'll see increasing efforts outside of the US to restrict the boundaries of online debate and end online anonymity. If you want first amendment-style freedoms, you'll have to base your servers in the US, and eventually you'll be using a VPN to access it too.

KiKi III · 18-12-2020 01:55PM

GarIT wrote: »

I was carded for saying this about yesterday and you personal attack on me earlier went unchecked. So we will see what happens now, see if the rules are applied equally.

Nope, you were carded for making spurious, inaccurate and off-topic attacks on me. Dragging up a thread from months ago and misrepresenting my position on it is pretty pathetic tbh.

Are you at work right now Gar? You might get that promotion if you log off boards for an hour and do some work.

ExMachina1000 · 18-12-2020 01:55PM

No more anti British comments please.

That day is soon to be over.

Brexit thread I'm looking at you. Il be ringing the Gardai

GarIT · 18-12-2020 01:56PM

KiKi III wrote: »

I don’t make hateful remarks about men. I say things like “men are responsible for most murders of women in Ireland” and “men are more likely to commit sexual assault” and some sensitive souls here respond to these *facts* with howls of “feminazi”.

I have nothing to fear from this legislation and don’t feel in any way impeded in my freedom of expression because I’m not a hateful person. There isn’t a group alive I feel hatred towards.

I can distinguish quite easily between good faith arguments, criticism and incitement to hatred. It’s actually not that hard if you try.

I disagree. I've definitely seen you make hateful remarks against, men, straight men and white men.

BattleCorp · 18-12-2020 01:57PM

@DeptJusticeIRL in response to burden of proof: advises that it is ‘highly unusual’ to reverse it in Irish law, but is in consideration for the drafting of the new hate-crime legislation #CERD19

Reverse burden is not that unusual in Irish legislation. Health and safety law usually has a reverse burden of proof. The employer has to prove that they did everything reasonably practicable to protect the employee rather than the State proving that they didn't do enough to protect the employee.

GarIT · 18-12-2020 01:57PM

KiKi III wrote: »

Nope, you were carded for making spurious, inaccurate and off-topic attacks on me. Dragging up a thread from months ago and misrepresenting my position on it is pretty pathetic tbh.

Are you at work right now Gar? You might get that promotion if you log off boards for an hour and do some work.

You literally just did the same thing.

KiKi III · 18-12-2020 02:00PM

For those wondering where this law has come from, it was championed by a woman whose daughter killer herself after incessant online abuse:

https://www.newstalk.com/news/cocos-law-online-abuse-1077178

AutoTuning · 18-12-2020 02:01PM

I do think we need some kind of legislation for people actually ranting hate and threats online. There appears to be almost no follow up and it is getting out of hand and will get worse.

However, I think we could also go way too far in this. There's a balance to be struck and it needs to be more about identifying actual whipping up of hate, not just 'someone said something.'

If it's too broad it will become unenforcible and will be used as a weapon by someone who wants to shut someone else up. If it's too narrow or too wooly and vague, it will be as useless as our current incitement to hate legislation, which seems to be almost impossible to bring any prosecutions under at all.

18-12-2020 02:01PM

KiKi III wrote: »

I can distinguish quite easily between good faith arguments, criticism and incitement to hatred. It’s actually not that hard if you try.

Nice. You're suggesting that I don't.

Your posts often have such little digs, which I assume you think most readers are too dumb to notice. Which is why you probably will have reason to be concerned about this legislation. Over time I've seen many of your posts which were borderline misandrist..

In any case, I'm done discussing this with you. You never seem to extend the respect you expect to receive... on to others.

KiKi III · 18-12-2020 02:01PM

GarIT wrote: »

I disagree. I've definitely seen you make hateful remarks against, men, straight men and white men.

And also that time you said "men are trash" on another site but that was ok because it was a joke.

None of this is true. I’ve never said “men are trash” on any site. Feel free to provide a link to where I supposedly did.

I love men. I hate misogyny. Misogynistic men have trouble differentiating between the two positions.

KiKi III · 18-12-2020 02:04PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nice. You're suggesting that I don't.

Your posts often have such little digs, which I assume you think most readers are too dumb to notice. Which is why you probably will have reason to be concerned about this legislation. Over time I've seen many of your posts which were borderline misandrist..

In any case, I'm done discussing this with you. You never seem to extend the respect you expect to receive... on to others.

That’s a pretty oversensitive way of interpreting what I said. Reinterpreting what I said in the least forgiving possible way. Didn’t you accuse me of doing that just yesterday?

Curious.

KiKi III · 18-12-2020 02:05PM

GarIT wrote: »

I disagree. I've definitely seen you make hateful remarks against, men, straight men and white men.

Quote them.

You’re full of shįt. Disliking you personally isn’t misandry.

GarIT · 18-12-2020 02:07PM

KiKi III wrote: »

Quote them.

You’re full of shįt. Disliking you personally isn’t misandry.

I'm not arsed wasting my time going through your post history. It's there for anyone bothered.

I'm not the only person who has said that. I'm out. There is no genuine debate to be had. You have it in your head that you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is some type of -ist.

Eric Cartman · 18-12-2020 02:09PM

KiKi III wrote: »

That’s a pretty oversensitive way of interpreting what I said. Reinterpreting what I said in the least forgiving possible way. Didn’t you accuse me of doing that just yesterday?

Curious.

Unfortunately ‘reinterpreting what i said in the least forgiving possible way’ is exactly what this law allows for , it allows other parties to be offended on behalf of a protected demographic and use that to form a conviction.

Look at how many criticisms groups like pavee point or ebun joseph etc.. perceive as racist, when they are legitimate criticisms of an individual or behaviour but because the person receiving those criticisms is a minority that becomes all they care about.

KiKi III · 18-12-2020 02:10PM

GarIT wrote: »

I'm not arsed wasting my time going through your post history. It's there for anyone bothered.

I'm not the only person who has said that. I'm out. There is no genuine debate to be had. You have it in your head that you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is some type of -ist.

You made it up. I never said “men are trash” on any site. I never made any misandrist comments.

That’s why you can’t find it.

I have different values to you, that’s clear. As an ardent defender of free speech, you’d think you’d be okay with that.

CtevenSrowder · 18-12-2020 02:19PM

KiKi III wrote: »

None of this is true. I’ve never said “men are trash” on any site. Feel free to provide a link to where I supposedly did.

I love men. I hate misogyny. Misogynistic men have trouble differentiating between the two positions.

Well to be fair, you've insinuated that Eric Cartmen is racist based on his post history, and when someone insinuates you are misandrist based on your post history you don't like it.

Maybe we should enact a law that could have the both of you hauled before the courts and have them decide...

KiKi III · 18-12-2020 02:22PM

Absolute lolz at the irony of posters who are here defending their right to criticise or insult anyone they want and then refuse to engage with someone they feel isn’t sufficiently respectful of them.

GarIT · 18-12-2020 02:26PM

KiKi III wrote: »

Absolute lolz at the irony of posters who are here defending their right to criticise or insult anyone they want and then refuse to engage with someone they feel isn’t sufficiently respectful of them.

I don't recall ever suggesting anyone be forced to engage in an unpleasant situation. In fact I advocated for making use of the block button rather than looking for hate speech legislation. There is no irony.

As for the other bit about the thing you said on another site. I deleted that within a minute of saying it out of respect of not linking profiles that you wouldn't want linked here.

CtevenSrowder · 18-12-2020 02:26PM

KiKi III wrote: »

Absolute lolz at the irony of posters who are here defending their right to criticise or insult anyone they want and then refuse to engage with someone they feel isn’t sufficiently respectful of them.

Where are the lolz there? The lolz would be if they wanted you banned of the thread for not being respectful of them. I've not seen anyone do that.

There is no hypocrisy on the part of those who have decided to stop engaging.

18-12-2020 02:27PM

KiKi III wrote: »

Absolute lolz at the irony of posters who are here defending their right to criticise or insult anyone they want and then refuse to engage with someone they feel isn’t sufficiently respectful of them.

There is no irony there.

They feel you have the right to be disrespectful or insult people (which you have done here).

They feel they have a right to not engage with you.

They are not requesting that what you are saying be treated as a crime unlike what you seem to be advocating for.

*Cteven beat me to it

Eric Cartman · 18-12-2020 02:28PM

KiKi III wrote: »

Absolute lolz at the irony of posters who are here defending their right to criticise or insult anyone they want and then refuse to engage with someone they feel isn’t sufficiently respectful of them.

But thats not whats gone on here.

Youve admitted that this law would probably have an impact on many posters here or what could even be posted here , its the reason youre championing it, to make views you find offensive disappear.

Most people have tried to debate this in good faith and explain why this is a dangerous slope to go down.

Your response has been to call them all hysterical or imply theyre a racist , repeating that over and over.

KiKi III · 18-12-2020 02:28PM

GarIT wrote: »

I don't recall ever suggesting anyone be forced to engage in an unpleasant situation. In fact I advocated for making use of the block button rather than looking for hate speech legislation. There is no irony.

I could hide your posts I suppose, but then I wouldn’t be able to see the things you’re making up about me.

KiKi III · 18-12-2020 02:31PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But thats not whats gone on here.

Youve admitted that this law would probably have an impact on many posters here or what could even be posted here , its the reason youre championing it, to make views you find offensive disappear.

Most people have tried to debate this in good faith and explain why this is a dangerous slope to go down.

Your response has been to call them all hysterical or imply theyre a racist , repeating that over and over.

As an ardent defender of free speech, I’d expect you to defend my right to post as I please.

I notice you’re not calling out all the posters implying or explicitly stating without evidence that I’m a man-hater.

Different rules?

GarIT · 18-12-2020 02:34PM

KiKi III wrote: »

As an ardent defender of free speech, I’d expect you to defend my right to post as I please.

I notice you’re not calling out all the posters implying or explicitly stating without evidence that I’m a man-hater.

Different rules?

Nobody has attacked your right to free speech. Say whatever you like.

Nobody is required to defend anyone else.

Eric Cartman · 18-12-2020 02:35PM

KiKi III wrote: »

As an ardent defender of free speech, I’d expect you to defend my right to post as I please.

I notice you’re not calling out all the posters implying or explicitly stating without evidence that I’m a man-hater.

Different rules?

I dont know if you are or not, its why im not saying it, im not calling them out because they didnt imply that im a racist, you did, in a thread about race.

No poster has called you a man hater and said thats the only reason you want these laws, however everyone who says they dont want these laws you have implied its because they are racists.

The real difference between us is, i like this world where we can have this debate, even if we know we will never agree, and itll happen the next week and the week after, but you actively support a world where a good chunk of posters here wouldnt even be allowed present their argument or opinion and might even end up in prison for it.

KiKi III · 18-12-2020 02:46PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I dont know if you are or not, its why im not saying it, im not calling them out because they didnt imply that im a racist, you did, in a thread about race.

No poster has called you a man hater and said thats the only reason you want these laws, however everyone who says they dont want these laws you have implied its because they are racists.

The real difference between us is, i like this world where we can have this debate, even if we know we will never agree, and itll happen the next week and the week after, but you actively support a world where a good chunk of posters here wouldnt even be allowed present their argument or opinion and might even end up in prison for it.

I’d like to live in a world where we can have a sensible conversation about how much immigration Ireland wants/ needs/ can cope with without horrible racist rhetoric.

I want to live in a world where we debate how trans rights intersect with women’s rights and child protection without any hatefulness involved (in this imaginary world JK Rowling is considered a voice of reason)

I have no desire to shut down any debate; that’s a position you’ve attributed to me that I do not hold. I’d like to see the hateful rhetoric that often accompanies such debates toned down is all, and I make no apologies for that.

Kivaro · 18-12-2020 02:54PM

"speech which
is clearly designed to incite hatred, but is
couched in polite or coded language, would
be covered by the new offence."

And here is a classic example of ambiguity. Who are the arbitrators in this situation? Who deciphers this "coded" language?
People like Ebun Joseph and Roderic O' Gorman I suppose, both of whom will most certainly abuse this bill. This was seen in the past when they complained to the media about social media responses to their controversial posts online.

And I don't get the constant digs/petty insults by one particular poster on this thread. But at least I won't call the Gardai to complain.

RandRuns · 18-12-2020 02:55PM

Since it is pointless reposting all the passages from the report that prove that there are some terrible aspects to the intended law, let's go back to basics;

This law is unneccessary. It has been drafted because of campaigning by a lady who's daughter, tragically killed herself after being bullied and abused online.
There is no need for a new law of any kind to prevent that happening, if the Gardaí had enforced existing laws, those who harassed that girl would have been prosecuted before it got as far as it did (note how quickly and effectively the guy who abused Ian Wright was prosecuted - the existing laws worked perfectly fine in that case).
The saying "hard cases make bad law" was never more apt than in this case. This is a populist play by a minister trying hard to deflect bad press, and bring the progressive extremists onside.

A good test to see if any piece of legislation in Ireland is fair is to see how enthusiastically Ivana Bacik embraces it - the more enthusiastically she embraces it, the more likely it is regressive and unfair - there's a reason she cannot get democratically elected.

As I've already said, those cheerleading this law because they think it will only be used to oppress people they believe should not be allowed to voice an opinon badly need to learn some history, some day the oppressors will come for you too, they always do.

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments