Hate Speech Public Consultation

biko wrote: »

If this goes through then all the posts of "Trump is a racist" will lead to prosecutions.

No they won't. No threats nor incitement to violence.

A splendid amount of over-reaction and misinformation on here. Chill people, this legislation will only be used by prosecution services in extreme and clear-cut scenarios.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No they won't. No threats nor incitement to violence.

A splendid amount of over-reaction and misinformation on here. Chill people, this legislation will only be used by prosecution services in extreme and clear-cut scenarios.

Nowhere in the report does it say a threat or incitement to violence is needed. If it did I'd be all for it. And I believe the existing legistlation requires exactly that, which is apparently why it is ineffective.

biko wrote: »

If this goes through then all the posts of "Trump is a racist" will lead to prosecutions.

They most definitely won't.

The threads consistently targeting minority groups will have to change their tone considerably I expect.

Surprises some people who have spent so much time on Boards 'seem' to have trouble differentiating between expressions of general opinions as part of a specific public conversation versus the targeting of specific people or groups.

The above you mentioned won't likely come close to prosecutions, but persistent claims that someone is definitely a criminal because they have been raised that way because of their background could. But won't either I expect. Until we get in to the extremes of persistent and insistent posting of such a claim.

Tell me how wrote: »

They most definitely won't.

The threads consistently targeting minority groups will have to change their tone considerably I expect.

Surprises some people who have spent so much time on Boards 'seem' to have trouble differentiating between expressions of general opinions as part of a specific public conversation versus the targeting of specific people or groups.

The above you mentioned won't likely come close to prosecutions, but persistent claims that someone is definitely a criminal because they have been raised that way because of their background could. But won't either I expect. Until we get in to the extremes of persistent and insistent posting of such a claim.

The tone of many on this thread is seemingly:

Why can't I continue to insult people?

"Ms Fox said that when she went to the Gardaí, she was told that online abuse was not a crime and their hands were tied."

AGS: never missing an opportunity to cover themselves in glory. Chief Wiggum was meant to be satire.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The tone of many on this thread is seemingly:

Why can't I continue to insult people?

Its pretty revealing, the people against this type of legislation.

And the frequency at which they post in threads on immigration, BLM, Greta, social welfare etc and which side of the debate they generally land on in such threads.

Usually, for obvious reasons, often with new account names but the same message. If how Boards treats these threads in future changes, these people will no doubt decry the legislation rather than their role in creating the need for it.

Kivaro wrote: »

This post speaks volumes.

Doesn't it just. Here's hope that government legislation doesn't curb your ability to insult, negatively generalise about or incite hatred towards other people. If none of that is your thing then you've got nothing to be concerned about.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Doesn't it just. Here's hope that government legislation doesn't curb your ability to insult, negatively generalise about or incite hatred towards other people. If none of that is your thing then you've got nothing to be concerned about.

Gardaí should also be allowed walk into your house whenever they feel like, sure if your not a criminal with drugs and guns everywhere you've got nothing to be concerned about.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Such a ridiculous argument. It's just as revealing, the people who are in favour of this legislation. You believe, and some may say hope, it will target a certain side of the political spectrum.

Well, if one side of the spectrum is targeting minorities, is against inclusion and progression, sustainability and who frequently applies particular negative traits to individuals purely on the basis of how they look with no evidence as to whether they are appropriate or not then, yeah, that side.

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, if one side of the spectrum is targeting minorities, is against inclusion and progression, sustainability and who frequently applies particular negative traits to individuals purely on the basis of how they look with no evidence as to whether they are appropriate or not then, yeah, that side.

This is the problem.

Why only minorities?

There are legitimate reasons to be against inclusion and one could make a reasoned argument against it.

Progress to one person is going backwards to another person. So same point as above.

While most would agree sustainability is good it's not invalid or hateful to make an argument against it.

The last point/appearance. Sure I can agree with you on that.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Haha holy mother of God. You want to make it illegal to merely insult people. Christ.

If I decide to insult fine Gael voters you want me hauled up before the courts? If I make negative generalization about our current Taoiseach you want me hauled before the courts?

THIS is why I'm so opposed to this bill, because the above is what it can easily become if certain people get their way.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

see the perception in peoples head's is saying :

'F*ck Michael Martin'
'F*ck Hazel chu' :mad:

The Irish courts system is run off its feet as it is. I suspect we won't ever see a case prosecuted for a single expression of disliking someone or indeed insulting them.

But, when that becomes frequent, intense, targeted and damaging to the recipient, there will be legislation in place to deal with this.

As is a common theme, there are many who spend their time talking about snowflakes, getting worked up about something that will likely never affect them in real life but they may find their 'style' is less tolerated than before.

GarIT wrote: »

I don't know, I'm not a legal expert, but I'm glad you agree with me.

Again I ask, which of the UK jurisdictions do we follow?

And how do you believe that a constitutional democracy follows the legal system of a parliamentary democracy with a monarch and no written constitution?

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Again I ask, which of the UK jurisdictions do we follow?

And how do you believe that a constitutional democracy follows the legal system of a parliamentary democracy with a monarch and no written constitution?

Why ask again when I said I don't know.

Because many Irish legal experts say we do and I take their word on it.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Haha holy mother of God. You want to make it illegal to merely insult people. Christ.

If I decide to insult fine Gael voters you want me hauled up before the courts? If I make negative generalization about our current Taoiseach you want me hauled before the courts?

THIS is why I'm so opposed to this bill, because the above is what it can easily become if certain people get their way.

I think you need to read the report on the proposed legislation.