Hate Speech Public Consultation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If someone continues to call you a name, that has a specific meaning, a meaning with which doesn't define you and one that you do not identify as, repeatedly, you don't think it's harassment?

Well that's interesting.

Yes that's true. If someone repeatedly called me right wing on this site I would not consider them to be harrassing me. I would not call for the word "right wing" to be banned on the site.

Deleted User wrote: »

You are missing the point. If anyone can be prosecuted for having a different opinion which anyone can misconstrue as racist, then it is only fair and right that everyone is held to the same standard.

Holding others to the standard they hold you is not remotely "snowflakey".

That standard sadly could be that everyone is guilty of offending someone.

It's a pathetic law, supported by .... well I can't say in case I am retroactively punished.

I think I am not the one missing the point. No one is suggesting that people can be prosecuted simply for having a different opinion but that those who specifically use hateful terms or language be held accountable for doing so.

All we have here at this point is dramatisation of how such a law might be used.

Consider this, should someone be allowed to shout in the face of a disabled person using a wheelchair in the street and call them insulting names and suggest that they shouldn't have been born?

If you think such behaviour is unacceptable in the real world, this law is proposed to make it unacceptable online also. That's it.

Tell me how wrote: »

All we have here at this point is dramatisation of how such a law might be used.

Consider this, should someone be allowed to shout in the face of a disabled person using a wheelchair in the street and call them insulting names and suggest that they shouldn't have been born?

Dramatisation indeed.

LLMMLL wrote: »

No you can't and he didn't.

Yes and oh yes he did !

Gatling wrote: »

Yes and oh yes he did !

Court transcripts please

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd love to know what your definition of harassment is.

Is your definition "using any word to describe someone that might upset them"? Seems to be what you're arguing for.

Definitions of harassment are set out in law. Look them up.

Deleted User wrote: »

My issue is with who gets to decide what hateful language is. There are a couple of people here who would be of a similar mindset to you, who engage in what some may deem "hateful" language towards people they disagree with.

What level of hatred do you need to engage in? Context is hard to read in text.

You need a cut off point to decide what exactly is a hateful term and what isn't. It's too nebulous because there are too many factors involved.

I don't think anyone who is engaging in this discussion here, or who has a long term Boards account would be at risk of finding themselves being prosecuted for what they post here.

There are already systems in place and while I do think there are posters who vehemently do 'hate' people who are identifiable as belonging to a particular group or type these systems prevent them getting a continuous visible platform. Thread bans and outright site bans catch the vast majority of these already and while we do see some new accounts joining, and starting provocative threads or posting in a particular manner, such posters are generally pretty quickly zapped.

But, for those who engage in persistent or highly publicized hateful speech then this legislation will allow them to be dealt with appropriately.

I don't use FB or Instagram and am purely an observer on Twitter but I frequently see examples posted of very hurtful commentary towards others on these platforms. This legislation will probably not see Joe Soap prosecuted for such for a single comment, but, them being made aware that such posts will lead to prosecution if they insist in continuing with them is likely to see a change in their behaviour. I had a friend who lost his teenage daughter to suicide after relentless online bullying, there were no laws to prevent the people who were targeting her from doing so. Any move to help stop such things happening is a good thing in my view.

It's clear to me (and I hope others) that trying to infringe free speech will only cause problems.
To introduce ambiguity is to make people nervous and self censor, which is oppression in my opinion.

Also what's still ok to say today might not be ok to say next year - is saying there is only two genders still permissible?

Like dictator Idi Amin said and it appears Ms McEntee is repeating “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.”

Deleted User wrote: »

Except that this covers more than specific language, which has been raised multiple times already in this thread.



Yup. In part, yes. Have you considered why though? No.. not your objections to their expectations,... but actually considered why they're concerned.

[This is not anything related to people who would want to make racist/bigoted/etc type of expressions. Assume for a while that we're talking about normal people.]

Given the concerns seem to be largely raised from accounts very active on threads relating to topics of immigration, the travelling community, 'political correctness' etc and the manner in which the posters complaining here post on those threads I think I understand pretty clearly why they are concerned.

I don't however think we will ultimately see much changes here as there are already systems in place to deal with such behaviour which generally do work.

I've no doubt some people who post on Boards (maybe not necessarily long term members) would be capable of posting in a manner in which the legislation would apply to them but to that I would say they should think about what it is they are posting and why rather than trying to prevent legislation coming in to prevent people being targeted.

Deleted User wrote: »

Grand. You've just deflected completely away from what I asked. Nice.

You know, I was hoping that you would take a moment to consider their concerns, rather than take this opportunity to repeat your own opinions.

Guess I should have known better.

Lol.
I did consider it, told you what I felt, and you don't like it.

You can PM me the answer you were hoping for if you want and I might post it for you.