Hate Speech Public Consultation

18-12-2020 10:15PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Did you even read the previous Post?

Feeling harassed has nothing to do with it. I never said it did. Nobody has.

In both cases feelings don't matter.

Facts don't care about my feelings....

You really are becoming the monster you hate

Annasopra · 18-12-2020 10:16PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Unrestricted free speech is a pillar of a free society and should absolutely be enshrined in human rights. Its more of a right than getting married or aborting a child or choosing a gender etc.. without absolute free speech you have a totalitarian society.

This does not trump libel , people should be free to say what they want but if its untrue about a person or company they can still be sued.

Unrestricted free speech is not and can never be a human right. Its funny though you believe on the hand completely unrestricted speech should be a human right but on the other that sperch should be restricted.

The thing about is every single country in the world has some levels of restriction and rightfully so. You cannot say for example "all travellers are thieving scum and should be murdered"

The thing about is when we consider human rights overall we should look at this in more detail:

Freedom of expression here in Ireland comes as part of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

This of course means that when considering freedom of expression that there are often necessary restrictions. Human Rights can and often do collide with each other. Absolute freedom of speech would be a threat to many other of our human rights such as;

A The right to life - European and UN Human Right; e.g. speech can be an actual threat to life of an individual or group
B The right to be free from torture - European snd UN Human Right; speech could in some ways be considered torturous
C The right to security - European right; again absolute free speech could threaten a persons safety and security
D The right to equality - absolute free speech could also threaten another persons right to equality

So yeah it really isnt that simple at all as saying absolute free speech should be a human right. It cant be and it wont ever be. There are always necessary restrictions in order to uphold other human rights.

RandRuns · 18-12-2020 10:21PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Those who follow the TERF ideology do not like anything that refers to them as a group. They like to pretend there's no ideology and that they're simply a "concerned individual".

Like antifa?

Annasopra · 18-12-2020 10:27PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ok so you do believe this laws powers are so over reaching that they might curtail or shut down opinions on this site, thats far enough for me to call it totalitarian and wrong. Within the rules of boards we have a broad debate with multiple viewpoints that thankfully people are still allowed to have, if whats even ok with the mods here would fall foul of a hate speech law then thats an insanely dangerous law to enact.

People need to be able to air their grievances and some of those are going to be about minority groups. I have to say though ive seen very little racism on boards and only almost no anti LGB content. Its a pretty civil place

Noted that you basically admit lots of transphobic content.

Annasopra · 18-12-2020 10:30PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

If I made a one sentence statement such as "We should kill all N***ers", wouldn't that be enough to be prosecuted?

Fair enough, I'd deserve to be prosecuted for that, but that's not the point. I'm just using that as an example of where one sentence could be enough to be prosecuted.

No. You wouldnt. And thats part of the issue - basically the 1989 law is weak and ineffective and this is updating and strengthening it.

Annasopra · 18-12-2020 10:33PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes I have been a consistent defender of free speech, thank you

Nah. You even admitted earlier you believe there should be restrictions. You defend certain types of free speech.

Big Gerry · 18-12-2020 10:35PM

I wonder will people like Mrs Duffy be arrested under the new hate speech laws ?

Annasopra · 18-12-2020 10:38PM

AutoTuning wrote: »

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.

Absolute Best post on the thread. Agreed. A delicate balance is needed. It shouldnt be useless and unenforceable like the 1989 Act and it shouldnt be overtly about all sorts of censorship.

Seathrun66 · 18-12-2020 10:44PM

Big Gerry wrote: »

I wonder will people like Mrs Duffy be arrested under the new hate speech laws ?

Simple answer. No.

Read the thread.

suicide_circus · 18-12-2020 10:51PM

We have lots of examples of what wouldnt be classed as hate speech...can we have some examples of speech which is currently legal, on this forum perhaps, that will become illegal?

LLMMLL · 18-12-2020 10:53PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Facts don't care about my feelings....

You really are becoming the monster you hate

Lol this is hilarious. I genuinely have no idea what you are on about now.....

LLMMLL · 18-12-2020 10:54PM

RandRuns wrote: »

Like antifa?

I've actually no idea how antifa present themselves.

Do you think I'm an antifa supporter and youve caught me in some kind of gotcha argument? Jaysus....

Big Gerry · 18-12-2020 10:58PM

The US Supreme Court ruled that there is no such thing as hate speech.

I'd love to see a 1st Amendment style law in Ireland.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fnews%2fvolokh-conspiracy%2fwp%2f2017%2f06%2f19%2fsupreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment%2f

18-12-2020 11:03PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

If I believed it was a genuine request I might but I strongly believe that nobody is actually offended and it's a tactic.

Those who follow the TERF ideology do not like anything that refers to them as a group. They like to pretend there's no ideology and that they're simply a "concerned individual".

I've heard all the arguments and don't buy any of them so it's really pointless trying to convince me.

I sincerely doubt you believe no one uses it in a derogatory or intent on offending way.
I really do. And I doubt you believe some dont find it offensive or insulting.

You can deny it, but I've heard all the arguments and don't buy any of them so it's really pointless trying to convince me.

Seathrun66 · 18-12-2020 11:05PM

Big Gerry wrote: »

The US Supreme Court ruled that there is no such thing as hate speech.

I'd love to see a 1st Amendment style law in Ireland.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fnews%2fvolokh-conspiracy%2fwp%2f2017%2f06%2f19%2fsupreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment%2f

No they didn't. They said that hate speech was clearly identifiable but they couldn't directly regulate it due to the constitutional right to free speech.

Seathrun66 · 18-12-2020 11:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Facts don't care about my feelings....

You really are becoming the monster you hate

I've had a couple of beers myself but I feel like you've raced ahead.

LLMMLL · 18-12-2020 11:17PM

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

I sincerely doubt you believe no one uses it in a derogatory or intent on offending way.
I really do. And I doubt you believe some dont find it offensive or insulting.

You can deny it, but I've heard all the arguments and don't buy any of them so it's really pointless trying to convince me.

I'm not trying to convince you so that's absolutely fine. I'm glad we've come to a resolution

Eric Cartman · 18-12-2020 11:18PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Every peep i hear out of Ebun Joseph calling Irish people racist will be getting reported to the Gardai.

I swear to christ if this crap actually passes as a law, in going to make it my absolute mission to have every waking second of her life from now on spent infront of a judge defending her anti white racist claptrap and hopefully have her as the first one imprisoned under the new law. All I need is one judge brave enough to stand up against the actual racism problem in Ireland

Seathrun66 · 18-12-2020 11:26PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I swear to christ if this crap actually passes as a law, in going to make it my absolute mission to have every waking second of her life from now on spent infront of a judge defending her anti white racist claptrap and hopefully have her as the first one imprisoned under the new law. All I need is one judge brave enough to stand up against the actual racism problem in Ireland

Sounds like you've got a crush.

18-12-2020 11:27PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not trying to convince you so that's absolutely fine. I'm glad we've come to a resolution

Youre not convincing anyone!

RandRuns · 18-12-2020 11:27PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've actually no idea how antifa present themselves.

Do you think I'm an antifa supporter and youve caught me in some kind of gotcha argument? Jaysus....

Whoah, calm down snowflake, sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 18-12-2020 11:28PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I think one reason is that it may be that the likelihood is that the terminology for trans people is more emotive because of what they are more likely to have suffered before transitioning to their new identity.

For many trans people, they have spent their life feeling different and feeling misidentified and so when they finally get to a position where they are comfortable in their new identity, a 'deliberate' action to refer to the old one can cause them pain because they continue to feel lost or ignored or that their own desires are irrelevant.

Whereas, referring to someone as a terf is less likely (though I don't know) to refer more to their behaviour/opinion rather than their specific identity.

I will freely say I do not have strong opinions on this as I am not overly familiar with the experiences of people on either side of the above argument.

It could be said to be similar to the comparison between the use of the word black versus white when referring to someone. There are greater connotations attached to the word 'black' for historical reasons and because of the lived experience of many people and while that doesn't mean the word 'white' cannot be used in a derogatory way, it has historically been less likely that this will be the case.

You can, by all means, argue that such disparity is unfair, but if so, surely the argument would be that the use of either would be offensive rather than neither being so.

This phrase is the new ‘going forward’.

What other kind of experience is there?

Your post has highlighted how arbitrary this all is. Who decides what is and isn’t hate speech?

LLMMLL · 18-12-2020 11:29PM

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Youre not convincing anyone!

Boards seems pretty convinced.

18-12-2020 11:56PM

I love this thread.

The posters who are defending/supporting the legislation seem to be convinced that their form of expression would never, ever, be considered offensive or could be interpreted as hate speech towards any particular group or person. After all, their opinions represent the minorities, the repressed, the discriminated, etc. and so they won't be held to the same standard that those who criticise those groups are.

It's going to be interesting watching them get pulled up on their speech in the future. They don't seem to realise that they're not excluded from the legislation just because they've chosen to represent a particular side. They'll be held to account just like everyone else...

LLMMLL · 18-12-2020 11:59PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I love this thread.

The posters who are defending/supporting the legislation seem to be convinced that their form of expression would never, ever, be considered offensive or could be interpreted as hate speech towards any particular group or person. After all, their opinions represent the minorities, the repressed, the discriminated, etc. and so they won't be held to the same standard that those who criticise those groups are.

It's going to be interesting watching them get pulled up on their speech in the future. They don't seem to realise that they're not excluded from the legislation just because they've chosen to represent a particular side. They'll be held to account just like everyone else...

We do realise that. We just think it's a good thing. Im happy to be held to account.

Tell me how · 19-12-2020 12:00AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This phrase is the new ‘going forward’. What other kind of experience is there?

Your post has highlighted how arbitrary this all is. Who decides what is and isn’t hate speech?

What's violence?
Where's the line between what is a jostling, horseplay, assault etc?

These are non-scientific entities, I suspect the determination of what constitutes hate speech will follow similar processes. There is already reference to hate speech in law, this isn't re-inventing the wheel.

Tell me how · 19-12-2020 12:02AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I love this thread.

The posters who are defending/supporting the legislation seem to be convinced that their form of expression would never, ever, be considered offensive or could be interpreted as hate speech towards any particular group or person. After all, their opinions represent the minorities, the repressed, the discriminated, etc. and so they won't be held to the same standard that those who criticise those groups are.

It's going to be interesting watching them get pulled up on their speech in the future. They don't seem to realise that they're not excluded from the legislation just because they've chosen to represent a particular side. They'll be held to account just like everyone else...

You say that like it's a bad thing while also, I take it acknowledging that those against the legislation recognize that at least some of what they say is hateful.

Annasopra · 19-12-2020 12:03AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I swear to christ if this crap actually passes as a law, in going to make it my absolute mission to have every waking second of her life from now on spent infront of a judge defending her anti white racist claptrap and hopefully have her as the first one imprisoned under the new law. All I need is one judge brave enough to stand up against the actual racism problem in Ireland

So you dont defend free speech then.

Tell me how · 19-12-2020 12:04AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I swear to christ if this crap actually passes as a law, in going to make it my absolute mission to have every waking second of her life from now on spent infront of a judge defending her anti white racist claptrap and hopefully have her as the first one imprisoned under the new law. All I need is one judge brave enough to stand up against the actual racism problem in Ireland

And once again, as with recent US politicians of a particular mindset we have the phrase 'accuse others of that which you are guilty' coming to mind.

Spending years accuse anyone progressive of being easily offended and them coming out with this. I would say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

19-12-2020 12:33AM

Tell me how wrote: »

You say that like it's a bad thing while also, I take it acknowledging that those against the legislation recognize that at least some of what they say is hateful.

No. Don't put words in my mouth.

Just because certain posters perceive criticism of minority groups to be hateful doesn't mean that it is. I've lost count of the times I've been called a racist and a bigot for stating something supported with evidence. Some people just don't want to hear what they don't agree with..

Oh. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of posters who come into threads just to tweak peoples noses. They'll make ignorant statements (usually one liners) aimed to 'trigger' as many people as possible, and then, they'll disappear, or drop a few more sentences of similar bile just to keep the feeding frenzy going. It's the internet and a discussion board. It's just the way things are.

But very few 'regulars' ever make hateful comments.. and yes, there are some.. On every "side". It's one of the reasons I pay so much attention to post count. If they have a higher post count, I give them more attention, because likely they're not out to score points being outrageous. Usually.

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments