Hate Speech Public Consultation

Mad_maxx · 15-02-2021 07:00PM

Tell me how wrote: »

It's pretty incredible to see people advocating for the right to be hateful.

There were zero laws about anything until society evolved to recognize what was necessary to protect its members.

spare us the spin ( or the " how often do you beat your wife " loaded language )

people have the right to be offended and whats " hateful " is often entirely subjective

vegans might well view advertisements on TV by Tesco for a special on steak as being " hateful "

travellers might view expecting them to ensure their kids attend school the same number of days as other pupils as a form of " hate "

a law like this would be ripe for abuse , especially as those gunning for it are about the most intellectually intolerant people in the land

BattleCorp · 15-02-2021 07:11PM

Tell me how wrote: »

It's pretty incredible to see people advocating for the right to be hateful.

There were zero laws about anything until society evolved to recognize what was necessary to protect its members.

The problem is that most other laws are pretty straightforward. Hate crime stuff is very grey.

Assault someone, easy to determine if a crime has taken place.
Threaten someone, easy to determine if a crime has taken place.
Steal something, easy to determine if a crime has taken place.

Say something that someone deems to be hateful..........not so clear cut.

And who decides what a hate crime is? Who determines what hate speech is? Therein lies the problem.

I've no problem with someone being in trouble for saying kill all travellers. That clearly isn't on. But what if I said I don't want to live beside travellers. Is it a hate crime to say that?

The delineation between free speech and hate speech is mucky at the best of times...........I think the laws we have, if enforced, are good enough. Takes the murkiness out of it.

Kivaro · 15-02-2021 07:12PM

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Gardai have launched a poster campaign urging the public to report "hate crimes".

njb

https://www.garda.ie/en/crime/hate-crime/

I would like to report Ebun Joseph.

BattleCorp · 15-02-2021 07:24PM

Here's an example of (in my opinion) overzealous hate speech laws.

A guy is being charged over a tweet about Captain Tom Moore in the UK.

All he said was "'The only good Brit soldier is a dead one'.

It's a bad taste tweet, but come on, is it really worth 6 months in jail or a £5000 fine?

Some people find it offensive, others probably find it meh, who cares. Personally I think it's an absolute waste of police time.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/the-only-good-brit-soldier-is-a-dead-one-scottish-man-arrested-and-charged-after-posting-offensive-tweet-about-late-captain-tom-203380

Hate speech legislation is dangerous territory for sure. What next, will I be prosecuted for saying that I would never date a transwoman?

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 07:25PM

Mad_maxx wrote: »

spare us the spin ( or the " how often do you beat your wife " loaded language )

people have the right to be offended and whats " hateful " is often entirely subjective

vegans might well view advertisements on TV by Tesco for a special on steak as being " hateful "

travellers might view expecting them to ensure their kids attend school the same number of days as other pupils as a form of " hate "

a law like this would be ripe for abuse , especially as those gunning for it are about the most intellectually intolerant people in the land

Every day there's a different report of someone being targeted with abuse.

You mightn't do so, you'd hardly admit it here if you did, but why should that fact be avoided just so some people can have a little circle jerk saying that 'everyone thinks this is crazy'.

This is not a black and white situation, but that doesn't mean that nothing should be attempted to prevent people doing it with impunity.

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 07:27PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's an example of (in my opinion) overzealous hate speech laws.

A guy is being charged over a tweet about Captain Tom Moore in the UK.

All he said was "'The only good Brit soldier is a dead one'.

It's a bad taste tweet, but come on, is it really worth 6 months in jail or a £5000 fine?

Some people find it offensive, others probably find it meh, who cares. Personally I think it's an absolute waste of police time.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/the-only-good-brit-soldier-is-a-dead-one-scottish-man-arrested-and-charged-after-posting-offensive-tweet-about-late-captain-tom-203380

Hate speech legislation is dangerous territory for sure. What next, will I be prosecuted for saying that I would never date a transwoman?

Fair play to the minister so for having such an open process for receiving submissions on the topic and detailing the direction they are moving in.

BattleCorp · 15-02-2021 07:29PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Fair play to the minister so for having such an open process for receiving submissions on the topic and detailing the direction they are moving in.

:rolleyes:

eagle eye · 15-02-2021 07:30PM

Tell me how wrote:

It's pretty incredible to see people advocating for the right to be hateful.

They are not advocating for the right to be hateful, they want the right to free speech.
The amount of times you are almost threatened by people these days to not dare say something they don't like is ridiculous.
It's ok to have a different opinion on things to somebody else. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you does not make it hate speech.

Tell me how wrote:

There were zero laws about anything until society evolved to recognize what was necessary to protect its members.

What's necessary is for people to realise there will always be idiots and to ignore them.
What's necessary is to talk about why you disagree with an opinion, to educate people in a nice way as to what you believe is the best view.
Preventing people from airing their opinions is just driving them underground and I think that's very dangerous.

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 07:45PM

eagle eye wrote: »

They are not advocating for the right to be hateful, they want the right to free speech.
The amount of times you are almost threatened by people these days to not dare say something they don't like is ridiculous.
It's ok to have a different opinion on things to somebody else. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you does not make it hate speech.

What's necessary is for people to realise there will always be idiots and to ignore them.
What's necessary is to talk about why you disagree with an opinion, to educate people in a nice way as to what you believe is the best view.
Preventing people from airing their opinions is just driving them underground and I think that's very dangerous.

From the proposed legislation development document.

New offences of incitement to hatred are needed & should
prohibit:
(i) deliberately or recklessly inciting hatred against a person or group of people due to their association with a protected characteristic, &,
(ii)displaying or distributing material inciting hatred

also,

To be meaningful, the new legislation must also deal effectively with hate crime.
Threatening and abusive communications, criminal damage, harassment, assault and intimidation are all common forms of hate crime as described by participants in this consultation and specific, aggravated forms of existing criminal offences should be included in the legislation to deal with these and ensure that such crimes are properly categorized and recorded

Do you think this suggests that a difference in opinion is likely to become the target of such legislation?

I don't think anyone would seriously argue that 'just ignore them' is a reasonable instruction to someone who might be suffering from being repeatedly targeted in hurtful ways. Sticks and Stones etc might have been a relevant argument before so much of our lives were spent online and where the capacity for someone to communicate to us does not mean they need to be physically nearby.

eagle eye · 15-02-2021 07:51PM

Tell me how wrote:

Do you think this suggests that a difference in opinion is likely to become the target of such legislation?

Yes, because there's lots of idiots out there on both sides. They'll be pushing things that aren't actually hate as hate.

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 07:56PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes, because there's lots of idiots out there on both sides. They'll be pushing things that aren't actually hate as hate.

We've all become accustomed to the 'Karen' phenomenon of someone appointing themselves judge and jury and attempting to get the police involved in something. That doesn't mean such events end up in a court appearance or conviction.

Do you think the Gardai, DPP, and court system are going to proceed with something if it was just a difference in opinion?

Chips Lovell · 15-02-2021 07:59PM

It would be helpful if people actually stuck to what is being proposed rather than make up scenarios that wouldn't be covered by the legislation, such as vegans getting offended by ads in Tescos or pointing to the situation in the UK, when the government here has explicitly said it won't be following the UK approach.

BattleCorp · 15-02-2021 08:04PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think the Gardai, DPP, and court system are going to proceed with something if it was just a difference in opinion?

They might if badly thought-out laws are introduced allowing them to do so.

What do you think of the person being charged in relation to the tweet about Sir Tom Moore (link in post #1985)?

eagle eye · 15-02-2021 08:04PM

Tell me how wrote:

We've all become accustomed to the 'Karen' phenomenon of someone appointing themselves judge and jury and attempting to get the police involved in something. That doesn't mean such events end up in a court appearance or conviction.

Do you think the Gardai, DPP, and court system are going to proceed with something if it was just a difference in opinion?

There'll be bunches of test cases, only if they get defeated consistently will they not be brought.
I don't trust the authorities to manage something like this well.

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 08:06PM

eagle eye wrote: »

There'll be bunches of test cases, only if they get defeated consistently will they not be brought.
I don't trust the authorities to manage something like this well.

Ok. Is your lack of trust in authorities your main reason for objecting to the proposed legislation? If so, can I take it you think the idea of legislation is merited, just that you don't think it will be done correctly?

15-02-2021 08:11PM

Tell me how wrote: »

It's pretty incredible to see people advocating for the right to be hateful.

Well done. You've managed to show exactly why people are concerned with this proposed hate speech bill.

You took a posters opinion, which was pretty neutral in tone, and twisted it to mean something else entirely.

There were zero laws about anything until society evolved to recognize what was necessary to protect its members.

We already have laws to protect it's members. Laws against discrimination? Check. Laws against violence? Check. Laws against abusive behavior? Check.

eagle eye · 15-02-2021 08:14PM

Tell me how wrote:

Ok. Is your lack of trust in authorities your main reason for objecting to the proposed legislation? If so, can I take it you think the idea of legislation is merited, just that you don't think it will be done correctly?

No I don't think it should happen.
I don't watch news and I spend very little time on social media.
Tbh I'd love if social media sites like twitter, facebook etc. were banned.
This is where all this stuff is coming from, this is where these idiots post hate speech, this is where high tech software is used to track people and suck them in and brainwash them.
If you didn't have social media there be nowhere for hate speech to gain an audience.
And how do you stop this on social media. All a person has to do is use a good vpn and find a country where it's allowed and use an ip address from there to post it. He's breaking no law then.

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 08:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Well done. You've managed to show exactly why people are concerned with this proposed hate speech bill.

You took a posters opinion, which was pretty neutral in tone, and twisted it to mean something else entirely.

We already have laws to protect it's members. Laws against discrimination? Check. Laws against violence? Check. Laws against abusive behavior? Check.

I don't think assuming that someone Denouncing the gardai for advocating against hate speech is effectively arguing that hate speech be permissible.

But maybe that poster will come back and clarify they are against hate speech also.

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 08:19PM

eagle eye wrote: »

No I don't think it should happen.
I don't watch news and I spend very little time on social media.
Tbh I'd love if social media sites like twitter, facebook etc. were banned.
This is where all this stuff is coming from, this is where these idiots post hate speech, this is where high tech software is used to track people and suck them in and brainwash them.
If you didn't have social media there be nowhere for hate speech to gain an audience.
And how do you stop this on social media. All a person has to do is use a good vpn and find a country where it's allowed and use an ip address from there to post it. He's breaking no law then.

I think the horse of social media is long out of the stable and gone. In hindsight, if it had been set up originally so that everyone had to be publicly identifiable, there'd be less hate communicated, but, that also would have restricted a lot of the benefit that people have gotten from been able to communicate anonymously.

Covid pushed social media forward even more with even secondary school students now requiring a mobile in order to access remote learning.

BattleCorp · 15-02-2021 08:24PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I think the horse of social media is long out of the stable and gone. In hindsight, if it had been set up originally so that everyone had to be publicly identifiable, there'd be less hate communicated, but, that also would have restricted a lot of the benefit that people have gotten from been able to communicate anonymously.

I would have no problem knowing who I am in most places (this forum for instance) but I'd prefer not to have every scumbag in the country be able to see who I am when I post in the shooting forum. My house could be a target for criminals who want access to my guns.

CtevenSrowder · 15-02-2021 08:31PM

Tell me how wrote: »

We've all become accustomed to the 'Karen' phenomenon of someone appointing themselves judge and jury and attempting to get the police involved in something. That doesn't mean such events end up in a court appearance or conviction.

Do you think the Gardai, DPP, and court system are going to proceed with something if it was just a difference in opinion?

Who knows, this legislation will potentially open up that possibility.

You also have to take into account the threat of it being possible. Not everyone is prepared to potentially have to go to court.

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 08:34PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I would have no problem knowing who I am in most places (this forum for instance) but I'd prefer not to have every scumbag in the country be able to see who I am when I post in the shooting forum. My house could be a target for criminals who want access to my guns.

In 'theory' a clearing house at the outset of the internet where people would have logged their identifiable data with them in order to gain an online persona token might have prevented your issue. If someone's identity had to be found out for legal reasons it would have made such possible but I can see a hundred issues with trying to introduce such a thing now.

Can just see the headlines of how hackers 'accessed' the database and these hackers could be working for everyone from criminals, to sinister government bodies chasing people who disagree with them.

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 08:35PM

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Who knows, this legislation will potentially open up that possibility.

You also have to take into account the threat of it being possible. Not everyone is prepared to potentially have to go to court.

I think it is more likely the legislation will reduce the impact of hate speech being communicated and so, in balance, will be worthwhile.

CtevenSrowder · 15-02-2021 08:57PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I think it is more likely the legislation will reduce the impact of hate speech being communicated and so, in balance, will be worthwhile.

Ok fair enough, we will agree to disagree on this one so.

BattleCorp · 15-02-2021 09:04PM

Originally Posted by Tell me how
Do you think the Gardai, DPP, and court system are going to proceed with something if it was just a difference in opinion?

They might if badly thought-out laws are introduced allowing them to do so.

What do you think of the person being charged in relation to the tweet about Sir Tom Moore (link in post #1985)?

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 09:13PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

They might if badly thought-out laws are introduced allowing them to do so.

What do you think of the person being charged in relation to the tweet about Sir Tom Moore (link in post #1985)?

I am of the same opinion as that expressed in post #1993.

15-02-2021 09:25PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't think assuming that someone Denouncing the gardai for advocating against hate speech is effectively arguing that hate speech be permissible.
.

Which is not what you said:

"It's pretty incredible to see people advocating for the right to be hateful."

Keep twisting...

BattleCorp · 15-02-2021 09:26PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I am of the same opinion as that expressed in post #1993.

The legislation hasn't been drafted. We don't know what will be in it. It's all well and good them saying that they won't follow the UK model, but who is to say that they won't follow it........or something very close to it.

You know the way you don't trust cops because a lot of them are racist............well I don't trust Government Ministers to do a good job bringing in this legislation because a lot of them are incompetent.

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 09:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is not what you said:

"It's pretty incredible to see people advocating for the right to be hateful."

Keep twisting...

Take it whatever way you want, you're going to anyway.

Tell me how · 15-02-2021 09:29PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

The legislation hasn't been drafted. We don't know what will be in it. It's all well and good them saying that they won't follow the UK model, but who is to say that they won't follow it........or something very close to it.

You know the way you don't trust cops because a lot of them are racist............well I don't trust Government Ministers to do a good job bringing in this legislation because a lot of them are incompetent.

You're incorrect about my views on cops, but that's a debate for another thread.

Politicians are elected at least every 5 years. They are there because we put them there. If you have a better suggestion for developing legislation, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Looking at what goes on in the UK with FPTP and in the US with the extreme polarity, we're not doing too bad with being able to have a significant impact in selecting the form of government we end up with.

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Comments