Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

When I say that I won't allow any more illegal posts, I mean it.

13567…14

Comments

  • #62
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    losthorizon wrote: »
    Its a pity about the tone of the debates as well. Attack the post not the poster should be enforced. On the thread that was taken down one poster called another a Nazi - no need for that kind of stuff.

    It's the internet. Godwin's Law states that the longer a discussion continues, the more likely a comparison to Hitler becomes.
    Hatrick's Law (which I wrote last year) is specific to AH and it also states that the further up you go in page number, the more likely posts are to (a) bear absolutely no resemblance to the thread title or the OP, and (b) contain varying levels of infighting between the posters in the thread. This continues until lim h -> 0, whereupon the thread is locked or deleted. :pac:


  • #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,656 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If you say something that Westboro Baptist Church members find 'grossly insulting' or causes them outrage, does that count as blasphemy?


  • #64
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    So if I / we slag off the next set of Star Wars movies ,
    Disney and the Church of JEDI could sue and get me /us (AH were in this together ) charged with blasphemy
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #65
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Perhaps its not really about blasphemy but about blasphemous remarks aimed at one particular religion which tends towards the extreme end of things when dealing with blasphemy. << >>


  • #66
    ldxo15wus6fpgm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭ldxo15wus6fpgm


    Nodin wrote: »

    As the law is designed to be unprosecutable, I fail to see why theres a fear of prosecution.

    There's a fear because in law, nothing is certain.
    Dav and Boards Ltd. don't know whether or not someone in the DPP is going to make a seriously stupid/insane move and actually go for a prosecution on something like this.
    They don't know if, if it ever managed to get to court, the judge in that prosecution could make another profoundly stupid move and convict.

    I don't think the law is 'unprosecutable', it's just badly written and this makes it hard to pin any certainty on anything - like what exactly constitutes 'outrage' or 'a substantive number'.
    All it would take is a supreme court judgement giving a few definitions and we'd have a fully functioning law here.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    PLUG71
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 640 ✭✭✭PLUG71


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I totally get why this may be a legal issue for ye D, especially with something as mindlessly eye swivelingly dumb as our blasphemy law. I mean WTF was going through what passes for the brains of our lawmakers with that one? A Sherlock moment? A bad hangover from the Dail bar? Fcuking retarded(in the historical sense of the word) ain't in it. Even the much maligned Inquisition wasn't so all encompassing...

    Annnyway...
    One could argue that one can and indeed should look at historical mores, when such historical(and frankly daft) mores are considered applicable today by some people in some cultures. Yes a minority, thank god/fates/science[delete as is your wont], but when child brides are being married off this very day among a subset of a culture then not talking about it is the real crime. Indeed folks in the wider culture concerned do talk about it and consider it daft and something to be stamped out as wanton primitivism.

    Can we not discuss and berate FGM? Cos that's a cultural/religious practice too. Hell there was a thread on routine neonatal male circumcision recently and that had a majority saying GTFO with good scientific and moral arguments to back that up. Does this mean "blasphemy" to Jews and Muslims too?

    Don't get me wrong D, I know ye're caught between a rock and a hard place legally speaking and god I soooo wish I was a billionaire so I could give you a big enough fcuk off legal warchest so you could tell those who would seek to stifle genuine discussion by pointing at daft laws, but sadly I'm not. :(

    You are spot on in my opinion.
    I was part of the removed thread and certain posters were playing the racist card from the off!


  • #68
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    By the by, you may have to shut down the Atheism & Agnosticism forum, especially the The Funny Side of Religion and the The Hazards of Belief and the Ongoing religious scandals and all the stickies therein. Never mind the other threads. I may not agree with some of them, I may disagree with many of them, but dammit I agree that they should be there and should be defended. That goes the same for the other Spiritual forums.

    Fcuk this, for a change I'm doing the euromillions this week and if ever my numbers come up I swear ye'll not have to have this kinda thread ever again.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #69
    meemeemee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 213 ✭✭meemeemee


    The thread was about the announcement of Tommy Robinson (or whoever) announcing that he was leaving "The EDL", whoever, or whatever it actually is (because to me it has always looked to be a load of blokes on Facebook, rather than something you get a membership card and a pencil case and some felt tips for but I digress.)

    The offending post named a particular historical figure and drew attention to the fact that chap in question, allegedly, married a 6 year old, and, then allegedly, whatever. You know the rest.

    However, the post also referred to this activity in a term which some people would not like it to be referred to. And it was not constructive.

    In view of the law, regardless of how ridiculous it is, and how much of an ass it is, that is the way it is.


  • #70
    Lando Griffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,952 ✭✭✭Lando Griffin


    Rayne Wooney wrote: »
    Is it blasphemous to insult Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    You would need more than one person to beleive Flying Spagetti Monstor was a supreme being; otherwise its just an idea.Once two or more oeople believe then you have a following hence religion then you have one questioning your belief. Now that you are not alone in your belief you can argue against other persons beliefs and practices ridiculing them but taking offence to ridiculing.
    If that what Flying Spagetti Monster has taught us then I too am a follower.


  • #71
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,424 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity, irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.[1][2][3]
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

    The constitutional definition of blasphemy in Ireland is a bit different to the dictionary definitions.

    Read the quote I posted a few in the previosu page, post #31.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    BonsaiKitten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭BonsaiKitten


    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    It would seem that its asking too much for people to live their own lives in this world.

    So then by this logic, shouldn't all the Catholic church bashing threads in AH be clamped down on in the future? Genuine question.


  • #73
    meemeemee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 213 ✭✭meemeemee


    The thread was about the announcement of Tommy Robinson (or whoever) announcing that he was leaving "The EDL", whoever, or whatever it actually is (because to me it has always looked to be a load of blokes on Facebook, rather than something you get a membership card and a pencil case and some felt tips for but I digress.)

    The offending post named a particular historical figure and drew attention to the fact that chap in question, allegedly, married a 6 year old, and, then allegedly, whatever. You know the rest.

    However, the post also referred to this activity in a term which some people would not like it to be referred to. And it was not constructive.

    In view of the law, regardless of how ridiculous it is, and how much of an ass it is, that is the way it is.


  • #74
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If you say something that Westboro Baptist Church members find 'grossly insulting' or causes them outrage, does that count as blasphemy?

    The Westboro Baptist Church don't find anything insulting, it's becoming very obvious that they are dedicated trolls who are in it for the lulz and don't actually take their own alleged philosophy seriously :p


  • #75
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    I'm scared. The apocalypse, s'happenin.


  • #76
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    http://images4.fanpop.com/image/polls/576000/576933_1289424902274_full.jpg


  • #77
    Days 298
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭Days 298


    Free speech or no speech :(

    Why couldn't our constitution have just copied the US 1st amendment.


  • #78
    ldxo15wus6fpgm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭ldxo15wus6fpgm


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Im not legal expert but judging by the wording of it, it is near impossible to enforce the blasphemy law due to having to prove that the persons aim was to cause outrage.

    For example, I find the idea that a magical being just popped humans out of thin air to be stupid.

    While a creationist might take offence, my comment wasn't created to cause outrage but to express an opinion.

    It would be quite obvious in most cases if someone intended to offend someone else - saying what you said wouldn't be enough anyway. It would have to be something pretty severe, I obviously cannot give an example! :pac:


  • #79
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    http://images4.fanpop.com/image/polls/576000/576933_1289424902274_full.jpg

    I'm genuinely scared to click any images posted in this thread :D


  • #80
    BonsaiKitten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭BonsaiKitten


    Days 298 wrote: »
    Free speech or no speech :(

    Why couldn't our constitution have just copied the US 1st amendment.

    I never get this thing I see on boards about free speech either. It's a privately owned website, there is no free speech on it, they can set their own rules.

    ...I do get what you mean though, I'm just wandering off on a bit of a tangent :P


  • #81
    Rayne Wooney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,134 ✭✭✭✭Rayne Wooney


    Lando Griffin wrote: »
    You would need more than one person to beleive Flying Spagetti Monstor was a supreme being; otherwise its just an idea.Once two or more oeople believe then you have a following hence religion then you have one questioning your belief. Now that you are not alone in your belief you can argue against other persons beliefs and practices ridiculing them but taking offence to ridiculing.
    If that what Flying Spagetti Monster has taught us then I too am a follower.

    There is a large amount of Pastafarians though.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Days 298 wrote: »
    Free speech or no speech :(

    Why couldn't our constitution have just copied the US 1st amendment.


    ...because it was written by a bollix.


  • #83
    SweepTheLeg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 712 ✭✭✭SweepTheLeg


    Smell Badda wrote: »
    Would you say it in front of a creationist?

    Why wouldn't i? I have every right to share my beliefs as they do. If it offends them it's their problem not mine.


  • #84
    ldxo15wus6fpgm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭ldxo15wus6fpgm


    BonsaiKitten wrote: »
    So then by this logic, shouldn't all the Catholic church bashing threads in AH be clamped down on in the future? Genuine question.
    Probably not, seeing as most people would not be saying things with the specific intent to offend practising catholics. There might be the odd few but the average mod will cut that stuff out pretty quickly anyway because there's almost always personal insults involved!
    narddog wrote: »
    Get over yourself you pompous ****.
    See you in a week mate!!


  • #85
    who the fug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,042 ✭✭✭who the fug


    Rayne Wooney wrote: »
    There is a large amount of Pastafarians though.

    bet they get eaten alive in a south west monsoon


  • #86
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Wibbs wrote: »
    By the by, you may have to shut down the Atheism & Agnosticism forum, especially the The Funny Side of Religion and the The Hazards of Belief and the Ongoing religious scandals and all the stickies therein. Never mind the other threads. I may not agree with some of them, I may disagree with many of them, but dammit I agree that they should be there and should be defended. That goes the same for the other Spiritual forums.

    Fcuk this, for a change I'm doing the euromillions this week and if ever my numbers come up I swear ye'll not have to have this kinda thread ever again.

    Those Fora are way to serious and philosophical to be taken seriously by the "substantial numbers"quoted in the blasphemy law...


  • #87
    Days 298
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭Days 298


    BonsaiKitten wrote: »
    I never get this thing I see on boards about free speech either. It's a privately owned website, there is no free speech on it, they can set their own rules.

    ...I do get what you mean though, I'm just wandering off on a bit of a tangent :P
    I know that but the thread is talking about "illegal" blasphemy which wouldn't be illegal elsewhere. I've no problem with a private site having its own rules (your house your rules etc.) but the government has no business curtailing expression of everyone.


  • #88
    who the fug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,042 ✭✭✭who the fug


    anyway never understood why an all powerful god needs man made laws to protect him/her


  • #89
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Armelodie wrote: »
    Those Fora are way to serious and philosophical to be taken seriously by the "substantial numbers"quoted in the blasphemy law...
    I would truly hope so A.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #90
    BonsaiKitten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭BonsaiKitten


    Days 298 wrote: »
    I know that but the thread is talking about "illegal" blasphemy which wouldn't be illegal elsewhere. I've no problem with a private site having its own rules (your house your rules etc.) but the government has no business curtailing expression of everyone.

    I know, I agree. It's a ridiculous law. :) I was off on a tangent, like I said.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    SweepTheLeg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 712 ✭✭✭SweepTheLeg


    who the fug wrote: »
    anyway never understood why an all powerful god needs man made laws to protect him/her

    My God can beat up your God!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement