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

shruikan2553 · 09-10-2013 11:03PM

Smell Badda wrote: »

Would you say it in front of a creationist?

I wouldnt ask someone if they were one and follow up with that they are an idiot but if they have the right to tell me it is true then I have the right to say I think that idea is completely stupid.

BonsaiKitten · 09-10-2013 11:04PM

Grant Thoughtless Suburb wrote: »

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!

Do you think? I think a lot of the posts referring to 'sky fairies' etc are posted purely to get at Catholics. I'm not Catholic myself but to me it always looks like baiting users.
Is the point of the law not to prevent exactly this situation happening though? (Granted I think the law is pointless, but you know what I mean). So technically does the Church bashing not fall into the same category?

_Kaiser_ · 09-10-2013 11:04PM

I missed the thread/posts in question myself but I've gotten the gist of it I think from the thread here, and the eye-catching title drew me into AH where I don't usually post much.

Essentially then this issue has arisen because the religion/religious figure "targeted" in question is to be treated differently/with more respect than say the Catholic Church, correct?

I fully understand Boards.ie's wish not to be sued or whatever and it is a privately owned site that can enforce whatever rules it like (legislation aside), but to suggest the above in a society where most the population are (justifably) very cynical and distrustful of "the Church" (any Church really) because those who follow those particular beliefs are more likely to take action than others seems a bit unbalanced for want of a better term.

Personally I have no belief or time for religion, ANY religion, but I respect the right of others to believe in whatever they want AS LONG AS they don't impose their beliefs on me - which is effectively what conceding to the issue in question is doing.

I disagree with the idea that you can't judge certain topics through modern eyes - sure it's done all the time. Look at parenting for example and how many completely acceptable practises even 30 years ago are now considered to be "wrong" or even "harmful" (the merits or otherwise of that view are another topic).

But I do understand why Boards as a company HAS to clamp down I suppose - it's more a reflection on ourselves as a "modern", "enlightened" society that it has to do so really, but I do think we've passed the tipping point in our PC/nanny state/insert similar term here need to try and please everyone and offend no-one all of the time - none of which is possible in reality!

P_1 · 09-10-2013 11:05PM

I don't know what the bigger shame is, the fact that that idiotic law is in place, the fact that somebody felt the need to make a legal threat or the fact that some people here felt the need to push the envelope so far.

Nodin · 09-10-2013 11:05PM

BonsaiKitten wrote: »

Do you think? I think a lot of the posts referring to 'sky fairies' etc are posted purely to get at Catholics. I'm not Catholic myself but to me it always looks like baiting users.
Is the point of the law not to prevent exactly this situation happening though? (Granted I think the law is pointless, but you know what I mean). So technically does the Church bashing not fall into the same category?

I'll go out on a limb and say that sky fairies are not mentioned in the teachings of the catholic church.

NuckingFacker · 09-10-2013 11:06PM

just as well yer mans "not" been banned for a week eh.

Rayne Wooney · 09-10-2013 11:06PM

So if 3 men knock at my door, 3 is a group I presume, and start to tell me that I need to accept the body of Christ in church and yada yada, which has happened before, and I say that's a load of nonsense.. Blasphemy?

BonsaiKitten · 09-10-2013 11:06PM

Nodin wrote: »

I'll go out on a limb and say that sky fairies are not mentioned in the teachings of the catholic church.

We all know what sky fairies mean when they are referred to in threads here though.

Nodin · 09-10-2013 11:07PM

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

So if 3 men knock at my door, 3 is a group I presume, and start to tell me that I need to accept the body of Christ in church and yada yada, which has happened before, and I say that's a load of nonsense.. Blasphemy?

Nobody knows, because nobody has been prosecuted. Its apparently not prosecutable, because its all too vague.

dxhound2005 · 09-10-2013 11:08PM

My name is URL wrote: »

That's fair enough, but I can't help but wonder to what extent Boards are willing to apply that standard.

I honestly don't mean to be argumentative over this, but people do that all the time regardless of what race, creed or ethnicity the subject of discussion happens to be.

Is it only going to be a problem if it's reported to you guys in an official and opaque way? What about reported posts and on-thread accusations of such implications?

I'm only asking because of the seemingly official and final manner of your warning.

I would be better in an official and clear/transparent way.

Nodin · 09-10-2013 11:08PM

BonsaiKitten wrote: »

We all know what sky fairies mean when they are referred to in threads here though.

Yes, "religious stuff". It's nice and non-specific.

meemeemee · 09-10-2013 11:09PM

To be fair, there had been a warning.

Ace Attorney · 09-10-2013 11:09PM

Nodin wrote: »

Nobody knows, because nobody has been prosecuted. Its apparently not prosecutable, because its all too vague.

Only if mohammed is involved it seems, because dav got an email

BonsaiKitten · 09-10-2013 11:10PM

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, "religious stuff". It's nice and non-specific.

Much like the law itself then. Generally it is used to describe the God of one particular religion though, yes?

I don't personally care, I'm just curious as to whether boards has ever been challenged about something like the A&A forum due to the blasphemy law.

Gatling · 09-10-2013 11:10PM

Wonder if the person/s who made the threat /complaint could come on an explain the need to make such a complaint / threat

PLUG71 · 09-10-2013 11:11PM

So just to clarify, is Islam a taboo subject on Boards.ie?

we'llallhavetea · 09-10-2013 11:11PM

but who emailed, that's what I wanna know? the Garda?!? or a friend of muhammad?!

Fr_Dougal · 09-10-2013 11:11PM

Bow before me, peasants. :P

P_1 · 09-10-2013 11:11PM

Nodin wrote: »

Nobody knows, because nobody has been prosecuted. Its apparently not prosecutable, because its all too vague.

That wouldn't necessarily deter somebody from trying to take out a case against a site or a person (which is what I'm presuming happened) when they find occasion to grind their axe. Totally understandable to nuke the thread in this case just as a precaution.

Nodin · 09-10-2013 11:11PM

BonsaiKitten wrote: »

Much like the law itself then. Generally it is used to describe the God of one particular religion though, yes?.

...not really. Quite a few share the same one, not that you'd know it the way they go on.....

wes · 09-10-2013 11:13PM

Well, I guess if boards fear legal ramifications, I can understand there position. Its rather unfortunate that things have come to this, due to our rather silly blasphemy law, which while vague and what not has nonetheless had a chilling effect on discussion.

PLUG71 · 09-10-2013 11:13PM

Gatling wrote: »

Wonder if the person/s who made the threat /complaint could come on an explain the need to make such a complaint / threat

Betting they wont!
The thread didn't go their way the rest is history.

09-10-2013 11:13PM

P_1 wrote: »

That wouldn't necessarily deter somebody from trying to take out a case against a site or a person (which is what I'm presuming happened) when they find occasion to grind their axe. Totally understandable to nuke the thread in this case just as a precaution.

If they're going down that path then they'll need some more fulltime staff. There's plenty of posts that they would get the arse sued off them for if anyone cared. Showing this kind of weakness could draw some attention from people the site wouldn't want attention from.

Nodin · 09-10-2013 11:13PM

P_1 wrote: »

That wouldn't necessarily deter somebody from trying to take out a case against a site or a person (which is what I'm presuming happened) when they find occasion to grind their axe. Totally understandable to nuke the thread in this case just as a precaution.

..not particularily. There were two to three posts that were deemed transgressive. The removal of the thread was a bit of "I AM THE LAW" territory marking, which you can gather by the tone of the OP.

Cody Pomeray · 09-10-2013 11:13PM

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.

2 points.

1. The formulation makes a criminal prosecution of blasphemy difficult to succeed, but hardly "near impossible". I think someone, somewhere, must have gone on television and said that the crime of blasphemy is un-punishable, and it has become part of the common wisdom that it is so. It is not so.

2. Blasphemy has been around, unimpeded, in the Irish legal system, since 1703 at its earliest recording. All that was abolished in 1999 was the criminal offence; there always remained a remedy through civil action, and so I am a little bit bewildered about the sudden panic that emerged in 2009, when blasphemy was 'merely' re-instituted in the criminal code. Sites like boards.ie always had to be aware of the dangers of an action in blasphemy, regardless of the 2009 act.

And finally, as a word of reassurance (I hope) to the site owners.

There has never been a successful civil suit against a blasphemous act in the legal history of Ireland. Ever.

The last criminal prosecution for blasphemy occurred in 1855, in Dún Laoghaire. The blasphemer was a Redemptorist Priest who invited his parishoners to light a bonfire in the chapel yard, made entirely of smutty books and other "evil" works.

Little did our redemptorist father know, that lurking among images of scantily clad ladies was The Good Book itself.

And on that note, one more point of reassurance to the site's owners.

The only profession that has ever been prosecuted for blasphemy in Ireland has been the clergy - 2 catholic priests and a protestant missionary.

So the law, in its wording, may appear a threat, but everyone should be realistic (not flippant) about the dangers, and at least take comfort in the fact that the statistics are on your side.

bnt · 09-10-2013 11:13PM

PLUG71 wrote: »

So just to clarify, is Islam a taboo subject on Boards.ie?

Yes, because the risks of insulting Islam don't stop at the merely legal, they can be a bit more ... direct, shall we say?

BonsaiKitten · 09-10-2013 11:14PM

Nodin wrote: »

...not really. Quite a few share the same one, not that you'd know it the way they go on.....

The religions themselves, yes I'm aware they do. It crops up more often with Catholic threads though.

I feel for boards on this one, it makes sense that they want to protect themselves.

SweepTheLeg · 09-10-2013 11:14PM

Gatling wrote: »

Wonder if the person/s who made the threat /complaint could come on an explain the need to make such a complaint / threat

Because they are so insecure about their beliefs, they have to make a big fuss when someone slags their God/Prophet.

If I was religious I wouldn't care what anyone said, I'd know I'll be having the last laugh in heaven why they burn in hell

My name is URL · 09-10-2013 11:14PM

PLUG71 wrote: »

So just to clarify, is Islam a taboo subject on Boards.ie?

It's a Shi'ite situation to be in, but look on the Sunni side.. Christians are still fair game.

Nodin · 09-10-2013 11:15PM

aya startin wha wrote: »

but who emailed, that's what I wanna know? the Garda?!? or a friend of muhammad?!

....where are we getting the notion there was an e-mail from? I see only two posts by the OP, and don't see e-mail referred to in either.

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

Comments