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

Femme_Fatale · 09-10-2013 11:16PM

aya startin wha wrote: »

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

Yeh if it has to be enforced, there isn't a choice and it doesn't mean Boards agrees with it - but I can't imagine it being easy to enforce consistently.

That crazy thread last night which got closed today had that kind of stuff on it too, but this thread only seems to be about the other one.

BonsaiKitten · 09-10-2013 11:16PM

Nodin wrote: »

....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.

Dav wrote: »

Both of these *ARE* the law of this land and as a business that has its offices in the Republic of Ireland, Boards.ie Ltd is bound by these and every other law in the Irish statue. I as an employee of Boards.ie Ltd have an obligation to act in the company's best interests and keep us on the side of the law. Being compliant with this law is not up for discussion. When the company is officially notified about something that is in breach of the law (as we were by an email earlier today), we have to act or we become responsible for it and we are not going to court for your ignorance (I'm speaking directly to you valknut).

Very first post in the thread. (edited down a lot though!)

Wibbs · 09-10-2013 11:16PM

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?

Exactly. "Blasphemy" against the Catholic church is near a given on Boards.ie. Christianity in general is a whipping boy. Belief and Theists are also in the firing line on a regular basis and one could easily invoke "incitement to hatred"(or smug finger pointing laughter anyway). So are some belief systems now out of bounds? Which ones? Clarity would be nice. I'm not talking of obvious one tracked mind troll types, I'm talking generally. EG I and others even broadly versed in the subject could point out that one view or another held by some theists is solidly based in their source material and should be questioned and in some cases vilified. Is that going to fall foul of this "blasphemy" law? Like I said the Atheism & Agnosticism forum is a hotbed of such things. Hell the Christianity forum is gonna have stuff that might have the Islam forum asking WTF and vice versa. If were gonna stand by and say it's alright to cut bits off the mickies and fannies of children and marry off children to grown adults, but we can't discuss these things then I don't know WTF is going on.

TL;DR the law in this land is an ass. Sadly it seems we have to kowtow to it on the basis of ambulance chasing threats, but it's a fcuking sad day when we do and IMH a shark jumped for this country and this community.

who the fug · 09-10-2013 11:17PM

SweepTheLeg wrote: »

My God can beat up your God!

so god beating on himself, is that masturbation or S& M

WoollyRedHat · 09-10-2013 11:18PM

I said this in another thread on another topic, but the same applies here. A sign of laws that are not fit for purpose, a justice system that is not fit for purpose...

And to think some people fought and died to achieve a republic. The nerve of our leaders before and since to call it a Republic. Nothing seems to change, the people's interests are never truly served.

ETA: I can only guess that communication was served by someone representing the government, or am I wrong. Another issue, as laws like the blasphemy legilslation can be used as a stick to beat the forum with, as I can't imagine any political party likes forums such as boards.

Ace Attorney · 09-10-2013 11:18PM

Nodin wrote: »

....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.

he says it here

When the company is officially notified about something that is in breach of the law (as we were by an email earlier today), we have to act or we become responsible for it and we are not going to court for your ignorance (I'm speaking directly to you valknut

deco nate · 09-10-2013 11:20PM

The way I read it is.. Any post's that intend to/or are precede to incite hatred to any race or culture will not be tolerated. And rightly so!

_Kaiser_ · 09-10-2013 11:22PM

deco nate wrote: »

The way I read it is.. Any post's that intend to/or are precede to incite hatred to any race or culture will not be tolerated. And rightly so!

Yes, except it seems that some races/beliefs/cultures are more equal than others.. which again I don't blame Boards for, rather ourselves as a society that we've collectively accepted that idea.

09-10-2013 11:22PM

Thatdoesnt looksafe tome AHHHHHHH wrote: »

he says it here

So if I send an email saying that something has broken the law then that's that? I've seen people all over boards being called liars and then showing they were accurate, is that not defamation?

PLUG71 · 09-10-2013 11:22PM

deco nate wrote: »

The way I read it is.. Any post's that intend to/or are precede to incite hatred to any race or culture will not be tolerated. And rightly so!

So why was the whole thread deleted?

Cody Pomeray · 09-10-2013 11:22PM

Wibbs wrote: »

EG I and others even broadly versed in the subject could point out that one view or another held by some theists is solidly based in their source material and should be questioned and in some cases vilified. Is that going to fall foul of this "blasphemy" law?

Possibly, but only if there is a deliberate intention to offend, and the deliberate intention succeeds amongst a "substantial number" of adherents.

It isn't enough to vilify. The vilificaction must 'work' quite spectacularly, and outrage must have been a clear objective of the vilifier.

One person getting offended at a bona fide atheism thread won't cut it.

Seachmall · 09-10-2013 11:22PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

but I can't imagine it being easy to enforce consistently.

As far as I'm aware they're only responsible once they fail to act after it has been brought to their attention.

The law doesn't expect every post to be vetted, but once someone has pointed out that a post is in violation of the law they have a certain amount of time to rectify the situation.

This is to protect sites like Boards.ie (and Facebook, and Twitter, and so on) from being held accountable by rogue users. It wouldn't be fair to charge the Boards.ie heads for distributing CP because one user decided to upload CP to their servers.

dxhound2005 · 09-10-2013 11:22PM

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I said this in another thread on another topic, but the same applies here. A sign of laws that are not fit for purpose, a justice system that is not fit for purpose...

And to think some people fought and died to achieve a republic. The nerve of our leaders before and since to call it a Republic. Nothing seems to change, the people's interests are never truly served.

The ones who followed on from the ones who fought and died weren't in any hurry to make us a Republic seeing it didn't happen until 1949.

tim3000 · 09-10-2013 11:22PM

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Is it blasphemous to insult Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Is that not how he is worshipped :pac:

The Big Smoke · 09-10-2013 11:23PM

Maybe the entire staff could move to a more tolerant country living in the 21st century. Can't sue you if you're in Mexico homes.

Nodin · 09-10-2013 11:23PM

BonsaiKitten wrote: »

Very first post in the thread. (edited down a lot though!)

Fair enough, though to be legalistic about it, he doesn't specifically say that e-mail refers to the thread in question and secondly any eejit can send in an e-mail.

homemadecider · 09-10-2013 11:23PM

Can we have some clarification on what is/ isn't allowed? So we can't say Muhammed was a paedophile but is it allowed to say Muhammed married a child? It is factually correct AFAIK.

Degringola · 09-10-2013 11:24PM

If there were no blasphemy law, I still think there would still be ambulance-chasing threats due to particular sensitivities. Merely stating facts is increasingly becoming a revolutionary act throughout Europe.

I did not see the EDL thread so cannot comment on that.

Son Of A Vidic · 09-10-2013 11:24PM

PLUG71 wrote: »

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

I wish it was, because it certainly would flush out the few regular, hateful bigots who can't seem to leave it alone in this forum. I'd rather see religion based threads confined to their relevant forum.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 09-10-2013 11:24PM

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 do know there are a few who will just troll and try and get a rise out of some of the more hardcore religious types. They are usually dealt with swiftly. Then there's the guys who maybe put their toes over the line every now and then and get away with it. They may well be doing it just to piss people off but it's not enough.
The blasphemy law in its current form evokes the thought of mobs of catholics/prods/muslims/whatever in the street protesting over something, like what happened in Denmark a few years ago (time flies!). A few people whining about it on boards is probably not enough to qualify as a 'substantive' amount of people. Especially as no one can tell if they are genuine or not anyway.

Pointing out flaws in a religious organisation or its beliefs isn't blasphemy. It would have to be a really serious set of comments for a prosecution to be brought. Comments mightn't even be enough, but it shouldn't be ruled out.

deco nate · 09-10-2013 11:24PM

PLUG71 wrote: »

So why was the whole thread deleted?

To stop a cluster ****?

Nodin · 09-10-2013 11:26PM

deco nate wrote: »

To stop a cluster ****?

....that's what the lock is for.

Ace Attorney · 09-10-2013 11:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So if I send an email saying that something has broken the law then that's that? I've seen people all over boards being called liars and then showing they were accurate, is that not defamation?

In fairness i can see where Dav is coming from he doesnt want any unnecessary hassle/legal action. In answer to your question sher send an email about defamation and find out :pac:

WoollyRedHat · 09-10-2013 11:27PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The ones who followed on from the ones who fought and died weren't in any hurry to make us a Republic seeing it didn't happen until 1949.

It was a waste of time and was contrary to the truth.

Howard Juneau · 09-10-2013 11:27PM

So if I post an image of Jesus on the cross, boards is ok with that. If I post an image of Muhammad, boards awaits threatening emails?

hansfrei · 09-10-2013 11:27PM

My name is URL wrote: »

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

And they are is true.

Site onwner steps in to help muslinns. Catliks getting bashed is still cool and the gang.

BonsaiKitten · 09-10-2013 11:27PM

Grant Thoughtless Suburb wrote: »

I do know there are a few who will just troll and try and get a rise out of some of the more hardcore religious types. They are usually dealt with swiftly. Then there's the guys who maybe put their toes over the line every now and then and get away with it. They may well be doing it just to piss people off but it's not enough.
The blasphemy law in its current form evokes the thought of mobs of catholics/prods/muslims/whatever in the street protesting over something, like what happened in Denmark a few years ago (time flies!). A few people whining about it on boards is probably not enough to qualify as a 'substantive' amount of people. Especially as no one can tell if they are genuine or not anyway.

Pointing out flaws in a religious organisation or its beliefs isn't blasphemy. It would have to be a really serious set of comments for a prosecution to be brought. Comments mightn't even be enough, but it shouldn't be ruled out.

Genuine or not, it's still being hosted by boards and could come back to bite them in the ass.
A few people posting about Mohammad on boards was enough to get that thread shut down though.
Let's be honest here, I don't like the law and I can't really imagine a case being taken. But I would like some clarification around what is and isn't ok to say, is it just one religion we are running scared of or do the rules apply to all?

deco nate · 09-10-2013 11:28PM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Yes, except it seems that some races/beliefs/cultures are more equal than others.. which again I don't blame Boards for, rather ourselves as a society that we've collectively accepted that idea.

I agree. But some like to sue.

BonsaiKitten · 09-10-2013 11:28PM

Nodin wrote: »

Fair enough, though to be legalistic about it, he doesn't specifically say that e-mail refers to the thread in question and secondly any eejit can send in an e-mail.

That they can. But I wouldn't blame boards for wanting to protect themselves as much as possible.
And in fairness Nodin you know that email was referring to the thread, otherwise why the big clampdown?

Howard Juneau · 09-10-2013 11:30PM

Is it any wonder right minded people have turned away from religion & treat it with the disdain it deserves