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.

1…34689…14

Comments

  • #152
    tosspot15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭tosspot15


    What a load of nonsense. Muhammad and all the other religions can **** over each other for all I care. Ban me if you want, blashphemy law my nuts. Sue me.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/ - NSFW


  • #153
    PLUG71
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 640 ✭✭✭PLUG71


    BonsaiKitten wrote: »
    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?
    Well said, clarification is defo needed here.


  • #154
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Christianity in general is a whipping boy.
    Christianity might be less of a whipping boy if the religion were less obsessed about its own alleged persecution.


  • #155
    Clandestine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Clandestine


    Should have been called the "no hurt feelings" law instead.


  • #156
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    BonsaiKitten wrote: »
    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?


    Why? Post 43 should give you a notion as to my thoughts on the matter.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057057845&page=3


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    ldxo15wus6fpgm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭ldxo15wus6fpgm


    BonsaiKitten wrote: »
    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?

    Indeed it could, and I suppose until then there won't be a crackdown on it. But in this case it actually did come back to them, and that seems to be one of the main reasons for this thread. Loads of christianity bashing does go on but I suppose nobody has taken it seriously enough to send a solicitor's letter/email etc. in to Boards.

    While I'm sure the rules apply to all, in reality we will probably see stricter enforcement in threads dealing with the specific religion that sparked this off.


  • #158
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    PLUG71 wrote: »
    Well said, clarification is defo needed here.

    None needed your just not allowed to question the practice/worship of a certain religion.. all others seem fair game.


  • #159
    BonsaiKitten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭BonsaiKitten


    Nodin wrote: »
    Why? Post 43 should give you a notion as to my thoughts on the matter.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057057845&page=3

    I really doubt Dav was in the mood to clock in, delete the thread, write up that post and create a mini shítstorm for himself. Personal preference is one thing but if boards need to lock something down to protect themselves, so be it, I may not agree with it but I don't own the site.


  • #160
    PLUG71
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 640 ✭✭✭PLUG71


    Grant Thoughtless Suburb wrote: »
    Indeed it could, and I suppose until then there won't be a crackdown on it. But in this case it actually did come back to them, and that seems to be one of the main reasons for this thread. Loads of christianity bashing does go on but I suppose nobody has taken it seriously enough to send a solicitor's letter/email etc. in to Boards.

    While I'm sure the rules apply to all, in reality we will probably see stricter enforcement in threads dealing with the specific religion that sparked this off.
    Why should said religion be treated different to every other?
    Maybe because its more in the spot light than others!


  • #161
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    Grant Thoughtless Suburb wrote: »
    Indeed it could, and I suppose until then there won't be a crackdown on it. But in this case it actually did come back to them, and that seems to be one of the main reasons for this thread. Loads of christianity bashing does go on but I suppose nobody has taken it seriously enough to send a solicitor's letter/email etc. in to Boards.

    While I'm sure the rules apply to all, in reality we will probably see stricter enforcement in threads dealing with the specific religion that sparked this off.

    Well, it should be the same rule for all religious threads. If you can have a certain discussion on one thread, but can't have the same discussion on another thread... Then you have a problem.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    The blasphemy law is incredibly stupid, and if we're required by law to have such a law on the books then let's have a referendum to remove that requirement asap.

    Some of the posts regarding Arabs and Islam in recent days have been gratuitously offensive though. Only a small number of posters who are responsible for that, and I certainly don't blame the AH mods who have a huge volume of posts to deal with and a difficult task in distinguishing between valid criticism and borderline bigotry. Should the blasphemy law exist? Absolutely not, and if someone threatened Boards with it, then that's shameful. Acting like dicks towards people of a different culture or religion isn't cool either though, nor does it strike a blow for freedom of speech.


  • #163
    BonsaiKitten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭BonsaiKitten


    Grant Thoughtless Suburb wrote: »
    Indeed it could, and I suppose until then there won't be a crackdown on it. But in this case it actually did come back to them, and that seems to be one of the main reasons for this thread. Loads of christianity bashing does go on but I suppose nobody has taken it seriously enough to send a solicitor's letter/email etc. in to Boards.

    While I'm sure the rules apply to all, in reality we will probably see stricter enforcement in threads dealing with the specific religion that sparked this off.

    Mmm this would be my take on it as well. The same rules should apply to all but reality doesn't always work that way... But I'll wait and see what happens in the morning when the staff are back at work I suppose.


  • #164
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    I think more clarification is needed as a result of this threat of legal action. Does it potentially shut down any potential and constructive debates on religion(s)? Or just throwaway comments?


  • #165
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    How many Gods are there in the different religions that exist throughout the world? I want to try and insult all of them. Even make up some of my own and insult them too.


  • #166
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    Well, it should be the same rule for all religious threads. If you can have a certain discussion on one thread, but can't have the same discussion on another thread... Then you have a problem.

    That problem will continue to exist as long as the blasphemy law is on the statute books though. It's a bad law and it would be impossible for Boards to apply in a truly consistent fashion.


  • #167
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    The blasphemy law is incredibly stupid, and if we're required by law to have such a law on the books then let's have a referendum to remove that requirement asap.

    Some of the posts regarding Arabs and Islam in recent days have been gratuitously offensive though. Only a small number of posters who are responsible for that, and I certainly don't blame the AH mods who have a huge volume of posts to deal with and a difficult task in distinguishing between valid criticism and borderline bigotry. Should the blasphemy law exist? Absolutely not, and if someone threatened Boards with it, then that's shameful. Acting like dicks towards people of a different culture or religion isn't cool either though, nor does it strike a blow for freedom of speech.

    Perhaps boards should have not pandered to the keyboard warrior style threats?
    Has there ever been a lock & a heartfelt plea from a boards employee about a catholic bashing thread?


  • #168
    ldxo15wus6fpgm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭ldxo15wus6fpgm


    PLUG71 wrote: »
    Why should said religion be treated different to every other?
    Maybe because its more in the spot light than others!

    It shouldn't really, but the mods only have so much time/resources and they are likely to attack the problem in front of them rather than the one down the road. Someone has sent what we can presume is a legal threat over a thread mentioning Islam. There's no mention of anyone sending in legal threats over comments made about christianity/judaism/FSM.
    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    Well, it should be the same rule for all religious threads. If you can have a certain discussion on one thread, but can't have the same discussion on another thread... Then you have a problem.

    It certainly should, you're dead right, but that's unlikely to happen, because the legal threat over comments made about Islam is immediate, while there's apparently no threat due to comments about other religions.


  • #169
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    That problem will continue to exist as long as the blasphemy law is on the statute books though. It's a bad law and it would be impossible for Boards to apply in a truly consistent fashion.

    No, unfortunately boards has this evening set a dangerous precedent for themselves.
    They have bowed to a little external pressure & now the floodgates can open


  • #170
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    I am baffled though why religions who all preach tolerance and so on don't just ignore others opinions. if there hateful/illegal then yes i understand but general remarks i think should not be used to incite blasphemy laws that in this day and age dont make sence.


  • #171
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    Perhaps boards should have not pandered to the keyboard warrior style threats?
    Has there ever been a lock & a heartfelt plea from a boards employee about a catholic bashing thread?

    You do realize a lot of the threats boards receives most definitely aren't keyboard warrior style?


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    You do realize a lot of the threats boards receives most definitely aren't keyboard warrior style?

    Youve never seen the Prison thread have you


  • #173
    bizmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,895 ✭✭✭bizmark


    Surely making something taboo only encourages peoples distrust and perhaps hatred for it specially when that subject is already the point of a massive amount of negative press and fear ?

    this is a deeply stupid and hypocritical decision how many other things will now be "reported" ? how many more threads and topics will you now clamp down on ? i cant believe we are this kind of society already and i cant believe boards is contributing to its own irrelevance as a discusion forum


  • #174
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    Youve never seen the Prison thread have you

    Which thread are you referring to?


  • #175
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 29,965 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Maybe the solution is to ban religion from Boards entirely.

    That's not a throw-away comment, but it's one of the very few topics that everyone has an opinion on, and where it is impossible to please or not offend SOMEONE whenever it's discussed.

    Personally I think to take this action would not only be a blow to "free speech" (which we are reminded doesn't actually exist here, which as a privately owned and operated site is fair enough), but also to the notion of "equality" that actions like what have been taken here are supposed to protect/promote.

    If the idea is truly to protect everyone's right to believe in whoever or whatever they want, it seems the only true fair/equal option under the circumstances.

    The alternative would be for each group to accept that not everyone has to, or will agree with their particular viewpoint, but alas as this issue has proved, we're not there yet no matter how "enlightened" as a society we might like to think ourselves to be.


  • #176
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    Youve never seen the Prison thread have you

    Solicitors, as a general rule, don't put their threats up in Prison.


  • #177
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    I'm presuming that Boards has a legal representative & that there will be a consultation tomorrow?


  • #178
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,244 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    Perhaps boards should have not pandered to the keyboard warrior style threats?
    Has there ever been a lock & a heartfelt plea from a boards employee about a catholic bashing thread?
    The problem there is that paedophile priests do not (in theory) represent Catholicism, so bashing them might not be seen as an attack on Catholicism in general. Islam, on the other hand ... <redacted>

    Government resting upon the will and universal suffrage of the people has no anchorage except in the people's intelligence.

    — Grover Cleveland



  • #179
    petes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,382 ✭✭✭petes


    I've read all of the thread thus far and I'm still none the wiser. Must be near time for prayers then bed!


  • #180
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    petes wrote: »
    I've read all of the thread thus far and I'm still none the wiser. Must be near time for prayers then bed!

    Shhhhhhhhhh


    ( they might be hiding under your bed)
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    Sarky wrote: »
    Solicitors, as a general rule, don't put their threats up in Prison.

    Would it not serve to publish the letter from said solicitors? Put it in the public domain & let boards users ask questions of said firm?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement