Is it illegal to make racist comments?

seamus wrote: »

It depends on if you're "inciting hatred". "I think all Roma should be placed in a gas chamber and be done with it", would probably qualify.

Inciting hatred is illegal. Making racist comments is not.

Seamus is right. The important bit in his post I've made bold in the quote above.

It is not illegal for your Auntie Concepta to give out about the darkies, nor can she be prosecuted for it. The salient point is whether it was intended to incite hatred. She's not interested in inciting anything. She just doesn't like darkies.

On the other hand, if you stand up on a soapbox on O'Connell Street and shout the odds about sending the chinks home, you can be prosecuted. You're in a public forum, your intent is to provoke hatred.

http://www.integration.ie/website/omi/omiwebv6.nsf/page/AXBN-9B2LU91733429-en

To quote from the clarification statement from the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration:

The Prohibition against Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 Act is only directed at addressing incitement to hatred. It cannot and was never intended to address racist crime more generally. Nor can it address racial abuse which is not intended or likely to stir up hatred.

Message boards such as this one are interesting cases in point. They are public, it could argued that they are influential (and therefore could incite). The only thing is that, in practical terms, if you locked up everyone on the internet who's being an asshat, then you'd barely have anyone left who wasn't incarcerated.

I don't like dealing with stupid people: should I be ashamed to admit that? Does that make me a bad person, or a criminal? Or simply non-PC?

We all pass judgement on others: it's a natural consequence of having judgement. If we didn't discriminate between things that help us or harm us, we couldn't survive in the real world. You can police what people do, of course: actions have consequences. You can't police what people think - see Orwell and "thoughtcrime" - since thoughts can exist solely inside our heads, where no investigator can reach.

The thing about the law is: we only have laws about things because some people aren't able to figure out what is right for themselves. Professional drivers don't need speed limit signs: they can read the road and the conditions, and figure it out for themselves. The signs are not for them, they are for the average driver, to keep them safe. Even then, stupid drivers don't understand that it's a limit, not an order, so e.g. they'll keep on doing 70 in a 70 zone even when the weather conditions make it unsafe (e.g. fog or heavy rain). So you still get crashes, and more regulations or signs - to cater for the stupid drivers, rather than the average drivers.

So what is the relevence to the question, about laws against "incitement to hatred"? It's another example of a law to protect the stupid from themselves, in my opinion. Those who think carefully about the issues, before speaking, have no need of such a law. I'm not going to pretend that race doesn't exist - it does - but it's stupid to judge people on that alone. But, you might ask, am I not a hypocrite for being judgemental about the stupid? No, because race alone doesn't stop us working together and getting a job done - whatever the job might be. You can't say that about stupidity, which (in my opinion) is a fundamental hindrance to the progress of the human race away from its error-ridden past.

tl;dr: stupid people need stupid laws to protect them from their own stupidity. Racism is only one example of such stupidity.

The defining characteristic, it seems to me, in whether you are prosecuted or not, is whether it was in a public space.

There's the bus driver incident referenced above by sheesh and then this one from earlier this year of man convicted of shouting obscenities at an African man:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bobby-sands-did-not-die-for-the-blacks-man-ranted-226510.html

There was also a case brought to court in 2011, but eventually dismissed, against an Irish man who started a Facebook page called "Promote the use of Knacker Babies as Bait".

http://businessandlegal.ie/the-facebook-traveller-case-implications-for-social-media-and-freedom-of-speech

My right to free speech ends where the rights begin of other people to live free from violence and intimidation and free from the threats of them - hence the specific remit of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989 to deal with incitement.

Even in America, contrary to what some may believe, there are legal boundaries on what can be said, dealt with variously by laws on public nuisance or endangerment (shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre), racial hatred, slander and libel. In no country in the world is the right to free speech absolute.

Clandestine wrote: »

You think that because I've made some "controversial" (in your view) posts? At the end of the day, I would defend anyone's right to speak their mind, whether I agree with their views or not.

I believe in self ownership. I own my body, and I own my actions, so long as I don't use force against others and their property, then I can do anything that I want and others have no right to control me. But people also have the right to restrict certain things as a condition of allowing me on their property. so for example, lets say I shout "fire" at a crowded privately owned theater when there isn't a fire. Them getting me to leave is not a violation of my free speech because I agreed to conditions and I am violating that agreement.

Can you not see that this is where the incitement to hatred bit comes in? There is a big difference between for example walking around muttering n*gger to oneself and standing at the top of a crowded room encouraging people towards racial violence, which is why there's a law against one and not the other. Should teachers be allowed to teach creationism to children? If I believed you to be an active pedophile should I be allowed to tell everyone I meet about that belief and create a serious risk of someone using force against you?

That Voltaire quote is nice and catchy and all, but it's more of a "facebook status when you're 15" kind of quote than an actual life philosophy for a rational adult ffs.