Freedom to offend online to be banned

..So, if BOLD is shouting, is size 7 screaming at the top of your lungs?

Edit: Anyway, mostly we're just discussing the practicality and implications of such a bill.

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

FHE should just be muzzled and shipped back to whatever ****e hole she crawled from.

Not a great argument against the curbing of freedom of speech.

freedominacup wrote: »

You can't legislate against the online bullying of children. What you can do is control the sale of devices which can access the Internet to minors. You can legislate that all such devices are sold with the highest possible level of controls on what type of content they can access as default settings. If a parent then buys such a device and reduces these settings they have no one to blame but themselves if their child accesses sites or content which might be upsetting or unmoderated.

Parents need to parent not look for someone to blame. Parents of the current crop of teenagers don't have any excuses. We've been fluting around on the internet since college, we know what's out there and how to control access.

Bills like this are just playing to the cheap seats and placing means of controlling information in the hands of people with no compunction about abusing this control.

We already have legislation covering offline bullying, so of course you can legislate against the online bullying of children. Its only a question of how far the legislation should go, how effective it can be and what, if any, additional powers go along with the legislation.

Now, the idea that the solution to online bullying is that you restrict access to devices or restrict access to the internet using content controls just doesn't sound realistic to me. We've had parental control software for ages now and it just hasn't been effective. Kids are, by and large, more au fait with the technology than the parents who are trying to place restrictions on it.

I do agree that this bill (and its sponsor) is playing to the cheap seats. That's not to say that we shouldn't attempt to legislate against severe forms of online bullying - the kind of bile that has led to suicides in this country.

Eames always strikes me as somebody who just 5 minutes earlier was told about an issue for the first time by somebody whose position is an extreme one. She blindly accepts that version as the complete truth and starts her kneejerk campaigning accordingly.

I've never heard/read anything from her that convinced me she actually knew very much about any issue she was campaigning on - about either the issue itself or the current laws relevant to the issue.

SpaceTime wrote: »

If she's successful many of us may be loosing our jobs too!

There's no way a social media or online business that has any kind of comments system could function in Ireland under that kind of legislation.

Bye bye Google, Facebook, Twitter HQs, ... Adios data centres ....
It would kill the likes of boards.ie and other forums. The journal comments section .. Waterford Whispers would have to operate in exile.

Basically this proposed law has the potential to cost tens of thousands of jobs, kill inward investment, destroy the country's reputation and send us back to the 1950s

It's pure hysterical, kneejerk nonsense!

Never a truer word spoken.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

We already have law's, Education is key the more you make something sound secretive and bad the more lightly said children are going to get on it. Plenty one can do on current devices to curtail activity without impacting the wider experience. Children need to be able to come to you and say they are being bullied.

I worries me still that Ireland's first though it to start censorship up again, That worked out well in the past. I get the feeling FHE missed the old RCC calling and if there was no internet she would be telling us the ills of TV/Films/Radio.

Placing content controls (as you advocate) is also censorship.
In a choice between censoring content and making people responsible for their content, I'd choose the latter.