Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is people's right to be offended killing free speech?

1…457910…16

Comments

  • #182
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Azalea wrote: »

    Perhaps, if that is deemed to be incitement to hatred in accordance with the legislation. Not sure it would be though.
    It wouldn't be. There have been very few criminal charges on incitement to hatred in this country. The one that even did get to court a facebook page called "Promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait” was thrown out of court

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-cleared-of-online-hatred-against-travellers-169325.html

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #183
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Not necessarily.
    Firstly I should clarify, I don't think non-work related speech outside work should be grounds for firing, and there have been a lot of instances of that happening over the last few years. I don't buy the whole "you represent your employer 24/7" bullsh!t, so if someone works a 9-5 job and tweets something sexist or racist at 10PM on a Saturday night, as far as I'm concerned it should be illegal to fire them. Now, perhaps there should be a compromise here wherein if what you tweet directly impacts your work credentials - for instance, if I'm a doctor and I tweet "Half the time I have no idea what I'm prescribing", then even if I tweet it at 10PM on a Saturday that could perhaps be an exception. But I certainly don't agree with the idea that you should be forced to maintain ideological purity in public when you're not wearing your uniform. It's akin to allowing schools to punish kids when they find out about the kids having been drinking on Saturday night or something, in my view.

    Here's an example:

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/man-fired-over-fck-her-right-in-the-pssy-tv-confrontation/

    I don't care if what he said was offensive, in my view he wasn't at work, wasn't wearing his uniform, his employer should have 100% zero authority over his outside-work activities. Another exception could possibly be made for those who work in figurehead roles - PR, marketing, HR etc - but this guy was an engineer and his lewd comments to a random non-work related reporter very clearly do not impact his ability to do his job.

    As I say, without this protection, in my view legal free speech simply switches the role of the oppressor from government to employer.

    Well said. It's gotten to the point now where people who are offended, or sometimes not even offended just outraged go straight to the employer. Like with the Emily Faz situation where people were instantly tweeting "let's find out where this bitch works"


  • #184
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Canadel wrote: »
    A person's right to be upset should never trump people's right to free speech. Both can co-exist and I think that is a theme of this thread. Freedom is the only way forward and good will always triumph over evil. The societies throughout history where it hasn't have been based on totalitarianism regimes which included suppression of ideas and speech.

    It depends what the upset is about and the context.

    I think if I was a traveller woman with a baby and someone sets up a page saying "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait" that my rights to equality and dignity and desire to protect my child would in that case override his rights to freedom of expression.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #185
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    It depends what the upset is about and the context.

    I think if I was a traveller woman with a baby and someone sets up a page saying "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait" that my rights to equality and dignity and desire to protect my child would in that case override his rights to freedom of expression.

    But he's not actually using traveller babies as shark bait, he just set up a page calling for it, clearly not in a serious way. So we're back to people's rights not to be offended vs right to freedom of speech. If someone tweets the hashtag #killallwhitemen I don't have any recourse and personally even if I did I wouldn't be inclined to use it.


  • #186
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    But he's not actually using traveller babies as shark bait, he just set up a page calling for it, clearly not in a serious way. So we're back to people's rights not to be offended vs right to freedom of speech. If someone tweets the hashtag #killallwhitemen I don't have any recourse and personally even if I did I wouldn't be inclined to use it.

    But it went to court so clearly the Guards and DPP did think he was being serious. Anyway how do you know he wasn't serious?

    No. In terms of rights in that case we are not talking about the right not to be offended. We're talking about upholding rights to equality, freedom, dignity and life.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #187
    RIGHTisRIGHT
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 726 ✭✭✭RIGHTisRIGHT


    Free speech only seems to go one way.
    Nazi sympathiser jailed for four weeks over 'grossly offensive' anti-Semitic tweet sent to Labour MP

    • Loner Garron Helm, 21, sent tweet to Jewish politician Luciana Berger
    • Tweet showed Holocaust-era yellow star superimposed on MP's forehead and '#Hitler was right'
    • Helm referred to himself as The Noble Wolf and used Twitter account called Aethelwulf
    • Helm's family fell apart after father died and mother had a breakdown
    • Helm sent a written apology to Berger and paid her £80 victim surcharge



    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2800945/nazi-sympathiser-jailed-four-weeks-grossly-offensive-anti-semitic-tweet-sent-labour-mp.html#ixzz3wXQsRmo5
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    I know this is from the UK but we seem to follow in step.
    How come the same law does not apply in the following case?



    Father brazenly parading ISIS flags with his toddler outside Parliament is stopped by police... but is allowed to walk free after officers say he is NOT breaking the law

    • Man draped in Islamic State flag seen walking past Big Ben on Saturday
    • Young girl waved smaller version of flag as she sat on his shoulders
    • Police stopped man, but did not arrest him as actions deemed within law
    • It comes after Tunisia attack and days before 7/7 terror attacks anniversary



    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3150089/Man-parading-ISIS-flag-outside-Big-Ben.html#ixzz3wXRhj8dU
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook






  • #188
    mynameis905
    Closed Accounts Posts: 754 ✭✭✭mynameis905


    Ulysses Gaze wrote: »
    Don't kid yourself. If you said in any public forum that you didn't like blacks(particularly if you called them blacks and left out people after the word), you'd be called a racist.

    And you'd probably be charged for incitement to hatred depending on how and where you said it.

    What else would you call them? Disliking an entire group of people based on the colour of their skin is textbook racism (and stupidity for that matter)


  • #189
    RIGHTisRIGHT
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 726 ✭✭✭RIGHTisRIGHT


    mynameis905 wrote: »
    What else would you call them? Disliking an entire group of people based on the colour of their skin is textbook racism (and stupidity for that matter)

    I totally agree disliking people based on skin colour eye colour is the height of ignorance.
    However all to often things like skin colour and religion are used to deflect proper criticism of inexcusable acts like what we have seen in Cologne on New Years Eve.


  • #190
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    But it went to court so clearly the Guards and DPP did think he was being serious. Anyway how do you know he wasn't serious?

    No. In terms of rights in that case we are not talking about the right not to be offended. We're talking about upholding rights to equality, freedom, dignity and life.

    Not necessarily. They'd be afraid of losing the trust of the travelling community if they refused to pursue it. They probably knew it was bull**** but went ahead to appease them. If they appeal it I'll believe they think its serious.

    I don't think the making of a facebook page violates those rights


  • #191
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Not necessarily. They'd be afraid of losing the trust of the travelling community if they refused to pursue it. They probably knew it was bull**** but went ahead to appease them. If they appeal it I'll believe they think its serious.

    I don't think the making of a facebook page violates those rights

    But there has been very very very few prosecutions on incitement to hatred. The guards and dpp wouldnt prosecute unless it was serious.

    It isnt the making of a facebook page that is the issue. It is what the facebook pages says. I think cases are not black and white. There are many considerations such as context and intent. You are looking at this case in a very black and white manner with many assumptions. Like honestly how do you know he wasn't serious?

    I disagree with you strongly on the issue of travellers rights to equality, dignity, freedom and life not being breached there. A guy is literally saying "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait"

    That is an attack on equality of travellers where their children are being treated as unequal to settled children and their children should be murdered just because they are travellers
    That is an attack on travellers right to dignity by suggesting their children should be fed to sharks.
    That is an attack on their freedom because they are at risk of themselves being violently attacked
    That is an attack on their lives because someone literally is promoting the murder of their children

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #192
    BigJackC
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 333 ✭✭BigJackC


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    It wouldn't be. There have been very few criminal charges on incitement to hatred in this country. The one that even did get to court a facebook page called "Promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait” was thrown out of court.

    Ridiculous that the case even got to court. Thankfully, sense prevailed and it got chucked out.


  • #193
    RIGHTisRIGHT
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 726 ✭✭✭RIGHTisRIGHT


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    But there has been very very very few prosecutions on incitement to hatred. The guards and dpp wouldnt prosecute unless it was serious.

    It isnt the making of a facebook page that is the issue. It is what the facebook pages says. I think cases are not black and white. There are many considerations such as context and intent. You are looking at this case in a very black and white manner with many assumptions. Like honestly how do you know he wasn't serious?

    Not to forget Facebook agreed to hide the goings on in Cologne on new years eve.
    Regardless of a persons views on anything I thinks it is wise never to use twitter or Facebook to express your political opinions.


  • #194
    stoneill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭stoneill


    Free speech is about your informed opinion on a particular subject - yes that should be protected.
    It should not be an excuse to spout idiotic drivel.


  • #195
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    But there has been very very very few prosecutions on incitement to hatred. The guards and dpp wouldnt prosecute unless it was serious.

    It isnt the making of a facebook page that is the issue. It is what the facebook pages says.

    They would want to be seen to be on the side of the travelling community. It makes policing easier if the Gardaí are seen to be standing up for them. It happens everywhere. They prosecuted George Zimmerman even though his story checked out, no one in the process believed it wasn't self-defence but they didn't want to be accused of racism so they prosecuted him, nothing new came to light and he was duly acquitted.


  • #196
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    BigJackC wrote: »
    Ridiculous that the case even got to court. Thankfully, sense prevailed and it got chucked out.

    So basically you agree with feeding traveller babies to sharks then?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #197
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    stoneill wrote: »
    Free speech is about your informed opinion on a particular subject - yes that should be protected.
    It should not be an excuse to spout idiotic drivel.

    Who draws the line where it becomes idiotic drivel?


  • #198
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I find it very interesting that people jump in with many assumptions when I mention the facebook page:

    "Promote the use of Knacker Babies for shark bait"

    Theres assumptions that it wasnt serious
    There is assumptions about the guards and the DPP
    There is assumptions about the context and intent

    Lots and lots of immediate assumptions.

    Perhaps that is part of the problem here. Due to the nature of the internet immediate uninformed assumptions are made and many dont tike time to research something or educate or inform themselves.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #199
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I find it very interesting that people jump in with many assumptions when I mention the facebook page:

    "Promote the use of Knacker Babies for shark bait"

    Theres assumptions that it wasnt serious
    There is assumptions about the guards and the DPP
    There is assumptions about the context and intent

    Lots and lots of immediate assumptions.

    Perhaps that is part of the problem here. Due to the nature of the internet immediate uninformed assumptions are made and many dont tike time to research something or educate or inform themselves.

    You made the assumption that the DPP and Gardaí wouldn't pursue it unless it was serious. There's nothing to back that up other than the belief that the DPP and Gardaí are always 100% pure in their motives and never do anything unorthodox to make maintenance the peace a bit easier.


  • #200
    RIGHTisRIGHT
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 726 ✭✭✭RIGHTisRIGHT


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    So basically you agree with feeding traveller babies to sharks then?

    Countless instances of violent traveller behavior and crimes whitewashed over by the Liberals.
    How many babies have been thrown into the sharks?
    How many people believed this was even 000.1% in the realms of likely hood.
    Could it have been an outburst of exasperation at the behavior of these people?


  • #201
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »
    Countless instances of violent traveller behavior and crimes whitewashed over by the Liberals.
    How many babies have been thrown into the sharks?
    How many people believed this was even 000.1% in the realms of likely hood.
    Could it have been an outburst of exasperation at the behavior of these people?

    He's right Joey. We don't even have sharks in Ireland so the very notion stretches possibility.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    RIGHTisRIGHT
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 726 ✭✭✭RIGHTisRIGHT


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    He's right Joey. We don't even have sharks in Ireland so the very notion stretches possibility.

    Sorry but we do have basking sharks but these poor things have no teeth so baby food might be the only thing to thrown into these fish.


  • #203
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    You made the assumption that the DPP and Gardaí wouldn't pursue it unless it was serious. There's nothing to back that up other than the belief that the DPP and Gardaí are always 100% pure in their motives and never do anything to make their lives easier.

    Well actually no there is. The number of cases taken under the 1989 Act are very very very few. The fact is (not an assumption) the case wouldnt have been taken if it wasnt serious. Compare our legislation and the UK. They would have been jailed for many lesser incidents there. There is literally nothing to back any of your assumptions. You havent looked at the facebook page to determine its seriousness. You havent looked at any of the content on it. You've just jumped in and said "thats not serious" - you havent given any serious analysis why at all.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #204
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Well actually no there is. The number of cases taken under the 1989 Act are very very very few. The fact is (not an assumption) the case wouldnt have been taken if it wasnt serious. Compare our lefislation and the UK. They have jailed for many lesser incidents there. There is literally nothing to back any of your assumptions. You havent looked at the facebook page to determine its seriousness. You havent looked at any of the content on it. You've just jumped in and said "thats not serious" - you havent given any serious analysis why at all.

    The judge threw it out of court for a start, but I know Gards and I know how they deal with minorities. Their first priority is to keep them on their side, it makes them much more cooperative. After that policing becomes much easier.


  • #205
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Lets be clear here before there are many more uninformed baseless assumptions.

    The prosecution of the man in Kerry who set up the facebook page "Promote the use of Knacker Babies for shark bait" was not taken just because that page was set up. The page included many violent, threatening and abusive comments.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #206
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Lets be clear here before there are many more uninformed baseless assumptions.

    The prosecution of the man in Kerry who set up the facebook page "Promote the use of Knacker Babies for shark bait" was not taken just because that page was set up. The page included many violent, threatening and abusive comments.

    Were these comments from the man who was being prosecuted or not?


  • #207
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    The judge threw it out of court for a start, but I know Gards and I know how they deal with minorities. Their first priority is to keep them on their side, it makes them much more cooperative. After that policing becomes much easier.

    Here we go again with baseless uninformed assumptions.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #208
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Were these comments from the man who was being prosecuted or not?

    Yes

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #209
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Here we go again with baseless uninformed assumptions.

    You're trying to claim it was worth prosecuting even though it was thrown out of court.


  • #210
    BigJackC
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 333 ✭✭BigJackC


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    So basically you agree with feeding traveller babies to sharks then?

    Yes. That must be it. Your man had a gam of sharks in his garden pond and he planned to kidnap a load of traveller babies for them to feast on.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    You're trying to claim it was worth prosecuting even though it was thrown out of court.

    And you're trying to claim the page wasn't serious even though you saw no context or content.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



Advertisement