Street Preacher arrested for singing and preeching of Jesus

breezy1985 wrote: »

American football?
Is it the make of the ball is the issue ?...

Pigskin covering therefore not kosher

smacl wrote: »

In addition to excessive noise and harassment, I'd add incitement to hatred or being excessively offensive to most passers by. Openly and loudly preaching homophobia for example is likely to lead to a public order offence. Buskers are there to entertain and maybe make a few shekels in the process, preaching is something different.

I agree which is why I mentioned harassment which same as incitement should not be allowed Speakers corner is a place for any sort of rambling religious or political preaching and can be visited or avoided at leisure. Very different to doing it on a main Street of a town with a megaphone

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."

I jest. NFL balls are made from cow leather, but they're referred to as 'pigskin'. I assume they were once made from pig carcasses.

Stuff like that was probably good advice back in the day when humans washed about once a year and the Irish if they could afford one were letting the animals sleep in the house

No issue with Street Preachers, but if this particular person has been abusing passers by or been using a loudspeaker, then really he needs to think again.

Reminds me of the story of Elijah on Mount Carmel, when he taunted the prophets of Baal to shout louder https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2018%3A16-45&version=NIV
(verse 27)

The difference between listening and hearing!

Incidentally, I know Cormac O'Ceallagh, he would be a committed Christian himself

theological wrote: »

Either there is freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Ireland or there isn't.

It's not as simple as that though, is it?

You have a right to freely express your convictions and opinions (Article 40.6.1.i). However, that right can be limited in the interests of public order and morality.

Guy was being a pest and was arrested for being a pest, not because what he was shouting was all about Jesus! If he's been shouting and singing Ed Sheeran songs the same would have happened.

Turning this into an issue about religious oppression is very Trumpian!

theological wrote: »

Either there is freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Ireland or there isn't.

If freedom of speech only goes as far as what other people are willing to tolerate then freedom of speech doesn't really exist.



I like Joe Kirby's videos. He is very engaging and draws people into a discussion rather than shouting at people. It is possibly the best model of street preaching I've seen along with Ray Comfort's. I agree that others tend to be more abrasive in their style.

Should I be allowed stand outside a church on Sunday and call all the men entering the church pedophiles? How about calling the women slags? Would i benin my right to abuse people like that?

theological wrote: »

I'm not really interested in what people consider to be a nuisance. Either people have the freedom to speak, or they do not. The point where we say that people don't have freedom to speak we become an illiberal society.

You are being pointlessly absolutist in that concern however. Acting as if this is a 0 (off) and 1 (on) issue where you either have absolute rights to free speech, or you have no free speech at all. Or acting like each of your freedoms can/do exist in a vacuum and are not, or should not, be curtailed by anything else.

I have the freedom right now for example to wave my arms and fists around in pretty much any way I want. However my right to wave that fist around ends at your face. This does not mean I have no right to move my fist around and I hence live in an "illiberal society".... but it means my rights are not absolute, nor should they be. They are curtailed and controlled by the context I exercise them in, and the factors in play in each of those contexts. I do not pretend that because I can not move my fist in every way I want, in every context I want, that I therefore have no such right at all.

For example many users in the past have ineffectually screeched about their rights to free speech on this forum. The fact is they have no such rights on this forum. By coming to this forum they agree to abide by the rules of this forum and if this forum wishes to modify, or even entirely censor, the users speech here.... the forum have every right to do so. The user simply does not have the rights to free speech they imagine they do. What they do have is the right to open up their own forum and say the things there they were censored for here. While you may have a right to free speech.... you have absolutely no such right to every PLATFORM for it.

Similarly when you exercise your free speech in a public shopping street you are held to norms, and laws, in play in that context too. From personal space of other people, to noise level laws, and much more. For example one "preacher" who accosted me in Dublin City Centre spent part of his day in the back of a police car and then a police station because of it. Was it because he had no right to free speech? No. It was because the speech he accosted me with contained material about how I was going to be tortured in the after life for my lack of belief in a god. Basically he levelled THREATS against me. So I approached a nearby police officer to tell him the preacher was threatening me. And the police man operated accordingly, and properly, in intervening on the preachers freedoms in that moment.

Screeching that that preacher either "has the freedom to speak, or they do not" would be just as much nonsense in that context as it is in this context where you say it here. Such rights are not absolute. And their not being absolute does not mean they therefore do not exist, as your black-white assertions by fiat would erroneously claim. He still has his right to free speech, in that he can CHOOSE to threaten me or level threats against me. But he is still going to get arrested for breaking laws against threatening others.

The preacher referred to in this thread still has his rights to free speech. He can say all the same hateful things he has been saying and has always been saying. He can do this on a blog. He can do it on a pulpit. He can do it in his home. He can rent a stage, sell tickets and do it there. But due to OTHER laws in play, and court orders, he can not do it in a specific manner, in a specific place. That is all. It simply is not as black and white as you pretend.

Take Atheist Ireland for example. They set up a stall in one of the busiest locations in Dublin City. And people can come to them. And Atheist Ireland have the freedoms to say many many things to them in that context. Much of what they say in fact would likely be quite blasphemous. Without knowing the exact details of this case.... a similar caveat you used above..... if the preacher in this thread had put the megaphone away, set up a quiet stall, and talked to people respectfully I doubt he would have been arrested for violating a court order.

The preacher has the same rights to speech as they had before in other words. What they do not have however is the right to violate a court order. And if they did so, then they were correctly and justifiably arrested for it and bluster about free speech is just irrelevant white noise in that context. For example you have the right to express yourself through music. This is your right. However to do so on Grafton Street you need to apply for permission as a busker. If you do not do this, you can run into trouble with the cops. Your right to free Expression is not the issue there either. You can play your music. The how/where you can play your music is what is relevant. And screeching "I either have a right to play this music, or I do not" would be nonsense black/white irrelevant thinking on the matter that should get you laughed out of any court room.

The acid test to use here would be to ask whether the content of his speech had anything to do with his arrest. As other users had pointed out, if he showed up screaming nothing but sports results he would STILL have been arrested for violation of the court order. Nothing to do with free speech. The content of his speech was simply not relevant to the arrest. He was not arrested for what he was saying but for HOW and WHERE he was saying it. So therefore....

theological wrote: »

gagging people due to their views is what I disagree with. If you get offended, get over it!

.... your statement here is irrelevant. For the most part I entirely agree. Thankfully therefore that is NOT what happened in the story from the OP and as such is irrelevant in this context.

However even then I still think there is room for nuance and discussion warranted there on whether free speech has to be 100% absolute or be considered non-existent as you pretend. The usual example trotted out when this subject comes up is about the right to scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there is in fact no fire. Or if I was a racist then the other argument which comes up is if I were to use my speech not just to denigrate blacks and express my hatred of blacks but to openly call people around me to attack, hurt, maim and murder blacks. As in incitement to violence. Even in the US where you lauded praise on their freedom of speech..... some cops recently lost their jobs for using twitter to espouse the position that democrats should be attacked/murdered. For example an Alabama Police Captain had his gun and shield taken when he tweeted of Democrats They need to line up ev1 of them and put a bullet in their skull for treason.". He since resigned I hear. Who is moaning about his absolute rights to free speech? How far do you think they will get doing so?

In the other direction however one of the few things I have ever agreed with the likes of Jordan Peterson about is when the law goes TOO far on these things. Peterson is known for having stood up against laws related to enforcing the "Correct" use of gender pronouns in society. Going in the direction of making it a hate crime to call a Transgender person by the pronouns of their birth rather than the ones they now identify with.

Whatever about the ethics and morality around the norms of what pronouns to use.... and the propriety of in good faith using the "correct" ones that the person in question identifies with...... enshrining this correct use in Law I am entirely against. Leaving me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with people like Peterson when I disagree with pretty much everything else he does and says outside his professional career (where he appears to be a competent, or even above average competent, at his day job).