Blasphemy law.

drkpower

Dav wrote: »

If you see it that way Dr B, then I'm really sorry, that wasn't the intention at all. However, when I say that something is to be done on this site, it's not up for discussion and the drooling idiots need to have that made clear. I don't want to be some sort of authoritarian overlord, but the blatant and deliberate way this was ignored actually made me cross. The AH Community hasn't done anything wrong here, I think I made that abundantly clear in my post last night (but I guess I didn't since no one seems to have got that) and I don't know how my enforcing Irish law is "taking them to task."

I dont think people are concerned by your taking some droooling idiots to task (we need more of that...!).

It seems to me that people are concerned that you have chosen yourself to define the boundaries of the blasphemy law, when noone knows where those boundaries are and where most legal commentators believe the law is all but unenforceable. You could simply have banned the drooling idiots and closed the thread.

By doing as you have done, you have likely open up a potential can of worms on any thread that discusses/lampoons/criticises religon. Also, by someone 'in your position' drawing the line in such a fashion, you may have actually put the site at an increased risk of legal ramifications rather than less (although in fairness, the risk of legal sanction arising out of this blasphemy law is ridiculously low).

Wibbs

Then someone had better go through the Atheism & Agnosticism forum with a fine toothed comb because on the basis of the AH thread it's breaking this law all over the place. The Cool vids and pics forum also had a couple of things potentially offensive to the potentially offended too.

Then again not so long ago we had a moderator of one of the spiritual forums appearing to condone wife beating, but that's alright like and it's very arguably a part of his faith. Not offensive or illegal at all.

Cody Pomeray

Dav wrote: »

Reporting a post is not the same thing as notifying the office. We even say in our Legal Guidelines that if you find something that potentially breaches the law, you have to tell us directly as we would never ask volunteers to deal with it directly.

I confess I didn't read your guidelines, and didn't know that.

Maybe it might help to emphasize this in some of the more contentious forums?

I think a lot of well meaning posters would think they were doing the right thing by reporting a post they see as defamatory/ incitement, etc, but obviously that might be doing more harm than good.

Dav

Calling the prophet Muhammed a sick pervert and paedophile in the manner which the numpty involved did was designed to do nothing more than insult and outrage and any Muslim person who read it would have been perfectly justified in being offended. That is why I acted. It was bigoted and intended to offend and so was pretty clear cut for me.

Wibbs wrote: »

Then again not so long ago we had a moderator of one of the spiritual forums appearing to condone wife beating, but that's alright like and it's very arguably a part of his faith. Not offensive or illegal at all.

We didn't have that at all. Not even slightly. We had a moderator of the Islam forum talk about and quote from the section of the Quoran that discusses that issue and a subsequent total condemnation of said section by the very same mod. Not once did he condone it, he was quoting it for the academic value of the discussion.

drkpower

Dav wrote: »

Calling the prophet Muhammed a sick pervert and paedophile in the manner which the numpty involved did was designed to do nothing more than insult and outrage and any Muslim person who read it would have been perfectly justified in being offended. That is why I acted. It was bigoted and intended to offend and so was pretty clear cut for me.

Oh dear....

I would suggest that you take a step back and have a think about all of this before you say too much on this. The line between 'calling the prophet Muhammed a sick pervert and paedophile' and critiquing the prophet and his followers for some of their actions can be quite a fine one. The line between 'designed to insult & outrage' and designed to do a million other things can equally be very fine.

I dont want to get into that debate but what i would say is that if you dont row back a bit fairly quickly on the stance you have taken, you will either need to close down quite a few fora on this site or police them extremely rigorously.

LeinsterDub

I'm entirely confused are these threads to be removed?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055075741
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054942944
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055853778

Should i refrain from post for fear of the ban hammer?

What difference does a email make? You/boards are aware of these threads ,if I report them or email you will you then delete them?

Dades

Would people please stop drawing attention to threads in A&A.
I'm less worried about Dav seeing them than a whole raft of eager new converts to blasphemy.

Dav

Had the post said "Muhammed was married to several women including a 9 year old girl" or indeed "Muhammed was a polygamist" there'd have been no problem and the post the OP made would have remained, but he deliberately chose his words to cause offence. If some people choose to be offended my making those factual statements, then they can take a running jump as far as I'm concerned.

I think this was one of the few clear cut cases of a breach of law for me. I don't see why we have to draw lines in the sand and not just use common sense for this - that's what I did here. I don't know how anyone can defend the manner in which the comments were made.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm entirely confused are these threads to be removed?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055075741
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054942944
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055853778

Should i refrain from post for fear of the ban hammer?

What difference does a email make? You/boards are aware of these threads ,if I report them or email you will you then delete them?

I fail to see the comparison.
One of those threads is quite obviously a humorous thread not claiming to be something that should be taken seriously.
Another of those threads is about Church scandals, nothing wrong on commenting on an ongoing or recent scandal in any church.
The other one is a thread about a poor unfortunate killed by a lion because his faith had him believe that God would protect him.
None of those threads would appear to me to be designed to cause outrage or insult to anyone, unlike the relevant posts in the now removed thread.
Context matters here, the context in the funny side of religion is far different than the context in which a poster claims that a specific religion and its adherents promote child rape and that its prophet was a perverted paedophile.

Wibbs

Dav wrote: »

It was bigoted and intended to offend and so was pretty clear cut for me.

By that metric then the A&A forum is also full of offensive posts.

We didn't have that at all. Not even slightly. We had a moderator of the Islam forum talk about and quote from the section of the Quoran that discusses that issue and a subsequent total condemnation of said section by the very same mod. Not once did he condone it, he was quoting it for the academic value of the discussion.

Rewriting history just a wee bit there Dav. If he had done as you say, then there wouldn't have been near the overall WTF about it at the time. What he actually said?

irishconvert wrote:

dlofnep wrote:

I mentioned it because Islam permits for a man to hit his wife.

Yes it does, under certain limited circumstances. It doesn't allow severe or regular beating of women. Women are allowed to divorce their husbands so if they are being abused then they can take this right.

irishconvert wrote:

I don't know, I haven't been in a situation where I felt it was appropriate. I stress that hitting a wife is to be regarded is a last resort.

irishconvert wrote:

To get to the stage of hitting your wife, you first have to be in a position where you are so annoyed you are no longer sleeping in the same bed as her.

Where's the oul "total condemnation" you speak of? Cos I can't see it. All I see is "it's a last resort, but applicable in such cases". Like I said you're rewriting history, a history that anyone can have a search of.

Oh and another (ex)mod of same forum was a bit wishy washy about condemning stoning adulterers to death.

KERSPLAT!

A lot of people have asked about the other threads/posts that they believed to fall foul of this law, so what is Boards stance on these threads/posts? I know you having questions hurled at you left, right and centre isn't ideal but I'd imagine that that is one of the more important questions. What is to happen all the other threads/posts that people find grossly offensive? Why is the abuse of other churches and religions not actioned in the same way?

Gatling

But surely if a chap was or actually did marry a 9yo in this day and age he/ they would be a pedophile so when some body jumps up and down quoting blasphemy laws incase somebody gets upset at another's persons god /demi god and doesnt seem right considering the law hasn't been contested in the last century at least

LeinsterDub

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I fail to see the comparison.
One of those threads is quite obviously a humorous thread not claiming to be something that should be taken seriously.
Another of those threads is about Church scandals, nothing wrong on commenting on an ongoing or recent scandal in any church.
The other one is a thread about a poor unfortunate killed by a lion because his faith had him believe that God would protect him.
None of those threads would appear to me to be designed to cause outrage or insult to anyone, unlike the relevant posts in the now removed thread.
Context matters here, the context in the funny side of religion is far different than the context in which a poster claims that a specific religion and its adherents promote child rape and that its prophet was a perverted paedophile.

So if someone was to say a certain prophet was a perverted paedophile but then used it's super grand? Does the law take into account emoticons?

drkpower

Dav wrote: »

I think this was one of the few clear cut cases of a breach of law for me. I don't see why we have to draw lines in the sand and not just use common sense for this - that's what I did here. I don't know how anyone can defend the manner in which the comments were made.

It is not about defending the manner in which the comments were made. It is about your deciding to interpret the blasphemy law in such a way as to nail your colours to the mast as to what consitutes a breach of the law when you really dont know that the ingredients of the law have been breached. You just kind of feel that they probably were......

For instance, was outrage - in fact - caused among a substantial number of muslims by those comments?
And what is a substantial number of muslims....?:)
And what does 'outrage' mean in law?

Legal commentators have not reached anything close to a consensus on what it would take to breach this law. You have just publicised what you (and therefore arguably Boards) consider to be a breach of the law; that potentially puts you, the site and even its users at potential risk.

And worst of all, there was no need for any of it.

Penn

drkpower wrote: »

Oh dear....

I would suggest that you take a step back and have a think about all of this before you say too much on this. The line between 'calling the prophet Muhammed a sick pervert and paedophile' and critiquing the prophet and his followers for some of their actions can be quite a fine one. The line between 'designed to insult & outrage' and designed to do a million other things can equally be very fine.

I dont want to get into that debate but what i would say is that if you dont row back a bit fairly quickly on the stance you have taken, you will either need to close down quite a few fora on this site or police them extremely rigorously.

With respect, I saw many of the posts (which have now been deleted). I agree there can be quite a fine line sometimes. However, the posts in question were clearly on one side of it, and not the good one. The main poster was pursuing an agenda to continuously make those posts at every available opportunity. It wasn't part of a discussion.

IvySlayer

So any threads/posts referencing the fact that God is evil because he committed genocide is to be removed?

IvySlayer

Penn wrote: »

With respect, I saw many of the posts (which have now been deleted). I agree there can be quite a fine line sometimes. However, the posts in question were clearly on one side of it, and not the good one. The main poster was pursuing an agenda to continuously make those posts at every available opportunity. It wasn't part of a discussion.

Then he was a troll and needed to be banned. Not have the Blasphemy Police come in

Corkfeen

Dav wrote: »

Had the post said "Muhammed was married to several women including a 9 year old girl" or indeed "Muhammed was a polygamist" there'd have been no problem and the post the OP made would have remained, but he deliberately chose his words to cause offence. If some people choose to be offended my making those factual statements, then they can take a running jump as far as I'm concerned.

I think this was one of the few clear cut cases of a breach of law for me. I don't see why we have to draw lines in the sand and not just use common sense for this - that's what I did here. I don't know how anyone can defend the manner in which the comments were made.

Can you really call it a clear cut breach of the law if the law has never been enforced and is unlikely to ever be? There is no clear cut case if it's viewed to be unenforceable. It seems more like something that would just be deleted followed by banning the poster for a bit. Bringing the blasphemy law into it is just particularly odd.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So if someone was to say a certain prophet was a perverted paedophile but then used it's super grand? Does the law take into account emoticons?

That's a somewhat churish reply.
I was addressing the poster who linked three specific threads.
If a thread is by its very definition humorous then the context in which posters contribute is going to be different than in a serious thread.
That said, what was posted yesterday ( and I saw it and hit the report button myself) was vile in both its content and construction.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

IvySlayer wrote: »

So any threads/posts referencing the fact that God is evil because he committed genocide is to be removed?

You might need to specify which God.

Benny_Cake

Thanks for the clarification Dav. I appreciate that the whole blasphemy area is something that isn't easy for anyone to deal with since it's bad legislation and completely lacking in clarity. I emphasise again that I find the law completely objectionable, and it's more than a little annoying to see users on the AH thread discussing this describing people with religious beliefs as (essentially) oversensitive types who demand special treatment. I haven't met one person, not one, be they Christian, atheist, or other, who thinks that the blasphemy law is a good thing.

Ordinarily I'm a big believer in transparency, but I do wonder though if this would have been better handled via backchannels without starting a thread about it on AH. I'd be a little concerned that someone might start accusing other posters of blasphemy on the Christianity forum as a way to shut down debate, or that a favourite pass time among rereg trolls might involve attempting to get threads shut down by making grossly offensive remarks about religious people. Of course, that could happen anyway.

LeinsterDub

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

That's a somewhat churish reply.
I was addressing the poster who linked three specific threads.
If a thread is by its very definition humorous then the context in which posters contribute is going to be different than in a serious thread.
That said, what was posted yesterday ( and I saw it and hit the report button myself) was vile in both its content and construction.

I don't care about the original thread , I care about we are and aren't allow to say about religion now. Who has to be offended boards? dav? a poster ? What if everyone laughs barring 1 person is the thread to deleted? Everyone who posted banned?

I am honestly very very confused

drkpower

Penn wrote: »

With respect, I saw many of the posts (which have now been deleted). I agree there can be quite a fine line sometimes. However, the posts in question were clearly on one side of it, and not the good one. The main poster was pursuing an agenda to continuously make those posts at every available opportunity. It wasn't part of a discussion.

I have no doubt that the posts were on the wrong side of the line; the line of decency and of 'not being a dick'.

However, the determiantion, in print and in public, that Boards believes that the comments fell the wrong side of the criminal line was (a) very debatable (legally) and (b) not wise (c) entirely unnecessary and worst (d) likely to have ramifications for how discussions on relgion are policed on this site.

IvySlayer

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

You might need to specify which God.

The Civil Service is evil, anti-democratic, waste of money

That's blasphemy to you isn't it :P

enda1

I think the crux of the matter is that to blaspheme in Irish legal terms you must intend to cause offence.
Anything in the humour forum for example is posted with the intention of causing laughter and may or may not cause offence as a by-product. The intention of the statement is key.

That said, there are plenty and I'm sure in the thousands of posts which are written about religion which intend to offend the flock. This particular post seems to have been singled out because of the posters troll-like, abrasive manner. Whether however a post which intends to cause offence is delivered by a troll or by a standing member of the community should not have a bearing on the boards.ie's stance on the post and subsequently a perma-ban for the poster and deletion of the "offending" material should be forthwith. I'm looking forward to seeing the far reaching impact of this ruling when it hits some more familiar faces...

Yours in disappointment,

Enda

Myrddin

Honestly, I think Dades is spot on here. There are plenty of tools available, to have taken care of this scenario, without citing & using such a flawed law.

But, I do get where Dav is coming from too. Dav is an employee, of a buisness, that needs to protect itself & keep out of harms way legally speaking. When officially notified of a breach of law {no matter how flawed that law may be}, it's my understanding HQ has to act, one way or another. By ignoring the report, legally HQ may be construed as condoning whatever the material may be, so the only other option is to remove it. That's the law, not Dav's whim.

However, blasphemy is defined as:

Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity, irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

And the offence, in Irish law, is:

Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter

So if I were to post, "I don't believe in God"...am I technically I'm showing a lack of reverence for a religious deity, & thereby violating laws on Blasphemy? It is further defined then as:

grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion", when the intent and result is "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion

Which is the angle Dav is coming from, & this part I've no problem with. But to conclude, I think this law is so vague, & ridiculous, that I think we'd have done well to avoid getting caught up in it, & instead used our own tools to fix it, as Dades said earlier on

Boards.ie: Nicola

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

A lot of people have asked about the other threads/posts that they believed to fall foul of this law, so what is Boards stance on these threads/posts? I know you having questions hurled at you left, right and centre isn't ideal but I'd imagine that that is one of the more important questions. What is to happen all the other threads/posts that people find grossly offensive? Why is the abuse of other churches and religions not actioned in the same way?

The distinction that people seem to be missing is this: we operate on a notice and takedown basis, once notified of objectionable content we HAVE to take action.

This might be grossly oversimplifying things but if we don't know officially (ie through official channels) about objectionable content then we can't take action. There are over 36 million posts on the site, as employees it is simply not feasible for us to go around looking for stuff to remove but when it is reported to us we are, as employees of Boards.ie Limited, obliged to act promptly and in the best interests of the company.

drkpower

enda1 wrote: »

I think the crux of the matter is that to blaspheme in Irish legal terms you must intend to cause offence.
Anything in the humour forum for example is posted with the intention of causing laughter and may or may not cause offence as a by-product. The intention of the statement is key.

Its even more than that.

You need to cause outrage, not just offence.
And the outrgage must be caused to a substanial number of that faith; what is substantial; 5/10 people? 100 people? 5-10% of followers?; who knows?
And you must intend that ourage is caused amonst that substantial number; its not enough to intend that the reader of your post becomes outraged.

The law is all but undefinable and all but unenforceable; except on Boards, where the community manager has decided precisely what the offence means.

enda1

Myrddin wrote: »

However, blasphemy is defined as:


snip

The dictionary and legal definitions are two entirely separate things.

drkpower

Boards.ie: Nicola wrote: »

The distinction that people seem to be missing is this: we operate on a notice and takedown basis, once notified of objectionable content we HAVE to take action.

This might be grossly oversimplifying things but if we don't know officially (ie through official channels) about objectionable content then we can't take action. There are over 36 million posts on the site, as employees it is simply not feasible for us to go around looking for stuff to remove but when it is reported to us we are, as employees of Boards.ie Limited, obliged to act promptly and in the best interests of the company.

You are hereby notified of content in the following forums that is arguably as objectionable as what appeared in AH yesterday:

1. the A&A forum
2. Cool Vids and Pics and Links

What happens next?