It seems that the 'Blasphemy Law' could affect Boards

Kiwi in IE

It does sound like the post in question that caused this row did fit the criteria for inciting hatred. But inciting hatred and blasphemy are very different things. Inciting hatred toward any race or group in disgusting, and should be punishable. Inciting hatred in regards to religion is directed straight at the followers of the religion. Blasphemy is about the religious institution and it's doctrines. People should have a right to say anything they like about religious institutions and their doctrines. If I say that I hate Catholicism and all it's teachings (which I assume is 'blasphemy'), that is entirely different from saying "I hate all Catholics". Inciting hatred is wrong, 'blasphemy' is not, and it sounds as if the two are being confused.

Doctor DooM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Inciting hatred is wrong, 'blasphemy' is not, and it sounds as if the two are being confused.

Not in Irish law, apparently.

The question is how Dav and co. choose to enforce this apparently unenforcable and deliberately ill defined law.

Like, if you're going to stop every post that could conceivably offend someone religious, might as well roll this forum up now

I'd say it's more likely that when someone goes over the top (and I'd say plenty of people would agree that was) they might take pause to get rid when someone reports it.

Wibbs

Going on the basis of Dav's posts explaining the situation in AH then all it would need is someone sending a PM/email stating that much of the content in A&A is of a potential legal nature/issue and bye bye A&A as a forum.

Plus this notion one can't objectively look at historical norms with currently applicable cultural norms is a crock. That's how we got to the point of realising slavery, gender inequality and marrying 12 year olds to old men is morally abhorrent.

SpaceTime

magicbastarder wrote: »

my understanding of it is different - that neither the clause in the constitution nor the legislation actually defined what blasphemy was, so if you have no definition, you have no basis to prosecute.

this was dealt with by passing a law which defines blasphemy; they were able to deal with the 'problem' without needing to touch the constitution.

The old common law offence of blasphemy which is all that was on the books here until recently in terms of definition was incompatible with the constitution as it defined blasphemy in terms of an offence against the established church in the British legal system context.

I think if the current government wants to make itself seem a little more progressive, they should bundle a deletion of this clause in the constitution into the next referendum or election.

If we have a successful blasphemy prosecution here, do you think anyone will want to have a data centre here?!

Would a social media company want a HQ here?!?

I really don't think many of us fancy losing our livelihoods over an archaic law that I would doubt a majority of Irish people would want anyway. We blaspheme all the time. Using religious and blasphemous phrases is pretty much part of normal Irish speech!

sbsquarepants

Wibbs wrote: »

Plus this notion one can't objectively look at historical norms with currently applicable cultural norms is a crock. That's how we got to the point of realising slavery, gender inequality and marrying 12 year olds to old men is morally abhorrent.

I couldn't agree more. take the example of slavery - to say you can't look back 2 or 3 hundred years and say that the owner of a plantation was a cúnt for keeping a hundred slaves is plainly stupid. It is wrong now and it was wrong then - cultural norm my arse.
Having sex with a 9 year old girl is wrong, in every time frame and every possible scenario - it's disgusting and it's wrong - no matter who, what or when we're talking about. It is an absolute - no exceptions, not even for dodgy cult leader types!
But that being said, if was risking my home to type that out, I probably wouldn't have done so!

Dav

No one has ever emailed us complaining of a breach of law on this forum. Someone *did* email us about that thread.

That's the start and the end of this issue. This is what Nicola and Niamh and I deal with every day. This time it happened on AH and so has a huge audience. My advice is to carry on doing what you do in the way you do it.

You'll only hear from us if someone makes a legal complaint to us.

wexie

.....I'm confused.

Which isn't that unusual you might say, but hear me out for a minute.

If we have a blasphemy law (however unenforcable) as well as freedom of religion (any religion)....

How do the 2 interact?

Aren't several religions (lets take Islam and Christianity) already opposed in such a way that one would be considered to be blasphemous to the other?

If I write a lenghty thesis why I feel there is no God, or any number of other statements contradicting the Catholicism wouldn't the mere possibility of threat of prosecution (however unsuccesful) be a direct infringement of my freedom of religion (to not be prosecuted for ones religious beliefs).

Akrasia

Dav wrote: »

No one has ever emailed us complaining of a breach of law on this forum. Someone *did* email us about that thread.

That's the start and the end of this issue. This is what Nicola and Niamh and I deal with every day. This time it happened on AH and so has a huge audience. My advice is to carry on doing what you do in the way you do it.

You'll only hear from us if someone makes a legal complaint to us.

Does it have to be a legal complaint from a Law firm, or is the threat of a legal complaint sufficient?

maximoose

Dav wrote: »

You'll only hear from us if someone makes a legal complaint to us.

And now that this is known, it's probably only a matter of time now

Beruthiel

Dav wrote: »

No one has ever emailed us complaining of a breach of law on this forum. Someone *did* email us about that thread.

In fairness though Dav, that law is so wide open to interpretation that everything and anything in this forum could be said to blasphemous.

Dav

Dav wrote: »

No one has ever emailed us complaining of a breach of law on this forum. Someone *did* email us about that


You'll only hear from us if someone makes a legal complaint to us.

Now I'm really confused ???

PopePalpatine

maximoose wrote: »

And now that this is known, it's probably only a matter of time now

So, we need to hope iainbumerford doesn't re-reg? Well, shït.

Cabaal

If the Blasphemy affects boards, would that mean the funny side of religion thread is likely the most offensive of all threads and should be deleted?

Dav

This is the reason I can't and don't read a huge number of forums on the site - when I see something that I think is in breach of the law, I *have* to act on it otherwise I run the risk of being asked to stand in a courtroom, under oath, and explain why I haven't done so.

This is the reality of my job folks. It's certainly one of the more unpleasant parts of it, but there it is.

I'm still genuinely baffled as to why people are so confused about this - we do this sort of thing every day, you just rarely have the audience this particular instance did.

Beruthiel

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So, we need to hope iainbumerford doesn't re-reg? Well, shït.

Or deadonetwothreefourfive. He was never happy.

drumswan

So I can shut down A&A by sending an email? Hardly the ideal way to run a forum I would have thought.

magicbastarder

drumswan wrote: »

So I can shut down A&A by sending an email? Hardly the ideal way to run a forum I would have thought.

you're not the one who could end up in court.

drkpower

Dav wrote: »

This is the reason I can't and don't read a huge number of forums on the site - when I see something that I think is in breach of the law, I *have* to act on it otherwise I run the risk of being asked to stand in a courtroom, under oath, and explain why I haven't done so.

You have now effectively set out Boards' position on what constitutes criminal blasphemy. The next question will be 'well, if X is criminal blasphemy, Dav, surely what Poster Y posted on A&A is also criminal blasphemy'. Its hard to put the genie back in the bottle once you have opened it.

That will have ramifications for many discussions incorporating religon.

Doctor DooM

Dav wrote: »

This is the reality of my job folks. It's certainly one of the more unpleasant parts of it, but there it is.

I'm still genuinely baffled as to why people are so confused about this - we do this sort of thing every day, you just rarely have the audience this particular instance did.

I don't think it's confusion-and I would think most people here know the level of, frankly, crap you have to put up with- I would think because this entire forum and everyone who posts in it could be considered blasphemous to someone, so we're a bit worried. A Sword of Damocles situation.

Cabaal

Dav wrote: »

This is the reason I can't and don't read a huge number of forums on the site - when I see something that I think is in breach of the law, I *have* to act on it otherwise I run the risk of being asked to stand in a courtroom, under oath, and explain why I haven't done so.

This is the reality of my job folks. It's certainly one of the more unpleasant parts of it, but there it is.

I'm still genuinely baffled as to why people are so confused about this - we do this sort of thing every day, you just rarely have the audience this particular instance did.

Ok thats fair enough,
But if i say jesus didn't exist, god doesn't exist and the whole drinking blood of a person is something you'd see in a horror movie this could be without a doubt be seen as very offensive to a christian.

None the less it is factual,
- Many believe there is no god
- Jesus didn't exist
- Plenty of movies which show cult/evil people drinking blood of a person as part of some sort of ritual

I'm entitled to my view but at the same time my view could be seen as offensive to others. But at the same time their view that a god exists and controls when we die is pretty offensive to me,

It really is a law of madness in the manner in which it can be abused...once you have enough money and want to pursue it

On the very basic level, this entire forum's idea is blasphemy to people.

Beruthiel

Dav wrote: »

I'm still genuinely baffled as to why people are so confused about this

Because of what I said above Dav.
Most laws are easy enough to understand and abide by. They are black and white.

This one however, if you wanted to go down that road, makes this whole forum against the law.

Corkfeen

My concern is,that by defining what was posted on After Hours as blasphemy. Then the logical progression is equally blasphemous material should technically be removed from this forum. Then it's even more difficult to define what is less or more blasphemous.

Cienciano

Dav wrote: »

I'm still genuinely baffled as to why people are so confused about this - we do this sort of thing every day, you just rarely have the audience this particular instance did.

This forum is the reason. Almost every discussion could be considered blasphemy. Is this new crackdown purely just for after hours, or is on this forum too? Will a warning or new charter be drawn up for the A&A forum?
EDIT: about 5 people above me have made pretty much the same point!

Doctor DooM

Beruthiel wrote: »

Because of what I said above Dav.
Most laws are easy enough to understand and abide by. They are black and white.

This one however, if you wanted to go down that road, makes this whole forum against the law.

If you wanted to go down the absurdist road of argument- technically, sex before marriage could be considered offensive against christians. Can't have people discussing that like it's normal, that's offensive...

Dogs are not to be kept as pets in some religions, to the point their considered filthy beasts, so need to keep an eye on people saying they make wonderful pets. I've seen people who think it's disgusting and offensive to have them at home.

What about those blood transplants? Definitely offensive to some.

This country and its laws, I swear...

(actually, scrap that last line, swearing to god's likely to offend someone...)

sbsquarepants

Can this not be negated with some legalese crap or other?

"The opinions stated here are not necessarily the opinions of boards.ie"
or put a clause in the terms stating "I agree to be liable for any or all costs my posts may cause boards.ie to incur due to legal action under defamation, libel, blasphemy and bolloxology laws" ?

wexie

Dav wrote: »

I'm still genuinely baffled as to why people are so confused about this - we do this sort of thing every day, you just rarely have the audience this particular instance did.

Not so much confused by Boards stance on this, I understand you have to abide by the law, no matter how ludicrous, and need to protect Boards from litigation where you can.

I am confused however by the existence of a law so wide open to personal interpretation (and abuse) by, lets face it, quite possibly some of the less stable members of society in general.

Come to think of it maybe bewildered is a better word than confused.

Links234

Normally I'm one to roll my eyes at the thought of boards being over-moderated, when having more moderation than say youtube comments or your average 4chan thread actually allows a lot more interesting conversations to happen that wouldn't otherwise... but this is a seriously dangerous precedent, isn't it?

iDave

This is all very worrying. Looks like Ireland is going backwards.
Wish we had a US style first amendment

kylith

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I don't think it's confusion-and I would think most people here know the level of, frankly, crap you have to put up with- I would think because this entire forum and everyone who posts in it could be considered blasphemous to someone, so we're a bit worried. A Sword of Damocles situation.

That's it. If someone will threaten legal action over something said in AH what will they do when they discover an entire board full of blasphemy in A&A?

sbsquarepants

Doctor DooM wrote: »

This country and its laws, I swear...

Could you technically prosecute your local spar shop for selling or even advertising packets of ham and sausages? The local off licence or pub? Anywhere that opens on Saturday or Sunday? RTE for showing the angelus? Your friendly non halal or kosher butchers? Your friendly halal or kosher butchers? The jehovas witness that tries to convert you on your doorstep? Where does this bullshít end? They are all blasphemous to someone or other.:eek:

iDave

kylith wrote: »

That's it. If someone will threaten legal action over something said in AH what will they do when they discover an entire board full of blasphemy in A&A?

Sure the entire Christianity thread is blasphemous to a Muslim and vice versa. Maybe Boards will have to remove any reference to religion and its denial altogether.

28064212

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Could you technically prosecute your local spar shop for selling or even advertising packets of ham and sausages?

Probably not, but if they get an email about it, they'll have to stop doing it

Akrasia

Why doesn't Boards.ie take this matter to court and get it decided once and for all?

This is a law that needs to be challenged in court but so far, no matter how hard atheist Ireland try, nobody has been willing to take a case against them for Blasphemy

Now we have a business, Boards.ie, who are having their main product (discussion) threatened by a legal threat.

I would go as far as to suggest that the community would happily contribute towads the legal costs in fighting this case.

It would be excellent PR for Boards.ie to win this case, world wide publicity.

The alternative is that Boards.ie is talked about on other media platforms as having caved to threats from religious nutcases.

AnonoBoy

Akrasia wrote: »

Why doesn't Boards.ie take this matter to court and get it decided once and for all?

I would suspect it's because they can't afford to.

Beruthiel

Akrasia wrote: »

Why doesn't Boards.ie take this matter to court and get it decided once and for all?

If you are ready to provide the war chest, they'll happily take it up I'd say.

Sarky

Akrasia wrote: »

Why doesn't Boards.ie take this matter to court and get it decided once and for all?

Money. Mindless outrage has seriously deep pockets, especially when religion is involved. Boards probably couldn't afford to be the guinea pig, even with a tonne of generous contributions like robindch and Nodin affered.

Cabaal

Akrasia wrote: »

Why doesn't Boards.ie take this matter to court and get it decided once and for all?

Are you willing to fund such a case out of your own pocket?
Its a big ask to expect boards too.

It is something that does need to be challenged but whoever does this needs funds to do it

wexie

Beruthiel wrote: »

If you are ready to provide the war chest, they'll happily take it up I'd say.

's gonna wanna be a rather generous warchest

Akrasia

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I would suspect it's because they can't afford to.

I would happily donate money to the legal fund (and I'm stoney broke)
There are thousands of regular users on here who would hate to see the forum held to ransom, and there is the wider community who would also pitch in to see this law challenged.

magicbastarder

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Can this not be negated with some legalese crap or other?

"The opinions stated here are not necessarily the opinions of boards.ie"
or put a clause in the terms stating "I agree to be liable for any or all costs my posts may cause boards.ie to incur due to legal action under defamation, libel, blasphemy and bolloxology laws" ?

generally speaking, you cannot sign a contract/waiver/whatever, which would trump the law of the land.
if the law states that boards.ie can be held liable, they can be held liable, and then potentially afterwards, boards.ie could go after you to recoup costs - but that waiver would not be a 'get out of court free' card.

Akrasia

Richard Dawkins has 825k followers on twitter. If Boards.ie challenged this law and sent an appeal for donations to the legal fund...

Would there be a legal impediment to boards.ie accepting donations from the public to fight a legal challenge taken against it? I'm sure there must be a way?

maximoose

Beruthiel wrote: »

Or deadonetwothreefourfive. He was never happy.

My money is on John Waters :pac:

IvySlayer

Bible is evil cos it promotes slavery, homophobia and genocide

rabble rabble :mad:

My post could be removed if someone PM'd Dav about it?

Sarky

maximoose wrote: »

My money is on John Waters :pac:

Courts wouldn't view him too favourably, what with his previous criminal conviction and jail time. >_>

swampgas

Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I'm pretty vague on the actual legal position) but doesn't there have to be an intention to cause offense? I.e, criticising a religion isn't a crime, but doing so in such a way (provocatively?) so as to deliberately cause offence is a crime???

In some ways A&A should be safer than other forums - it is explicitly a place where religion and atheism are discussed, so presumably the intention is not to cause offense but to discuss with like-minded individuals?

Corkfeen

The state take on all legal costs at end of case if it's viewed to be in the public's interest as a case, don't they? May possibly be thinking of different legal scenario though.

LeinsterDub

Corkfeen wrote: »

The state take on all legal costs at end of case if it's viewed to be in the public's interest as a case, don't they? May possibly be thinking of different legal scenario though.

Thats a constitutional challenge as far as I know

SpaceTime

I just thought I'd post the relevant section of the Defemation Act 2009 to give you an idea of what you're dealing with. It's rather a draconian piece of legislation :

Full act with link to appropriate section : http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/print.html#sec36

From the Defamation Act 2009:

36.— (1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—

(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and

(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—

(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or

(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—

(i) of its followers, or

(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

Seizure of copies of blasphemous statements.

37.— (1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36 , the court may issue a warrant—

(a) authorising any member of the Garda Síochána to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein,

(b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Síochána of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person,

(c) specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Síochána.

(2) A member of the Garda Síochána may—

(a) enter and search any premises,

(b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the possession of any person,

in accordance with a warrant under subsection (1).

(3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence under section 36 , anything seized and removed under subsection (2) shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda Síochána in that behalf.

It also has a definition of a 'cult' which could be very interesting to prove in court as I think one could stretch the definition quite reasonably to include a lot of mainstream groups too.

It's a very odd piece of legislation in general.

Corkfeen

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Thats a constitutional challenge as far as I know

Ah yes, that's the one. Law isn't my area for the most part.

Sarky

Pretty much every religion ever is all about the money and employs oppressive psychological manipulation. The only ones that don't fit that category would never get offended enough to try using that law.