Censoring/Suppressing films

Doc07

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Dishing out taxpayer goodies like free GP visits to wealthy parents is also, excuse my phraseology, F*cking Mad don't you think?


I was sitting next to my well paid senior engineering manager one day, and him telling me how he brought the kid into the doc, "just in case, sure its free".

And did your senior manager take annual, sick or unpaid leave for this ‘just in case’ privilege?

Stop moaning ffs

This is funny but pretty much nails it

https://twitter.com/artimusfoul/status/1181939877065187328?s=21

Veritas Libertas

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"The wrong people"? Judges interpret the law, for decades the Supreme Court has taken a more liberal interpretation on free speech. There's also the ECHR.
Now's the time to get rid of all laws favouring religion and get religion out of schools entirely, given that the likes of Dr Selim are not behind the door demanding what he feels are his rights to make our society conform to Saudi Arabian norms.

Based on the way things are going around here, I wouldn't be surprised if a "populist" leader had a good chance in the near future due to a backlash because of the regressive left.

I agree completely with you on the barbaric laws that 'favour' religion in regards to speech, producing content etc..

But these laws that 'cause offence' were not prosecuted in the past because we as a society did not 'take offence'.

Now we are taking offence at an ever increasing rate. These laws are just as backwards and ill-thought out as the previous blasphemy ones.

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Based on the way things are going around here, I wouldn't be surprised if a "populist" leader had a good chance in the near future due to a backlash because of the regressive left.

I agree completely with you on the barbaric laws that 'favour' religion in regards to speech, producing content etc..

But these laws that 'cause offence' were not prosecuted in the past because we as a society did not 'take offence'.

Now we are taking offence at an ever increasing rate. These laws are just as backwards and ill-thought out as the previous blasphemy ones.

Backlash to what exactly? The only backlash we do is deciding who we dislike the least between FF and FG. As sad as that is we are far more savvy than the U.S.A. in that regard. We are a way aways from a Trump. Casey was barely an 'also ran'.

You're spinning yarns. More people have a voice due to social media. Society hasn't changed much it's just we've instant and wide reaching communication.
Boils down to freedoms. If your idea of freedom is curtailing someone elses, then we've a problem.
This idea that a constantly outraged liberal left have gone too far and taken over is complete sh*te.

keano_afc

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is funny but pretty much nails it

https://twitter.com/artimusfoul/status/1181939877065187328?s=21

He's still hiding behind his shield I see. Wonderfully ironic, in a thread about suppression of opinion.

Homelander

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It’s absolutely mad. Millionaires and billionaires in Ireland with kids still get and claim children’s allowance.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is funny but pretty much nails it

Right, hang on, I'm confused here.

On one hand, you're giving out that millionaries and billionaries are still entitled to children's allowance.

Enter John McGuirk, who has an issue with universal GP access for under 8's nationwide.

You're accusing him of being a pro-life 'hypocrite' for having this view yet can't explain why. (presumably because the two issues are not remotely related)

Now, you're supporting a view that if he takes issue with the notion of well-off people in particular having free access to GP's for their kids, he's a spoofer.

Even though you made an identical expression of opinion as quoted above.

Maybe you should clarify all of these points, because it seems to me you're about the biggest hypocrite on the thread.

hetuzozaho

keano_afc wrote: »

He's still hiding behind his shield I see.

What's a shield on Twitter?

Stop moaning ffs

Homelander wrote: »

Right, hang on, I'm confused here.

On one hand, you're giving out that millionaries and billionaries are still entitled to children's allowance.

Enter John McGuirk, who has an issue with universal GP access for under 8's nationwide.

You're accusing him of being a pro-life 'hypocrite' for having this view yet can't explain why. (presumably because the two issues are not remotely related)

Now, you're supporting a view that if he takes issue with the notion of well-off people in particular having free access to GP's for their kids, he's a spoofer.

Even though you made an identical expression of opinion as quoted above.

Maybe you should clarify all of these points, because it seems to me you're about the biggest hypocrite on the thread.

You’re very easily confused or can’t read it seems.

Homelander

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

You’re very easily confused or can’t read it seems.

Why don't you educate me with a well written post clearly explaining why I'm failing to grasp both points?

Hotblack Desiato

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

But these laws that 'cause offence' were not prosecuted in the past because we as a society did not 'take offence'.

Now we are taking offence at an ever increasing rate. These laws are just as backwards and ill-thought out as the previous blasphemy ones.

Which laws, specifically?

You mentioned an act from the 1920s, which parts of that law? Are you sure they're still in force? and constitutional, as our constitution was not in effect in 1929? and compatible with the ECHR?

I'm calling complete bollocks on this one tbh. Society "took offence" in the past to the extent that it was not possible to even question the authority of the church, its rigid sexual morals etc. and these were real laws which actually existed, not ones you've made up to support some sort of right-wing "the world has gone mad and taking offence is now illegal" agenda.

keano_afc wrote: »

He's still hiding behind his shield I see. Wonderfully ironic, in a thread about suppression of opinion.

You have a right to free speech, and everyone else has a right to listen or not listen.

NewbridgeIR

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is funny but pretty much nails it

https://twitter.com/artimusfoul/status/1181939877065187328?s=21

Mark Malone
Aidan O'Brien

Bitter malcontents - just as unlikable as many pr*cks on the right.

Veritas Libertas

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Which laws, specifically?

Previous post

I'm calling complete bollocks on this one tbh. Society "took offence" in the past to the extent that it was not possible to even question the authority of the church, its rigid sexual morals etc. and these were real laws which actually existed, not ones you've made up to support some sort of right-wing "the world has gone mad and taking offence is now illegal" agenda.

That's fair enough and well within your right, but before you do please consider this. What happens now when someone does something against the 'church' of Social Justice? It may not currently be a law, but I see plenty of people that would be happy to advocate and vote for it.

If you speak out against abortion the people from this 'church of Social Justice' immediately see you as "bad" as evidenced in this thread and around Ireland. There is a stigma attached, people will try to get you fired, be osctracized from society etc.. Experts were afraid to give testimony to the Oireachtas for fear of the stigma attached. It is a faux pas now to 'deny a woman a choice' when in fact the debate is not within the remit of choice. I'm sure if people get there way it will eventually be illegal to advocate against abortion because it could be deemed 'hateful'. Offence is the new blasphemy for intersectionalists.

Here's a youtube video of the grievance studies 'hoaxers' and what they learned about this new culture. They argue:

Everything that doesn't support the narrative against oppression from their perspective is construed as hate; and their whole word view has been constructed to fight hate. This has to be stopped less we return to greater oppression or greater oppression of people. - James Lindsay

Source from 50mins22seconds

I have encountered many of these people on boards on-line etc.. rarely in real life though but it is starting.

Let me remind you of the current wording of hate laws on the Garda website:

What is hate crime?
Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

Hate Incidents – (Non Crime)
Any non-crime incident which is perceived by any person to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

I could potentially see your post as hateful and say I take full offence to it; who can argue otherwise?

Hotblack Desiato

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What happens now when someone does something against the 'church' of Social Justice? It may not currently be a law

...So, yes, you were talking utter bollocks:

Now we are taking offence at an ever increasing rate. These laws are just as backwards and ill-thought out as the previous blasphemy ones.

Veritas Libertas

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...So, yes, you were talking utter bollocks:

You have asked me twice to post it up, and I did.
You either have problems with honesty or intelligence which is it?

Hotblack Desiato

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

You have asked me twice to post it up, and I did.
You either have problems with honesty or intelligence which is it?

Nice discussion style :rolleyes:

You referred to laws which simply do not do what you claim they can do, the 1929 act for instance has to be interpreted in the light of subsequent 1937 constitution and ECHR free speech protections and Supreme Court decisions in the area. I explained this in a previous post.

I also explained how while the Broadcasting Act is stricter on causing offence, the BAI nonetheless takes a reasonable view, most of the complaints are from far-right catholics who regard anything other than fawning devotion to their church as offensive, these complaints get nowhere.

And of course the Broadcasting Act does not apply to the internet.


You said:

Now we are taking offence at an ever increasing rate. These laws are just as backwards and ill-thought out as the previous blasphemy ones.

You are implying that there are new laws against taking offence, there are not. I've already explained how the laws which are actually in force are not and can not be used against merely causing offence on the internet.

A statement on the garda website is not the law. We do not have hate crime laws. Idiots whipped up by Gemma O'Doherty made vile racist statements to a mixed-race family who were on Lidl adverts, gardai didn't want to know, they only began to investigate when death threats were made.

You are trying to whip up some sort of outrage / moral panic against supposed left-wing twitter hordes out to suppress you. It's nonsense. You have free speech. Make better use of it.

Veritas Libertas

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nice discussion style :rolleyes:

You asked me which law specifically twice after I posted it up, then proceeded to say I'm talking bollocks and continued to ignore it.

Our constitution supsedes the EHCR as far as I'm aware:

In adopting the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Australia and the Netherlands insisted on reservations to Article 19 insofar as it might be held to affect their systems of regulating and licensing broadcasting

You are the one being inflammatory here without posting up evidence;

"Of course the broadcasting law does not apply to the internet"

Why the hell not? It's regardless of frontiers.

I'm stating there's an increasing culture of offence taking and these people are also advocating against freedom of speech. If these people get their way they will abuse said laws to decree hate on anyone they disagree with. Imagine if your worst enemy was in charge and had the power of these laws; that's what you need to consider here.

Hotblack Desiato

Broadcasters are licensed in Ireland, the internet is not. You haven't a clue I'm afraid.