Hate Speech Public Consultation

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Getting back to the original point, you haven't really addressed what I said about "their opinions represent the minorities, the repressed, the discriminated, etc. and so they won't be held to the same standard that those who criticise those groups are."

You spoke about those who seek to incite hatred, or want to push their brain farts, but I'm at a loss to see how your response really counters what I said, except for your first sentence : "I don’t agree that that’s true tbh. Speaking only for myself"

The point I was making is that I think people who are in favour of the legislation are already aware that it’s possible for themselves to be accused at least, of falling foul of it. It’s possible for anyone to be accused of falling foul of it. Does that mean they have something to fear from the legislation?

That’s a question only individuals can answer for themselves. I’m not worried of falling foul of it, though I’m aware I could be accused of falling foul of it at least by people whom I disagree with. I just happen to have more faith in people that they aren’t so unreasonable as they are assumed to be by people who are trying to suggest the legislation will be an imposition on their freedom of speech.

I can remember the same arguments being made of the incitement to hatred act, the legislation related to blasphemy, defamation and all the other bits and pieces of legislation related to copyright law which it appears hardly anyone is aware of, and even less people give a shìt about. In reality it really does appear as though the people who are critical of any impediment to their idea of free speech, are aware that their greatest impediment, is that nobody gives a shìt for their opinions. And so they have to take it up a notch and try to be offensive as possible in order to draw attention to themselves - see the long and ever growing list of public intellectuals who have martyred themselves for the cause.

They’re no different than the people they deride, precisely because they see themselves as the oppressed minority who attempt to portray themselves as the victims of discrimination. They want to play victim politics, but they lack credibility, trying to portray themselves as equals with the common people when they get kicked out of the Ivory Tower which shielded them from the same common people they once looked down upon. Now they claim to represent the common man (or indeed woman), as if they ever gave a damn about anyone but themselves.

That’s why I say ordinary people won’t be affected by this new legislation, because they’re already aware of how to behave as reasonable people in civilised society, and I don’t think ordinary people are too concerned about playing sexual politics either - the dubious distinction of being the office pervert is still a thing, because in spite of what media commentators who are paid for their thoughts want people to think, most people are not unreasonable when it comes to how they interact with other people and they’re able to have a laugh and share a joke and not develop anxiety over the slightest interactions with other people that they might fall foul of the law.

Big Gerry

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Simple answer. No.

Read the thread.

How do we know people like Mrs Duffy won't fall foul of any new hate crime laws ?


A few years ago a down syndrome child in the UK was charged with a hate crime.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point I was making is that I think people who are in favour of the legislation are already aware that it’s possible for themselves to be accused at least, of falling foul of it. It’s possible for anyone to be accused of falling foul of it. Does that mean they have something to fear from the legislation?

Which is fine, although I, personally, suspect based on the manner of posts here, that they don't consider themselves likely to be judged the same way.

As for something to fear.. that depends on how the legislation is enforced, and the knockon effects I mentioned previously.

That’s a question only individuals can answer for themselves. I’m not worried of falling foul of it, though I’m aware I could be accused of falling foul of it at least by people whom I disagree with. I just happen to have more faith in people that they aren’t so unreasonable as they are assumed to be by people who are trying to suggest the legislation will be an imposition on their freedom of speech.

OEJ.. that's unfair, since I never made that point, so don't assign it to me. Point to anywhere in this thread, before my previous response to you where I talked about my rights to freedom of speech.

You're heading off into the sunset leaving the post you responded to, far back in the rear-view mirror.

They’re no different than the people they deride, precisely because they see themselves as the oppressed minority who attempt to portray themselves as the victims of discrimination. They want to play victim politics, but they lack credibility, trying to portray themselves as equals with the common people when they get kicked out of the Ivory Tower which shielded them from the same common people they once looked down upon. Now they claim to represent the common man (or indeed woman), as if they ever gave a damn about anyone but themselves.

Okie dokie. Finally. Related to what I wrote. Thanks.

That’s why I say ordinary people won’t be affected by this new legislation, because they’re already aware of how to behave as reasonable people in civilised society, and I don’t think ordinary people are too concerned about playing sexual politics either - the dubious distinction of being the office pervert is still a thing, because in spite of what media commentators who are paid for their thoughts want people to think, most people are not unreasonable when it comes to how they interact with other people and they’re able to have a laugh and share a joke and not develop anxiety over the slightest interactions with other people that they might fall foul of the law.

Ahh well, the US/UK/Others didn't turn PC overnight but did so through steps of laws and the changes within their society... and while I do think Ireland is far from embracing the madness of US PC culture, I do think there is a desire from some corners to encourage such attitudes here. This legislation is a step towards such a change. Is it the end of freedom to express yourself? Nope. But then, I've never suggested that it would be.

I'm getting the distinct feeling that you're assigning the fears of other posters on to me, rather than addressing those points that I did make, none of which were end of the world scenarios.

Biker79

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think the dangerous part of this is were using an unrelated case to try shove in this legislation. Hate speech laws are not going to stop girls bullying each other online. The people using this angle are well aware the topics are only vaugely related but triumphing that angle because nobody condones that behaviour.

Exactly right. Bullying is part of growing up and social media magnifies it. This is a matter for parents, teenagers, schools and the manner in which social media companies encourage peer validation to drive attention. A big part of this is the business model of social media companies.

None of it relates to the wider societal issue of free speech. Talk about taking a sledgehammer to drive a nail.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not playing your game.

You don't get to demand examples so that they can then be argued point by point. You know full well that most serious posts are removed and the posters banned so this 'show me examples from Boards' is redundant.

You can give examples that you remember, I didn't ask for the exact quotes themselves. It sounds to me you were just slandering tbh, and you can't give examples. And I'm not demanding I'm asking.

Posts don't get removed necessarily, you can just be red carded.

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not saying others do something therefore I feel I can do it.
I'm saying I'm not going to explain why I do something any further while you ignore others doing it.

I've not called you a liberal or snowflake or anything, I believe most who are opposed to this legislation haven't said as much to you on this thread. Yet you posted:

Its pretty revealing, the people against this type of legislation.

And the frequency at which they post in threads on immigration, BLM, Greta, social welfare etc and which side of the debate they generally land on in such threads.

It is clear what you are insinuating here, and as I believe you should make some attempt at backing up your insinuation. Yet you are seemingly unable to. As such you are doing nothing more than attacking the man and not the ball.

If you don't want to play my game I call 'honest debate' then that's up to you.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You can give examples that you remember, I didn't ask for the exact quotes themselves. It sounds to me you were just slandering tbh, and you can't give examples. And I'm not demanding I'm asking.

Posts don't get removed necessarily, you can just be red carded.


I've not called you a liberal or snowflake or anything, I believe most who are opposed to this legislation haven't said as much to you on this thread. Yet you posted:



It is clear what you are insinuating here, and as I believe you should make some attempt at backing up your insinuation. Yet you are seemingly unable to. As such you are doing nothing more than attacking the man and not the ball.

If you don't want to play my game I call 'honest debate' then that's up to you.

Not unable to. Not going to bother to. Am on Boards 6 years, have 14K odd posts. Most of them in threads on Current affairs and Politics.

If you think I am going to go back over this period, and these threads to extract something so that you can then argue the minutae of that specific post and the context in which it was made to satisfy you, I've bad news for you.

Take it or leave it, I'm not bothered either way.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Not unable to. Not going to bother to. Am on Boards 6 years, have 14K odd posts. Most of them in threads on Current affairs and Politics.

If you think I am going to go back over this period, and these threads to extract something so that you can then argue the minutae of that specific post and the context in which it was made to satisfy you, I've bad news for you.

Take it or leave it, I'm not bothered either way.

Ok, you can't even remember any of the top of your head. Fair enough. But just remember you've negatively judged a group of people and backed it up with no evidence whatsoever. As has been said before, you aren't above falling victim to this poor legislation yourself.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Which is fine, although I, personally, suspect based on the manner of posts here, that they don't consider themselves likely to be judged the same way.

As for something to fear.. that depends on how the legislation is enforced, and the knockon effects I mentioned previously.

OEJ.. that's unfair, since I never made that point, so don't assign it to me. Point to anywhere in this thread, before my previous response to you where I talked about my rights to freedom of speech.

You're heading off into the sunset leaving the post you responded to, far back in the rear-view mirror.

Ahh no I’m not referring to you specifically at all. It was just when you said that you get the impression the people who are in favour of the legislation don’t think they will ever be affected by it. I don’t think that’s true, because I think they’re already aware of the numerous curtailments on freedom of expression in Ireland already, and I’m not just talking about the laws, but the lack of opportunities to have their opinions heard as equals. I’m sort of reminded of the way the RCC once held (and still do to a large extent) a dominant position of influence in Irish society, they still have enough influence over our education system for example that other providers hardly get a look-in. There’s room for reasonable and legitimate criticism there of the way the system is set up. Does anyone really have anything to fear from breaking that monopoly in Education? No, I don’t think so, nor should their fears be considered reasonable argument against affording people not just equal rights, but the opportunities to exercise their rights on an equal footing with everyone else in society. The knock-on effect is that everyone is regarded equally in terms of their educational potential.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ahh well, the US/UK/Others didn't turn PC overnight but did so through steps of laws and the changes within their society... and while I do think Ireland is far from embracing the madness of US PC culture, I do think there is a desire from some corners to encourage such attitudes here. This legislation is a step towards such a change. Is it the end of freedom to express yourself? Nope. But then, I've never suggested that it would be.

I'm getting the distinct feeling that you're assigning the fears of other posters on to me, rather than addressing those points that I did make, none of which were end of the world scenarios.

I would have thought Canada would be a better example of PC Culture (or rather lefty leaning liberal progressive culture) than either the US or the UK, certainly they’re up there now after Porn Hub became more Canada Dried Up :pac: No I think the US PC Culture is absolutely limited to academic institutions, and yeah there is that element has always bled into Irish academic institutions rather like the young student that went abroad on a J1 and came home a porn star with a different accent, but for the most part the US is primarily conservative as it ever was, same as we are here. I think there has always been a desire to have attitudes change among the more liberally minded, but I don’t see this proposed legislation as going anywhere near change that actually needs to happen. This is more just modernising the wording of the old Act, without actually introducing anything new, which keeps those people who like change for the sake of change happy at least, and also keeps those people who prefer things as they are, happy - win/win all round really

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh no I’m not referring to you specifically at all.

Excellent. Good to know.

It was just when you said that you get the impression the people who are in favour of the legislation don’t think they will ever be affected by it. I don’t think that’s true, because I think they’re already aware of the numerous curtailments on freedom of expression in Ireland already, and I’m not just talking about the laws, but the lack of opportunities to have their opinions heard as equals.

Strangely enough, I'm not aware of any barriers that currently prevent them from voicing their opinions as equals. I've found that those "supposedly" on the left, or strongly opinionated/campaigning in defense of minority issues, tend to be far more intolerant of differing opinions than those from the center (since Ireland doesn't have much in the way of the right, and those who are, can easily be identified as racist/nutty).

I’m sort of reminded of the way the RCC once held (and still do to a large extent) a dominant position of influence in Irish society, they still have enough influence over our education system for example that other providers hardly get a look-in. There’s room for reasonable and legitimate criticism there of the way the system is set up.

That monopoly was broken a long time ago.. just as the influence of the RCC has been in decline for decades. Especially when it relates to mainstream society. Sure, there are pockets where their power/influence remains strong, but the people who enable that are dying out rather quickly.

I, honestly, don't see the connection you're trying to make, between this legislation, and the RCC/Education.

I would have thought Canada would be a better example of PC Culture (or rather lefty leaning liberal progressive culture) than either the US or the UK, certainly they’re up there now after Porn Hub became more Canada Dried Up :pac: No I think the US PC Culture is absolutely limited to academic institutions, and yeah there is that element has always bled into Irish academic institutions rather like the young student that went abroad on a J1 and came home a porn star with a different accent, but for the most part the US is primarily conservative as it ever was, same as we are here. I think there has always been a desire to have attitudes change, but I don’t see this proposed legislation as going anywhere near change that actually needs to happen.

I did consulting work in the US a decade ago.. PC culture was very present throughout all my experiences with corporate America. Just as it was present in the conversations, and dining experiences, with those I spent time with. I didn't refer to the US due to their history with academia, but how that PC attitude and fear has made it's way into mainstream society.. for many people. Not everyone, probably not even for the majority, but it's there nonetheless.

This is more just modernising the wording of the old Act, without actually introducing anything new.

Ahh well, the changing of the wording does introduce something new.. because that wording will allow the meaning to be further debated, allowing greater leeway for interpretations.

I get that you're not worried about the legislation. I'm not worried either (since I think this might wake people up to the need to resist this kind of stuff).. although I am concerned as to the direction this legislation suggests the government is leading the country towards. I am concerned by the scope of the legislation since the wording allows a lot of flexibility depending on who is interpreting & enforcing it..

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Strangely enough, I'm not aware of any barriers that currently prevent them from voicing their opinions as equals. I've found that those "supposedly" on the left, or strongly opinionated/campaigning in defense of minority issues, tend to be far more intolerant of differing opinions than those from the center (since Ireland doesn't have much in the way of the right, and those who are, can easily be identified as racist/nutty).

The reality is that apart from a handful of token representatives who are only too keen to court the attention of the media or martyr themselves for the cause, there are different groups of people in Irish society who are often the target of people’s ire, particularly those who are ill educated or are regarded as social undesirables. They are represented by some truly nauseating types, and you’ve kind of hit on the reason - because they’re all assumed to be of a certain mindset by virtue-signalling types who collect causes like merit badges. They don’t want anyone to have equal access to education as them either, they’ll talk for “everyone”, rather than letting anyone talk for themselves.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That monopoly was broken a long time ago.. just as the influence of the RCC has been in decline for decades. Especially when it relates to mainstream society. Sure, there are pockets where their power/influence remains strong, but the people who enable that are dying out rather quickly.

I, honestly, don't see the connection you're trying to make, between this legislation, and the RCC/Education.

It wasn’t? The RCC still controls the vast majority of educational institutions in this country at primary, secondary and third level, still involved in sports and numerous other community activities and organisations, and the reason I’m making the connection between this legislation and the RCC/Education is because it goes to parents who do not wish to have their children inculcated with the ideas and values of a Catholic Education. I’m in favour of it personally, and it’s a considerable advantage for me that the opportunity is available, but for those parents who wish for a different type of education for their children, their choices are limited pretty much to Educate Together or home schooling. There is a legitimate way to have that discussion without resorting to suggestions that Catholicism encourages brainwashing, paedophilia, religion is child abuse, etc, etc.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I did consulting work in the US a decade ago.. PC culture was very present throughout all my experiences with corporate America. Just as it was present in the conversations, and dining experiences, with those I spent time with. I didn't refer to the US due to their history with academia, but how that PC attitude and fear has made it's way into mainstream society.. for many people. Not everyone, probably not even for the majority, but it's there nonetheless.

I know it exists alright, and if anyone was ever in any doubt, Hillary made its existence clear with her comment about a basket of deplorables (I resemble that remark ). I don’t think it’s even anything close to a majority at all klaz - while metoo was trending, Hollywood was still doing it’s thing as the world’s biggest producer of pornography, and American consumers were still their biggest market. The only two most famous examples of men who thought they couldn’t trust themselves around women are Mike Pence, and Keanu Reeves. I genuinely don’t think we have to be concerned in Ireland that things could possibly get as vindictive as they have in the US among a tiny minority of its population.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ahh well, the changing of the wording does introduce something new.. because that wording will allow the meaning to be further debated, allowing greater leeway for interpretations.

I get that you're not worried about the legislation. I'm not worried either (since I think this might wake people up to the need to resist this kind of stuff).. although I am concerned as to the direction this legislation suggests the government is leading the country towards. I am concerned by the scope of the legislation since the wording allows a lot of flexibility depending on who is interpreting & enforcing it..

But sure they were leading the same way in 1937, in 1989, and now in 2020, same people are endorsing and enforcing it since the progressive sorts have about as much chance of forming a Government or influencing legislation as Peter Casey has a chance of becoming President of Ireland if he were ever to run again on a platform of taking a dump on travellers.

Seathrun66

Big Gerry wrote: »

How do we know people like Mrs Duffy won't fall foul of any new hate crime laws ?


A few years ago a down syndrome child in the UK was charged with a hate crime.

Link or source please.

Big Gerry

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Link or source please.

This is just one of many similar cases.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1015704/Downs-Syndrome-boy-mental-age-charged-racist-assault.html

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tell me how wrote: »

We have laws to deal with physical violence, laws which are somewhat arbitrarily applied as the situation, the subjective opinion (much as they try to exclude it) of the courts and the circumstance influencing the steps in relation to arrests, charges, prosecution and sentence.
Frequently these do indeed result in frustration at the variation in the application of these rules.

But, it is much better than not having any laws against such behaviour.

Please tell me how this is or should be any different?

There is no speech I can think of that will be traumatising in the same way as a physical assault. The stakes are lower. We figure out where to place a violent attack on a scale because the victim will be left with some kind of lasting damage that can colour their lives forever. So I think the comparison is not only a deflection but it doesn’t really work as a comparison.

Banning speech doesn’t work. It never has. It just pushes it underground where it festers. Better to have it all out in the open where it can be debated and beaten with sound logic. What are people afraid of?

And seriously, I ask again, who decides where the line is? This is actually an important question that nobody can ever seem to answer.

Seathrun66

Big Gerry wrote: »

This is just one of many similar cases.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1015704/Downs-Syndrome-boy-mental-age-charged-racist-assault.html

He attacked a young Asian girl but it's clear that this was an utterly stupid case to bring. And it's such a unique case that it made the Mail, Record and Express though you have links to other similar cases. Happy to read any links you have.

Gatling

Seathrun66 wrote: »

He attacked a young Asian girl but it's .

He didn't attack anyone .

Why do people make claims of whats in posts that isn't there

Seathrun66

Gatling wrote: »

He didn't attack anyone .

Why do people make claims of whats in posts that isn't there

Usually when the OP didn't read his/her own link. The boy shoved the girl. A shove comes under Assault in Scottish courts.

http://https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/call-changes-law-after-downs-2636366

Where are the other links to prosecution under hate crime of those with Down's Syndrome?


.

I am absolutely opposed to self identification, I am absolutely opposed to illegal immigration, I am absolutely opposed to gender (whatever that means) quotas.

I am genuinely a target for this "hate" speech bull****.

I don't hate the people I oppose. I disagree with them. There is no hatred.

But sure **** it. I identify as not being hate filled.

I assume that's good enough?

But......


I'm regressive.


Progressive means that things aren't things.......


2020 is a ****storm

Gatling

Seathrun66 wrote: »

A shove comes under Assault in Scottish courts.

Lol

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am absolutely opposed to self identification, I am absolutely opposed to illegal immigration, I am absolutely opposed to gender (whatever that means) quotas.

I am genuinely a target for this "hate" speech bull****.

I don't hate the people I oppose. I disagree with them. There is no hatred.

But sure **** it. I identify as not being hate filled.

I assume that's good enough?

But......


I'm regressive.


Progressive means that things aren't things.......


2020 is a ****storm

The majority of us will be targeted .

Which boardsie will be the first to get a Garda visit because someone will make a wild claim about one of us supposedly said on here they found offensive?

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

I am absolutely opposed to self identification, I am absolutely opposed to illegal immigration, I am absolutely opposed to gender (whatever that means) quotas.

I am genuinely a target for this "hate" speech bull****.

I don't hate the people I oppose. I disagree with them. There is no hatred.

But sure **** it. I identify as not being hate filled.

I assume that's good enough?

But......


I'm regressive.


Progressive means that things aren't things.......


2020 is a ****storm

No you're not. If you've been posting here for ten years then you've worked out a way of getting your opinion across without inciting hatred. Same situation with all the other long-term posters here. This thread has been full of intense disagreement but I see no hate.

I have no problem with people saying that they don't like other people. I similarly have the right to disagree with them if I so wish and you'd probably see no harm in that.

What I don't like is people threatening others or inciting hatred or violence towards them.

Seathrun66

Gatling wrote: »

Lol

Not an opinion but legal fact. A shove constitutes assault under Scottish law. Ya gotta try some research man. It'll open up horizons.

http://https://crime.scot/assault/

Seathrun66

Gatling wrote: »

The majority of us will be targeted .

Which boardsie will be the first to get a Garda visit because someone will make a wild claim about one of us supposedly said on here they found offensive?

No they won't. You've been posting here for 13 years and worked out a means of not getting banned. You won't be a martyr, worry not.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

There is no speech I can think of that will be traumatising in the same way as a physical assault. The stakes are lower. We figure out where to place a violent attack on a scale because the victim will be left with some kind of lasting damage that can colour their lives forever. So I think the comparison is not only a deflection but it doesn’t really work as a comparison.

I don’t think there actually is an exhaustive list, but if you imagine that their victims don’t suffer psychological consequences as a result of someone or a groups attempting to humiliate them and degrade them without ever laying a finger on their victims, and think that couldn’t possibly have any long lasting damage, it’s probably a good thing we have numerous laws in Ireland already in which the potential for long lasting psychological harm is acknowledged (granted the domestic violence act with coercive control is more recent than the children’s act).

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Banning speech doesn’t work. It never has. It just pushes it underground where it festers. Better to have it all out in the open where it can be debated and beaten with sound logic. What are people afraid of?

Banning speech works brilliantly when you don’t want to have to listen to some insufferable bore going on about how everything should be up for debate and nothing should be above criticism and all the rest of it, and they have no intention of using sound logic or arguing in good faith. I don’t think people are afraid to participate in a debate even as one-sided and all as it may be, I think they just can’t be arsed because they have better things to be doing like getting on with their lives.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And seriously, I ask again, who decides where the line is? This is actually an important question that nobody can ever seem to answer.

There isn’t a line, each case is determined on its own merits whether or not it’s worth investigating or spending any amount of time and resources on. I still reckon that time a complainant made a complaint to Gardaí about Stephen Fry potentially having committed blasphemy, it had to have been a set-up as a publicity stunt -

Stephen Fry blasphemy probe dropped after gardaí fail to find 'substantial number of outraged people'

political analyst

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Usually when the OP didn't read his/her own link. The boy shoved the girl. A shove comes under Assault in Scottish courts.

http://https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/call-changes-law-after-downs-2636366

Where are the other links to prosecution under hate crime of those with Down's Syndrome?


.

There's a problem with that link. Here's the correct link for that article:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/call-changes-law-after-downs-2636366

political analyst

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not an opinion but legal fact. A shove constitutes assault under Scottish law. Ya gotta try some research man. It'll open up horizons.

http://https://crime.scot/assault/

It's academic in this case - the charge was dropped.

Gatling

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No they won't. You've been posting here for 13 years and worked out a means of not getting banned.

No I haven't I've been banned for as little as saying it's been a funny day on a thread .

Once a small cohort believe they have power to inflict real damage to another poster because they don't agree on a certain subject then it will be open season ,
I could easily name 4/5 people who would be only happy to scream hate speech to get threads shut or posters banned , Look at the case of the excop in England who ended up in court for sharing a tweet ,not the original poster or person who wrote a Limerick ,but one individual and the person who made the complaint to the police had their identity hidden and the evidence given was redacted in court ,and that was just for a tweet .
Imagine what's going to happen here

Seathrun66

political analyst wrote: »

There's a problem with that link. Here's the correct link for that article:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/call-changes-law-after-downs-2636366

Thanks, unsure why it didn't attach.

Seathrun66

Gatling wrote: »

No I haven't I've been banned for as little as saying it's been a funny day on a thread .

Once a small cohort believe they have power to inflict real damage to another poster because they don't agree on a certain subject then it will be open season ,
I could easily name 4/5 people who would be only happy to scream hate speech to get threads shut or posters banned , Look at the case of the excop in England who ended up in court for sharing a tweet ,not the original poster or person who wrote a Limerick ,but one individual and the person who made the complaint to the police had their identity hidden and the evidence given was redacted in court ,and that was just for a tweet .
Imagine what's going to happen here

Yet you're still posting. Thus you were suspended not banned.

Seathrun66

political analyst wrote: »

It's academic in this case - the charge was dropped.

The pertinence relates to a shove constituting assault under Scottish law. Previous posters either not reading their own links or commenting on other's links they'd not read.

It ain't hard people.

political analyst

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The pertinence relates to a shove constituting assault under Scottish law. Previous posters either not reading their own links or commenting on other's links they'd not read.

It ain't hard people.

This case in Northern Ireland is similar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7001323.stm

A retired teacher convicted of assaulting a 12 year-old girl in his classroom has failed in a High Court bid to clear his name.
David Bell, 52, taught at Laurelhill Community College, Lisburn, when he admitted common assault by touching the girl under her chin in 2002.