Hate Speech Public Consultation

WrenBoy

I wonder if the next protest against a DP centre in small town rural Ireland will see the protestors be warned that they could be in breach or these new laws by Gardaí

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

No. I don't think that this is some sort of coordinated event like you seem to be suggesting.

I think the legislation is being considered, as it should as a consequence to 20 years of growing internet use and activity and the evidence of many people using it as a platform by which to target others in order to cause them anguish which has had significant negative impacts on their health.

Also, there was an anti bullying campaign launched in Irish schools in 2006. Autism Ireland launched a campaign about bullying in the workplace in 2015

The UK has an anti-bullying week, was held just 4 weeks ago and has specific websites dedicated to education and support around bullying including that in the workplace.

I always find it funny when people talk about activists today and suggest that they would have had no place in previous times while ignoring that significant changes only came about so that modern day activities are now seen, as they should be, as normal, specifically because of the work of activists who were dismissed as attention seekers at the time.

Civil rights, anti-apartheid, gay rights, same sex marraige, divorce etc all came about because of people who were disparaged in the same way as many modern day activists but persevered to draw attention to a just cause.

Despite it being explained already, I think this insistence to continue down the path of promoting hate speech laws because of bullying is arguing in bad faith. anti Bullying and hate speech laws are two parts of a Venn diagram that only overlap a fraction but the narrative has now moved to represent these laws as a complete solution to bullying because they can't stand on their own merit, which is typically what I would expect whenever the scrutiny on any virtue signalling based law is shown up to be the sham that it is.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

I always find it funny when posters claim that I said things, which I obviously didn't say. :rolleyes:

Gosh.. perhaps that's why people are concerned with this legislation?

This isn't just a thread about you.
Sorry to disappoint.

Is that why you are concerned with this legislation? You thought it was targeting you specifically?

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Despite it being explained already, I think this insistence to continue down the path of promoting hate speech laws because of bullying is arguing in bad faith. anti Bullying and hate speech laws are two parts of a Venn diagram that only overlap a fraction but the narrative has now moved to represent these laws as a complete solution to bullying because they can't stand on their own merit, which is typically what I would expect whenever the scrutiny on any virtue signalling based law is shown up to be the sham that it is.

This is like the multiculturalism debate.

'We dont want to talk about instances of people of different cultures existing happily in Ireland, we just want to focus on areas of conflict so we can say multiculturalism doesn't work.'

By your rational, the laws brought in ensure Civil rights, anti-apartheid, gay rights, same sex marraige, divorce etc, would have been referred to as virtue signalling at the time when they were being fought for.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

This isn't just a thread about you.
Sorry to disappoint.

Is that why you are concerned with this legislation? You thought it was targeting you specifically?

Good God, you really are incapable of dealing honestly with posters.

Waste of bloody time. I'm done with you.

Kivaro

I find it amazing, but not surprising, that people like Ebun Joseph will be able to spit forth her vitriol and racism from her own bully pulpit provided to her at RTE and at UCD with full immunity that will be granted to her under this new bill.

One could presume that a number of crimes and attacks already committed on white Irish by blacks and black gangs in Ireland could be ascribed to her overexaggerated claims of racism that the whole country is apparently responsible for. Her false accusations (Ribena et al.) of racism is a deliberate incitement of hatred, but conveniently she has carte blanche to continue her race-based attacks on the Irish people due to her immunity from prosecution by being in academia.

This new bill is deliberately skewed to prosecute and convict those in dubious circumstances where a premediated bias by the "perceived" victim could determine a criminal record and possibly a loss of freedom.
Ireland is slowly losing its collective mind.

TomTomTim

Tell me how wrote: »

This is like the multiculturalism debate.

'We dont want to talk about instances of people of different cultures existing happily in Ireland, we just want to focus on areas of conflict so we can say multiculturalism doesn't work.'

By your rational, the laws brought in ensure Civil rights, anti-apartheid, gay rights, same sex marraige, divorce etc, would have been referred to as virtue signalling at the time when they were being fought for.

Very disingenuous, but not surprising. Not one of us critics of multiculturalism deny the fact that many come here and integrate well, the simple point has always been the same, that even if 20 or 30% of the group don't integrate then chaos will eventually ensue.

As klaz was trying to highlight, the constant misrepresentation that pro hate speech posters regularly dabble in, is what causes fear about this legislation. People like you regularly imply hate speech, where none exists, and this will result in at very best wasting police time. The worst case scenario is people like you ending up on our judiciary and using arbitrary standards for deciding what is hate or what is not hate. The current lot of judges may rule with sanity, you can't say the same about the next, who will be a new generation who were brought up on wokeness.

Hector Savage

Tell me how wrote: »

This is like the multiculturalism debate.

'We dont want to talk about instances of people of different cultures existing happily in Ireland, we just want to focus on areas of conflict so we can say multiculturalism doesn't work.'

By your rational, the laws brought in ensure Civil rights, anti-apartheid, gay rights, same sex marraige, divorce etc, would have been referred to as virtue signalling at the time when they were being fought for.

Disingenous tripe.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

This is like the multiculturalism debate.

'We dont want to talk about instances of people of different cultures existing happily in Ireland, we just want to focus on areas of conflict so we can say multiculturalism doesn't work.'

By your rational, the laws brought in ensure Civil rights, anti-apartheid, gay rights, same sex marraige, divorce etc, would have been referred to as virtue signalling at the time when they were being fought for.

this is just an absolute complete misrepresentation of anything I've said.

Hate speech laws are allowing vast over-reach to legislate against unpopular opinions, its more akin to legislating for apartheid or against gay marraige than for it. You have equated removing freedoms with other cases where they were granted.

But of course its the same rhetoric , 'I can't espouse the merits of the proposed law, so ill imply the person who is against it is a racist/homophobe'

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is just an absolute complete misrepresentation of anything I've said.

Hate speech laws are allowing vast over-reach to legislate against unpopular opinions, its more akin to legislating for apartheid or against gay marraige than for it. You have equated removing freedoms with other cases where they were granted.

But of course its the same rhetoric , 'I can't espouse the merits of the proposed law, so ill imply the person who is against it is a racist/homophobe'

Another person I see angry with posters words being used to form opinions about them while no doubt agreeing with people referring to anyone who disagrees with them as a woke virtue signaller.

Can you show us how hate speech laws are allowing vast over-reach to legislate against unpopular opinions?
Something you can specifically say is doing so as opposed to any 'it might, it'll become, it starts with, wait till you see'.

CtevenSrowder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good God, you really are incapable of dealing honestly with posters.

Waste of bloody time. I'm done with you.

When one sets up in their head that the people who they disagree with a hateful racists, you are never going to get an honest discussion.

I guess thats what American academia can do to you though.

Omackeral

Tell me how wrote: »

Another person I see angry with posters words being used to firm opinions about them while no doubt agreeing with people referring to anyone who disagrees with them as a woke virtue signalled.

Can you show us how hate speech laws are allowing vast over-reach to legislate against unpopular opinions?
Something you can specifically say is doing so as opposed to any 'it might, it'll become, it starts with, wait till you see'.

I know all of those words. In that order, though, I haven’t the slightest clue what you’re trying to say.

Tell me how

TomTomTim wrote: »

Very disingenuous, but not surprising. Not one of us critics of multiculturalism deny the fact that many come here and integrate well, the simple point has always been the same, that even if 20 or 30% of the group don't integrate then chaos will eventually ensue.

As klaz was trying to highlight, the constant misrepresentation that pro hate speech posters regularly dabble in, is what causes fear about this legislation. People like you regularly imply hate speech, where none exists, and this will result in at very best wasting police time. The worst case scenario is people like you ending up on our judiciary and using arbitrary standards for deciding what is hate or what is not hate. The current lot of judges may rule with sanity, you can't say the same about the next, who will be a new generation who were brought up on wokeness.

I'd say the worst case is judges deciding to treat 80% of people a particular way because of actions of 20% of them.

Tell me how

Omackeral wrote: »

I know all of those words. In that order, though, I haven’t the slightest clue what you’re trying to say.

Don't worry about it.

Tell me how

[PHP][/PHP]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

When one sets up in their head that the people who they disagree with a hateful racists, you are never going to get an honest discussion.

I guess thats what American academia can do to you though.

And here we are yet again, the point in the thread where people are frustrated that someone disagrees with them and tries to imply it's because they have just decided to assume they are racists.

While no doubt, agreeing with using terms like woke, SJW, virtue signaller to categorise anyone thinking laws to restrict the spread of hateful speech are worth considering.

All while referring to Orwells 1984 like it was the only publication to ever discuss government legislation.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

My point is, nobody can define what hate, or hate speech is. It's contextual and nebulous. It's an absolute nonsense to legislate for "hate" when it can't be defined.

It's pandering

I think this succinctly and perfectly describes the problem.

It's like the war on terror. You'll never know when victory is achieved, so you might end up looking for "hate" where it doesn't exist. Red haired people will declare themselves a marginalised ethnic minority and demand laws protecting them from "violent words".

Hector Savage

^^ beat me to it TomTomTim.

Hate speech is a nightmare to define, it's so subjective that really anything could be classed as such.

There was a situation in the UK where a fat woman called the police about the "hate crime" of someone calling her fat, of course being the UK about 5 squad cars and a SWAT team were sent.

This shiyte is the thin end of the wedge and will be used for all sorts of excuses to detain people.

Eric Cartman

Can we all just remember that the exact same people who are telling us that this law won't have over reaching powers and police unpopular opinions, are the same people that only want this law because they also believe it will be used to over reach and police unpopular opinions.

If it was as minute and toothless as its supporters make it out to be, they wouldn't be supporting it as hard as they are.

Kivaro

Hector Savage wrote: »

^^ beat me to it TomTomTim.

Hate speech is a nightmare to define, it's so subjective that really anything could be classed as such.

There was a situation in the UK where a fat woman called the police about the "hate crime" of someone calling her fat, of course being the UK about 5 squad cars and a SWAT team were sent.

This shiyte is the thin end of the wedge and will be used for all sorts of excuses to detain people.

I see what you did there.
(Hope my post is not hate speech, but who knows?)

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Can we all just remember that the exact same people who are telling us that this law won't have over reaching powers and police unpopular opinions, are the same people that only want this law because they also believe it will be used to over reach and police unpopular opinions.

If it was as minute and toothless as its supporters make it out to be, they wouldn't be supporting it as hard as they are.

Would you agree that by the same token those against the law know that the views expressed by themselves or many people they generally are on a similar wavelength with, are founded in hatred and motivated to denigrate or cause hurt to others.

Or will you suggest that I have no basis to make a statement while being very confident that your statement is 100% accurate?

Hector Savage

Deleted User wrote: »

I think this succinctly and perfectly describes the problem.

It's like the war on terror. You'll never know when victory is achieved, so you might end up looking for "hate" where it doesn't exist. Red haired people will declare themselves a marginalised ethnic minority and demand laws protecting them from "violent words".

Also known as the retired St. George syndrome ...

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]

And here we are yet again, the point in the thread where people are frustrated that someone disagrees with them and tries to imply it's because they have just decided to assume they are racists.

While no doubt, agreeing with using terms like woke, SJW, virtue signaller to categorise anyone thinking laws to restrict the spread of hateful speech are worth considering.

All while referring to Orwells 1984 like it was the only publication to ever discuss government legislation.

You did assume that. You implied it in about your 2nd or 3rd post in the thread. You have since said you simply aren't bothered to even try to back up your own implication, and haven't withdrawn it. I don't agree with any of those terms (with the exception of virtue signaling as I believe it's a thing, though I don't believe you are engaging in it) and don't use them myself (or at least try not to). But let's be honest, from the get go you didn't seem very inclined towards having an honest discussion.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Would you agree that by the same token those against the law know that the views expressed by themselves or many people they generally are on a similar wavelength with, are founded in hatred and motivated to denigrate or cause hurt to others.

Or will you suggest that I have no basis to make a statement while being very confident that your statement is 100% accurate?

Do you accept that over reach is possible? Regardless of whether the courts are busy or not, do you accept it has the possibility of being used for nefarious reasons?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Would you agree that by the same token those against the law know that the views expressed by themselves or many people they generally are on a similar wavelength with, are founded in hatred and motivated to denigrate or cause hurt to others.

Could you law not be used against you? That you are inciting "hatred" against free speech advocates? That you are expressing views that are motivated to denigrate or cause hurt to free speech advocates?

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

Would you agree that by the same token those against the law know that the views expressed by themselves or many people they generally are on a similar wavelength with, are founded in hatred and motivated to denigrate or cause hurt to others.

Or will you suggest that I have no basis to make a statement while being very confident that your statement is 100% accurate?

Im sure there are people who disagree with it as they like to make overtly hate mongering views and incite violence on some groups, yes.

But there are a much higher percentage of people who oppose the law because its blatantly obvious that it will censor journalists and online comments relating to certain demographics.

Its pretty obvious the idea of the law is to once and for all shut up grifters like Gemma o'd, Justin Barrett or grand Torino. I think most people know they're targets 1, 2 and 3 for this. The issue is by that same token you have moderate voices like Peter Casey, Ian O' Doherty, Niall Boylan and the good posters of boards.ie (posts that are not deleted or receive red cards) who will almost certainly fall foul.

On the pendulum swing, the areas that some of the most extreme content from the other side of the aisle hail from - academia (racists like Ebun Joseph) and the arts (RTE) and I'm sure people who will use those spaces to spew hate (Louise oneill, una Mullally, Ivana Bacik, Hazel Chu, etc..) will be allowed to dominate the discussion unfettered by moderation or legal action.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Do you accept that over reach is possible? Regardless of whether the courts are busy or not, do you accept it has the possibility of being used for nefarious reasons?

I don't think over reach is any more likely to occur here than it does as a consequence of other laws or opportunities people have to report others.

Every Garda car has a confidential line phone number printed on the side of it. (Or at least I think they do iirc).
Revenue have facilities for people to make disclosures as to tax evasion activities.
Insurance companies have long advertised to ask people to report fraudulent claims.

Have we heard of these facilities being used for nefarious reasons to the extent that the facility has been removed, or even become a topic of conversation?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Could you law not be used against you? That you are inciting "hatred" against free speech advocates? That you are expressing views that are motivated to denigrate or cause hurt to free speech advocates?

You tell me.

As previously outlined, with the determination of bullying in the workplace for example, there are processes in place to determine acceptable behaviour and these exist in the context of how you are referring to me here.

There is the report function and a chain of moderation of at least 3 levels (forum mod, Category mod, admin) to determine whether our contributions are acceptable or otherwise. This largely works very well for what is a free website moderated by volunteers for the most part.

I have already said I don't expect to see any cases relating to Boards posts being investigated at a legal level because of the systems already in place.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You did assume that. You implied it in about your 2nd or 3rd post in the thread. You have since said you simply aren't bothered to even try to back up your own implication, and haven't withdrawn it. I don't agree with any of those terms (with the exception of virtue signaling as I believe it's a thing, though I don't believe you are engaging in it) and don't use them myself (or at least try not to). But let's be honest, from the get go you didn't seem very inclined towards having an honest discussion.

I can't but think that for you the determination of an honest discussion is whether or not someone disagrees with you.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im sure there are people who disagree with it as they like to make overtly hate mongering views and incite violence on some groups, yes.

But there are a much higher percentage of people who oppose the law because its blatantly obvious that it will censor journalists and online comments relating to certain demographics.

Its pretty obvious the idea of the law is to once and for all shut up grifters like Gemma o'd, Justin Barrett or grand Torino. I think most people know they're targets 1, 2 and 3 for this. The issue is by that same token you have moderate voices like Peter Casey, Ian O' Doherty, Niall Boylan and the good posters of boards.ie (posts that are not deleted or receive red cards) who will almost certainly fall foul.

On the pendulum swing, the areas that some of the most extreme content from the other side of the aisle hail from - academia (racists like Ebun Joseph) and the arts (RTE) and I'm sure people who will use those spaces to spew hate (Louise oneill, una Mullally, Ivana Bacik, Hazel Chu, etc..) will be allowed to dominate the discussion unfettered by moderation or legal action.

Just want to touch on the bit in bold. That is a central part of this, 'online comments relating to certain demographics' do lead to discrimination towards people within those demographics unfairly.

All of us want to be judged on our own individual merits and none of us expect to be held responsible for others actions purely because we are culturally similar to them.

Do you agree that this is only fair? That people are entitled to be judged on their own merits as individuals and broad denigrating comments about their 'group' is both harmful and hurtful to them.

As for this law targeting individuals. I know those advocating for it would say that no individual is targeted but that behaviour is but I think we all agree that the behaviour of some you mentioned is what they may have in mind.

As for PC, IOD, NB et al, being targeted while LON, UM, IB and HC will be allowed dominate.
Again it comes down to my first point here, should people be allowed to denigrate individuals as a consequence of the group to which they are identified as being a part of?

And if, as you say, you think the latter group spew hate, then, this law will indeed make it possible for you or others to make a claim that they are breaking the law although I would suggest people maybe keep their powder dry in suggesting Barrister Ivana Bacic is doing so .

Any claim that the law will be applied disproportionally towards people above is just hyperbole at this point. I have no doubt that many who you think will not be targeted would already feel that the state and legal system is unfairly tilted against the people they are often advocating for.

Biker79

Deleted User wrote: »

I think this succinctly and perfectly describes the problem.

It's like the war on terror. You'll never know when victory is achieved, so you might end up looking for "hate" where it doesn't exist. Red haired people will declare themselves a marginalised ethnic minority and demand laws protecting them from "violent words".

The most egregious acts of oppression can be justified by labelling people as terrorists. ( Syria, Saudi ).