Hate Speech Public Consultation

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

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?

I'll take that to mean yes it is possible that it could occur. To answer your questions I've no idea. But we have seen examples of the overreach that could potentially occur from the UK. You have even stated yourself that:

Tell me how wrote: »

The threads consistently targeting minority groups will have to change their tone considerably I expect.

No why would that be? Is it because people posting on these threads could end up before the courts?

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

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

No, it's for someone not to insinuate proponents against a law are against it because they are racist or hateful people like you did:

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

Usually, for obvious reasons, often with new account names but the same message. If how Boards treats these threads in future changes, these people will no doubt decry the legislation rather than their role in creating the need for it.

Seathrun66

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.

Link? And was there a charge or prosecution?

Seathrun66

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?

Any such examples of incitement to hatred or violence from this thread?

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Any such examples of incitement to hatred or violence from this thread?

How about this quote:

Originally Posted by Tell me how View Post
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.

The poster describe free speech advocates of holding views that are "founded in hatred". That in itself could incite hatred.

I'm still waiting for someone to clearly define what hatred (and also hate) is.

If you can't define it, you can't legislate against it.

DeadHand

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm still waiting for someone to clearly define what hatred (and also hate) is.

If you can't define it, you can't legislate against it.

It will be whatever the politically dominant groupings of the day decide it is.

This is what makes the legalisation so dangerous.

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

How about this quote:

Originally Posted by Tell me how View Post
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.

The poster describe free speech advocates of holding views that are "founded in hatred". That in itself could incite hatred.

To point out that some people have hateful views is itself a hateful view? That's a laughable leap.

And I believe that all posters here are advocates of free speech, irrespective of political leaning. some of us just don't want people inciting violence towards others. It really is not much to ask for.

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm still waiting for someone to clearly define what hatred (and also hate) is.

If you can't define it, you can't legislate against it.

I think the OED may disagree with you.

biko

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And I believe that all posters here are advocates of free speech, irrespective of political leaning. some of us just don't want people inciting violence towards others. It really is not much to ask for.

I don't think anyone here wants that, but only some are concerned that if you give power to the government to regulate speech they may just take it too far.

No-one wants a repeat of

June 17, 1959: Hearing that an Italian ice-cream parlour had opened on Belfast’s Shankill Road, Paisley addressed a local meeting at a Belfast rally, he publicly chastised “the men of the Shankill for allowing papists, pope’s men, and papishers” to live on the Shankill Rd.
‘You people of the Shankill Road, what’s wrong with you? Number 425 Shankill Road – do you know who lives there? Pope’s men, that’s who – Italian Papists on the Shankill Road]‘
Angry crowds went to the addresses called out by Paisley, burned out the occupants and looted their homes.

Speech like this is already punishable.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm still waiting for someone to clearly define what hatred (and also hate) is.

If you can't define it, you can't legislate against it.

Why are you pretending like it hasn’t been given in this thread already?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It can be defined? It’s been defined already in Irish law. Of course it’s based upon context, just like everything else is based upon context. I don’t know why you’re suggesting it can’t be defined when it’s easy to define and has been defined -

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

And it has been legislated for already in the prohibition of incitement to hatred act, 30 years ago. This recent proposal is just to modernise and consolidate existing legislation and broaden it to protect groups in society on the basis of their ethnicity, disability, gender identity or sexual orientation.

There will also be defences against an accusation of hate speech or sharing hate speech online or whether or not something constitutes hate speech, and no, there won’t be any dictionary definitions provided, because adults will be expected to use their common sense and behave in a reasonable manner online. Boards nor any other social media sites won’t go silent any more than they didn’t go silent at any other time when “free speech” was apparently under threat and it was all 1984 doom and gloom. The proposals aren’t suggesting any such thing.

biko

If I say something that makes you dislike another person that is hate.

Like "US republicans are racists" or "Tories are ruining the country".

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

How about this quote:

Originally Posted by Tell me how View Post
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.

The poster describe free speech advocates of holding views that are "founded in hatred". That in itself could incite hatred.

Did you miss the first three words of that part you posted and the context in which the post was made?

That aside, can you explain how that post could incite hatred?

Is this an attempt to show how words can be misinterpreted to imply that hatred was expressed? Because, I mean by that token the Soccer threads are going to disappear overnight but I think that this is a strawman as to how the legislation is intended to work.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, it's for someone not to insinuate proponents against a law are against it because they are racist or hateful people like you did:

You are interpreting that I suggested that people are racist or hateful, when I didn't use either word in my post.

Those are your words. I was pointing out a commonality in positions on various topics, and on this topic.

Tell me how

DeadHand wrote: »

It will be whatever the politically dominant groupings of the day decide it is.

This is what makes the legalisation so dangerous.

Does that happen in the legal prosecuting of other crimes?

Boards frequently has comments that the Irish courts system is a joke, that sentences aren't strict enough.
Do you think the politically dominant groups of today are influences cases being tried and convictions determined?

Would that align with the historically low trial and conviction rates for sexual assault and rape crimes?

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

If I say something that makes you dislike another person that is hate.

Like "US republicans are racists" or "Tories are ruining the country".

From the UN

In the context of this document, the term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor. This is often rooted in, and generates intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive.

If the definition which will applied in Irish legislation is similar to this then are people here going to have a problem with this?

biko

Tell me how wrote: »

If the definition which will applied in Irish legislation is similar to this then are people here going to have a problem with this?

But is it? Can you compare them?

Why is religion there but not political views? Neither are inherent.

Annasopra

biko wrote: »

But is it? Can you compare them?

Why is religion there but not political views? Neither are inherent.

Have you got some examples of people being prosecuted for political hate speech?

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

But is it? Can you compare them?

Why is religion there but not political views? Neither are inherent.

I don't think that anyone can argue but that religion has long been accepted as something which some people see as an inherent part of their identity. Not saying it absolutely should be, but peoples connection with their faith would no doubt be expressed by many as a fundamental part of who they are.

Many devout people see their religion as a vocation as opposed to a matter of choice, and often a fluctuating one at that, by which people engage in politics.

biko

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Have you got some examples of people being prosecuted for political hate speech?

I don't, because political views aren't included in the protections.

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

I don't, because political views aren't included in the protections.

Nor should they be.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

You are interpreting that I suggested that people are racist or hateful, when I didn't use either word in my post.

Those are your words. I was pointing out a commonality in positions on various topics, and on this topic.

It is quite clear the insinuation, deny it all you want but it's quite clear. I suggest we just park this hear as it's adding nothing to the discussion.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It is quite clear the insinuation, deny it all you want but it's quite clear. I suggest we just park this hear as it's adding nothing to the discussion.

You are literally making stuff up. Instead of having to park stuff like this, might be best not to start it.

One eyed Jack

biko wrote: »

If I say something that makes you dislike another person that is hate.

Like "US republicans are racists" or "Tories are ruining the country".

Hate is much more intense than just dislike of a particular individual or group. I dislike plenty of people or groups, I despise plenty more people or groups, but I don’t actually hate anyone. That takes energy I really don’t care to waste :pac: Your above statements would be likely to stir up suspicion, but would be unlikely to incite hatred or perpetuate discrimination against US Republicans or Tories here in Ireland. People may imagine the statements are a bit odd is all, if they weren’t aware of the context.

biko wrote: »

But is it? Can you compare them?

Why is religion there but not political views? Neither are inherent.

Yes, one can compare them on the basis that they are identities. It isn’t required that they are inherent, and political affiliation is recognised as an identity in some jurisdictions, as is religious affiliation.

Political or religious views are on slightly shakier grounds - neither are protected characteristics in the Republic for example. It’s why I suggested earlier that Blindboy, edgelord that he is, wasn’t going to upset anyone by referring to haunted bread, whereas Rory O’ Neill was always going to upset the people he gave as examples of his earlier statements in relation to whom in Irish society he considered homophobic.

It’s also why “gender critical” philosophical beliefs or political statements are unlikely to be exempt from being considered hate speech, as there already exists in equality legislation provisions to protect people from discrimination, which could see them qualifying as being the targets of hate speech.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

You are literally making stuff up. Instead of having to park stuff like this, might be best not to start it.

haha ok. As I said, it's quite clear what you are getting at, as much as you want to roll back on it now.

these people will no doubt decry the legislation rather than their role in creating the need for it.

I mean, what else could the above mean if not that certain posters posting here are hateful and posting hateful things. I asked you yesterday for some examples which you stated you simply weren't bothered to provide.

Regardless, you have stated that

The threads consistently targeting minority groups will have to change their tone considerably I expect.

Why is that?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why are you pretending like it hasn’t been given in this thread already?





And it has been legislated for already in the prohibition of incitement to hatred act, 30 years ago. This recent proposal is just to modernise and consolidate existing legislation and broaden it to protect groups in society on the basis of their ethnicity, disability, gender identity or sexual orientation.

There will also be defences against an accusation of hate speech or sharing hate speech online or whether or not something constitutes hate speech, and no, there won’t be any dictionary definitions provided, because adults will be expected to use their common sense and behave in a reasonable manner online. Boards nor any other social media sites won’t go silent any more than they didn’t go silent at any other time when “free speech” was apparently under threat and it was all 1984 doom and gloom. The proposals aren’t suggesting any such thing.

So hate speech is something that can be insulting etc etc and something likely to incite hatred....

That doesn't explain anything.

It's not specific enough to legislate. If I take offence or feel abused by being called a terf or being called cis, does that qualify as hate speech for the person who repeatedly calls me that?

If not, why not?

Seathrun66

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It is quite clear the insinuation, deny it all you want but it's quite clear. I suggest we just park this hear as it's adding nothing to the discussion.

So, in summary, you're just inventing stuff.

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I think the OED may disagree with you.

to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward

That's meant to be illegal?

You sure?

I mean, I intensely dislike paedophiles. Is that hate speech? I hate rude people. Is that hate speech? Is there a list of people I am allowed to be hostile against?

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward

That's meant to be illegal?

You sure?

I mean, I intensely dislike paedophiles. Is that hate speech? I hate rude people. Is that hate speech? Is there a list of people I am allowed to be hostile against?

Your words:

I'm still waiting for someone to clearly define what hatred (and also hate) is. If you can't define it, you can't legislate against it

You asked for a definition of Hatred and got one. Your not liking it is irrelevant.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So hate speech is something that can be insulting etc etc and something likely to incite hatred....

That doesn't explain anything.

It's not specific enough to legislate.

What do you want exactly? It’s taken directly from existing legislation, it’s definitely specific enough to legislate. Hate speech is something that can be insulting, and then you say it doesn’t explain anything, but go on to give an example of something which you feel is insulting, so I’d say it explains it well enough for you to be able to understand it.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I take offence or feel abused by being called a terf or being called cis, does that qualify as hate speech for the person who repeatedly calls me that?

If not, why not?

It could do, but the only way you’ll know for certain is if you were to make a complaint to the proper authorities, in the hypothetical context you’re prescribing I suppose that would be the Gardaí. I’m not going to pretend I don’t see how you could be offended by what I know are terms used in a pejorative context. I’m also not going to try and be coy about it and pretend I don’t know they’re used to insult people and they’re not just benign terms, they are purposely inciteful and provocative, and I would say it’s reasonable to determine that they are intended to humiliate the individual or a group of people. On that basis their use might well constitute hate speech. I’d certainly be interested to see it tested.