Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hate Speech Public Consultation

Options
1…5960626465…85

Comments

  • Options
    #1832
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    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.

    Hatred is to intensely or passionately dislike something or someone.

    You agree with that?

    And you want to ensure people aren't able to display that emotion without the possibility of being punished?

    Wow.

    I honestly hope you don't get your wish. (That in and of itself could be defined as hate speech)


  • Options
    #1833
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,623 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Hatred is to intensely or passionately dislike something or someone.

    You agree with that?

    And you want to ensure people aren't able to display that emotion without the possibility of being punished?

    Wow.

    I honestly hope you don't get your wish. (That in and of itself could be defined as hate speech)

    You keep asking for definitions. You keep disliking them. Can't help you any more if the OED, Collins or Macmillan are no good. Time to set up your own dictionary?


  • Options
    #1834
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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.





    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.

    Well I wouldn't.

    I don't think the over policing of words is dangerous and ****ing stupid.

    If trump was trying to ban words or speech people would be losing their minds, but when it's seen as "progressive", the usual suspects come out in their droves to try and ensure it happens.

    You can't police words without there being a definitive and obvious contextual threat or call to violence. Being offended or feeling insulted should not be a criminal matter.


  • Options
    #1835
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    You keep asking for definitions. You keep disliking them. Can't help you any more if the OED, Collins or Macmillan are no good. Time to set up your own dictionary?

    I feel belittled and insulted by your snide remarks. You are guilty of hate speech.


  • Options
    #1836
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,623 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I feel belittled and insulted by your snide remarks. You are guilty of hate speech.

    Was that via the OED or Cambridge definition?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1837
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,569 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Deleted User wrote: »

    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?

    I already gave an answer that touches on this.
    Tell me how wrote: »
    I think one reason is that it may be that the likelihood is that the terminology for trans people is more emotive because of what they are more likely to have suffered before transitioning to their new identity.

    For many trans people, they have spent their life feeling different and feeling misidentified and so when they finally get to a position where they are comfortable in their new identity, a 'deliberate' action to refer to the old one can cause them pain because they continue to feel lost or ignored or that their own desires are irrelevant.

    Whereas, referring to someone as a terf is less likely (though I don't know) to refer more to their behaviour/opinion rather than their specific identity.

    I will freely say I do not have strong opinions on this as I am not overly familiar with the experiences of people on either side of the above argument.

    It could be said to be similar to the comparison between the use of the word black versus white when referring to someone. There are greater connotations attached to the word 'black' for historical reasons and because of the lived experience of many people and while that doesn't mean the word 'white' cannot be used in a derogatory way, it has historically been less likely that this will be the case.

    You can, by all means, argue that such disparity is unfair, but if so, surely the argument would be that the use of either would be offensive rather than neither being so.


  • Options
    #1838
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,623 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well I wouldn't.

    I don't think the over policing of words is dangerous and ****ing stupid.

    If trump was trying to ban words or speech people would be losing their minds, but when it's seen as "progressive", the usual suspects come out in their droves to try and ensure it happens.

    You can't police words without there being a definitive and obvious contextual threat or call to violence. Being offended or feeling insulted should not be a criminal matter.

    And that will be the high threshold for prosecution. In that I agree with you. The Gardai and Prosecution service are not going to waste finite resources on frivolous cases. And before you point to random cases in the UK or elsewhere I'd urge you to think about where convictions were secured and held.


  • Options
    #1839
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    biko wrote: »
    I don't, because political views aren't included in the protections.

    Whats your point then?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #1840
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,718 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Well I wouldn't.

    I don't think the over policing of words is dangerous and ****ing stupid.

    If trump was trying to ban words or speech people would be losing their minds, but when it's seen as "progressive", the usual suspects come out in their droves to try and ensure it happens.

    You can't police words without there being a definitive and obvious contextual threat or call to violence. Being offended or feeling insulted should not be a criminal matter.


    With regard to what is the more progressive stance on the issue, it’s actually the people who argue in favour of free speech and claim we can’t police speech, are of the more progressive bent. Whereas the more conservative stance is to maintain the fact that we have been policing speech with legislation ever since humans could communicate, from the origins of the earliest politics known to man which formed the earliest civilisations.

    Being offended or feeling insulted isn’t a criminal matter; attempting to incite hatred, is a criminal matter, has been for some time now, and the new proposals are to broaden the protection offered by the legislation to more groups within Irish society. I can’t say that’s a bad thing to rein in some people and set the standards for what is acceptable and what’s not, in a civilised democratic society.


  • Options
    #1841
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,569 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    And that will be the high threshold for prosecution. In that I agree with you. The Gardai and Prosecution service are not going to waste finite resources on frivolous cases. And before you point to random cases in the UK or elsewhere I'd urge you to think about where convictions were secured and held.

    That's a key factor. There seems to be a fear here that all that has to happen is for someone to get offended and someone will find themselves being convicted of a crime.

    There is no evidence to support such fears.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1842
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    So, in summary, you're just inventing stuff.

    Nope, see post 1826. And the full post I've quoted earlier if you would like the full thing.


  • Options
    #1843
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    And that will be the high threshold for prosecution. In that I agree with you. The Gardai and Prosecution service are not going to waste finite resources on frivolous cases. And before you point to random cases in the UK or elsewhere I'd urge you to think about where convictions were secured and held.

    But the fact that you can be hauled up before the courts is bad enough, and have your name dragged through the mud. This is why the examples from the UK are relevant. People have been brought before the courts for ridiculous reasons.


  • Options
    #1844
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,623 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Nope, see post 1826. And the full post I've quoted earlier if you would like the full thing.

    You said that the poster Tell Me How used the words racist and hatefull. He hadn't.

    You then said it was insinuated when you were caught out. You may not be a chancer but you're doing a fair impersonation today.


  • Options
    #1845
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,623 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    But the fact that you can be hauled up before the courts is bad enough, and have your name dragged through the mud. This is why the examples from the UK are relevant. People have been brought before the courts for ridiculous reasons.


    Who has been brought to court for reasons you consider daft?




    .


  • Options
    #1846
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Whats your point then?
    That mocking your political beliefs isn't all the different from mocking your religious beliefs.
    But some people think one is humour, the other hate.


  • Options
    #1847
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,623 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    biko wrote: »
    That mocking your political beliefs isn't all the different from mocking your religious beliefs.
    But some people think one is humour, the other hate.

    Surely both are fair game. And mockery is clearly not the issue with the imminent legislation.


  • Options
    #1848
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    You said that the poster Tell Me How used the words racist and hatefull. He hadn't.

    You then said it was insinuated when you were caught out. You may not be a chancer but you're doing a fair impersonation today.

    No I said he insinuated it from the get go, read back over the thread.


  • Options
    #1849
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Who has been brought to court for reasons you consider daft?




    .

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/14/transgender-tweet-police-acted-unlawfully


  • Options
    #1850
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,569 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/14/transgender-tweet-police-acted-unlawfully

    Surely this would be used as an example as to how the system differentiated between what was an expression of an opinion versus that designed to inflict suffering on someone.

    From the article
    On the same day, Stephanie Hayden, a trans woman, has won her case against a woman who called her a “pig in a wig” and made multiple Twitter accounts to send her anti-trans messages. The court found Kate Scottow guilty of persistently making use of a public communications network to cause annoyance/inconvenience and anxiety at St Albans magistrates court

    As is clear, Miller was not convicted, and I'm not making light of the fact that he was in court, do you think Kate Scottow should be allowed to continue doing what she was doing just so as to avoid investigating if Mr Miller had hatred motivation?


  • Options
    #1851
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Surely this would be used as an example as to how the system differentiated between what was an expression of an opinion versus that designed to inflict suffering on someone.

    From the article



    As is clear, Miller was not convicted, and I'm not making light of the fact that he was in court, do you think Kate Scottow should be allowed to continue doing what she was doing just so as to avoid investigating if Mr Miller had hatred motivation?

    But the 2nd case was the deliberate targeting of an individual. The proposed law we have does not require the direct targeting of an individual. You could, for example, write that you think the Irish are a bunch of drunkards and be up before the courts. You could simply retweet that and be up before the courts or be take to the Gardai station for an interview. Whether it's unlikely is irrelevant. It can happen as we have seen from the examples of the UK.

    Maybe having it so that the direct targeting of an individual is also required would ease my concerns somewhat, but that seems unlikely. If this is not possible, and it's an either or situation (though I don't think it is), then to answer your question, yes I do.

    From the same link:
    The court found Kate Scottow guilty of persistently making use of a public communications network to cause annoyance/inconvenience and anxiety at St Albans magistrates court.

    Again it is the broad scope of this law that makes it dangerous.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1852
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Tell me how wrote: »

    As is clear, Miller was not convicted, and I'm not making light of the fact that he was in court, do you think Kate Scottow should be allowed to continue doing what she was doing just so as to avoid investigating if Mr Miller had hatred motivation?

    Not only was he not convicted, Miller wasn't even tried. He brought the court action. Not the state.


  • Options
    #1853
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,569 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    But the 2nd case was the deliberate targeting of an individual. The proposed law we have does not require the direct targeting of an individual. You could, for example, write that you think the Irish are a bunch of drunkards and be up before the courts. You could simply retweet that and be up before the courts or be take to the Gardai station for an interview. Whether it's unlikely is irrelevant. It can happen as we have seen from the examples of the UK.

    Maybe having it so that the direct targeting of an individual is also required would ease my concerns somewhat, but that seems unlikely. If this is not possible, and it's an either or situation (though I don't think it is), then to answer your question, yes I do.

    From the same link:



    Again it is the broad scope of this law that makes it dangerous.

    This is Conclusion 10 from the report.
    Not every hate incident is serious enough to be a crime – many incidents are better dealt with outside the criminal sphere and proper measures
    to ensure this happens will be needed

    .........

    The criminal law, particularly as it applies to hate speech, should always be the measure of last resort. There is no doubt that criminal legislation alone will not solve the problem of hate speech, and is not suitable for dealing with many of the milder forms, which although harmful and far reaching in their negative effects, do not reach the threshold for criminal prosecution.

    In the long term, prevention of such incidents is much more desirable for all concerned. Success in this regard will depend almost entirely on non-criminal, education and awareness-based measures.

    Think that anyone who reads the report will show that there is a very strong awareness of the desire to protect freedom of expression while ensuring that when something goes too far, that there is the appropriate legislation there to deal with.


  • Options
    #1854
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,569 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Not only was he not convicted, Miller wasn't even tried. He brought the court action. Not the state.

    FFS. Hadn't even realised that. Which side are the snowflakes on again?


  • Options
    #1855
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Not only was he not convicted, Miller wasn't even tried. He brought the court action. Not the state.

    Ok, fair point. However the police turning up to your work place and/or house is far more likely to happen should this legislation be brought in. Like TMH, I also thought it was the state who brought the case. However it was recorded as a 'hate incident'. Why!?
    Tell me how wrote: »
    This is Conclusion 10 from the report.



    Think that anyone who reads the report will show that there is a very strong awareness of the desire to protect freedom of expression while ensuring that when something goes too far, that there is the appropriate legislation there to deal with.

    But again, who decides when it goes too far? This still leave the legislation open to being used for nefarious reasons, but we will have to wait and see what measures they try to bring in.
    Tell me how wrote: »
    FFS. Hadn't even realised that. Which side are the snowflakes on again?

    Such an unnecessary comment. Again, I don't believe I've seen that terminology used by anyone other than yourself since the threads were merged. You complain about others doing it yet you do it yourself.


  • Options
    #1856
    Bonniedog
    Registered Users Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭Bonniedog


    The problem with the proposals is not what McEntee or any currently likely MOJ might do when it comes into law. It is what others might do if they had political power. Does anyone seriously believe that the Shinners and far left and the Greens and Social Democrats would not actively pursue people for offending against their little self referential belief system if they had the means?


  • Options
    #1857
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,623 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/14/transgender-tweet-police-acted-unlawfully

    He wasn't taken to court. He took the police to court.

    So, any examples?


  • Options
    #1858
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,623 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    No I said he insinuated it from the get go, read back over the thread.

    Nope, you're not being honest. You said he'd used words he hadn't and that didn't stand up to challenge.


  • Options
    #1859
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,623 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Surely this would be used as an example as to how the system differentiated between what was an expression of an opinion versus that designed to inflict suffering on someone.

    From the article



    As is clear, Miller was not convicted, and I'm not making light of the fact that he was in court, do you think Kate Scottow should be allowed to continue doing what she was doing just so as to avoid investigating if Mr Miller had hatred motivation?

    Not only not convicted but not charged nor taken to court. Miller took the police to court.


  • Options
    #1860
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,393 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Who has been brought to court for reasons you consider daft?




    .

    https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54631658

    Questioned by the police at least, before it was dropped. Great use of police time.

    In this case he hosted someone who was deemed to have said something hateful.

    Was Starkey who made the comments intending to 'incite hatred'? Some will say yes some will say no. Those that say yes will likely take a 'sorry you can't talk like that ever' attitude, which is my view is controlled speech not free speech.

    As OEJ said, this is about 'reigning some people in' emphasis on some people, so it's kinda personal, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who if given the choice would stop Starkey from saying anything again ever publicly, and not necessarily for reasons of anything to do with his blunt language in relation to minorities.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1861
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Not only was he not convicted, Miller wasn't even tried. He brought the court action. Not the state.

    By the way, so far McEntee and the report has hinted that this type of garbage won't be happening in Ireland - I hope they don't get persuaded by "interested" lobby groups in the next few months.

    That man had a "non-crime hate incident" recorded against him via a complaint of offence on behalf of someone else by an anonymous Twitter user.
    A policeman visited him to question him and according to Miller said "he was there to check his thinking"
    "Non-crime hate incidents" can turn up in DBS checks requested by prospective employers. AFAIK, police may not even contact an 'offender' yet still record a "non-hate crime incident" against that person on foot of complaints by the offended.


    120,000 "non-crime hate incidents" have been recorded by police in Eng&Wales since 2016, 66 a day.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement