Hate Speech Public Consultation

Sir Oxman

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/17/exclusive-people-must-have-right-offend-without-facing-police/

That's the outcome of an appeal by Scottow to a high court in England last week (the second case mentioned)
"They said it would be a “serious interference” with the right of free speech if “those wishing to express their own views could be silenced by, or threatened with, proceedings for harassment based on subjective claims by individuals that felt offended or insulted”.

"Mr Justice Warby said: “It is clear, in my judgment, that these provisions were not intended by Parliament to criminalise forms of expression, the content of which is no worse than annoying or inconvenient in nature.”

The judgement states: “A prosecution under section 127(2)c for online speech is plainly an interference by the state with the defendant’s Convention right to freedom of expression.”

The Justice said he did not consider a prosecution “could be justified as necessary in a democratic society”. "

And again, McEntee and the report have intimated this won't happen here.
However, there's no harm keeping a critical eye on the different stages of the proposals as it progresses into law with the accompanying lobbying that will happen.

biko

The concept of "non-crime hate incident" exist already in Ireland.

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

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

https://www.garda.ie/en/crime-prevention/community-engagement/community-engagement-offices/garda-national-diversity-integration-unit/diversity-integration-strategy.pdf

Sir Oxman

biko wrote: »

The concept of "non-crime hate incident" exist already in Ireland.

https://www.garda.ie/en/crime-prevention/community-engagement/community-engagement-offices/garda-national-diversity-integration-unit/diversity-integration-strategy.pdf

Never knew that.
That's equivalent to the College of Policing in UK stuff that enables a lot of very always offended people.
Lots of NGOs involved - I wonder does the list correspond to the orgs that signed the call to exclude citizens from political representation and media coverage...nothing to see here...

CtevenSrowder

Seathrun66 wrote: »

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

No I did not. Quote me were I said he used those words. I said he insinuated them.

biko

Seathrun66 wrote: »

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

Is a cartoon of Mohammad mockery, or hate?
Is a depiction of Jesus as gay mockery, or hate?

Seathrun66

AllForIt wrote: »

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.

So, we have posters here saying that there are numerous examples of people being taken to court for spurious reasons.

And yet no examples are provided. Am still waiting......

Seathrun66

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 asked for your quote. OP never used those terms nor insinuated them. When challenged you backtracked immediately yet seem intent on resurrecting your error.

CtevenSrowder

Seathrun66 wrote: »

You asked for your quote. OP never used those terms nor insinuated them. When challenged you backtracked immediately yet seem intent on resurrecting your error.

The word insinuate is in that quote. My God. This is beneath me.

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 wrong. Me and TMH have moved on, I suggest you do too.

Seathrun66

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The word insinuate is in that quote. My God. This is beneath me.



You are wrong. Me and TMH have moved on, I suggest you do too.

You intimated meanings to the OP's posts that he never made. When challenged you backed down. You seem to be unable to grasp the point that our side of the debate can disagree with you without using such unnecessary labels as racist or hater. I'd admire you for taking that on board.

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

You intimated meanings to the OP's posts that he never made. When challenged you backed down. You seem to be unable to grasp the point that our side of the debate can disagree with you without using such unnecessary labels as racist or hater. I'd admire you for taking that on board.

You're being awfully selective as to how "your side" has behaved through this debate.

In any case, there's been too much sly commenting from many directions.

TomTomTim

Seathrun66 wrote: »

You intimated meanings to the OP's posts that he never made. When challenged you backed down. You seem to be unable to grasp the point that our side of the debate can disagree with you without using such unnecessary labels as racist or hater. I'd admire you for taking that on board.

You clearly don't know the people on your side then, as the above is their go to approach to "debate" much of the time.

CtevenSrowder

Seathrun66 wrote: »

You intimated meanings to the OP's posts that he never made. When challenged you backed down. You seem to be unable to grasp the point that our side of the debate can disagree with you without using such unnecessary labels as racist or hater. I'd admire you for taking that on board.

Yes I said he was insinuating something. And not 'your side', just him. Your claim about what I did is simply wrong:

Seathrun66 wrote: »

You said that the poster Tell Me How used the words racist and hateful. 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.

I never said he used the words racist and hateful. I from the get-go suggested he insinuated that from the initial post I quoted of his. Read post 1826 for an example of why I was suggesting this is what he insinuated. So you are wrong, get over it and move on. Emphasis mine.

And I did not 'back down'. That particular aspect of the discussion was adding little to the overall discussion (a bit like this tbh) so I suggested we move on, which we both have.

AllForIt

Seathrun66 wrote: »

So, we have posters here saying that there are numerous examples of people being taken to court for spurious reasons.

And yet no examples are provided. Am still waiting......

Taken to court, questioned by police, name and address reported in the press, no conviction but name tarnished etc. All the same thing really.

Gatling

AllForIt wrote: »

Taken to court, questioned by police, name and address reported in the press, no conviction but name tarnished etc. All the same thing really.

Meanwhile the supposed victim who read a tweet is given lifelong protection and anonymity

political analyst

Sir Oxman wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/17/exclusive-people-must-have-right-offend-without-facing-police/

That's the outcome of an appeal by Scottow to a high court in England last week (the second case mentioned)
"They said it would be a “serious interference” with the right of free speech if “those wishing to express their own views could be silenced by, or threatened with, proceedings for harassment based on subjective claims by individuals that felt offended or insulted”.

"Mr Justice Warby said: “It is clear, in my judgment, that these provisions were not intended by Parliament to criminalise forms of expression, the content of which is no worse than annoying or inconvenient in nature.”

The judgement states: “A prosecution under section 127(2)c for online speech is plainly an interference by the state with the defendant’s Convention right to freedom of expression.”

The Justice said he did not consider a prosecution “could be justified as necessary in a democratic society”. "

And again, McEntee and the report have intimated this won't happen here.
However, there's no harm keeping a critical eye on the different stages of the proposals as it progresses into law with the accompanying lobbying that will happen.

Due to the Telegraph paywall, I'm providing the link to the Daily Mail version of the story. I hadn't heard of the appeal until I read your post.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9041725/Mum-called-trans-woman-Twitter-CLEARED-wrongdoing.html

Tell me how

AllForIt wrote: »

Taken to court, questioned by police, name and address reported in the press, no conviction but name tarnished etc. All the same thing really.

It most definitely isn't.

People posting derogatory messages don't seem to be too bothered about the whole tarnishing of their name either. But when they're called out on it, they're quick to get annoyed at how people might see them.

The Streisand effect comes to mind for Mr Miller.

political analyst

Bonniedog wrote: »

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?

And the current government haven't taken that into account?

Tell me how

Gatling wrote: »

Meanwhile the supposed victim who read a tweet is given lifelong protection and anonymity

Do you think their name should be published?

How would society benefit from doing so?

political analyst

Tell me how wrote: »

It most definitely isn't.

People posting derogatory messages don't seem to be too bothered about the whole tarnishing of their name either. But when they're called out on it, they're quick to get annoyed at how people might see them.

The Streisand effect comes to mind for Mr Miller.

It's not just Harry Miller who is angry about the deference given to trans-rights lobbyists. After all, JK Rowling and Selina Todd probably wouldn't have much time for Miller.

Gatling

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think their name should be published?

How would society benefit from doing so?

Absolutely they should be identified , lifelong protection and in some cases able to give redacted evidence that they somehow found a tweet offensive , mean while someone has their name published and careers ended ,
Seems very much one sided and more geared to punishment than anything else

Tell me how

Gatling wrote: »

Absolutely they should be identified , lifelong protection and in some cases able to give redacted evidence that they somehow found a tweet offensive , mean while someone has their name published and careers ended ,
Seems very much one sided and more geared to punishment than anything else

It seems to me that the person who had their name published was responsible for that happening through their bringing the case against the police for having spoken to them.

It's a very sinister approach to suggest victims of a crime should be publicly revealed. We saw it surrounding a high profile case a couple of years ago and I think advocating that this should happen is either ignorant of the fact that it can compound their suffering, or is suggesting it knowing that that would mean that way fewer cases will be reported because of the risk of the person being targeted.

It's a ludicrous suggestion. The authorities will know who is making complaints and should be able to identify if the complaints themselves are genuine or malicious.

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

You're being awfully selective as to how "your side" has behaved through this debate.

In any case, there's been too much sly commenting from many directions.

To be honest there's little rancour here and good points being made by most people. I don't think there's a huge gap between what people want. There never has been nor will there be full freedom of speech. Anywhere.

In terms of legislation most, if not all, of us would want it used to stop incitement to violence. To take away rudeness or insulting language is unnecessary unless there's a more sinister aspect to it. And for the latter it's blindingly obvious to all when that manifests itself.

Seathrun66

TomTomTim wrote: »

You clearly don't know the people on your side then, as the above is their go to approach to "debate" much of the time.

Not mine, nor what I've seen on this thread and it's pretty counter-productive to call anyone a racist for something that doesn't merit it.

Seathrun66

AllForIt wrote: »

Taken to court, questioned by police, name and address reported in the press, no conviction but name tarnished etc. All the same thing really.

They're clearly not the same thing.

Gatling

Tell me how wrote: »

It's a very sinister approach to suggest victims of a crime should be publicly revealed.

They weren't the victim of a crime , anyone can feint being offended by a tweet , but yet only one person was named and shamed ,
While the other gets to sit on their high horse knowing they cannot be challenged

Tell me how

Gatling wrote: »

They weren't the victim of a crime , anyone can feint being offended by a tweet , but yet only one person was named and shamed ,
While the other gets to sit on their high horse knowing they cannot be challenged

In this instance, the person who was named and shamed, named themselves.

That was their choice. The person who made the complaint likely was challenged by police, or, do you think police are in the habit of taking every word of complain as gospel and putting time and effort in to it?

Gatling

Tell me how wrote: »

, or, do you think police are in the habit of taking every word of complain as gospel and putting time and effort in to it?

I honestly believe that if a trans person makes a complaint about a tweet they don't like to the police they are treated differently and given special treatment , which is wrong there has been too many complaints about people getting visits from the police because they didn't like what they read on twitter ,
Imagine they gave that much special treatment to victims of child sex abuse and exploitation

Sir Oxman

Seathrun66 wrote: »

To be honest there's little rancour here and good points being made by most people. I don't think there's a huge gap between what people want.There never has been nor will there be full freedom of speech. Anywhere.

In terms of legislation most, if not all, of us would want it used to stop incitement to violence. To take away rudeness or insulting language is unnecessary unless there's a more sinister aspect to it. And for the latter it's blindingly obvious to all when that manifests itself.

It's interesting to note the Soviet Union and it's fellow totalitarian satellites led the way insisting on prohibitions to free speech in the name of prohibition (not protection against) of 'hate speech' in the late 40s (unsuccessful) then the mid 60's (successful) with the aid of all those newly independent states that fell to tyranny in quick time and since then the liberal democracies have gradually embraced it.
The win enabled totalitarian regimes to claim legitimacy for oppressing vast swathes of their populations.
There's a new kid on the bloc in the form of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (vast majority are authoritarian states) trying the same re-criticism of religion.

And no, I'm not comparing Ireland to communist states or authoritarian Islamic states.

A critical eye is required to any state's expanding encroachment in law regarding free speech and an even bigger eye on the influential lobbyists behind the scenes.

Sir Oxman

Tell me how wrote: »

In this instance, the person who was named and shamed, named themselves.

That was their choice. The person who made the complaint likely was challenged by police, or, do you think police are in the habit of taking every word of complain as gospel and putting time and effort in to it?

This is happening over there.
The College of Policing guidelines (in line with Stonewall, a big influence) calls for it.
Miller exhausted his options with the area constabulary via their different levels up to the top and all said he had definitely committed a non-crime hate crime/incident and no matter what, it would still be recorded in a database - him as a suspect and the complainant as the victim!

Seathrun66

Sir Oxman wrote: »

It's interesting to note the Soviet Union and it's fellow totalitarian satellites led the way insisting on prohibitions to free speech in the name of prohibition (not protection against) of 'hate speech' in the late 40s (unsuccessful) then the mid 60's (successful) with the aid of all those newly independent states that fell to tyranny in quick time and since then the liberal democracies have gradually embraced it.
The win enabled totalitarian regimes to claim legitimacy for oppressing vast swathes of their populations.
There's a new kid on the bloc in the form of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (vast majority are authoritarian states) trying the same re-criticism of religion.

And no, I'm not comparing Ireland to communist states or authoritarian Islamic states.

A critical eye is required to any state's expanding encroachment in law regarding free speech and an even bigger eye on the influential lobbyists behind the scenes.

The Politburo did that to suppress dissent and retain power. Attaching an element of hate speech prohibition to their actions makes zilch sense.