Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 - Read OP

Oh I'm aware of what's in the bill. It doesn't discuss mention or reference "hate speech". The bill itself is not about "hate speech" - its about incitement to hatred. Hate speech and incitement to hatred are entirely different things.

Which part of the legislation do you have the issue with?

But you don't agree that there can be people that do say things to incite hatred or violence?

What do I agree with? I agree with making incitement to hatred a criminal offence, I agree with protecting certain groups in society.

Do you believe that there are people in society that can and do incite hatred on certain groups?

It doesn't define hatred, in the same way that defamation doesn't define what damage to someone reputation is.

you agree with defamation, and agree it is up to the courts and judges to determine what damage to someone reputation is. So, you shouldn't have any issue with courts and judges determining what incitement to hatred is.

And 'certain groups ' yep, same as equality legislation, or discrimination legislation

Defamation is pretty well defined, hate speech or whatever you’d like to call it, is not. It’s exactly why this legislation is so needless, it’s an open ended mess where some could say “oh that’s hate speech” when someone could say “your religion is utter garbage and should be wiped from the earth”.

Hatred isn’t an act of violence, but just ask yourself who gets to decide what you can and can’t say. I’d hedge a bet you’d be quick to say you weren’t using any hate speech if you called someone a bigot or anti-trans etc, but they could easily use it against you. You’re tying a rope for yourself here, and you don’t know it.

Defamation is defined as something that damages the good reputation of someone, you have already agreed that it is up to the courts and judges to.decide what is damaging to someone's reputation

(They use the reasonable person argument)

So, if incitement to hatred is something someone says, that incites hatred, you must agree that it is up to the courts and judges to decide whether the statement is actually an incitement to hatred or not?

No I don’t agree, because hate speech isn’t the same a defamation in the slightest.

It’s wide open as to what can be hate speech, like examples I gave you already. Me saying something freely about religion etc could be seen as hate speech by someone purely because they are religious and can appeal to this type of legislation for cover. It’s not even remotely the same as defamation.

This comes down to free speech and what some want to hear or say. I’ve zero problem with people saying what they want, to restrict that with some petty legislation impinges on my own rights because give a right to some but not to others isn’t a right, it’s a freedom to tell people what they don’t want to hear. This legislation just gives them a way to get out of it.

Yes in relation to incitement to hatred. My point stands - talking about "hate speech" is not relevant because the bill is about incitement to hatred and not about "hate speech"

You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.

There is no shame in admitting you may be wrong, you know.

You say people should be allowed to say whatever they want, but are subject to consequences. Just like defamation, which leaves it to the courts to decide what ruins someone's reputation, incitement to hatred leaves it to the courts to decide if something said is an incitement to hatred.

you cannot agree with one, but disagree with another which is completely similar, that's hypocrisy.

Again, it does include that. Read the bill, it doesn’t say “hate speech” but it does include what people can say. It’s black and white.

You're wrong because you are happy for the courts to decide whether something someone says ruins another's reputation, but you don't believe that the same courts and judges can decide whether something someone says is incitement to hatred.

the courts decide in both cases.

you either believe that the courts can decide such things or you dont.

It would be an incitement to hatred if it leads to violence or threats of violence.

One can be defined, one cannot. It is that simple.

Saying something defamatory is pretty easy to define, how it can impact a life etc. so accusing someone of being a rapist, saying they are an antisemite, that they stole something, generally anything that shakes their character.

Hate speech, good luck with that. Me saying that I think any religion is evil due to it being faith based, has no evidence, and has done awful things to people. To some, they have no issue with that, to someone who is driven by faith, that’s hate speech.

Are you able to follow now? One persons “hate speech” is another persons opinion.