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

But it is for the courts to decide.

It is defined as much as ruining someone's reputation. You believe that's obvious, in the same way people believe it's obvious what incitement to hatred is.

your hypothetical example, is based on nothing except what is in your head!

A proper example of what exactly?

What do you mean think beyond my own world?

Why?

If someone repeatedly calls for all Jews to be murdered and executed who wouldn't that be incitement to hatred?

Surely this is simple, incitement to hatred is not difficult to understand?

Say someone calls for all asylum seekers to be burnt out of their accommodation, fairly obvious that is incitement to hatred is it not?I

Now, do you think the authorities and courts in this country are capable of deciding what is or is not incitement to hatred?

Defamation is when someone reputation is ruined, that is subjective, the courts have to decide whether or not it is actually the case.

Do you believe the courts can decide such things?

It is for the courts to decide, but the poster is correct in that there is contention and subjectivity attached.

Religion is a good example.

One person may denounce a particular religion because they dont believe in God, but a follower may take offence and call that person out for hate speech.

If a court then find in the favour of the religious person, there could be real repercussions for the denouncer. A person that was in effect, expressing a perfectly logical view that is impossible to disprove.

Now, if the denouncer was singling out the followers and saying they were all bad people for following the religion, that would seem more apt to be treated as hate speech.

But there are grey areas and a fear of falling foul of those grey areas can very quickly stop people expressing their true and honest opinions. Including opinions that are not hate based at all.

I dont like the idea of a society in which a person thinks, "Could i get into trouble for saying this, even though I KNOW I mean no harm to anyone. Therefore, I am just not going to say anything."

*Whether I say it or not, I am still going to think it.*

Its the last part that is the most dangerous outcome.

People wont change their opinions just because you stop them saying something by threatening them.

But they are more likely to become disenfranchised from society and more likley to veer towards extremism, if they feel that a conversation cannot take place.

The bottom line is that this legislation proposes to introduce penalties for hurt feelings - feelings which are subjective and vary from individual to individual.

Where the standard of complaint is "I don't like what they said" or "I was hurt by their opinion", and the only evidence is "yes we think that their statement could have been hurtful to that person" or "yes we think/assume that they meant to do it"

If you support this legislation, you're essentially saying that feelings matter more than facts, which is a concept that should NEVER enter into a courtroom or justice system as a whole - yet that is what McEntee and her fans here are advocating.

That's the reality of this. All the repeated back-n-forth bad-faith posturing from the same handful of posters, demands for evidence/links to distract from this and so on won't change it. FFS even references to Nazi Germany have been used to try and deflect from this uncomfortable truth!

It's complete and ridiculous nonsense from a Minister so out of her depth and unqualified it's dangerous, and a Government using it to deflect from the far more real and serious issues it's failing on.

That’s already covered under the 1989 act. If you want to use extreme examples like this (where there is a law for it already), try use one that makes sense.

So we have existing legislation, but saying and doing are not the same as I am sure you’re aware.

Example for you then, a priest says that all homosexuals must be cast out as they live in sin, and how it’s written in the bible. Would you have that priest arrested and the bible banned from shops?

They are your clear cut, outlier cases. Its the grey in the middle that threatens free speech.

Yes. Sad really that some people dont see this as a risk to society and our freedoms.

By your own definition and examples given, that’s hate speech. Someone else then, reports this priest for hate speech, would you agree with that?

Well can.you.give an.example of those posts that you feel could be interpreted as.such?

No, you can do your own research there.

Whether you agree with this legislation or not, there is so much variation even in this thread as to how 'hate speech' and 'incitement to hatred' are defined that I am amazed anyone would read it and think it's a good idea.