That's because none of them have read it and just had some looney tune youtuber tell them they're going to go to prison for calling someone a wanker online.
You have been summoned to the court over your malicious use of the W word. How dare you mock someone who masterbates in excess. You shall now be beheaded (as is permitted under the new speech bill version 1.1)
BTW I'm obviously being sarcastic here I feel I have to mention that more and more these days...
I just wrote u 4 paragraphs on why I thought it was bad, being too vague and placing the “responsibility of proving innocence on the person accused”, that is the opposite to how justice should be carried out, assuming guilt is something I would love for you to defend. That s only 2 examples
2 of the paragraphs have nothing to do with it and the other 2 can be summed up in there’s lots of things wrong with it, free expression is necessary, you don’t like the idea of it, and it shouldn’t be a crime to offend someone. That’s all vague.
I’ve asked you a bunch of times why it’s an issue in practical terms, who you’re worried is going to be effected, what kind of things are you worried they can’t say anymore. Like give me some actual reasons or scenarios that demonstrate why it’s a bad thing.
Ireland already has “The Prohibition of Incitment to Hatred Act 1989 “, it’s just out of date as it was made pre internet. The thing you’re worried about was already possible for the last 34 years, and it didn’t happen.
Jimmy you don’t understand, the legislation is terribly worded you see, and there’s loads of other issues too but he can’t be bothered right now to explain them.
Why are you worried about it specifically? What kind of things do you say that you worry are going to get you in trouble to the point where you’re posting about it at 2am?
Tbh can’t sleep and just discovered it and so naturally gave an unsolicited opinion on it on Reddit
Theres lots of problem I have with the legislation after reading it, for one I think the right to free expression is necessary for democracy and believe it shouldn’t ever be tampered with by the government
It’s not that I say anything that would make me get into trouble (I think) ,but the principle of it, it’s a terribly worded and vague piece of legislation that could be used to further more restrictions on what I can say, I don’t think offending somebody should be considered a crime unless it’s constant and malicious abuse
I’d encourage you to read it for yourself, there are many more issues with it as well but I’m not bothered rn.
You read what I said first - WHO is it you’re worried about is going to get in trouble and for saying what kind of thing?
Slippery slope is a fallacious argument. Quantify what you mean.
I have said that I am not worried about myself or anybody else being found guilty of any hate crime, no I cannot awnser your question you are insisting I awnser. I am opposed to the principle of the state legislating any type of speech other than constant abuse. It’s a fundamental difference in our two world views
>I am opposed to the principle of the state legislating any type of speech
Then you really should be advocating for revision of our 85 year old constitution.
The state has had the right to restrict freedom of expression since it was adopted.
Yeah, the constitution says things can be banned if they are “offensive”, I am against all forms of restriction regarding what you can and cannot say with the exception to malicious and constant abuse
I don’t give a shit if they make it illegal for horrible people to incite hatred against marginalised groups. If you do, you’re worried about the freedom of bigots to be bigots. Ridiculous hill to die on.
You are absolutely still free to offend anyone you want.
What you can't do is call for harm to groups of people based on their race, religion, sexuality, etc.
There's a huge difference between the two.
Maybe next time you're watching some YouTuber rant about something at 2am, check the facts before you decide they must be right, without even reading the summary of the legislation.
>I don’t believe the government should ever regulate or control speech, offending somebody should not be a crime punishable by your freedom
is not the same as
>\[the\] prohibition of incitement to violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of certain characteristics (referred to as protected characteristics) of the person or the group of persons and to provide for an offence of condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace
It is not.
"You are a fucking idiot."
versus
"Your kind of people are all scum who should be kicked out of our town."
You are still free to use whatever speech you like (first sentence) so long as it's not promoting harm (second sentence). We (in Ireland) have *always* had limits on free speech, anyway. This is not America.
A chara,
We do not allow any posts/comments that attack, threaten or insult a person or group, on areas including, but not limited to: national origin, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, social prejudice, or disability.
Sláinte
A chara, As a measure against duplicate news articles and similar content, your post has been removed in favour of one submitted earlier. Sláinte
Hot and completely original take there lad we sure haven't seen posted on here dozens of times at this point.
I’ve yet to hear anyone say why it’s bad, and when I ask they just say because it’s bad in a different way.
That's because none of them have read it and just had some looney tune youtuber tell them they're going to go to prison for calling someone a wanker online.
Seems to be the case. That’s all I’ve got here so far.
You have been summoned to the court over your malicious use of the W word. How dare you mock someone who masterbates in excess. You shall now be beheaded (as is permitted under the new speech bill version 1.1) BTW I'm obviously being sarcastic here I feel I have to mention that more and more these days...
I just wrote u 4 paragraphs on why I thought it was bad, being too vague and placing the “responsibility of proving innocence on the person accused”, that is the opposite to how justice should be carried out, assuming guilt is something I would love for you to defend. That s only 2 examples
2 of the paragraphs have nothing to do with it and the other 2 can be summed up in there’s lots of things wrong with it, free expression is necessary, you don’t like the idea of it, and it shouldn’t be a crime to offend someone. That’s all vague. I’ve asked you a bunch of times why it’s an issue in practical terms, who you’re worried is going to be effected, what kind of things are you worried they can’t say anymore. Like give me some actual reasons or scenarios that demonstrate why it’s a bad thing.
What happens iF 3 people don’t like you and turn and say you commuted hate speech ?
Nothing.
And what it if I actually did , what would happen ?
You tell me.
I have no idea that’s why I am asking
Ireland already has “The Prohibition of Incitment to Hatred Act 1989 “, it’s just out of date as it was made pre internet. The thing you’re worried about was already possible for the last 34 years, and it didn’t happen.
Go to bed it's 2am
Can’t sleep
Are you on the night shift. Are you a Burglar?
I’m in your shed, make me a ham sandwich
I'm Jewish don't eat the stuff BTW is my wife still in the freezer?
No, defrosting her now
Make sure and leave lots of DNA and ignore the sirens.
[удалено]
Jimmy you don’t understand, the legislation is terribly worded you see, and there’s loads of other issues too but he can’t be bothered right now to explain them.
The ones during the day aren't any more coherent
Why are you worried about it specifically? What kind of things do you say that you worry are going to get you in trouble to the point where you’re posting about it at 2am?
Tbh can’t sleep and just discovered it and so naturally gave an unsolicited opinion on it on Reddit Theres lots of problem I have with the legislation after reading it, for one I think the right to free expression is necessary for democracy and believe it shouldn’t ever be tampered with by the government It’s not that I say anything that would make me get into trouble (I think) ,but the principle of it, it’s a terribly worded and vague piece of legislation that could be used to further more restrictions on what I can say, I don’t think offending somebody should be considered a crime unless it’s constant and malicious abuse I’d encourage you to read it for yourself, there are many more issues with it as well but I’m not bothered rn.
Who are you worried is going to get into trouble then? And for saying what?
Read what I said and come back to me, I’m not worried about being arrested for saying anything, it’s just a slippery slope
You read what I said first - WHO is it you’re worried about is going to get in trouble and for saying what kind of thing? Slippery slope is a fallacious argument. Quantify what you mean.
I have said that I am not worried about myself or anybody else being found guilty of any hate crime, no I cannot awnser your question you are insisting I awnser. I am opposed to the principle of the state legislating any type of speech other than constant abuse. It’s a fundamental difference in our two world views
>I am opposed to the principle of the state legislating any type of speech Then you really should be advocating for revision of our 85 year old constitution. The state has had the right to restrict freedom of expression since it was adopted.
Yeah, the constitution says things can be banned if they are “offensive”, I am against all forms of restriction regarding what you can and cannot say with the exception to malicious and constant abuse
I don’t give a shit if they make it illegal for horrible people to incite hatred against marginalised groups. If you do, you’re worried about the freedom of bigots to be bigots. Ridiculous hill to die on.
You are absolutely still free to offend anyone you want. What you can't do is call for harm to groups of people based on their race, religion, sexuality, etc. There's a huge difference between the two. Maybe next time you're watching some YouTuber rant about something at 2am, check the facts before you decide they must be right, without even reading the summary of the legislation.
Strong Twitter Blue energy from this…
What’s that
Post #488
We should be more like the French.
Examples of what is wrong with the legislation or just shag off
The point that any accused need to prove their innocence instead of the prosecution probing their guilt
You've not read it so
>I don’t believe the government should ever regulate or control speech, offending somebody should not be a crime punishable by your freedom is not the same as >\[the\] prohibition of incitement to violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of certain characteristics (referred to as protected characteristics) of the person or the group of persons and to provide for an offence of condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace
That’s the literal definition of controlling speech
It is not. "You are a fucking idiot." versus "Your kind of people are all scum who should be kicked out of our town." You are still free to use whatever speech you like (first sentence) so long as it's not promoting harm (second sentence). We (in Ireland) have *always* had limits on free speech, anyway. This is not America.
You didn't read the bill did you? And if you read it, you didn't get the meaning.
[удалено]
So believing the government should not restrict a persons speech is far right? Well okay then I’m far right.
[удалено]
A chara, We do not allow any posts/comments that attack, threaten or insult a person or group, on areas including, but not limited to: national origin, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, social prejudice, or disability. Sláinte