Which is exactly what almost all mainstream religious orgainsations did when campaigning against the gay marriage referendum. Which suggests that taking organised religions take a position that homosexuality is sinful leads to them wanting to treat gay people less favourably.It's ok to believe that homosexuality is a sin. Or morally wrong, to use secular terminology. What's very much NOT ok is to act on that belief by treating gay people less favourably.
Yes, the "We want to oppress you and/or kill you because we love you" people.Which is exactly what almost all mainstream religious orgainsations did when campaigning against the gay marriage referendum. Which suggests that taking organised religions take a position that homosexuality is sinful leads to them wanting to treat gay people less favourably.
True in practice, but the two are not mutually exclusive. One could believe that engaging in homosexual acts is sinful, but that all people have a civil right to so engage anyway and shouldn't be denied the right to marry on that basis.Which is exactly what almost all mainstream religious orgainsations did when campaigning against the gay marriage referendum. Which suggests that taking organised religions take a position that homosexuality is sinful leads to them wanting to treat gay people less favourably.
Are you suggesting that people should have the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech?My point is that people who hold odd or unpopular religious or moral views shouldn't be penalised for doing so, as long as they don't interfere with other people's rights.
A lot can happen in 5 pages.How did we get from the non availability of Nativity scene Christmas Cards to peoples' freedom of speech?
The line goes from subtle discouragement of the speech in question, through strong discouragement, to outright prohibition, and ultimately to a positive requirement to say the opposite.How did we get from the non availability of Nativity scene Christmas Cards to peoples' freedom of speech?
By 'discouragement' presumably you mean the right to free speech of other parties who disagree with your position?The line goes from subtle discouragement of the speech in question, through strong discouragement, to outright prohibition, and ultimately to a positive requirement to say the opposite.
I get confused by Purple from time to time. Now Babyboomer and RetirementPlan are confusing me.The line goes from subtle discouragement of the speech in question, through strong discouragement, to outright prohibition, and ultimately to a positive requirement to say the opposite.
I get confused my me too so it's probably more of a reflection of me than you.I get confused by Purple from time to time.
Nope. Discouragement is when the police call to your door to question you about a "non-crime hate incident" as happened in the UK to Harry Millar (google his case, quite extraordinary) and Graham Linehan for expressing the view that biological sex is a real immutable thing. And there is no objective definition of a "hate incident" in UK law - if any person perceives an incident to be motivated by hate, then the police are required to treat and record it as such.By 'discouragement' presumably you mean the right to free speech of other parties who disagree with your position?
You sure about that? We tend to follow the UK in such matters and Helen McEntee is working on "hate speech" legislation.There is no move towards prohibition or 'say the opposite' on any free speech issues in Ireland.
Why do free speech skeptics have trouble grasping the fundamentals of the thing? No free speech advocate I've ever heard would try to restrain the free speech of others - that's just the polar opposite of what we believe in. What we object to is imposing criminal or civil penalties on freedom of speech. By all means let those who disagree with us say so loudly and freely - that's what public discourse is all about. But once freedom of speech depends on what you've got to say, it ceases to exist in any meaningful form.You might be getting confused with the right to speak without being challenged by others.
I was thinking more about the Irish context, but it never ceases to amaze me in these discussions how people pick up unusual edge cases from overseas as evidence of some kind trend or movement. I don't know anything about Millar, but I do know that interventions with Linehan were not about him 'expressing a view'. They were about him repeatedly rounding up his army of knuckle-dragging supporters to bully, threaten, harass, doxx those who challenged him, because his fragile little ego couldn't bear that people were picking holes in his historical works. He's dug a huge whole for himself now, having lost his family, lost his work, probably lost any possibilities of future works, because he couldn't bear the slightest (and very valid) critique. Some free speech advocate you have there.Nope. Discouragement is when the police call to your door to question you about a "non-crime hate incident" as happened in the UK to Harry Millar (google his case, quite extraordinary) and Graham Linehan for expressing the view that biological sex is a real immutable thing. And there is no objective definition of a "hate incident" in UK law - if any person perceives an incident to be motivated by hate, then the police are required to treat and record it as such.
Do we really follow the UK? I'd have thought we were ahead of the UK on many such matters, and their departure from the EU made such linkages less likely in the future. Yes, Dept Justice is working on hate speech legislation (see, it is possible to write it without the airquotes). Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as hate speech and no limitations on the rights to free speech at all? Is there anything in Dept Justice plans about 'say the opposite' ? Or anything in the UK? Or anywhere in the world except perhaps North Korea or Belarus where people are required to 'say the opposite' ?You sure about that? We tend to follow the UK in such matters and Helen McEntee is working on "hate speech" legislation.
Why do free speech skeptics have trouble grasping the fundamentals of the thing? No free speech advocate I've ever heard would try to restrain the free speech of others - that's just the polar opposite of what we believe in. What we object to is imposing criminal or civil penalties on freedom of speech. By all means let those who disagree with us say so loudly and freely - that's what public discourse is all about. But once freedom of speech depends on what you've got to say, it ceases to exist in any meaningful form.
I think that's a reference to Canadas Bill C-16, a law that is said to require people to use the pronouns that trans people identify with. Jordan Peterson came to fame when he objected to the law, even though he said that if there was a Trans person in his class or company he would address them using the pronouns of their current gender (this stuff is really important to teenaged girls and I've one at home).Is there anything in Dept Justice plans about 'say the opposite' ? Or anything in the UK? Or anywhere in the world except perhaps North Korea or Belarus where people are required to 'say the opposite' ?
An extremely unkind view of Linehan, who is, incidentally, a man who was at the forefront of advancing a genuinely progressive liberal agenda, before some liberals forgot just what that word meant. Or used to mean.I was thinking more about the Irish context, but it never ceases to amaze me in these discussions how people pick up unusual edge cases from overseas as evidence of some kind trend or movement. I don't know anything about Millar, but I do know that interventions with Linehan were not about him 'expressing a view'. They were about him repeatedly rounding up his army of knuckle-dragging supporters to bully, threaten, harass, doxx those who challenged him, because his fragile little ego couldn't bear that people were picking holes in his historical works. He's dug a huge whole for himself now, having lost his family, lost his work, probably lost any possibilities of future works, because he couldn't bear the slightest (and very valid) critique. Some free speech advocate you have there.
Yes, there is such a thing as hate speech. It is extremely subjective, difficult to define with precision, and completely unsuitable for codifying into criminal law.Do we really follow the UK? I'd have thought we were ahead of the UK on many such matters, and their departure from the EU made such linkages less likely in the future. Yes, Dept Justice is working on hate speech legislation (see, it is possible to write it without the airquotes). Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as hate speech...
As the legal aphorism goes: you have the right to swing your fist but that right stops at the end of my nose. Or as the American jurisprudence has it: "You can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre" but otherwise you can say pretty much what you like. For what it's worth, I think the American 1st Amendment gets free speech pretty much about right...and no limitations on the rights to free speech at all?
I don't know, but I didn't like the tenor of their "consultation" document.Is there anything in Dept Justice plans about 'say the opposite' ?
As Purple points out below, try Canada for starters.Or anything in the UK? Or anywhere in the world except perhaps North Korea or Belarus where people are required to 'say the opposite' ?
Yes, as I said, the US First Amendment gets it about right.Presumably you accept the idea of some limitations on free speech?
A threat to kill is a serious crime in its own right and can earn you a sentence of ten years in an Irish jail. Speech that incites, encourages, advises, or aids and abets violence or other criminality makes the speaker an accessory to that criminality and liable to the same punishment as the actual offenders. That's NOT what free speech advocates mean and it is disingenuous to pretend that it is.Do you accept that it's NOT ok for me to run up to people on the street and use my rights to free speech to threaten to kill them or harm their families?
An extremely unkind view of Linehan, who is, incidentally, a man who was at the forefront of advancing a genuinely progressive liberal agenda, before some liberals forgot just what that word meant. Or used to mean.I was thinking more about the Irish context, but it never ceases to amaze me in these discussions how people pick up unusual edge cases from overseas as evidence of some kind trend or movement. I don't know anything about Millar, but I do know that interventions with Linehan were not about him 'expressing a view'. They were about him repeatedly rounding up his army of knuckle-dragging supporters to bully, threaten, harass, doxx those who challenged him, because his fragile little ego couldn't bear that people were picking holes in his historical works. He's dug a huge whole for himself now, having lost his family, lost his work, probably lost any possibilities of future works, because he couldn't bear the slightest (and very valid) critique. Some free speech advocate you have there.
Yes, there is such a thing as hate speech. It is extremely subjective, difficult to define with precision, and completely unsuitable for codifying into criminal law.Do we really follow the UK? I'd have thought we were ahead of the UK on many such matters, and their departure from the EU made such linkages less likely in the future. Yes, Dept Justice is working on hate speech legislation (see, it is possible to write it without the airquotes). Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as hate speech...
As the legal aphorism goes: you have the right to swing your fist but that right stops at the end of my nose. Or as the American jurisprudence has it: "You can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre" but otherwise you can say pretty much what you like. For what it's worth, I think the American 1st Amendment gets free speech pretty much about right...and no limitations on the rights to free speech at all?
I don't know, but I didn't like the tenor of their "consultation" document.Is there anything in Dept Justice plans about 'say the opposite' ?
As Purple points out below, try Canada for starters.Or anything in the UK? Or anywhere in the world except perhaps North Korea or Belarus where people are required to 'say the opposite' ?
Yes, as I said, the US First Amendment gets it about right.Presumably you accept the idea of some limitations on free speech?
A threat to kill is a serious crime in its own right and can earn you a sentence of ten years in an Irish jail. Speech that incites, encourages, advises, or aids and abets violence or other criminality makes the speaker an accessory to that criminality and liable to the same punishment as the actual offenders. That's NOT what free speech advocates mean and it is disingenuous to pretend that it is.Do you accept that it's NOT ok for me to run up to people on the street and use my rights to free speech to threaten to kill them or harm their families?
I strongly disagree with and dislike his transphobic views but I do agree that he should have the right to voice them.An extremely unkind view of Linehan, who is, incidentally, a man who was at the forefront of advancing a genuinely progressive liberal agenda, before some liberals forgot just what that word meant. Or used to mean
Is it really transphobic to suggest that someone born with XY chromosomes complete with meat and two veg is actually a man rather than a woman? How did we even contemplate a situation where someone wouldn't have the right to voice that opinion?I strongly disagree with and dislike his transphobic views but I di agree that he should have the right to voice them.
Or even "good!" If free speech doesn't offend anyone, there's not enough of it around.The appropriate response to someone saying that they find something offensive is "So what?".
An extremely unkind view of Linehan, who is, incidentally, a man who was at the forefront of advancing a genuinely progressive liberal agenda, before some liberals forgot just what that word meant. Or used to mean.
Yes, there is such a thing as hate speech. It is extremely subjective, difficult to define with precision, and completely unsuitable for codifying into criminal law.
As the legal aphorism goes: you have the right to swing your fist but that right stops at the end of my nose. Or as the American jurisprudence has it: "You can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre" but otherwise you can say pretty much what you like. For what it's worth, I think the American 1st Amendment gets free speech pretty much about right
I don't know, but I didn't like the tenor of their "consultation" document.
As Purple points out below, try Canada for starters.
Yes, as I said, the US First Amendment gets it about right.
A threat to kill is a serious crime in its own right and can earn you a sentence of ten years in an Irish jail. Speech that incites, encourages, advises, or aids and abets violence or other criminality makes the speaker an accessory to that criminality and liable to the same punishment as the actual offenders. That's NOT what free speech advocates mean and it is disingenuous to pretend that it is.
Let me spell it out for you. Here's an example of free speech: "Catholicism (or Islam) is an evil belief system that has brought untold misery onto the world." This is the sort of speech that currently is and should always be legally allowed even though some people may find it offensive.
Here's an example of very similar speech that goes beyond that and into the territory of conspiracy and attempted criminality: "Catholicism (or Islam) is an evil belief system that has brought untold misery onto the world. The only possible reaponse is to burn down every Church (or mosque) in the country - let's go do it!"
In short, we don't need further "hate speech" legislation because we've already got laws that criminalise harmful and dangerous hate speech. Hate speech that is merely offensive doesn't need to be criminalised. We all have the right to be offended. It's a right that benets from being exercised.
Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole?Is it really transphobic to suggest that someone born with XY chromosomes complete with meat and two veg is actually a man rather than a woman?
There is a twitter post currently before the Gardai. Diane Dodds a DUP politician posted a picture of herself with her dogs. Some anonymous poster replied with a really offensive and hurtful comment.I strongly disagree with and dislike his transphobic views but I do agree that he should have the right to voice them.
The appropriate response to someone saying that they find something offensive is "So what?".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?