Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I guess I won't be going to Ireland anytime soon.

If this is all 100% true, Ireland is going to end up with a lot of bad press, and loss of tourism due to it.

But it's not as extreme as some people are saying it is. Saying that you don't believe in Christ to be the saviour of mankind is not going to get you burnt at the stake. However, if you claim publicly that Christians defecate on human rights and rape little children AND write a book about it then your going to get in trouble. Which seems entirely okay to me.

Freedom of Speech should not mean "Saying whatever the Feth I want without regards to OTHER peoples rights".

Emperors Faithful wrote:But it's not as extreme as some people are saying it is. Saying that you don't believe in Christ to be the saviour of mankind is not going to get you burnt at the stake. However, if you claim publicly that Christians defecate on human rights and rape little children AND write a book about it then your going to get in trouble. Which seems entirely okay to me.

Freedom of Speech should not mean "Saying whatever the Feth I want without regards to OTHER peoples rights".

What right would you be infringing on by saying whatever you want? The right for other people not to get their feelings hurt? The right for people not to get offended? That's one of the weakest arguments against free speech I've ever heard.


And so what if someone did say that about Christians, and wrote a book about it? It's certainly been said before. Why shouldn't they be able to say that, and write a book about it? Maybe they have some evidence to support their views, or maybe they're totally full of crap. Either way, banning it outright isn't going to further the debate or allow for communication. Who would benefit from something like that, really? I mean besides the people who want to control what you think.

Once again, being free from criticism and insult is not a right. Otherwise, Freedom of Speech would be negated by that alone.

If you don't like what someone's saying, you have every right to ignore them, or speak out against them, but forcibly stopping them and arresting them because you're offended throws the concept of Freedom of Speech out the window.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Once again, being free from criticism and insult is not a right. Otherwise, Freedom of Speech would be negated by that alone.

If you don't like what someone's saying, you have every right to ignore them, or speak out against them, but forcibly stopping them and arresting them because you're offended throws the concept of Freedom of Speech out the window.

CAN I GET A WITNESS?! HALLELUJAH!*





*Quoted for truth.

Would that mean priests are protected from public defacement when faced with legal charges? It could most definitely be interpreted as that. My main issue with what the report said, is that the media will have full protection, and communist papers are frowned on all over the world. Any paper besides the larger ones will widely go unnoticed while the media has free reign over "what the people think".

Frankly, most of our news programs are so silly you might as well be getting your info from the daily show, the colbert report, and screen/news wipe. I have absolutely no desire to give the media any more power of what I have to say. If this actually works out in Ireland it could be a common thing in the next 20 years.

I agree that for the most part, the news media is ridiculous, but what do you mean you "have absolutely no desire to give the media any more power of what [you] have to say?"


The media doesn't have complete power over what people think, though. You can free yourself. Education, exploration, enlightenment, thought. Ask questions. Take the red pill, man. See how far the rabbit hole goes.

I have the red pill on tap mate, no worries

What I meant by power over me, is the media's constant struggle to portray a "real" perspective instead of just telling us the diggity-damn facts!

Everything has a spin, because... yes because of money, so in essence this gives a company rights that no Joe shmoe can debate.

Just think about what this could mean, sure there is free speech, but no listens to you because your not worth any money. It boils down to competing with real news, using the internet, compiling multiple sources of info so people can get a varied view. It just all reeks of media money.

So, in short, instead of doing their job and telling us an impartial study of current/past/ and present events, the media will always spin a story so they can sell papers. Rationalism does not make money anymore, so the stories they present will be sensationalist and obviously favoring one side or the other.

Yes, I agree that most of it boils down to money, especially in the media. What does that have to do with an individual's right to free speech though?

These changes will be taking away rights from regular people while the media can freely "express" the public opinion... whatever that means.

Somewhere the public opinion became more important than presenting the public with facts that they could not find without a lot of effort, so they could have debates and possibly even present new ideas in legal form. You need to be told the tree fell down in the forest to decide whether it mattered or not.

Ah! I gotcha. I thought you were originally saying that the law was a good thing because of that! Sorry, I totally misinterpreted the first post.

Evidently, "experts" are the most powerful people in the world. Maybe even more powerful than "officials".

All I ever hear is that "experts" are saying things, and whatever they say is evidently fact, which is impressive considering I rarely hear anything about these experts apart from their "title" and opinion on the current events. Most of the time I don't even know what they're supposed to be an expert on.

Hordini wrote:What right would you be infringing on by saying whatever you want? The right for other people not to get their feelings hurt? The right for people not to get offended? That's one of the weakest arguments against free speech I've ever heard.

What about slander and libel? The example given by Emperors Faithful would be covered in most countries under slander and libel laws anyway (unless of course the claims were true, in which case this blasphemy law wouldn't apply anyway).

If the hypothetical book attacking the church for raping children was written in a certain manner, you'd also be hit for inciting violence in a lot of places.

I am not a lawyer and don't know how this Irish law is going to operate (and ultimately nor does anyone else until the full extent of it has been fleshed out in the courts), but people in this thread are making some very funny claims about free speach. It isn't completely free, and never has been anywhere in the world. If you lie and cause harm to the reputation of a person or an organisation, or if you lie to incite violence against, you will be held accountable. That is how it is, and that is how it should be. If this Irish law goes beyond that, and restricts other types of speach then it'll be a problem but from the posts in this thread it doesn't seem like it does.

It looks like a piece of do-nothing legislation, to be perfectly honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:These changes will be taking away rights from regular people while the media can freely "express" the public opinion... whatever that means.

Somewhere the public opinion became more important than presenting the public with facts that they could not find without a lot of effort, so they could have debates and possibly even present new ideas in legal form. You need to be told the tree fell down in the forest to decide whether it mattered or not.

It's basically just the result of a free market slowly working it's magic on the media. You see, media outlets look to make money like any other organisation. What's been discovered slowly over time is that expensive forms of journalism like investigative reporting doesn't bring in any more viewers, and in addition to the cost it also opens you up to legal challenges. So each year media outlets get trimmed a little more, maintaining the same amount of content by spamming stories without anywhere near the same level of examination.

Meanwhile, around the world corporations and political bodies are learning exactly how valuable it can be to have public relations officers representing your own side of the story. So more and more laid off journalists shift across to take a job writing copy for a political party or multi-national.

The result is that the ever shrinking number of journalists are faced with producing more and more stories each, and the result is they will regularly accept the statements given by the ever increasing mass of publicists and media managers, without any review at all. There are countless cases of journalists copying and pasting their stories directly from press releases.

And know, I have no idea how to fix this.

I agree that it looks like it could easily be a piece of "do-nothing" legislation, but that doesn't make it right.


I also realize that free speech isn't totally free anywhere. I'm simply claiming that it ought to be. If you lie about a person or an organization, they are certainly welcome to present the truth and defend themselves. If you say something, and because of that, violent or otherwise illegal acts are committed, it should be those acts that are dealt with, and those acts are what one should be charged with a crime for. You shouldn't be charged with a crime for the speech itself.

Truth is no defense against the charges, only academic value, which is a burden of proof placed on the defendant. Defamation is a tricky crime, it's not something that can be applied without regulation. It stands right on the edge of acceptable infringement of Freedom of Speech as it is.

Inciting violence is another issue, but while there is a necessity for a government to be able to maintain law and order, beyond that requirement it is the fault of the people perpetrating the violence (assuming that the incitement wasn't an actual call to violence).

Regardless, if this piece of legislation is primarily made obsolete by defamation and incitement of violence laws, that's all the more reason to oppose it. If its primary functions are unnecessary, that only leaves it being used against people who are neither being defamatory nor inciting violence.

Hordini wrote:I agree that it looks like it could easily be a piece of "do-nothing" legislation, but that doesn't make it right.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear but I don't like the legislation. At its best it is 'do-nothing', and that's hardly a defence for a law. I posted as much on the first page, then didn't post anymore because I didn't really anything else to add. It was only when I saw the idea of completely free speech that I had something else to add.

I also realize that free speech isn't totally free anywhere. I'm simply claiming that it ought to be. If you lie about a person or an organization, they are certainly welcome to present the truth and defend themselves. If you say something, and because of that, violent or otherwise illegal acts are committed, it should be those acts that are dealt with, and those acts are what one should be charged with a crime for. You shouldn't be charged with a crime for the speech itself.

That makes sense in a world where everyone has the same access to media, but we don't live in that world. In the world we live in the rich and powerful can spam story after story in the media, and it is very hard for the little guy to keep up. So we have a measure to make sure that at least the rich and the powerful are telling the truth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Truth is no defense against the charges, only academic value, which is a burden of proof placed on the defendant. Defamation is a tricky crime, it's not something that can be applied without regulation. It stands right on the edge of acceptable infringement of Freedom of Speech as it is.

Inciting violence is another issue, but while there is a necessity for a government to be able to maintain law and order, beyond that requirement it is the fault of the people perpetrating the violence (assuming that the incitement wasn't an actual call to violence).

Regardless, if this piece of legislation is primarily made obsolete by defamation and incitement of violence laws, that's all the more reason to oppose it. If its primary functions are unnecessary, that only leaves it being used against people who are neither being defamatory nor inciting violence.

Yeah, I don't like the legislation, it can't do anything that other laws like defamation would do better. I just felt some of the claims about free speech were becoming a little extreme.

Gwar, your logic is flawed, warped, and twisted beyond all reason. I pity you.

Gwar! is basically going to argue until he dies. I say this as a fact, although an interpreted one at that. People that choose to disagree and argue with Gwar! are basically in the same boat, no need to compromise when I am obviously right... right?

QFT

Gwar, I'm not saying you shouldn't argue your case. What I'm saying is that there's no point in arguing with someone who always believes they are right. Of course, you'll say something about that too.

Ok, before the flamefest starts.

God may or may not exist. We don't have proof he exists.

But did we have proof that we could make machines that moved without horses back, say, in the Dark Ages?

I'm not going to say anymore, I don't want to start and/or continue any sort of flamefest. Believe in what you want.

Still, this law is very restricting, and I do hope that it is removed.

Falconlance wrote:Wrong. You CHOOSE your religion, you don't CHOOSE your ethnicity.

Making fun of people for something they made a decision to do, and making fun of someone for something that have no control over, is NOT the same thing.

Err. Excuse me.

I'm gone for a week and this thread passes under my eyes? What a sorry state.

To start with, no, in many cases people don't chose their religion. In the same way that I can't suddenly change my sexuality, faith isn't something that you can change on a whim. It's often a defined piece of your conscience that evolves through your personal experience, it's something that gives courage, and, yes, if used negatively can breed prejudice. However, this is not my response to your frankly incredibly ignorant comment.

So, if I'm gay, that's part Genetic, and part Choice, right? Now this is wild speculation, but wouldn't the aptitude for faith and the natural predisposition to believe be possibly ingrained into genetics are sorely as sexuality, eye colour, or BMI? I'm not sure. I don't do Genetic studies, but it follows from the same logical route.

And I'm not even sure that making fun of people is a very nice thing to do, you gakker. Reading the quick review provided uner this box, it seems that your ignorance is echooing everywhere, I suggest you STFU and GTFO. Sorry.

I'll probably come back later to shout, maybe not.

sA

The majority of those of us in democratic countries enjoy protected freedoms, but you'd have to be a dolt to think anyone is free to do as they please. Our rights are never guaranteed, only protected. I don't pretend to like it, but if I think someone is wrong I'd rather talk about it or ignore it, than chuck the beggar in jail.

smiling Assassin, if you're gay, that's part behaviour and part choice. Religion, political stance and taste in music is all similarly irrelevant to genetics - environment, education and upbringing can have a lot to do with it, but that's nothing to do with your genetic makeup. I wouldn't stomp about calling someone else ignorant when you admit to wild speculation yourself.

Everyone in this thread has expressed their personal beliefs and intentions, and as usual the like-thinkers clump together. It doesn't matter that any one camp is right or wrong, only that equal rights are protected across the board. If we all agree that our rights aren't being protected, then we can all do something about it. Otherwise, we just prove the neccessity of disciplinarian bullgak with this petty infighting.

So sA, if you've missed the thread, have a little respect and introduce an argument before you start smearing. While you're at it, get on topic.

Ermm...okay, I've been fiddling about wherever or not to reply for like, fifteen minutes now...and can't not, so; as tentatively as I can.


Sexuality and Faith, both can be changed, both are environmental, with some part to play in a person's identity and presentation. A moment of relapse can see a man who has been a devout follower of X faith turn to Y, or simply abandon all religious ideals altogether. A man or woman whose been X uality can turn to Y following a bad relationship, or a moment where there sexuality has been questioned, focussed upon, or simply been left dormant (believe me, I know.)

Free will, at least as far as I see it, is not the ability or freedom to say yes, it's the ability to say no, to deny, to remove oneself from the situation. This law is not only infringing on an individual's right to say no (in this case, saying 'no' to an organised faith system, a belief in a god, God, Gods or universal force) but also on a person's ability to express themselves freely, which is defined in whatever parable/section of the Human Rights Acts.

Obviously, you don't, at any time, have a right to use your opinion to caus' shock, shame or hurt to another's beliefs, ideals or livelihood, not that this stops people...as several hundred years of religious persecution and war goes to show, but it's how it's meant to be. So, whilst Gwar has every right to be an atheist, and has every right to define that word as he deems fit (despite it having a universally agreed upon definition) he does not have the right to absolutely deny all other religions their own rights, just as we don't have the right to quash that opinion, be it in person, online or in writing.

What annoys me personally is not the belief or lifestyle the individual upholds, but the way in which they go about living it. You know who I mean, the sort of person that introduces themselves as gay/bi/straight/christian/agnostic/illusionist. Don't get me wrong, I've no qualm with anything, but there's no need to introduce yourself to these socially created labels. I don't, to put it bluntly, care if you're X sexuality or Y, (unless I'm coming onto you :p) and as long as we don't bring up creationism we'll get along fine!

Live your life for whom you are, not what you believe in. Be a person who just happens to be a christian/gay/straight/ghost, not a Christian who just happens to be a man.

*Gets off soapbox.*

(As it happens, I'm agnostic leaning into Taoism...:p)

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:These changes will be taking away rights from regular people while the media can freely "express" the public opinion... whatever that means.

Somewhere the public opinion became more important than presenting the public with facts that they could not find without a lot of effort, so they could have debates and possibly even present new ideas in legal form. You need to be told the tree fell down in the forest to decide whether it mattered or not.

It's basically just the result of a free market slowly working it's magic on the media. You see, media outlets look to make money like any other organisation. What's been discovered slowly over time is that expensive forms of journalism like investigative reporting doesn't bring in any more viewers, and in addition to the cost it also opens you up to legal challenges. So each year media outlets get trimmed a little more, maintaining the same amount of content by spamming stories without anywhere near the same level of examination.

Meanwhile, around the world corporations and political bodies are learning exactly how valuable it can be to have public relations officers representing your own side of the story. So more and more laid off journalists shift across to take a job writing copy for a political party or multi-national.

The result is that the ever shrinking number of journalists are faced with producing more and more stories each, and the result is they will regularly accept the statements given by the ever increasing mass of publicists and media managers, without any review at all. There are countless cases of journalists copying and pasting their stories directly from press releases.

And know, I have no idea how to fix this.

I do my own research, although the information available to the public seems very black or white, no grays. It is always the dems and reps, the liberals and the conservatives, all orchestrated to appease a small portion of the general population. I cannot honestly believe that the media hasn't bee allowed to do this by the population themselves. If people wanted a change the news would already be out of business, not in it's current state of moronic hooks, and repetitive "reporting".

The amount of information that is simply ignored is utterly ridiculous.

High Commissar Biffsmack wrote:that's sick, and i don't mean sick as in awesome, i mean sick as in the dictionary definition. Ireland sucks. I feel sorry for you man.

Thread closed for the continuing attacks on Ireland itself.