A proposed Criminal Justice Bill could have an impact on free speech within Ireland, but also potentially reaching far beyond—given that the country is home to a number of major tech companies, including Twitter, Facebook/Meta, Google, Airbnb, Pintrest, LinkedIn, Dropbox, Yelp, Stripe, Etsy, Microsoft, Paypal, Adobe, Amazon, Apple, and many others. Ireland’s low corporate tax rate has made it attractive over the years to many corporations who have moved their headquarters there.
The good news or gospel is considered offensive by our scriptures. Why would something considered “good news” be offensive? Because it convicts of sin.
The entire Anglosphere (guess that includes Ireland. There is no Erseosphere) is abandoning the freedoms that brought us to world leadership. It is a dark age. Thanks to you for your courage in pointing it out.
"Further, there’s an inherent vagueness in “hate speech.” What is it? Who gets to define it? How many people need to agree? How often do we change those definitions? What are the exact lines that cannot be crossed? If one can be fined, let alone imprisoned for saying certain words, should those words not at least be spelled out clearly?"
Right. Might as well choose a random number between 12 and 60 (months) and use that as the sentence for the offender. This would make as much sense as any other metric used for measuring the amount of hate in anyone's speech for deciding a sentence.
People capable of drafting document like this are either incredibly short-sighted and stupid or malevolent and knowing exactly what they're doing. In either case they're dangerous.
// edit: a few extra steps (and computer backdoors) and we'll have Minority Report.
Thank you for this. Wow. Very scary. You’re dead-right. Hate speech has been broadened already, culturally if not legally. To question trans surgery for teens is considered hate speech by many on the left, for example. Look at what happened at Stanford with that judge, and the ‘harmful language’ list. The New Left believes in free speech...as long as it’s speech they agree with.
Maybe those American gun rights Second Ammendment rednecks aren't so dumb after all. Don't tread here.
Scratch Ireland off the list...
The good news or gospel is considered offensive by our scriptures. Why would something considered “good news” be offensive? Because it convicts of sin.
For God’s sake, don’t let Justin Trudeau find out about this.
Authoritarianism writ large.
The entire Anglosphere (guess that includes Ireland. There is no Erseosphere) is abandoning the freedoms that brought us to world leadership. It is a dark age. Thanks to you for your courage in pointing it out.
"Further, there’s an inherent vagueness in “hate speech.” What is it? Who gets to define it? How many people need to agree? How often do we change those definitions? What are the exact lines that cannot be crossed? If one can be fined, let alone imprisoned for saying certain words, should those words not at least be spelled out clearly?"
Right. Might as well choose a random number between 12 and 60 (months) and use that as the sentence for the offender. This would make as much sense as any other metric used for measuring the amount of hate in anyone's speech for deciding a sentence.
People capable of drafting document like this are either incredibly short-sighted and stupid or malevolent and knowing exactly what they're doing. In either case they're dangerous.
// edit: a few extra steps (and computer backdoors) and we'll have Minority Report.
Thank you for this. Wow. Very scary. You’re dead-right. Hate speech has been broadened already, culturally if not legally. To question trans surgery for teens is considered hate speech by many on the left, for example. Look at what happened at Stanford with that judge, and the ‘harmful language’ list. The New Left believes in free speech...as long as it’s speech they agree with.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
The guilty until proven innocent premise of this sort of hate speech legislation is an appalling return to a Star Chamber style of jurisprudence.