Please be specific. Is the claim "The Irish government is proceeding with legislation to outlaw so-called “hate speech” – even after the vast majority of respondents to their public consultation expressed opposition to the idea" [1] false?
Or is the photo of a page of that law, showing that possession of material likely to incite violence or hatred (with no mention of truthfulness as defense) falsified?
I understand some claims in that thread are speculative, but the majority is factual. Feel free to dispute the speculation, but please don't use it to trick people into thinking you've also disproven the facts the speculation is based on.
[1] https://gript.ie/hate-speech-consultation-received-mostly-ne...
I don't know their methodology, but you can double check their results yourself. If 3600 responses is too much to go through, you can do a random sampling of a smaller set. I've looked at the first 10 submissions from individuals. 8 of them are opposed to the law, 1 is unintelligible, and one thinks the law, as proposed, doesn't go far enough.
Alternately, you can try to find reports on this consultation from some media that you trust. Though you may find they are all silent on it.
The only source for the "vast majority of respondents expressed opposition" claim I can find is your quoted source, a site that seems to focuses exclusively on culture war topics, and is based on their own analysis without publishing their data. Not a reliable source. I took a look at the gov.ie link you shared. It seems there were 104 written individual submissions, and 3528 online individual submissions. Whatever the prevailing mood of the responses, can this be taken to be an accurate snapshot of the public mood of a nation of 5 million people? Also, the gript.ie analysis ignored submissions by groups and elected officials.
Or is the photo of a page of that law, showing that possession of material likely to incite violence or hatred (with no mention of truthfulness as defense) falsified?
This law was debated in the Dáil by the TDs elected by the people to represent their views. People raised issued, amendments were made. The issue around possession of material likely to incite violence or hatred was raised. There was a largely civil public debate around it, where various groups raised various issues, including the specific one you mention. It just didn't go your way. This is how democracy works.
What's happened here is that this seems to have been picked up by the US right (Donald Trump Jr. and Elon Musk have rowed in) and it's brought a lot of attention to it. We largely don't have the deeply polarised discourse here that the US has, our democracy is largely civil and functioning more or less as well as such an imperfect system can. What we're starting to get here in recent years is a vocal and emboldened fringe minority who feel entitled to bring the validity of the whole system of societal decision-making into question when it doesn't support their views. This is the thing that is dangerous here, we've already seen this trend lead to violence in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McGuirk
"He has been the editor of Gript Media, which describes its primary aim as supporting news and debate 'without the liberal filter,' since 2020."
Supremely ignoreable.
My point is that the thread is poor content written by a clearly unreliable source. I'm happy to engage with ideas I disagree with when they're presented intelligently with insight, but as soon as someone starts talking about world governments taking their orders from some hidden superior powers I'm out thank you very much.
Recognize the pattern of their motivations and the resulting ideas? Know they’re harmful from prior experience? Better go think on it some more, or you’ve unduly cancelled them from your own brain, and that’s bad because everyone who wants to be in your brain deserves to be, rent free of course.
That's a wildly exaggerated interpretation of rainytuesday's post. I interpreted it as calling out the one-sided purity test applied to which media one may engage with.
I.e. you can ignore it and not think about it, but you can't expect others to concede that, just because the source doesn't parrot your side's orthodoxy, it can and should be ignored. Especially for something as mild as the statement about supporting news without a liberal filter.
Especially since, if motivated, biased, harmful (but truthful) reporting is enough to discredit a news source, then that would disqualify ABC, CBS, NBC, the Associated Press [1], the New York Times, and I'm sure many others.
If we ignore what anyone we dislike has to say, even when we think what they're saying is true, then dialogue is impossible.
[1] https://israelpalestinenews.org/associated-press-double-stan...
You didn’t need to interpret. They said[0] what they meant pretty clearly.
> Non-engagement with the thesis was the point
And I don’t agree given actual political alignment that “news without a liberal filter” is mild. It’s a dog whistle for increasingly active hate. The news without such a “liberal filter” is openly hostile to my existence, and far moreso towards other people I care about. And to that point,
> If we ignore what anyone we dislike has to say, even when we think what they're saying is true, then dialogue is impossible.
I don’t want dialogue with anyone who wants me to cease to exist, nor anyone who wants to keep people I care about from existing. That’s not intellectual curiosity and it’s not the bedrock of a functioning society. It’s the exact principle of demanding people entertain harmful ideas even when recognized.
You can engage whatever you want, but I’m not obligated to spend a second thought on people who want me dead.
I’m not asking for anything to be ignored. I’m asserting my right not to subject myself to it personally.
> They believe hate speech is violence. Not that it merely is bad, but that it actually equates to violence. In fact, certain forms of hate speech are not just violence, but genocide.
And then I get down the thread a bit and find the exact behavior described in uvnq’s post.
If the simple tagline “news without a liberal filter” can be interpreted as an indirect deadly threat against an individual’s life and very existence, then the moral framework has already been established to violently respond in “self-defense”.
If these were Mongolians or New Zealanders, it would seem bizarre.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ron-desantis-...
"the legislation — passed Wednesday by the Legislature — makes it a felony for hate groups to harass people for their religion or ethnicity. Florida had the fourth-highest number of antisemitic incidents last year, according to the Anti-Defamation League."
He signed away his constituents' right to harass Jews?
And wasn't this bill already approved by the legislature?
One can already imagine the headlines if he DIDN'T sign it. "Desantis vetoes bill protecting Jews from white supremacists".
Huh, that's not too different than the headlines one sees right now.
In this case, the law makes it a 1st class misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail time and $1000 fine [2]) to "display or project, using any medium, an image onto a building, structure, or other property without the written consent of the owner of the building, structure, or property" [3].
I.e. even if the display is not harassing or threatening in any way, and even if the owner does not complain, you can go to jail for up to a year. That includes any structure (such as a bridge or billboard), and any medium (unfurl a banner or use a projector).
In other words, it makes illegal to spread a message through anything but official channels they can pressure and control.
[1] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federa...
[2] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/florida-misd...
[3] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/269/BillText/er/P...
I'm not sure if you're trolling by calling such shifts in society merely conspiracy theories. If it happened like 1-10 times, sure. But that's not the case, and since then euroskepticism was on the rise, only until ~2020 when covid came and suddenly everybody fell in line and forget we even had other (bigger) problems in our society than merely a flu-tier virus.
Note: I have not read the entirety of the thread as per i don't really care, only saw the part of a presumed legal document where you can be detained upon mere suspicions of wrongthought/wrongsay, which reminded me of similar legislation that passed in my country (& not only).
As for "cognitive deplatforming", making a judgement on how seriously to take a piece of writing based on the author's other writing seems reasonable to me. When I look at that Twitter account I see the same tired old tropes about the WEF, covid conspiracy, government thought control etc etc, poorly written with nothing insightful or original. So I come to the same conclusion as another commenter: supremely ignorable.
"The Irish Daily Mirror said it was “straight out of Orwell’s 1984 novel”
This reads like entry-level conspiracy theory claptrap. Did anyone actually read this silly thread? It doesn't make sense to me that this is on HN. Free speech is not under attack in Ireland, and we are certainly not a testing ground for some Soros-Globalist hoodwink extravaganza.