https://old.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/zdl8jc/thoughts_on_the_hate_crimehate_speech_bill?sort=controversial

Most Based Comments

Basedness: 🔥🔥🔘🔘🔘

Ring Wing American influence is poisoning Irish men the same as it has in America. In a couple of years they'll be calling for the church to get its power back. (387)

People like you see the right wing boogy man under your bed at night (-42)

Basedness: 🔥🔥🔘🔘🔘

It depends. Like the aontu gobshites saying that protesting abortions outside maternity hospitals is free speech. I'd counter that its completely traumatising being called a murderer when you're going in to remove an ectopic pregnancy. You know the ones that can kill women quite fast. (144)

Yes it is. (-19)

Basedness: 🔥🔘🔘🔘🔘

Harassing people by screaming your “free speech” while they attempting to access a legal medical service (23)

And why should people getting the services have the power to impede on the constitutional rights of the protesters.I can argue how LGBT marches make conservative Catholics feel imtimidated and they would consider those marches harrassment. But i guess the rules are just different (-23)

Angriest Comments

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

I agree. We have hate crimes statutes here in New York State and I don’t like it. Here’s why: the legal system should be about justice. You go out and break a guy’s skull cuz he’s an butthole in a bar. OR…you go out and break a guy’s skull because he’s gay, or Black, or Asian or whatever. The same harm has been done to the victim. The punishment should be the same. Extra jail time tacked on because someone determined it was hate-driven is punishing someone for their thoughts, not their deeds, and thus shouldn’t be allowed. Do not allow the government to legally punish you for your thoughts. (1)

I’m against hate speech laws. I don’t like them. But hard disagree on the discrimination bit. If I go out and actively kill a person for being disabled, that’s worse than killing someone out of anger. It makes me a worse and more evil person. The added portion of hatred in the mens rea is relevant. Killing a group of people is mass murder. Killing a group of people based on their ethnicity, etc is genocide. (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

I highly doubt it will be as simplistic as ‘you say something offensive, you go to jail’. If it gets rid open racism, homophobia, the like, then that’s fine by me. The only people who need to be worried about this are the serial racists, sexists, misogynists, homophobes etc. (45)

But this is why I shouldn't be made illegal. If people are allowed to be openly racist or homophobic I believe that's a good thing because it will be openly challenge and others will realise it is wrong and hurtful to others to be racist or homophobic. It educates people. If it's made illegal just like drugs it won't change anything. Money will be spent fighting it but never tackling the root cause as to why somebody is racist or homophobic. And of course people will still be racist and homophobic online which again won't change anything. Now to go up to somebody on the street and call them various offence names is verbal assault which is a different story altogether and should never be accepted. But to make racist and homophobic terms illegal won't change anything and I believe will make the situation worse. Also you then have the whole other issue of what is and isn't acceptable. Like would every song with the N word in have to be outlawed even when sang by Black people and not in... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

That's incorrect. The prosecution always to prove intent. (-1)

Prosecution generally has to prove intent to commit an act. In this case, the act would be publicly communicating material that is “likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or group of persons on account of protected characteristics” or possessing such material when it’s reasonable to assume the person would share it. The prosecution would not have to prove that the person intended to incite violence or hatred — only that the person intended to communicate material that a reasonable person would interpret as likely to incite violence or hatred. That is why the law requires that a defense prove that the material itself is a “reasonable and genuine contribution” to public discourse. It is not a defense to merely argue that the accused did not intend to incite hatred or violence. Compare it to speeding. The prosecution does not have to prove knowing intent (that you knew the speed limit and violated it). All that matters is that you were driving the car and the car was over... (3)