New crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bill - goodbye free speech ?

[Toland]

_. P .., .S.
. .:............. ....
....:.................._ ....,
............ .............., .:..
....... . . _:........ :..
_...... . .<........ ....
,...... ....... ..._.
_..... ..:...) .....
:.... ..:.... .....
.... _:..... .....
...... .....U..._.
..... _:..... (
O..... ......
:... ) .......
....._ . ...E:..),
.:.... ).... . _.....
..... ,...... .:....
) ..... ...:.._ .....
....... ..:..... ...+,
. :...... )..:...,. ....
.:....... ..+......., _:...
............?. .............. .....
. .......:............,. :...
. :..............) ...
.. I. .. ,D.

[drkpower]

I agree with you substantively Ocean, but posters might take on board the fact that the legislation, from my understanding, is intended to protect against blasphemous LIBEL, not slander. Ie the written word not the spoken one. You could go no Pat Kenny and call the Pope the mother of all whores who sponsors state terror and who is the biggest queer in Christendom and that would be ok, but you could not write and publish and article containing the same sentiments!

In fairness, there is good reason for the distinction and greater penalty placed on libel. Libel has always been considered a graver and more serious wrong and injury than slander by word of the mouth as it tends to be accompanied by greater coolness and deliberation and therefore indicates a greater malice and possibly more significantly, it is in general distributed wider and farther than oral slander.

Another thing a lot of posters here seem to be missing is that the offence proposed requires an "intention to outrage", not merely an intention to offend. Its all a matter of interpretation, of course, but it seems to me that this offence requires a particularly strong degreee of intent and, if properly drafted, it should only result in those who gratuitously offend (for the sake of offence alone) being found liable and personally I dont have a problem with that.

However, it is vital that the offence has a carve out for outrage resultant from and intended by publication in the context of artistic endeavours. Defining what is and is not an artistic endeavour is, of course, tricky enough but the courts have dealt with trickier issues and (in the most part) have coped.

However, i would agree with those who have stated that there is little actual need for this law. It seems to me that the incitement to hatred legislation is probably sufficient to deal with those who really overstep the mark in this area. While I am not sympathetic to the scaremongering of many here, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the courts could interpret a sloppily drafted piece of legislation in this area in order to criminalise those who do not warrant criminilisation. Ultimately if the government proceed with this proposal they need to be very very careful about it and, as drafted, they are not being nearly careful enough.

[iartaoiseach]

Ah - the mask of civility slips away so easily and the true violent nature of the underlying persona makes itself apparent.

the hypocrisy of the fundamentalist knows no bounds.

[Toland]

_. P .., .S.
. .:............. ....
....:.................._ ....,
............ .............., .:..
....... . . _:........ :..
_...... . .<........ ....
,...... ....... ..._.
_..... ..:...) .....
:.... ..:.... .....
.... _:..... .....
...... .....U..._.
..... _:..... (
O..... ......
:... ) .......
....._ . ...E:..),
.:.... ).... . _.....
..... ,...... .:....
) ..... ...:.._ .....
....... ..:..... ...+,
. :...... )..:...,. ....
.:....... ..+......., _:...
............?. .............. .....
. .......:............,. :...
. :..............) ...
.. I. .. ,D.

[corelli]

In fairness, there is good reason for the distinction and greater penalty placed on libel. Libel has always been considered a graver and more serious wrong and injury than slander by word of the mouth as it tends to be accompanied by greater coolness and deliberation and therefore indicates a greater malice and possibly more significantly, it is in general distributed wider and farther than oral slander.

Another thing a lot of posters here seem to be missing is that the offence proposed requires an "intention to outrage", not merely an intention to offend. Its all a matter of interpretation, of course, but it seems to me that this offence requires a particularly strong degreee of intent and, if properly drafted, it should only result in those who gratuitously offend (for the sake of offence alone) being found liable and personally I dont have a problem with that.

However, it is vital that the offence has a carve out for outrage resultant from and intended by publication in the context of artistic endeavours. Defining what is and is not an artistic endeavour is, of course, tricky enough but the courts have dealt with trickier issues and (in the most part) have coped.

However, i would agree with those who have stated that there is little actual need for this law. It seems to me that the incitement to hatred legislation is probably sufficient to deal with those who really overstep the mark in this area. While I am not sympathetic to the scaremongering of many here, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the courts could interpret a sloppily drafted piece of legislation in this area in order to criminalise those who do not warrant criminilisation. Ultimately if the government proceed with this proposal they need to be very very careful about it and, as drafted, they are not being nearly careful enough.

Yes, and as any first year law student will tell you, any penal statute, such as this, will be strictly interpreted by the Courts. The wording will be very important. An intention to cause outrage would seem a high degree of intent.

Saying that Ahern's argument that they HAVE to legislate to fill out the Constitutional intent is absolute nonsense. No Government has ever legislated on the X case, and though it is not explicit in the Constitution it is a decision of the Supreme Court interpreting an Article of the Constitution, there would, in Ahern's logic, be equal imperative to do so.

[oceanclub]

I agree with you substantively Ocean, but posters might take on board the fact that the legislation, from my understanding, is intended to protect against blasphemous LIBEL, not slander.

Well, my example was based on internet forum postings, so it still applies.

P.

[imokyrok]

I
Another thing a lot of posters here seem to be missing is that the offence proposed requires an "intention to outrage", not merely an intention to offend. Its all a matter of interpretation, of course, but it seems to me that this offence requires a particularly strong degreee of intent and, if properly drafted, it should only result in those who gratuitously offend (for the sake of offence alone) being found liable and personally I dont have a problem with that.

I disagree. A person who deliberately attempts to incite hatred and violence against an individual or group should be held accountable but causing offence by attacking an ideology is in my view a right we should hold dear in any democracy. I have nothing but good intentions towards all individual members of any and all religions but I'm absolutely don't have good intentions towards their belief systems and should be perfectly entitled to say so in any medium, as long as I don't specifically advocate violence or discrimination against the holders of those beliefs.

[Toland]

_. P .., .S.
. .:............. ....
....:.................._ ....,
............ .............., .:..
....... . . _:........ :..
_...... . .<........ ....
,...... ....... ..._.
_..... ..:...) .....
:.... ..:.... .....
.... _:..... .....
...... .....U..._.
..... _:..... (
O..... ......
:... ) .......
....._ . ...E:..),
.:.... ).... . _.....
..... ,...... .:....
) ..... ...:.._ .....
....... ..:..... ...+,
. :...... )..:...,. ....
.:....... ..+......., _:...
............?. .............. .....
. .......:............,. :...
. :..............) ...
.. I. .. ,D.

[oceanclub]

Has Alterego managed to give us a definition of which parts of a religion are "sacred", and which "aren't"?

P.

[iartaoiseach]

Has Alterego managed to give us a definition of which parts of a religion are "sacred", and which "aren't"?

P.

Alterego doesn't engage in reasoned debate. unless you can descend to the level of agressive and threatening language and name calling there is no response. anyway his defence of Ahearn speaks volumes either for his intelligence or knowledge of this country and its 'politicians'. nuff said