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

[imokyrok]

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

P.

Here's what the Church of Google hold sacred:

We at the Church of Google believe the search engine Google is the closest humankind has ever come to directly experiencing an actual God (as typically defined). We believe there is much more evidence in favour of Google's divinity than there is for the divinity of other more traditional gods.

We reject supernatural gods on the notion they are not scientifically provable. Thus, Googlists believe Google should rightfully be given the title of "God", as She exhibits a great many of the characteristics traditionally associated with such Deities in a scientifically provable manner.

» The Church of Google

I wonder if Googlists could find using yahoo blasphemous under the proposed legislation.

[tmesis2008]

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.

The problem with that is that sometimes artists set out deliberately with a strong intention to offend so as to force people to think about why they are offended. Now, some art will fail and will be seen as gratuitous (or, at least, some will claim that it is). Are we to have artists in court to defend their right to create Bad Art?

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.

No, I don't think it's possible to subjectively define what an artistic endeavour is. If a person claims that what they were attempting was art (and social commentary is "art" too) then who are you or anyone else to claim that it isn't. You can say that it's "bad art" and that it fails, but do you wish to prosecute someone for it?

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.

What would you call "really overstepping the mark"? Have you a recent example in ireland?

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.

I don't think it needs to be drafted at all. If we are to be protected from offence by law then why can't I be protected from offence by law?

[corelli]

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

P.

I think I replied to a post where you were indicating you "said" something! However, I agree with you in principle anyway!

[dunno]

I rang his office the morning to ask to speak to someone about this legislation and his receptionist sounded very strained. I'd say this unleashed an avalanche of complaints. I know some of the posters on richarddawkins.net have emailed him as well.

Someone is meant to "get back to me". Same response from Labour HQ. Whats Fine Gael's attitude I wonder?

That the govt find time for pointless legislation like this really beggars belief. Is there some legal necessity for this legislation? Maybe it will be rendered toothless when passed. Otherwise it's arranging cutlery in the Titanic diningroom or whatever.

[oceanclub]

What would you call "really overstepping the mark"? Have you a recent example in ireland?

I'm curious about this too; for those like Alterego who support this law, can you tell me of a recent incident that merits such a prosecution? Be specific.

P.

[Toland]

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

[greenwithirony]

I guess you have to consider which reference could lead to an extensive hospital bill. That should help you determine which is civil or not.

Gosh! How flattering! You've completely undermined your own pathetic argument wrt civility with a threat of violence (a particularly infantile, stupid & meaningless one at that, what with it being over an anonymous internet forum & all that).

You've also disqualified yourself from civilised reasoned debate, not that you'd ever really want that anyway, apparently. Perhaps you really are a dribbling loon?

[imokyrok]

I'm curious about this too; for those like Alterego who support this law, can you tell me of a recent incident that merits such a prosecution? Be specific.

P.

Emm - I don't think anyone on this forum but Alterego supports this law. No doubt a few of the new FF apologist posters will be along shortly though.

[Alterego]

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

Stop being so infantile. We all understand the need to be civil on an individual level (I wouldn't expect you to understand that though), this law simply extends that to a societal level. I see MPACIE are also busy telling people to thank Mr Ahern.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Dermot Ahern's excuse of a defence:

Thursday April 30 2009
[COLOR=#306294]JUSTICE Minister Dermot Ahern[/COLOR] has defended the introduction of a new crime of blasphemous libel, stating that a new definition was required by the Constitution.
Speaking after an Oireachtas committee meeting, Mr Ahern yesterday defended a fine of up to €100,000 that will be imposed on blasphemers.
The Government moved to revive the crime by placing it onto a fresh statutory footing following advice from the office of the Attorney General.
Gardai will now have the power to seize blasphemous material from the home or any other premises used by a person convicted of blasphemy.
The proposed law flies in the face of a recommendation by the Law Reform Commission which said in 1991 that there was no place for such an offence in a society which respects freedom of speech.
There are fears that the new offence may be used by fundamentalists to crack down on publication of material perceived to be injurious to faith.

That's a bogus argument. We have a similar constitutional-limbo with respect to abortion, where successive govts have refused to legislate for the Supreme Court ruling in the X-case which ruled the threat of suicide was a grounds for abortion. We can't let him away with that.