He banned journalists from The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Voice of America, and others, for posting about his private plane. Not the best arbiter of what constitutes freedom of speech.
The bill must be a good thing so if that gowl is criticising it. Keep in mind this is the guy who is the anthesis of “freedom of speech” on his $44 billion personal echo chamber.
I mean. There’s definitely some questionable language but I’d hate to be seen agreeing with the cunt.
It *is*.
Unfortunately he had to say that in response to a far right extremist Keith O’Brien (goes by Keith Woods).
Feels very broken clock is right twice a day here. The prick is totally not for freedom of speech as he’s proven in recent history, but I can’t help but agree.
Suprise Suprise, a rich white South African thinks hate crimes are grand
Mr “I’m not on either side politically but everything I believe is conservative” at it again.
> The Bill will also criminalise any intentional or reckless communication or behaviour likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or persons because they are associated with a protected characteristic, including hateful online content.
~
> In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell, the word Thoughtcrime describes a person’s politically unorthodox thoughts, beliefs, and doubts that politically contradict the tenets of Ingsoc (English Socialism), the dominant ideology of Oceania.
That’s really thought crime right? 🤷🏻♂️
I doubt the true reasoning behind this bill has anything to do with protecting minority groups but is an easy way to camouflage a bill designed to prevent things like the spicebag art controversies from happening again.
He’s not wrong. It’s clearly an attack on freedom of speech.
Hairplugs Musk can go and shite.
I read the bill. I believe it isn’t too bad; although with a bill like this it is crucial that it get debated vigorously.
If the bill is too weak, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Too strong, it inhibits speech that it wasn’t meant to legislate for.
Yeah he’s spot on there. You can agree with someone and not like them lads
Remember folks, if you are going to commit crimes, have love in your heart for your victims.
If the tech world’s jackass says it’s bad for freedom of speech it basically means it’s definitely good for society as a whole.
Paul Murphy and Elon Musk agree on this, think about that. This is a terrible law, the catholic church could only dream of such legislation and people in 2023 are celebrating it. What is wrong with people, everyone should be condemning this shit.
Elon Musk’d wanna fuck off for himself.
Who cares. We havnt the balls to speak up about anything anyway.
Lol, it’s gas how people were so hard on getting rid of blasphemy laws and now we have this coming in. Controlling language is such a dangerous precedent. Leo Varadkar implied in the dail that the Healy Rae’s were attacking his sexuality when they referred to him as airy fairy. Cunts like him will abuse these laws for control.
How many of the clowns condemning him here were on the thread about Paul Murphy yesterday agreeing with him when they are basically saying the same thing? Clowns.
Enoch Burke will be delighted with this. The hatred towards him because of his religious beliefs is off the charts.
Whether he is right or wrong, who actually gives a flying fuck what Musk thinks?
He just doesn’t understand we’re not America!
A lot of BS about that new law. Honestly it’s not THAT much different from the existing incitement to hatred law – it just gives it teeth.
We should always be able to prosecute those who DELIBERATELY make **incendury** remarks **based solely** on someone’s race, religion or skin colour.
Hearing “This hate crime bill is bad” from a dude who’s family owned slave mines in apartheid Africa is either a REALLY good thing, or just meaningless.
Controversial opinion, but I don’t think we should be taking advice on hate crime bills from the orchestrators of apartheid, bit like taking advice on anti pedophilia bills from Larry Murphy.
26 comments
He banned journalists from The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Voice of America, and others, for posting about his private plane. Not the best arbiter of what constitutes freedom of speech.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/journalists-who-wrote-about-owner-elon-musk-suspended-from-twitter
His not a fan of our employment laws either.
The bill must be a good thing so if that gowl is criticising it. Keep in mind this is the guy who is the anthesis of “freedom of speech” on his $44 billion personal echo chamber.
I mean. There’s definitely some questionable language but I’d hate to be seen agreeing with the cunt.
It *is*.
Unfortunately he had to say that in response to a far right extremist Keith O’Brien (goes by Keith Woods).
Feels very broken clock is right twice a day here. The prick is totally not for freedom of speech as he’s proven in recent history, but I can’t help but agree.
Suprise Suprise, a rich white South African thinks hate crimes are grand
Mr “I’m not on either side politically but everything I believe is conservative” at it again.
> The Bill will also criminalise any intentional or reckless communication or behaviour likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or persons because they are associated with a protected characteristic, including hateful online content.
~
> In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell, the word Thoughtcrime describes a person’s politically unorthodox thoughts, beliefs, and doubts that politically contradict the tenets of Ingsoc (English Socialism), the dominant ideology of Oceania.
That’s really thought crime right? 🤷🏻♂️
I doubt the true reasoning behind this bill has anything to do with protecting minority groups but is an easy way to camouflage a bill designed to prevent things like the spicebag art controversies from happening again.
He’s not wrong. It’s clearly an attack on freedom of speech.
Hairplugs Musk can go and shite.
I read the bill. I believe it isn’t too bad; although with a bill like this it is crucial that it get debated vigorously.
If the bill is too weak, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Too strong, it inhibits speech that it wasn’t meant to legislate for.
If you want to see the bill in the most recent stage, [click here](https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2022/105/eng/ver_a/b105a22d.pdf).
edit: I found the Bill digest, the documents are made by parliamentary researchers, so they are probably the most unbiased source about the bill. Link here: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2022/2022-12-15_bill-digest-criminal-justice-incitement-to-violence-or-hatred-and-hate-offences-bill-2022_en.pdf
Elon can have a nice cup of shut the fuck up.
Yeah he’s spot on there. You can agree with someone and not like them lads
Remember folks, if you are going to commit crimes, have love in your heart for your victims.
If the tech world’s jackass says it’s bad for freedom of speech it basically means it’s definitely good for society as a whole.
Paul Murphy and Elon Musk agree on this, think about that. This is a terrible law, the catholic church could only dream of such legislation and people in 2023 are celebrating it. What is wrong with people, everyone should be condemning this shit.
Elon Musk’d wanna fuck off for himself.
Who cares. We havnt the balls to speak up about anything anyway.
Lol, it’s gas how people were so hard on getting rid of blasphemy laws and now we have this coming in. Controlling language is such a dangerous precedent. Leo Varadkar implied in the dail that the Healy Rae’s were attacking his sexuality when they referred to him as airy fairy. Cunts like him will abuse these laws for control.
How many of the clowns condemning him here were on the thread about Paul Murphy yesterday agreeing with him when they are basically saying the same thing? Clowns.
Enoch Burke will be delighted with this. The hatred towards him because of his religious beliefs is off the charts.
Whether he is right or wrong, who actually gives a flying fuck what Musk thinks?
He just doesn’t understand we’re not America!
A lot of BS about that new law. Honestly it’s not THAT much different from the existing incitement to hatred law – it just gives it teeth.
We should always be able to prosecute those who DELIBERATELY make **incendury** remarks **based solely** on someone’s race, religion or skin colour.
Hearing “This hate crime bill is bad” from a dude who’s family owned slave mines in apartheid Africa is either a REALLY good thing, or just meaningless.
Controversial opinion, but I don’t think we should be taking advice on hate crime bills from the orchestrators of apartheid, bit like taking advice on anti pedophilia bills from Larry Murphy.