Free speech:not in our constitution

Thomaso12

Active member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
169
Are free speech law is already good the only thing it stops us doing is forming hating groups, cults or other stuff. If you look at America they have full free speech and that has gotten out of control.
 


cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,344
Website
www.google.com
Do you have any idea what or why that law was brought in? Has me flummoxed tbh...
There's always a reactionary element in the DOJ, they advised Ahern it was needed in order to "give effect" to Bunreacht - he's pretty backward himself and also enjoyed the idea of spiting the Greens

cYp
 

Red_93

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
4,572
Would probably (if it isn't already and i think it is) be recognized under unenumerated rights by the courts. Non issue.
 

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,658
Yes its a disgrace. I personally beleive in total freedom of Speech as a liberal. This is one of the push factors which is driving me out of the PDs, espcially when we didn't make a song and dance out of the crazy German propasals to ban freedom of speech with there lazy holocaust excuses. Guilt must be getting to them.
I can't believe I saw "Liberal" and "PD" in the same sentence.


No, I must be dreaming. Great, more zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's.



D
 

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,658
I am sorry we may not have constitutional court in Iraland, i thought that, if a person is caught for drink driving which is one of the serious crimein Iraland breathalyzed and positive and accepted that, they have drink driving and convicted, would any and any an gardai officer help them re-entered it and struck it out by virtue of what after serious 7 years erazors and criminal record history shows no conviction, will immigration officer then says that, such criminal record history with no conviction rather than fine will be called ''Serious offenses'', please INIS Don't make me laugh no further o.
Usually, the issue in "free speech" is the free bit, but in your case, it looks like "speech" is the difficulty.


D
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,054
Freedom of speech is not an absolute right.

One does not have the right to incite hatred, for example, nor (in the classic constitutional law example) run through a crowded theatre shouting "Fire!".

There exists a hierachy of rights and competing rights must be measured against each other in the best interests of the State.

For example, a prisoner has his right to freedom of movement (among others) limited by the court which sentences him. This doesn't mean that the court is acting unconstitutionally. Rather it is weighing society's right to be protected from criminals, to deter others from crime etc as being more important.
This. A thousand times this.
 

Odyessus

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,890
Actually it is a bit of misconception. The Bill of Rights only restricts Congress from restricting Freedom of Speech - it doesn't guarantee it. According to Political Philosopher and Professor at Harvard, Michael Sandel (Michael Sandel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), the architects of the Constitution had an opinion that the Federal Govt should restrict only such items as absolutely necessary - Govt was a necessary evil if you will - but they didn't restrict Freedom of Speech at Federal level because they figured that it could be restricted by the states individually. That was the overriding principle of the Constitution, give to Federal Govt only the power it needed to do its job. But that did not mean that Freedom of Speech was guaranteed or that all speech was valued.

Just one of those quirks of history (of which there are many) that didn't work out as expected and became successful as a result of not being successful.

In fact from my reading on this matter I would surmise that the US founding fathers would not have deemed all speech worthy of equal value. They had a highly principled aspiration for Citizens. Their conception of Citizenship meant that Citizens must be of good moral character, educated, participate in a lifestyle that was consistent with a good life (they saw this as farming) and not be slaves to work (so as to have time to debate issues and not to be overly dependent on wages - a waged man is a slave by other means according to early Republican ideals).

It is a strange twist of history that any liberal could agree with US Republican principles of freedom as if they were entirely understood, and the judgemental nature of the Good Life that they expressed were clear, they represent entirely the politics that Liberals despise most.
Good post. Likewise, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...." originally simply meant that the Federal Government could not impose a religion on the member States of the Union. The vast majority of Americans in the late 18th century would have been incredulous if anyone had suggested that this provision would later be used to forbid individual States from allowing prayers in their schools as they saw fit.
 

drummed

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
36,191
Way too much free speech in this country. When I seize power there will be a lot less.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,054
Good post. Likewise, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...." originally simply meant that the Federal Government could not impose a religion on the member States of the Union. The vast majority of Americans in the late 18th century would have been incredulous if anyone had suggested that this provision would later be used to forbid individual States from allowing prayers in their schools as they saw fit.
I absolutely cannot understand the notion that the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights should be treated as Holy Writ. They're both fairly flawed pieces of semi-aspirational fluff tied to notions of common understanding that no longer hold.
 

CarnivalOfAction

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
16,394
There's always a reactionary element in the DOJ, they advised Ahern it was needed in order to "give effect" to Bunreacht - he's pretty backward himself and also enjoyed the idea of spiting the Greens

cYp
Not just in the DOJ; there was always a censorious pong from our dominant, backward Carnival Of Reaction. The RCC and Brit Gov, ably assisted by our right-wing establishment, can't handle the truth.

 

Odyessus

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,890
I absolutely cannot understand the notion that the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights should be treated as Holy Writ. They're both fairly flawed pieces of semi-aspirational fluff tied to notions of common understanding that no longer hold.
Imagine if a EU treaty which Ireland and other member States signed up to contained similar wording? ""The EU Parliament shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....", and the member States were later told that this meant they could not allow prayers or religious symbols in their schools?
 

Victor Meldrew

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
7,059
Should Ireland go for proper free speech, e.g. as per the US Bill of Rights in the OP ?

cYp
As we have seen, our defamation laws have a chill effect. Ignore the "Panti-gate" business, it has been this way for a fair while. We need to ditch the blasphemy laws and remove the "morality and public order " bits of our constitution's wordings.

Reading the constitution as you have quoted it, it is just a Fascist's charter. But very much of it's time. (this is not to "blame" Dev, btw...)
 

Victor Meldrew

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
7,059
Not just in the DOJ; there was always a censorious pong from our dominant, backward Carnival Of Reaction. The RCC and Brit Gov, ably assisted by our right-wing establishment, can't handle the truth.

Quoting a wife beating poseur and breath-taking hypocrite does not add to you argument.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,054
Imagine if a EU treaty which Ireland and other member States signed up to contained similar wording? ""The EU Parliament shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....", and the member States were later told that this meant they could not allow prayers or religious symbols in their schools?
Or that the 'right to bear arms' meant that you couldn't stop loons having automatic weapons?
 


Top Bottom