Parnell Street Attack

[Palatine]

Suspicion to possess. Not posted not shared suspected of having. They can then search any of your devices.

We already have laws that prosecute for hate crimes, riots, arson, attacking gardai, incitement to hatred.

All being used this week. This bill is vaguely worded and is so on purpose. If you don't want to interact with me then by all means don't drag me into replying. Now jog along like a good lad

You're joining sentences from different articles, Matlock. That's not how law works.

"Suspicion" is in relation to a crime having been commited and relates to getting a search warrant.

"Possession or production" is in relation to the offence that is prosecutable.

A garda cannot just order you to unlock your computer under this legislation because he believes you might have something unpublished.

He has to have a suspicion that a crime has been.committed. Then he has to convince a judge of the same. Then he has to go to the premises and search it. Any device at that premise can be the subject of an order to unlock it.

Back to my champagne and jogging now.

[EscortInspector]

Here's a link to the bill that people having been giving out to others for not reading. Enjoy.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/b...?tab=bill-text

Hey kid, one more thing: this here ain't no subreddit, get some reviews under yer belt; don't want folks thinking yer some kinda busybody who prattles on parroting government talking points, now do ya?

At least Gonzo had reviews...

[WellDressed]

You're joining sentences from different articles, Matlock. That's not how law works.

"Suspicion" is in relation to a crime having been commited and relates to getting a search warrant.

"Possession or production" is in relation to the offence that is prosecutable.

A garda cannot just order you to unlock your computer under this legislation because he believes you might have something unpublished.

He has to have a suspicion that a crime has been.committed. Then he has to convince a judge of the same. Then he has to go to the premises and search it. Any device at that premise can be the subject of an order to unlock it.

Back to my champagne and jogging now.

f a judge of the District Court is satisfied by information on oath of a member that
there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of, or relating to, the
commission of an offence under section 7, 8 or 10

Section 10 -

Offence of preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against
persons on account of their protected characteristics
10. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 11, a person shall be guilty of an
offence under this section if the person—
(a) prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a

person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any
of those characteristics with a view to the material being communicated to the
public or a section of the public, whether by himself or herself or another person,
and
(b) prepares or possesses such material with intent to incite violence or hatred
against such a person or group of persons on account of those characteristics or
any of those characteristics or being reckless as to whether such violence or
hatred is thereby incited.

They all relate to sub sections of the bill, what are not getting about that? You are reading sections like they are stand alone.

If you don't understand that just say so

[Palatine]

Let's take a practical example for the hard of understanding.

Gardai cannot walk up to Derek Blighe and order him to unlock his phone. If they did and he refused they'd be at a dead end. If he unlocked it and they found something hateful, Derek's solicitor wouldn't have to work hard for his money because that evidence would have been collected without a valid search warrant and be inadmissable in a prosecution.

Now, let's say Derek makes a tweet that says all foreigners should be killed. A garda still couldn't demand he unlock his computer. There's that whole judge, warrant thing to do. The garda tella the judge "hey look at this tweet, we think a crime has been committed under section 10 and wpuld like to search the home of Mr. Blighe". The judge grants the warrant and it's executed.

Now, if Derek Blighe's computer isn't there, the guards can't ask for it to be unlocked. Derek's solicitor will make sure of that and Gardai will have the choice to find a new warrant and piss offf the judge. It needs to be on the premises subject to the search warrant. But if it is there, Mr Blighe is obliged to unlock it.

[WellDressed]

Let's take a practical example for the hard of understanding.

Gardai cannot walk up to Derek Blighe and order him to unlock his phone. If they did and he refused they'd be at a dead end. If he unlocked it and they found something hateful, Derek's solicitor wouldn't have to work hard for his money because that evidence would have been collected without a valid search warrant and be inadmissable in a prosecution.

Now, let's say Derek makes a tweet that says all foreigners should be killed. A garda still couldn't demand he unlock his computer. There's that whole judge, warrant thing to do. The garda tella the judge "hey look at this tweet, we think a crime has been committed under section 10 and wpuld like to search the home of Mr. Blighe". The judge grants the warrant and it's executed.

Now, if Derek Blighe's computer isn't there, the guards can't ask for it to be unlocked. Derek's solicitor will make sure of that and Gardai will have the choice to find a new warrant and piss offf the judge. It needs to be on the premises subject to the search warrant. But if it is there, Mr Blighe is obliged to unlock it.

No but a Garda can walk into court, say we suspect he has material on his phone and obtain a warrant. No evidence needed just on the oath of the guard

And it's stated that if you do not hand over passwords you are committing a crime

[Palatine]

Hey kid, one more thing: this here ain't no subreddit, get some reviews under yer belt; don't want folks thinking yer some kinda busybody who prattles on parroting government talking points, now do ya?

At least Gonzo had reviews...

Top image posting there, lad. Congrats.

[Palatine]

No but a Garda can walk into court, say we suspect he has material on his phone and obtain a warrant. No evidence needed just on the oath of the guard

No, they literally can't. They have to show a judge that there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed under Sections 7, 8 or 10. Having an unpublished document saying "rape all foreigners" is not a crime under those 3 sections. Warrants are not issued for fishing expeditions, and if they were the defence solicitor is gonna have an easy time challenging the validity of the warrant.

[WellDressed]

No, they literally can't. They have to show a judge that there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed under Sections 7, 8 or 10. Having a document saying "rape all foreigners" is not a crime under those 3 sections.

I've posted this three times, three

If a judge of the District Court is satisfied by information on oath of a member that
there are reasonable grounds for suspecting

[Palatine]

I've posted this three times, three

If a judge of the District Court is satisfied by information on oath of a member that
there are reasonable grounds for suspecting

Posted 3 times something you very clearly don't understand. That is not how warrants work, and it's not how prosecutions are achieved. No judge issues a warrant without asking what the reasonable grounds are for that warrant. And no warrant issued without justifiable reasonable suspicion THAT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED stands up in a prosecution.

[WellDressed]

Posted 3 times something you very clearly don't understand. That is not how warrants work, and it's not how prosecutions are achieved. No judge issues a warrant without asking what the reasonable grounds are for that warrant. And no warrant issued without justifiable reasonable suspicion THAT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED stands up in a prosecution.

There are people right around the world, our own TDs and members of media calling out this exact vagueness of the bill for these very reasons. Why do you think that is?

What evidence would they have for mere possession without the person sharing it?