A bit rough calling him a prat and a disgrace to Ireland. He’s incredibly naive and deserves a kick in the arse for being stupid enough to post something like this even if it was meant as a joke. It’s probably the same people who called all the Irish supporters in Euro 2012 drunken louts/disgrace to their country etc etc etc

Maybe people here were about to call him a prat but their computers malfunctioned……. which is pc gone mad in my opinion

Brilliant… hee hee

Too true

Twitter won’t be going anywhere.. It’s not twitters fault that these idiots don’t know how to behave in the public eye

The very fact ‘Up the RA’ is considered a jest is what’s wrong. I despise that archaic notion that such a statement is a bit of craic. We’ll never move on if people like you think saying ‘Up the RA’ is nothing but a joke.

Who is the ra? If i say, up the ra, will i get suspended from my job? I really dont think the guy meant any offense, obviously intended to be a joke between 2 team mates, but fair is fair, if someone makes a bigoted comment on a public network site, they should have their account suspended as a punishment. Suspending someone for a joke from their job, when the issue didn’t happen in work, and it genuinely was intended as banter between two team mates is pushing it a bit far in my opinion.

The reaction does seem a little OTT. The guy clearly just meant it in jest but there you go.

I think a more analogous question would be if a British person working here were to tweet “Up the UVF”, would they be sanctioned? I don’t think so.

“The right to free speech” is in the American constitution, nothing to do with Ireland or the UK.

Actually JayK, freedom of speech is recognised as a human right under Article 19 of the International Declaration of Human Rights (of which the UK/Ireland are signatories), as well as being recognised in international law under the remit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Long story short, you’re wrong.

Here’s a list of exceptions to the “freedom of speech” in the UK according to Wikipedia;

“… including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[51][52] incitement,[53] incitement to racial hatred,[54] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[53][55] glorifying terrorism,[56][57] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[58][59] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[60] sedition,[60] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[61] defamation,[62] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[63][64] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[64] scandalizing the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[64] time, manner, and place restrictions,[65] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.”

The relevant article on Ireland qualifies that free speech;

“… may not be used undermine “public order or morality or the authority of the State”. Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of “blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter” be a criminal offence…”

The term “free speech” becomes almost absurd after a point.

You do accept, however, that legally free speech has everything to do with Ireland and the UK as they have signed documents of international law that compel them to recognise freedom of speech as a human right? Also, every right comes with responsibilities and the “exceptions” you list are concerned with the protection of public order?

Well, it depends. Some restrictions are obviously necessary; I accept the need to legislate against prejudicing court proceedings and such. But both the UK and Eire legislate against “indecent” speech. If you have to right to free speech as long as you don’t say anything indecent, then you don’t really have a right to free speech. You just have a right to say what the government deems it acceptable for you to say. That’s not free speech.

As for the IDHR, Article 35 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China claims that: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration”. In that context, consider the Irish restriction against free speech undermining “the morality or the authority of the State” (direct quote from Irish constitution).

*minded

Although i think its blown out of proportion.

Well said Stephen but the British Army are still a bunch of cowardly thugs who are still murdering innocent people….now that’s a joke….. What I want to know is when is Ian Paisley shaking the Pope’s hand since we are all friends again…..

Stephen- what about cowardly, criminal thugs who abused their positions of power and engaged in corrupt practices, oversaw the biggest disaster in Irish economic history (the banking guarantee) and surrendered Irish economic sovereignty to the IMF? Also, Stephen, Fianna Fáil’s own history is stained with the blood of innocents, so I wouldn’t be too quick to make such simplistic statements.