Ireland, oh Ireland

[BroomJockey]

I could have sworn that it was a modification of something unremovable from their constitution.

The fact that it's illegal, yes, but not the powers and punishments. Those are enshrined in a separate piece of legislation.

[Flyndaran]

...

No, Flyn, they did not do it just because they are required to by their constitution. They did it because they want to use the law on someone (or some group).

As I said, I'll be waiting for the stories to break into the media. I have no doubt whatsoever that they will.

Chill. No need to be rude or condescending about what you, and apparently now I, believe to be a misreading on my part.
I gave too much credence to what a local said about it than I should have.

[Slytovhand]

Addendum:
Think of it as a silly law like how donkeys can't sleep in New York bathtubs.

I have yet to see a single time that this pattern did not hold.

So... someone's been charged and convicted of having a donkey sleep in a NY bathtub...????

Or other wonderful things...(apparently, so I've heard, it's illegal to allow an elephant to plow a field in Nth Carolina...)

[Pedersen]

So... someone's been charged and convicted of having a donkey sleep in a NY bathtub...????

Slyt, I'm actually disappointed. A law that makes it illegal for someone to let a donkey sleep in a NY bathtub is quite clearly aimed at making it illegal to allow a donkey to sleep in a NY bathtub. That's hardly the makings of the pattern I described, which I'll quote here:

Time and time again the same pattern is followed: Outrageous law gets proposed. People speak up and say "Wait, you could use this law in this really outrageous way!" Others speak up and say "No way. The law will never be used in that fashion. You have nothing to worry about." Finally, over the objections of the first group, the law gets passed as worded.

Within only a few months (at most) of the law taking effect, it is used in exactly the fashion that the first group warned of, and the second group ignored.

As an example, here in the USA, we have a pair of laws that I truly despise: The DMCA and the PATRIOT act.

The DMCA has several provisions in it that are there to protect researchers and programmers who are working on interoperability. For instance, the PDF format has several possible flags in it to allow PDF producers to turn off certain features, such as the ability to be read aloud by software, or the ability to copy/paste from the PDF. Removing those restrictions is required for some people to be able to get the benefit of the the PDF in question. For instance, an unassisted blind person will be unable to read the PDF without a screen reader. If the PDF in question has this feature disabled, then the blind person is screwed. Programs have been written for the express purpose of removing these restrictions from PDFs, allowing the user to gain full benefit of the PDF.

In theory, since the authors of those programs were producing them for purposes of interoperability, they should be shielded from any legal actions. Indeed, even though I cannot find such posts right now, I remember reading many posts on forums like Slashdot where people defended the DMCA stating that it would never be used against people acting legally.

The reality is far from that ideal, though. Some unintended consequences have occurred. And one Russian developer actually found himself improperly detained here in the USA due to this law. That unintended consequences link has many more examples to peruse of just how people swore the law would not be misused, only to be proven extremely wrong.

The PATRIOT act has similar stories. Rather than typing up a long diatribe on it (as I already did on the DMCA), I'll simply link to one story about one provision of the act: national security letters. These have been heavily abused, and finding information about the how is fairly easy, thanks to Google.

Again, an act which we were promised would never be used to do wrong is shown to be used to do exactly what we were promised it would not do.

A bad law is a bad law, regardless of what it does. I find myself even more outraged, though, when we are told straight up lies about how the law will be used, by the people who know they will use it exactly as they are promising they will not.

Which is exactly the case in Ireland.

[Slytovhand]

Slyt, I'm actually disappointed. A law that makes it illegal for someone to let a donkey sleep in a NY bathtub is quite clearly aimed at making it illegal to allow a donkey to sleep in a NY bathtub. That's hardly the makings of the pattern I described, which I'll quote here:

Oh, come on Ped... first it'll be donkeys, then they'll lead up to mules, and soon enough, you won't be allowed to let your ass go to sleep while you're taking a bath!!!

But I do completely agree with what you are saying! Never take anything at face value, and never never never believe that the government has your best interests in mind - when they say they do.

[Boozy]

It's really not a good idea to let your ass go to sleep when you're in the tub, Slyt. You could drown. Get your ass into bed first.

[lordlundar]

As an example, here in the USA, we have a pair of laws that I truly despise: The DMCA

Heck, a perfect example of it? look at any PC game last year. Almost all of them (with the exception of Stardock) implemented some sort of draconic Digital Rights Management (DRM) software, with effects ranging from limiting the number of reinstalls to inadvertently crashing a computer it's on. Brag about circumventing it, expect a notice from the Electronic Software Association (ESA) citing the DMCA in a lawsuit.

The DMCA was intended to protect publishers, but all it has been is a means for publishers to dictate how the public can use the media they purchased.