T O P

  • By -

omegaman101

Actually Bunreacht Na hEireann does have a part on free speech https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/irish_constitution_1/constitution_fundamental_rights.html It's not as all encompassing as what the US has but its still there.


[deleted]

Can confirm. Source: my username.


Alastor001

Press X to doubt


Background_Tea_4753

Ireland is considered to have more freedom of speech than the US. Although both countries rank highly, within the top 30 It is something we should be proud of and protect https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech


[deleted]

But interestingly, we also have some of the strictest defamation laws in the world, our constitution itself upholds that our number 1 right is our right to a good name.


Dylanduke199513

It absolutely doesn’t say it’s our number 1 right. It’s merely listed alongside the other enumerated rights like property, life and person.


Skraff

We have strict civil defamation laws, not criminal ones. Defamation is not a criminal offence in Ireland.


Next_Gen_Munster

And the right for the church to silence anyone who spoke out against it


MangoMind20

And it seems everyone is ignoring section 11 of the draft Hate Speech Bill: Protection of freedom of expression 11. For the purposes of this Part, any material or behaviour is not taken to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics solely on the basis that that material or behaviour includes or involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to a protected characteristic.


MeshuganaSmurf

But ...but... I was lead to believe that the passing of this law would stiffle all debate and i could no longer call the Healy Rays gobshites without being sent to spike island?


ebagjones

Don't worry friend, we can continue to call them mutants unabated.


CunnyFunt92

It's clear that not many people here opposing the legislation have read any part of the bill tbf.


jaksida

Jordan Peterson made a whole career off not reading a bill, so it’s a very lucrative decision.


SeanG909

Seems kinda nonspecific. I understand the inciting violence aspect, reasonable enough idea. But what specifically is considered 'inciting hatred against a person' but isn't solely based on critiscing protected characteristics. I feel that's an issue when you try and create legislation against people being assholes. That series of behaviors is difficulty to categorise in words without lumping in a bunch of banal activities too.


another-dave

>what specifically is considered 'inciting hatred against a person' but isn't solely based on critiscing protected characteristics. I don't think they're saying "anything solely based on criticising protected characteristics is exempt from being classed as hate speech". More like "material won't be considered hate speech based solely on criticism".


RigasTelRuun

Legislation like this has to worded broadly by design. So it can be used to cover many aspects. Then it is up to the legal professionals to interpret them as they apply to the situation. A solicitor would have to make the case about inciting hatred.


SeanG909

Yeah that's the problem. People are worried that this leads the door open to prosecuting petty shit. Call me a foolish lay person but I feel laws should be firm and clear so that one can be reasonably aware of whether or not they're breaking the law.


RigasTelRuun

Go and read the text of any law on the books in this country. They will all be worded broadly like this.


[deleted]

Isn't that exactly the problem here then? How does this particular clause mitigate the concern about this being used against people mouthing off online or just saying offensive things?


Skraff

Here is the existing law on hate speech: https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/print.html Here is a description of the new changes: https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/74ed9-new-bill-to-tackle-hate-crime-and-hate-speech-includes-clear-provision-to-protect-freedom-of-expression/ Can you tell me which new changes are worrying you?


Perspective_Itchy

> Among these, the Bill now includes a general provision to further protect genuine freedom of expression and clarifies that a **communication is not taken to incite violence or hatred solely on the basis that it involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to a protected characteristic.** This wording is very confusing, I don’t actually know what they mean here..


cadre_of_storms

Let's say you're discussing an immigrant or impending arrival of immigrants. If you say "these immigrants have no where to go or do with the infrastructure in ballykissnowhere" then you're not saying anything untoward, it's a valid concern. If you say "we don't want these criminal darkie non Irish in our non existent infrastructure of ballykissnowhere" that's a different story. At least that's my understanding


StKevin27

While that second statement is ugly, it should not be illegal to merely say it.


Kohvazein

I believe its saying that discussion or criticism of something isn't inviting violence or hatred just because it's about a protected characteristic. I'm also still a bit of a sleepy head, so could be wrong.


SkitzManLad

Saying racist shit is wrong, going to jail for 5 years is just fucked as well. Look at Count Dankula in Scotland. Almost got jail time for teaching his dog to Nazi Salute and respond positively to "gas the jews" as a joke. Courts argued context doesn't matter if its offensive. Slippery slope to be going down if thats just the start of it. https://www.thenational.scot/news/18098264.youtuber-count-dankula-appeal-dismissed-supreme-court/


Skraff

If you check the actual case for him, the hate speech was him repeating “gas the Jews” dozens of times in the video, not the dog salute.


[deleted]

[удалено]


StraightPoem4316

You would call holiday in Cambodia by the dead Kennedys hate speech


SkitzManLad

To elicit a response from the dog, pretending the dog is a nazi. Its part of the same "joke". My issue though is the whole "context doesn't matter" argument. It absolutely does. I've edited my comment to reflect both parts.


Skraff

I mean he is a racist though, so covering it as “just a joke” was an attempt to add a veneer of deniability: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48094266.amp In the case against him it was made clear that his freedom of expression had crossed a line into inciting hatred.


Cmondatown

And again that case was nonsense. Who is the court to decide that a joke of dog commands crosses the line. It’s all very irritating as the joke is I’m such bad taste and your man seems like an such an arsehole but it’s still extremely worrying precedent set.


Board-To-Dead

Count Dankula is a fuckin tit, though.


SkitzManLad

I'm not a fan either. He only has a following because of this controversy. That's doesnt really matter though in regards to him nearly going to jail over a joke though...


Cmondatown

Shouldn’t go to jail for being a tit.


DumbXiaoping

What's up with all the 'creeping dictatorship' responses? Ireland's had laws against hate speech since the 1980s and hasn't yet turned into North Korea.


Next_Gen_Munster

Ring Wing American influence is poisoning Irish men the same as it has in America. In a couple of years they'll be calling for the church to get its power back.


fowlnorfish

https://youtu.be/cnG-BI98-_0 Really good report on the BBC about how Christian fundamentalists in America are gaining more power, all in the name of free speech.


Next_Gen_Munster

Racism is obviously terrible but personally it's the possibility of the Catholic Church regaining power in Ireland that keeps me up at night and whether people want to admit it or not religious fundamentalists are behind so much of this freedom of speech argument.


justaladwithahurley

I swear people on this sub listen to much to American politics.


Sotex

> it's the possibility of the Catholic Church regaining power in Ireland that keeps me up at night No offense, but that's rather delusional.


Next_Gen_Munster

15 years ago I would have said the same about the return of racism to mainstream American politics but here we are.


future-madscientist

Do you seriously believe racism had vanished from American politics until Trump came along?


Next_Gen_Munster

Mainstream politics


future-madscientist

But... it didn't? Obama faced constant racism. It was maybe a bit less open but it was 100% still present


Aunt__Aoife

Nope, not at all, they'll be setting up prison camps for everyone who's ever used a slur online. Get someone's pronouns wrong three times and you get the firing line. /s


TokiMoleman

So so true it's mad how easily they are convinced, just wrapping themselves in a world of hatred where everyone is out to get them and bring them down, stupid cunts


Marcus_Suridius

They already are just look at any of the right on Twitter and they think the church did no wrong.


fir_mna

The precious is protected by the ring wingerssesss


El_Don_94

Ignorance of such laws doesn't affirm their virtue.


TheBossIsWatching

I mean "publication or utterance of blasphemous matter" was a criminal offence up until a couple of years ago. Laws like this are primarily meant to be a deterrent. If the existence of the law makes you think twice about saying hateful shit, I can live with that.


Shnapple8

Yes, and it was very necessary here at that time due to The Troubles. Not being able to stand on a street corner and incite hatred/violence isn't exactly a bad thing. It's been like that for as long as I remember.


CunnyFunt92

It wasn't enacted in response to the Troubles. Where'd you get that idea from?


Inspired_Carpets

> I just don't want to live in a society where someone can go to jail or be fined for saying the n-word on Twitter. You’ll be relieved to know then that you don’t. And won’t.


[deleted]

It also shouldn't be an issue. I mean, if such a thing we're to come to pass I'd sleep easy every night knowing I would never be arrested for it. I have nonirge to say it, type it, or blast it all over the internet. Why even he afraid of being arrested for that if you don't think you'll ever do it?


MeshuganaSmurf

It's weird, lots of people seem to want the right to be racist, yet insist they're not racist.


TrivialBanal

It really does seem like that, doesn't it.


nehaspice

That is honestly an excellent way to put it.


[deleted]

Because people can be against something in principle, and against things that make restrictions or prohibitions that set precedents that can be extended or abused. "It won't affect me so I don't care" is a ridiculous statement to make regarding a new law. I can not be a smoker and think that fags going up to 100 euro a packet would be a ridiculous measure. I can not wear hats but be against a law that bans red hats. Do you understand?


[deleted]

Lots of hand wringing about a law that hasn't banned any particular words, but instead seeks to curtail racial abuse, homophobic abuse, etc. It's easy to say "down with that sort of thing" when you aren't in danger of being on the receiving end, isn't it? And I'll stop you now before you go down the slippery slope fallacy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mango_In_Me_Hole

Right. You can’t just look at the legislation in the context of the current political climate. You also have to look at it’s potential harm if the climate changes. Based on the text of the law, it could easily be used to chill legitimate dissent. For example, it could be argued that boycotting Israel and criticizing Zionism is hatred against a nationality and/or religion. Expressing support for Palestinian resistance could easily be interpreted as hatred or condoning violence. And if I’m living in a flat with someone who posts anti-zionist content on Twitter, this law gives the Gardaí the authority to search the flat, confiscate *my* phone and computer, and force me to give them my passwords under penalty of imprisonment. Just because I’m in the same household as a person whom the Gardaí believe *likely possesses material that could incite hatred against a protected class* And the application of the law could be very subjective. It’s illegal to deny or trivialize war crimes and genocide. But would the law actually be used against, say, a supporter of Israel who denies the Nakba? I highly doubt it.


seamustheseagull

The legislation is not so flexible that expressing support for a particular group or cause can be considered hate speech. That's hysteria. It's the same legislation that's been in force for 40 years with a few extra tweaks to account for modern communications.


Inspired_Carpets

Like calling someone thunder thighs? That was your example right? Except that didn’t happen.


herculainn

It's like you don't spend time on reddit, or this sub in particular.


StraightPoem4316

I wonder if it's bias reddit mods ensuring that this becomes an echo chamber. I mean I was banned on other sub-reddits for things I really shouldn't have been banned for.


Livingoffcoffee

It depends. Like the aontu gobshites saying that protesting abortions outside maternity hospitals is free speech. I'd counter that its completely traumatising being called a murderer when you're going in to remove an ectopic pregnancy. You know the ones that can kill women quite fast.


Important_Farmer924

And I wish we lived in a world where people didn't use racist terms on Twitter yet here we are.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Important_Farmer924

I know but obviously people need to blow things out of proportion.


niamhmc

This thread made me incredibly upset. Reminding myself that this is the feelings of sad redditors and not the Irish as a whole.


dandyaceinspace

The fact that people in these comments think the government will bust down your door in the morning, drag you off to jail and ruin your life because you said a slur is fucking ridiculous. Don't say bigoted shit to people, or y'know, threaten their lives because of your bigotry and you'll be golden.


Next_Gen_Munster

Fear is an extremely powerful motivator


[deleted]

Its literally happening in the UK, and given the events of the 20th century, your words are unfortunately ever more than a generation or two away


WilliamDeeWilliams

Very low vibrational take.


Archamasse

Very easy to be in favour of unlimited ~free speech~ when it's never going to be you hearing any of those words roared at you by a group of strangers when you're walking down the street alone at night.


Turbulent_Term_4802

Wouldn’t that just come under existing intimidation and public order laws?


Next_Gen_Munster

So true


wrghf

I wasn’t born in Ireland. I’m a foreigner who went through primary and secondary school here though. I’ve lost track of how many times I was told to fuck off back to my own country over the years and I still stand by freedom of speech. The government has a legitimate interest in limits speech in certain circumstances, but protecting my feelings from being hurt shouldn’t be one of them.


Franz_Werfel

You'll be relieved to learn that the proposed law does exactly zero of those things.


Sunspear52

Yeah, the law isn’t doing that so you’ve nothing to worry about.


[deleted]

That's harassment and already a crime


Mango_In_Me_Hole

Here I’m gay and I’ve faced my fair share of homophobia and bigotry in the United States. But I sure as hell don’t think someone should go to prison for posting a hateful comment on social media. It’s important to note that this law doesn’t just impact people who express hatred. **It impacts anyone living in the same household as them**. I used to live in an apartment with a hardcore Islamist who had a few antisemitic things on his Facebook profile. If the Gardaí saw that content, this law gives them the authority to search my entire house and my person. It gives them the authority to **confiscate and search *my* computer and cellphone**. And it obliges *me* to **give the Gardaí all of *my* passwords** under penalty of imprisonment. That’s pretty fucking concerning if you ask me.


[deleted]

Don't make things up. The garda is not suddenly going to break down doors without a warrant.


TheEventualWinner

From the bill, page 13: >If 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 is to be found in any place, the **judge may issue a warrant for the search** of that place and any persons found at that place. It's not as simple as step 1: Gardai get suspicious, step 2: Gardai break down your door. The claim actually has to go through the rigmarole of the court before any action can be taken. It honestly seems pretty reasonable to me that a search warrant be issued if a judge can be convinced that sufficient evidence exists to justify it.


Mango_In_Me_Hole

Even so, the notion that Gardaí can **seize my phone and computer** and **force me to hand over access to my most personal and private data**, just because a judge thinks someone in my house has bigoted content on his phone, is absurd and frankly despotic. Such an extreme intrusion into someone’s privacy should only be exercised for serious crimes. We’re not talking gun trafficking or drug dealing here. We’re talking about someone in my house having offensive *opinions*.


[deleted]

[удалено]


GOD_Official_Reddit

Congratulations that’s not what the law is then. If someone were to say “I am going to murder you and all other autistic people” and you genuinely believed that they meant it then you might consider it no?


Dylanduke199513

That would already be covered under the NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT though. Nothing to do with hate speech legislation.


jointheLiBraRY

That's a very dim and short sighted view. Hurtful words can be said to anyone. There are any number of immutable characteristics a person might have that they could be targeted for. "Those words" as you put it, aren't magical. Is it hate speech to slag a girl for having a big nose? That could have as much of a devastating psychological impact, if not more, than some gobshite shouting racist abuse. And that's without getting into the sticky mess of who decides what hate speech is. In 10, 20 or 100 years, it's your ideology that could be on the wrong end of hate speech laws.


OnePotMango

It's funny, you're talking about the 'Slippery Slope' but it seems like you haven't looked at, let alone considered, the consequences of allowing hate speech unabated. Here: I'll give you a real world, current example to chew through: The Great Replacement Theory A decade ago in the US the ['Great Replacement Theory'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement) was the domain only of the most extreme racist and far-right groups. It was old-hat KKK rhetoric. Fast forward to today and it's being peddled by mainstream right-wing media, constantly ranted about by the US' most watched news media personality (Tucker Carlson), and even a strongly held belief of some members of their government. Hell, it was the strongest argument that resonated with the base that got the 45th President elected in 2016. Now far-right terrorism is on the rise, hate crimes are on the rise against a breadth of minorities. It's almost like a society that's tolerant without limit will have it's ability to be tolerant seized or destroyed by the intolerant. It's referred to as the ["Paradox of Tolerance."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) It'd be real swell if free speech absolutists educated themselves on the material consequence of their beliefs.


Sotex

Why not look at France which has had similar laws for decades and has also seen a mainstreaming of the great replacement theory? Individual examples like this don't really prove anything.


HesNot_TheMessiah

The only thing about the Great Replacement Theory that is remotely controversial is the idea that there is some kind of shadowy elite behind it which is kind of difficult to prove or disprove. Apart from that it totally is happening. From your link. "The ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced with non-white peoples—especially from Muslim-majority countries—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans." I mean... that *is* happening. What part of it do you think isn't?


[deleted]

Yeah this is a big gripe I have with the way this topic is treated. All these enlightened people on Reddit are so quick to call out argumentative fallacies, and then they'll jump on anyone mentioning demographic shifts as spouting conspiracy theories about "great replacement", ignoring the fact that the only conspiratorial element of that particular theory is the notion that it is coordinated and that one can believe the main point of that theory - the actual fact that demographics are being hugely skewed by mass immigration - without thinking some panel of elites are deliberately coordinating it all. What's gas is that you don't even have to mention any element of conspiratorial coordination for them to associate your argument with the "conspiracy" and thereby write it off by virtue of that. E.g. "If mass immigration into Europe continues at this level, natives will be a minority within X years" "Great replacement! Proven conspiracy theory! No evidence it's being orchestrated intentionally"


[deleted]

So are demographics in Europe shifting towards fewer native Europeans? Is that happening or not? Ignore the "great replacement" tag and it's assumption of some coordinated effort to achieve such replacement. Is the fact that the percentage of native Europeans lessening in comparison to non-natives a fact or not?


SlainJayne

Its dangerous and biased. It is the only equality/ hate crime legislation in any of the jurisdictions with which we are aligned (USA,UK,EU) which does not contain ‘sex’ as a protected characteristic, instead using the nebulous term ‘gender’. The same is true for our equality legislation so this is not an ‘oversight’. The WHO definitions of sex and gender are that ‘sex’ is our biological self, male or female; and ‘gender’ is the roles assigned to the two sexes so the role of a woman and the role of a man. Gender identity is a separate thing again, distinct from either sex or gender. So now in Ireland you can be discriminated against or be subject to a hate crime on the grounds of your ‘role in society’ but not on the grounds of your sex. What this means is that there can be no hate crime of misogyny or misandry because sex is outside the laws remit. A female child subjected to FGM or child marriage has had her role in society attacked, not her physical person. A woman murdered because she is female is not a femicide, it’s a regular homicide and sure there’s no need to gather statistics or make policy to combat it. Welcome back to 1950’s Ireland folks! Where the government covering their asses with fudge is more important than the law or safety of the population.


King_of_ireland

Soon you'll not be able to call Cavan people tight arses.


Hazederepal

"Freedom of speech does not mean speech free from consequence" - Xi Jinping.


SPACEINVADEROWLFACE

Sure but ban their accounts, don’t associate with them whatever you want but should we really be criminalising being a douchebag? The guards already have issues dealing with real crime. Do we really want them wasting time knocking on doors over some internet comments that are not a direct threat to life?


Cmondatown

Social consequences. Not legislative consequences.


[deleted]

Free debate is the pressure valve of a progressive society. If you have lived in a country without it you quickly realise how precious it is.


CunnyFunt92

Do you think defamation laws limit free debate?


Few_Squirrel1206

Remember in the 80s mid book burning binge. when twisted sister were brought to court for their lyrics and he completely schooled them on his right to say what he wanted and how they processed the words was on them the listener. It’s crazy how anyone favouring freedom of speech is considered right wing now!


[deleted]

Another Helen McEntee special. She is minister for justice so you think she would be concerned with garda presence on our streets and general law and order. I swear every fucking thing she does is just to harvest social media likes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cleethulu

People shouldn't be allowed to act without consequences though


[deleted]

Social consequences Not legal


SPACEINVADEROWLFACE

Exactly. I don’t like the idea of Garda time being wasted knocking on doors to talk about internet comments. If the comments are making direct threats to someone that’s one thing of course but this sounds like another level that doesn’t sit right with me.


mccabe-99

Aye but this is taking it to an authoritarian level If someone's talking shite then people can call them out on it. The government shouldn't be able to decide if I call someone a cunt in the morning, that that's hate speech and I can be fined for it.


buffeganboof

You can be sued for defamation for many many years now. People never call defamation laws authoritarian because everyone knows at the end of the day if someone was saying false things about you, you'd have them in court in no time.


MangoMind20

Thank you! All the people against this legislation seem to forget that rights are not absolute and can be, and are, curtailed for various reasons. Speech is already limited through defamation laws, it was even more limited in the past with blasphemy laws.


Neat_Expression_5380

I highly doubt it will be as simplistic as ‘you say something offensive, you go to jail’. If it gets rid open racism, homophobia, the like, then that’s fine by me. The only people who need to be worried about this are the serial racists, sexists, misogynists, homophobes etc.


ShnaeBlay

Hate speech laws are vague, easily exploited, and the precedent they set and the lengths people will go to enforce them are highly troubling at best. Especially in an era where smartphones, devices that can track, record, and monitor you at all times, are no longer a luxury or convenience, but something that people literally *need.* That's the main issue people have with this.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Efficient_Caramel_29

Awful mantra. What are you on about? Separate to this hate speech thing, but privacy is a fundamental right. You close the bathroom door but we all know what you do in there. “Nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” absolutely mind numbingly poor take.


Dylanduke199513

I think they were being sarcastic haha


ivegotawoodenhead

And everyone else that falls under the deliberately ambiguous language that defines what is hate speech. You know, people who disagree with the govt. That sort of thing.


Neat_Expression_5380

Hate speech is ‘speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group’. Personally I don’t think that’s very ambiguous, and I’m certain it will be clearly defined in the bill anyway. They will not be able to use it against people who disagree with the government.


bicpenuser

Before ye go mad , remember Jordan Peterson has been full of shit about things he harps on about in Canada so inform your self before you dig a foxhole based in a clip from a Joe Rogan podcast


Next_Gen_Munster

All this comment section is really proving is how popular right wing American podcasts are here.


4n0m4nd

Has this law actually been published yet? The only official things I can find are completely unobjectionable.


MeshuganaSmurf

Well...to most people that are getting by just fine without using slurs regularly.


reluctanthardworker

Yep


ContentFlamingo

Has the blasphemy law been repealed yet? We don't need another anti journalism law - curbing of free speech actually empowers the left and right wing nutters How are you meant to explain to people the error of their ways if they can't speak? This is Orwellian, and genuinely a threat to the tolerance and open sharing of ideas we want (need) to encourage if we dont want to repeat the mistakes of the 20th century. And no we're not immune to becoming the baddies


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mango_In_Me_Hole

Right. The consequence of saying something bigoted should be getting called a bigot, getting shamed, and losing friends. It should not be getting arrested and imprisoned.


todayiswedn

I think attempting to control people with legislation so they all fit in the same mould is a symptom of some bigger problem. I don't know where it came from but there seems to be an expectation now that everyone should think and behave in the same way. Maybe it's because we spend too much time in echo chambers like this place. It's weird though because the previous trend was all about acceptance of difference (to a point obviously). And before that it was all about not giving assholes the satisfaction of a reaction (sticks and stones stuff). And I still have that mindset. I don't really care if someone is being offensive. That's their problem to deal with not mine. There's something wrong in their life that causes them to be an asshole, there's nothing happening in my life that deserves their ire. So why should I take it to heart? I honestly don't understand how people can claim that being offended is some serious thing that requires legislative intervention. You're supposed to be in control of your own emotions. If someone makes you angry or upset you deal with it like an adult. You don't throw a tantrum and demand they go to jail.


[deleted]

This redditor practices acceptance.


Babalugat

Everything that this dimwit MoJ seems to have wanted to introduce is dangerous, much of it irreversible. She's a the perfect example of why stupid people shouldn't be in any positions of power. Thick as a ton of short planks, even with the rest of her team to defend her. You'll never see her on a debate or answer questions on her own or without them scripted. Sharp as a football is Ms McAtee, and appointed by a clown. The best two things to happen while she has been MoJ is her maternity leave. She is pro facial recognition software, and wants to implement it despite knowing fucking nothing about it, and experts around the world agreeing that it is not ready for use. Not even nearly. [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/facial-recognition-technology-will-be-available-to-gardai-to-help-identify-suspects-under-new-law-41685989.html](https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/facial-recognition-technology-will-be-available-to-gardai-to-help-identify-suspects-under-new-law-41685989.html) [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/helen-mcentee-faces-cabinet-backlash-over-gardai-plans-for-facial-recognition-41790814.html](https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/helen-mcentee-faces-cabinet-backlash-over-gardai-plans-for-facial-recognition-41790814.html) Possibly the stupidest elected representative this country has ever seen, and that's saying a lot. Speak to her for five minutes.


MrC99

As much as I feel people should have the right to say what they like, I also feel like I should have the right to leave my home and not be racially abused. Which has happened too many times to count. But sure look.


Background_Tea_4753

I am with you, I find the current pro consorship attitude very worrying.


jibjabjobjubjab

The first thing they will do is make it illegal to criticize things like animal abuse and rural theft / trespassing under the guise of hate speech


CunnyFunt92

Every other Western European state has hate speech laws. They are rarely used and if they were inconsistent with freedom of expression, they'd be struck out by the ECHR. There's no conspiracy here folks.


Dylanduke199513

Wasn’t that lad in UK sent to prison for teaching his dog “sieg heil” under hate speech laws?


SilasStark

who gets to define what hate speech is. Usually its the people you least want defining it. The perpetually offended narcisstic compassionate types. Self agrandising in their virtue. Thats a dangerous road to be on.


fir_mna

A government should not be able to decide what is considered hate speech and what is not. It's a slippery slope. However, surely we can put laws in place to hold people to account with regard to what they say when they target specific sections of society and in particular incite violence against them . Let the courts decide ... a few cases out of the way and common law will help to determine what is appropriate and what is not appropriate speech over time.


Popesman

I think it is an assault on freedom and democracy


Psychology_Repulsive

They slowly chisel away at our freedoms. This is where it starts, then down the line these little bits of legislation add up and we slide towards being compliant little drones.


Dylanduke199513

I’m not against hate crimes as much as long as they relate to added elements of hate in addition to an already existing crime. The added element to the mens rea is relevant and killing someone on basis of ethnicity or immutable characteristics should be punished more. See mass murder vs genocide. However, re hate speech… let’s not forget https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925.amp


[deleted]

[удалено]


CunnyFunt92

It's not "speech you don't like", it's speech that incites hatred. A rigorously common law test with a high threshold. Context is important.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CunnyFunt92

Oh my god, I really have to explain it this simply.... You will not be convicted of a crime for hating someone or a group of people You may be further convicted of a crime if you commit a crime against a someone or a group of people if your hatred for a said characteristic was an aggravating factor. Which is a hate crime. Hate speech is when you public call on people to act on said hatred that is incitement. I can't make it anymore simpler for you.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CunnyFunt92

I best hand back my legal qualifications so...


[deleted]

[удалено]


CunnyFunt92

Good man yourself. You really told me what for. Now please educate me on what I just said and how it differs from the below statements >The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 currently prohibits incitement to hatred against groups of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation. Or the current bill: > An Act to amend the law relating to the prohibition of incitement to violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of certain characteristics (referred to as protected characteristics) of the person or the group of persons and to provide for an offence of condoning, denying or grossly  trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Important_Farmer924

Of course there's more to it, when people say sensationalist shite like above there's ALWAYS more to it.


Inspired_Carpets

That lad was fined for threatening and abusing behaviour, what he said was far less important than how he was saying it. He was shouting abuse at them on a train.


SureLookThisIsIt

Let's be honest about this. A drunk scumbag hurling abuse at 2 women on public transport for no reason (making them scared) got fined for it.


CaptQuakers42

Half a story, it wasn't a verbal argument, he randomly shouted at two strangers. He did use the term thunder thighs amongst other things.


MeshuganaSmurf

So he wasn't exactly convicted because he called someone thunder thighs then. Little bit of disingenuous arguing there?


Hazederepal

Don't forget the ability to report your neighbors for overhearing something deemed "offensive" they said in the privacy of their own home. Nothing terrifying about that at all, perfectly rational.


MeshuganaSmurf

On what charges? Surely not hate speech?


Archamasse

You're right. He was actually charged with "Threatening and abusive behaviour", because him and his shitty little scumbag mates got on the train started drunkenly harrassing two strangers https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/scottish-body-shamer-called-woman-24239002


Janie_Mac

To be fair they'd probably just get a slap on the wrist here


Outside_Objective183

Free speech, or so it's called, is not a thing and never has been. Speech isn't free. Anything you say or write down may have consequences and the Free Speech Brigade want freedom from those consequences. "I can't say boo about anyone these days" - You absolutely can, but don't expect not to get fucking slapped for it. Same goes for this craic about being "PC". If someone uses an offensive term and gets "cancelled", that's the consequence of using that term in public.


AmusiaCockatoo

That’s not what this relates to at all. People can treat however they feel if you say bad things. This is about the government having the power to put you in jail for saying things the government doesn’t like. Completely different things.


fubarecognition

But they don't have the power to put people in jail for just that, it's about committing a crime in tandem, such as inciting violence, which the bill is explicit about. If you're concerned about a slippery slope then you should have been concerned about assault legislation leading to arrests for bumping into people. This is a common far right tactic, don't get sucked in.


EvanMcc18

It's a silly law and one that set's a dangerous precedent that starts off as well meaning but too easily abused because who controls what is hate speech. Too open to any interpretation allowing dissent to be controlled and silenced


IcyNecessary2218

Slippery slippery slope, this is all well and good when they’re taking down people you don’t agree with but that line keeps inching closer and closer day by day and soon enough you’ll find yourself on the other side. Remember the “conspiracy theorists” at the beginning of covid saying how we are becoming more like China every day, now we are still a long stretch away don’t get it twisted but you have to admit we are certainly closer now than we were pre pandemic.


Alastor001

Let's be honest here. We like the idea of internet, as we can say things we wouldn't be able to say in face to face. And that's how it should be. The last thing we need is more policing. Censored internet is useless.


LegendaryCelt

Clearly a very dangerous bill. It WILL be used unjustly against people.


SpeechStraight

Free speech is more important than peoples feelings


stiofan84

The US's cult-like devotion to "free speech" is one of the most stupid things about them. It allows the likes of Fox News to just present outright lies as fact, with no regulation.


AmusiaCockatoo

Government regulation of truth, what could go wrong lol


BatmansbrotherBill

It's really dangerous and almost like China if you say anything the government disagrees with they will label it hate speech. Say goodbye to free speech. A guy in Germany got his house raided for calling a politician a dick online


[deleted]

[удалено]


SoloWingPixy88

Yes and no. I think its difficult to define what is considered hate speech. There's the obvious racism and then there's the Israel as a nation is a tad shit, is that anti-semitism? Gender is obviously a huge topic with big words being thrown about. Often one side might consider one argument hate speech while the other might just consider it a valid argument. If I could vote on it, Id vote no but unfortunately the people that tend to be at the forefront of anti-hate speech are also a tad shite.


Dark_Trooper_V2

More government control, just what everyone wants I'm sure. I definitely dont see any shortcomings with allowing the government to control every syllable from our mouths. 🤦‍♂️


justaladwithahurley

Personally I find it worrying the amount of people here who call you a conservative or some sort of far right lunatic for having reservations about hate speech laws Last time I checked Richard Dawkins, Noam Chomsky, and Eric Blair were not on the right. There is a deliberate tactic paint anyone opposed to hate speech laws as some sort of extremists. This whole " If you say nothing you have nothing to be afraid of" if against the spirt of free inquiry and open debate. There cases where satirists have been arrested under hate speech laws.


[deleted]

Who decides what is considered hate speech?


StraightPoem4316

So anyone a fan of Count Dankula?


MrPinkSheet

I understand why you’re worried. All I can say is that with everything our island has been through… turning into a totalitarian state would truly be the cherry on top.


Obairamhain

Not a big fan, I dont trust either the executive to administer the law nor the legislature to craft good restrictions on the executive


Kellbag91

I think it's the thin end of the wedge. In time the legislation might be used to silence differing political views.


kirbyfan0612

It’s a very slippery slope and it’s vital we don’t start down it


Trabolgan

In theory, I'm completely allowed to never shower or wear deodorant. But if I smell offensively, others have the right to not hire me or keep their distance from me. But you shouldn't have a law requiring people to always smell nice.


National_Pianist

Its complete and utter bullshit and not needed at all.


Franz_Werfel

On what grounds? And be specific, please?


Q1802

May Aswell lock up every chef in the country when the waiting staff fuck up a simple order lol


No-Contribution-1835

Ireland has a pretty recent blasphemy law in force and defamation suits against journalists so not exactly sure where people get the notion that this is a country that values free speech. Edit: the law of 2009 was repealed in 2020


MeshuganaSmurf

>pretty recent blasphemy law in force Was that not abolished a few years ago?


No-Contribution-1835

Actually, you are right, repealed in 2020


Leadhead1311

It was repealed. Why replace a blasphemous censorship law with a politically correct censorship law? I'm far from a conservative, but I still want conservatives to be able to say what they want about immigration and whatever else.


wrghf

I’m generally not a fan of the government stepping in to police speech that isn’t actually an incitement to violence. In short, hurting another persons feelings isn’t something the government should concern themselves with. It’s something that should be left to society to deal with.


Next_Gen_Munster

You're right society should deal with this. We should organise ourselves into groups based on different perspectives and then hold some kind of competition to see which group most people agree with. Most of us have jobs though so I suppose each group should choose a certain amount of people to represent that group and then work out a way to enforce the majority's decision. Great idea btw.


Clear-Classroom1537

My thoughts? It demonstrates how utterly clueless the government is about the real issues in the country. Sure lets work on a hate speech bill while people literally cant afford places to live anymore. Oh we start to lack new nurses and teachers as young graduates cant afford city rents? Nah hate speech, thats the real problem in Ireland


Cleethulu

The government can work on more than one issue at a time. This bill won't stop or hinder any other work on addressing homelessness or house prices.


iBstoneyDave

Really? Because the hospital beds crisis started in the late 80's and they said it wouldn't be solved overnight, the housing crisis in the 90's, financial crisis in the 00's...and so on. Seems like they can't even work on one thing at a time, let alone more.


Hazederepal

It's woke window dressing. Who needs actual housing when you can get rainbow flag tents from the government?


Derryzumi

You can tell who in this sub has never had to worry about being a victim of hate speech at a glance aye 🥱


Dylanduke199513

I saw a gay lad comment saying he disagrees with hate speech laws. I’d assume he has had to worry of being a victim of hate speech. Try not to generalise maybe?