10 ms·

Ireland given two months to implement hate speech laws or face action from EU

47 points by like_any_other 1y ago

lokar 1y ago
Can anyone explain an act that is allowed by current IE law that the EU thinks should be criminalized?
- snapplebobapple 1y ago
  Not following eu directives?
  - lokar 1y ago
    I would think that not following EU law is a violation of IE law, given they must have passed domestic legislation incorporating the various EU treaties as IE law.
- defrost 1y ago
  That's a good question .. Ireland moved forward with a Hate Crime Bill (proposed law for debate) in 2021 (IIRC) which has been through the house and passed into Irish law as of October 2024: Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 : https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/105/ https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/105/ It appears, by my very brief skimming, to cover issues raised in the article here but is seen as light on the Hate Speech aspects ... Hate crime legislation came into effect at the end of December last year but controversially omitted references to hate speech, defined as public incitements to violence of hatred against a group or member of a group based on certain characteristics. So .. Nuremberg style rallies (speech alone) are currently fine in Ireland but criminal in the EU? With mosque burning, synagogue grafitti, shop front smashing in the {X} neighbourhood, etc. criminal acts in both IE and the (non IE) EU.
  - lokar 1y ago
    I’m having a hard time parsing “… public incitement to violence of hatred …” How does that work as English?
    - fakedang 1y ago
      (Public INCITEMENTS to violence) of (HATRED against a group) Capitalized the primary nouns in each phrase. Basically inciting people into hatred of a particular group, with violent connotations such as burning places of worship, etc.
      - Noumenon72 1y ago
        Does that make sense in English grammar? In American English, "incitements of hatred" works, "incitements to violence" works, but they can't both apply to that noun and you're left with "violence of hatred". It matters, too, because my suspicion is they want to punish hatred as though it were violence.
        fakedang 1y ago
        Well they might be, not sure. They're already punishing hatred in the mildest form with months of arrest across the UK.
    - LodeOfCode 1y ago
      I'd assume that's a typo of "violence or hatred"
- Animats 1y ago
  The article says "conducts of condoning, denial, and gross trivialisation of international crimes and the Holocaust." The "gross trivialization" thing might cover "This was all settled 80 years ago after Germany surrendered and there were trials and executions for war crimes at Nuremberg."
richwater 1y ago
[flagged]
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  Free speech should not be absolute. No right is absolute, a healthy society is a huge compromise.
  - smitty1e 1y ago
    There is an absolute need for people to mature and perpetuate a peaceful society. Maturity implies that, while I might retain a right to be a dickhead, everyone (including me) would be better off if I put on my big-people pants. Beside just repackaging your point, though, there is tremendous power to be had in setting oneself up as a gatekeeper. The power to regulate where the line is drawn on just how free speech can be is a gateway drug to tyranny. Thus, the concern is less the speech itself than the tyranny begotten from regulating the speech.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      > Thus, the concern is less the speech itself than the tyranny begotten from regulating the speech. Absolute freedom devolves into tyranny super fast. If a democratically elected government cannot regulate how society operates on a base level, my only resourcento you retaining your right to be a dickhead is me retaining my right to have you swallow my fist in retribution. I really don't want to live in such a society. Better to have some regulated basic civility.
      - smitty1e 1y ago
        The question is less the regulation than the feedback loops maintaining the regulation at that "goldilocks" point of balance.
        surgical_fire 1y ago
        > feedback loops maintaining the regulation at that "goldilocks" point of balance. That is why a democracy with well functioning institutions is important. Power is fractured so that there are many checks and balances. It's important that we have the right to criticize the government, and to keep those in power in check. We don't need to ensure every dickhead can deny the Holocaust, or call black people monkeys, or claim that 5G technology is a conspiracy to kill those that take vaccines to ensure we have proper rights to speech in that 'goldilocks" zone.
blargthorwars 1y ago
>>The state has also been told that it must implement legislation against the denial, condoning of and gross trivialisation of international crimes and the Holocaust. Such heavy-handed, draconian laws give ammo to Holocaust deniers.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  Eh, it gives them more ammo to allow them to spread their bullshit without any law forbidding it. I would rather them having imaginary ammo by being punished for it.
  - d4v3 1y ago
    That's shortsighted. Today it's the holocaust. What is it tomorrow?
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      "what will be of us if we can't call black people monkeys anymore? RIP freedom".
      - d4v3 1y ago
        Once you open the door to criminalizing ideas, even vile ones, you risk that power being misused later in ways no one intended. Defending the principle of free speech isn’t the same as defending the content of the speech. It’s about protecting the framework that allows us to challenge bad ideas rather than bury them.
        surgical_fire 1y ago
        And once you open the door of vile ideas being treated as valid information, you risk them becoming the norm. "Your knowledge is as valid as my ignorance" is a scocietal disease every country is facing right now to varying degrees of severity because bad ideas spread fast. The thought that bad ideas can be challenged fairly in an open marketplace is a utopia. Most people are not interested in truth. They would rather touch themselves.
motohagiography 1y ago
disappointing as it appears the EU is doing the opposite of what it was founded for, which was to end european wars. i dont think people understand how the recolonization of ireland is landing with the actual irish, an indigenous population with over a millennium of history and a distinct culture and identity facing erasure by EU anti-sovereign policies. dismissals from the administrative classes only inflame it. we are anticipating similar speech laws in canada to prevent resistance to a commitment by the new PM to double the national population within 14 years (5% annual immigration compounding). the message from the EU and the networks behind these policies elsewhere reduces to, "resistance is hate, citizen" and they're trying to move fast enough to get ahead of the growing sentiment for a just war of defence they know they are starting with their erasure of national cultures. i wouldnt underestimate the impact of these laws and the efforts behind them or the reaction that has been building.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- 0dayz 1y ago
  How is making a country have hate speech laws somehow causing wars to emerge? Ireland also choose to join the EU, how are they being "colonized".
  - voidspark 1y ago
    > How is making a country have hate speech laws somehow causing wars to emerge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
    - 0dayz 1y ago
      ...That was due to taxation without representation not hate speech.
      - voidspark 1y ago
        It was due to many reasons, including taxes.
valianteffort 1y ago
Do EU nations consider themselves sovereign or not? Cause it seems like if the EU can punish them for exercising sovereignty, they are beholden to the whims of outsiders.
- thomassmith65 1y ago
  It wouldn't be much of a union if its member states insisted on absolute sovereignty.
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    Granted the GP expressed themself vaguely, but there's a large gulf between "absolute" sovereignty, and meddling in internal affairs to such a degree that even what speech is permitted to citizens is out of the hands of the local government, and by extension, the local population. I wonder if the Irish would have still decided to join the EU, if they had known the EU would then write their speech laws.
    - thomassmith65 1y ago
      Ireland was a miserable place for most of the 20th Century. It's debatable to what extent the realization of the EU contributed to the Good Friday Agreement, and the Celtic Tiger, but in the minds of most Irish, the correlation is meaningful. So I will hazard a guess that few Irish regret joining the EU.
      - like_any_other 1y ago
        When Ireland joined, it was called the "European Economic Community". Presumably they did not expect those "economics" to include speech laws. They might resent being forced to abdicate sovereignty for economic development, by what to all appearances was a bait & switch.
        thomassmith65 1y ago
9283409232 1y ago
The headline only mentions Ireland but the article mentions that Finland is also in the same hot seat Ireland is in.
- gsf_emergency 1y ago
  Interesting (to me). Ireland and Finland are 0.948 & 0.949 on the Human Development Index
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - 9283409232 1y ago
    I don't know whether those numbers are good or bad.
    - gsf_emergency 1y ago
      I don't either but they are right next to each other, so nobody can accuse causation :) (Another pair is Sweden-Germany: 0.959) Update: by good or bad I took you to having meant whether they are reliable or not. Oops!
    - UltraSane 1y ago
      It is out of 1.0 so they are very good.
notepad0x90 1y ago
Under EU law, are there protections for freedom of speech in the context of religious speech? If a soap-box preacher preaches out loud "adulterers should be stoned to death" or a Nazi holds out a banner saying "death to blacks and jews", is that protected? Even in trump's america, that is protected and we value that dearly. How does hate speech work in Europe, do they really forbid people from speaking their minds entirely? The distinction in the US as I understand it is that those speakers did not make specific or elaborate plans to incite violence, they mere shared or tried to spread their unpopular beliefs, and that is protected and their right. But if the preacher said "let us stone those prostitutes to death" or the Nazi said "Let us kill the blacks and jews in our city" that is a threat of violence, a very serious felony. I am just trying to understand the distinction here, because if those people are not free to simply share their views without inciting or threatening specific acts of violence, then I would deem Europe a dangerous place to visit for anyone that aspires towards original and critical thinking.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- whynotmaybe 1y ago
  In the EU, freedom of expression has explicit limits on hate speech and holocaust denial, mainly because dignity and equality supersedes the "freedom" of speech. The general idea behind EU's freedom of speech is that its totally acceptable for expressing controversial ideas or questioning norms, like a religious leader could do. Calling for harm or hate (like some religious leader do) is not acceptable. > do they really forbid people from speaking their minds entirely? "Yes" could be an answer here, but we could legitimately wonder if a right mind would think "we should kill all the ones I don't like"
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    The problem is, people should be free to question even that belief that dignity and equality supersede freedom of speech. Who defines what is dignity and equality? If people can't express unpopular views (without making specific threats) that question what dignity and equality mean, then how do you know the current definition of those concepts is valid according to the people? It boils down to the EU essentially stating "certain concepts are beyond debate, they cannot be questioned". > "Yes" could be an answer here, but we could legitimately wonder if a right mind would think "we should kill all the ones I don't like" You're right, but the point is not whether such persons are in their right mind, evil, horrible,etc... society can view them as such just fine. The point is, should the state be imprisoning such people simply for stating their views. For example in the US, I'm sure you've seen videos of people being explicitly racist in public, they don't get arrested but they do lose their jobs and livelihoods. the concept of hate-speech gives the state the right to police speech that is merely unpopular, with no immediate harm to anyone. What if Europe slides to the far-right, and Nazis become a protected group and criticizing them is now considered hate-speech? That has dire implications. You can see this happening in the US right now, but at least we can still be critical of MAGA, the concept of making that hate-speech does not exist, so we still have a fighting chance, they can't pass laws that will allow them to spread false information without others criticizing it by redefining legal definitions of such terms (which they can do).
stodor89 1y ago
I'd much rather have EU focus on the very real existential threats we're facing, instead of bullying (checks today's news) ... Ireland? Seriously, EU?
- tekla 1y ago
  It's easier to ban speech than to deal with the issues that cause the speech in the first place.
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  EU is financing rearmament and Ukraine deal, poaching scientists from the US, common economic and agricultural policies seem to be working. On the diplomacy front, hard to tell but they are showing a united and focused front against Trump. It is discussing some kind of closer cooperation with the UK. So in short, doesn't seem to be failing terribly at lots of things. Do you think the EU is so bandwidth-limited it cannot do other things while discussing hate speech laws with Ireland?
  - stodor89 1y ago
    I do. I hope they'll prove me wrong, but the last decade or so has been a string of political failures. Crimea, Brexit, the war in Ukraine.. etc.
    - rich_sasha 1y ago
      Political failures compared to what other large bureaucracy? It is miles ahead, IMHO, US federal government or UN. Hard to compare to China. Crimea is complex, but I can't really see what the EU could have done to prevent Brexit, while keeping itself whole. UK was so desperate to leave, they ended up crashing out. I personally think the EU gets the blame for a whole load of things that are not really in their remit, while not getting the credit for other things it does well. Like hate speech laws, or the other things I listed.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
0dayz 1y ago
Always felt that the EU on this point should be a bit like USA and have lax laws on a federal/union level while allowing its member states to have whatever hate speech laws they want. While I support the idea the issue is that hate speech laws are usually only used in "majority against the minority", despite the minority being even more vulgar and racist than the natives.
- mrandish 1y ago
  > hate speech laws are usually only used in "majority against the minority" Indeed, history is full of examples of speech laws being used by those in power to silence those not in power, from war protestors (WW1 to Vietnam) to civil rights protestors. The U.S. courts didn't start out with the current expansive interpretation of free speech. Initially they tried various ways of stopping only the "bad speech" while permitting the "good speech. Over decades of trial and error, the U.S. courts saw how it always ended in abuse of the powerless by the powerful and eventually realized the only long-term solution is expansive free speech rights for all. Personally, I think the U.S. legal system eventually managed to get free speech rights into a very good balance. While I find the first amendment protected speech of some of my fellow Americans to be reprehensible and disgusting, I'll defend their right to speak because the alternative of granting the government the power to punish words instead of actions is far scarier.
  - Anonbrit 1y ago
    The USA jailed a student for 45 days for worrying an op-ed suggesting that the situation with Gaza was plausibly genocide. The president of the USA punished a bunch of law firms for defending clients. It doesn't have free speech laws, it has a collective delusion.
    - mrandish 1y ago
      > It doesn't have free speech laws While I agree the current US administration is exercising the executive branch's discretionary power in novel and aggressive ways I certainly don't approve of, the student examples I'm aware of involve leveraging existing immigration laws where the student is on a conditional visa which can be revoked on subjective grounds which amount to little more than 'being undesirable'. The relevant immigration laws aren't new and haven't changed. The only difference is they are now being enforced in cases where they previously weren't. While some of these have clearly been examples of selective enforcement based on the student's behavior including speech, the administration is resorting to non-speech immigration laws because they can't punish the student's speech directly. In fact, there were many more students protesting alongside those deported who the administration has been unable to touch because they are citizens or legal residents. Despite the regrettable outcome for these students, this is evidence the first amendment is not only strong but remains an almost untouchable 'third rail' in both U.S. law and U.S. politics. The issues around various Washington law and lobbying firms which I know of aren't speech related, they're just a new tactic in typical partisan warfare. That warfare itself isn't new. Every time the administration changes parties the fortunes of 'the other side's' law and lobbying firms change through losing discretionary contracts, clearances and approvals. We normally just don't hear about it. This is especially true when Congress is controlled by the same party as the White House (which tends to happen every 8 to 12 years and last for two years). So, I agree with you in strongly disapproving of these new tactics and aggressive partisan gamesmanship, especially because now that the Republicans have introduced these new tactics, history shows the Democrats will use them in retaliation when they regain power. My point was specific. The US courts have done a good job balancing the interpretation of the first amendment (although it took over a hundred years of correcting early bad rulings), which I still believe is true. However, I didn't say that about other areas of U.S. law which still need improvement. Notably selective enforcement and executive branch discretionary authority. The silver lining to the current dark cloud is now that the current admin has 'weaponized' these discretionary powers it's already triggered a large number of legal challenges, so the courts will have the opportunity to tighten interpretations of current laws. In cases where current laws don't address these issues, it will be up to future Congresses to create or amend laws. Personally, I think both of these areas could benefit from new legislation - especially selective enforcement. Current U.S. law has some restrictions on selective enforcement but it's limited to certain domains. I'm in favor of making enforcement of most laws and regulations a 'use it or lose it' proposition for government. If they chose to not enforce it before, they can't suddenly start to enforce it now. Obviously, that's a pretty radical approach and would have a lot of interesting consequences but I think it would be net positive. For one, it would almost certainly result in unenforced laws being effectively repealed (and we have a lot of those, especially on the state level). But I think the most valuable aspect would be forcing administrators and courts to decide which laws we actually need and to more precisely define policies for enforcing them instead of relying on ad hoc subjective judgements of bureaucrats and politicians. Back on the OP topic of 'hate speech' laws in the EU, the current shit show in the U.S. should be a huge wake up call to EU citizens that it's a very bad idea to grant government the power to punish speech instead of just actions. I believe representative democracy is the best political system but worry not enough people understand that in a democracy, when choosing how much power to give to the government, it's crucial to realize people you don't like will sometimes be in power and they'll abuse the power you granted government back when people you liked were in control. What's happening now in the U.S. is a hard reminder of this eternal truth. I believe Trump's actions will lead to all U.S. presidents having less discretionary power in the future - and that's a good thing.
dissent 1y ago
I dunno, this whole idea of "hate speech" or even "hate" being something prohibited feels like a sleight of hand. I'm sure it's been said before many times, but it's so easy to subvert and weaponise this against a society - including those it was meant to protect. Is it not my right to not like something? Or even to hate it? If it is not, then we're policing thought crime through the only visible evidence - what is said. Whatever this is a cure for, it's worse than the disease. The cynic in me suspects it not intended as a cure though. It's intended to control.
- pixxel 1y ago
  [dead]
- hbogert 1y ago
  Precedent are already happening. Islamists in the UK spout the most ridiculous stuff on the internet and continue to do so. Meanwhile people saying "go home" are behind bars. I expect this to happen with those new laws as well. Hard rules and seemingly random application of them when it suits someone in power.
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    > Islamists in the UK spout the most ridiculous stuff on the internet Can you provide some specific examples of this please? > Meanwhile people saying "go home" are behind bars Have you some specific examples that are not due to violent behaviour or inciting violence?
  - arp242 1y ago
    > people saying "go home" are behind bars Who has been arrested for saying "go home"? I can't find any example of this. Or what is "the most ridiculous stuff" Islamists are spouting for that matter?
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      A bus driver in Ireland was arrested and convicted for telling a Gambian "You should go back to where you came from". However this was later overturned on appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Ir...
rdtsc 1y ago
> The government has repeatedly pointed to existing legislation that criminalises the incitement to hatred and hate speech, under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. In 2017, the Irish Courts Service said just five people were convicted under the law. Are the implying Ireland needs to boost up those conviction numbers? With only 5 convicted, someone is clearly not doing their job. I am getting a faint whiff of a conviction quota. Comrades Stalin and Yezhov would be proud Let us take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_Order_No._00447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_Order_No._00447 > By the autumn of 1937, the pressure to achieve arrests was so great that the NKVD interrogators began picking out names from the telephone directory or preselecting married men with children who, as every agent knew, were the quickest to confess Can't they just pick out some random names from Facebook and convict them, I am sure they are guilty of something /s
rich_sasha 1y ago
Having done this discussion on HN a few times, there seems to be a dogmatic difference, correlated to being American. Some people favour freedom of speech above all else, and reject the notion it should be curbed for fuzzy concepts such as societal benefit. Some people think freedom of speech should work for the society. We limit it anyway - threats of violence are always out. So might as well push this boundary a bit. I found it useless to debate the merits of these points because, as I say, it seems to be dogmatic. You believe either one or the other. Personally I'm in the second camp. And frankly more so since Trump and his "free speech absolutists" won. Musk seems to be censoring Twitter all over, support for Israel is boundless but speak up for Palestine and ICE detains you... If "absolute free speech" is curbed by whatever the government likes, then what's the point?
- d4v3 1y ago
  > Musk seems to be censoring Twitter all over, support for Israel is boundless but speak up for Palestine and ICE detains you... If "absolute free speech" is curbed by whatever the government likes, then what's the point? The existence of imperfections isn’t a reason to abandon the principle. Things take time to work thru the courts and such.
- int_19h 1y ago
  > Musk seems to be censoring Twitter all over Twitter is a private platform, though, so it's not government censorship. Musk can censor all he likes there, but there are still multiple alternative avenues for communicating those viewpoints. When government censors something, it applies universally, so this isn't comparable. > peak up for Palestine and ICE detains you ... if you're not a citizen. This is an example of why the 1st Amendment in US doesn't go far enough, because it doesn't fully protect free speech rights of certain groups (at least as this administration interprets it; the courts are still working through the challenges, so we'll see). I find it very strange that you're using this example as an argument that there should be fewer free speech protections - do you want FBI to start detaining citizens as well when they criticize Israel? Because that's exactly what would happen if 1A would be gone tomorrow somehow.
mieses 1y ago
Leave the EU! Join a body made up, at least partially, of elected representatives.
sincerecook 1y ago
If you don't like the "hate" speech, present a better argument. If you can't do that, the hate speech is simply the stating of inconvenient facts.
- thomassmith65 1y ago
  These are moral arguments, not the kind of arguments that we can settle by a mathematical proof. Typically it's not that sound arguments shape our moral positions, but that our moral positions determine what we consider sound arguments.
  - thomassmith65 1y ago
    Upon reading this the next day, I realize it could use a concrete example: "We should pass a law to strip all legal rights from, and enslave, everyone who is of [pick some minority group]. Neither I, nor most people, belong to that minority, so most of us will benefit from this slave labor." That's a logical argument. Thankfully, most people today would find it morally repugnant and unacceptable.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  That is a unique ethics basis. "Whoever has the most skill at arguing is morally right."
incomingpain 1y ago
When Canada had free speech, politics wasnt so divisive. After we made the 'exception' for 'hate' your political opponents transformed overnight to whatever the definition of 'hate' is. How difficult is it to find 'conservatives are nazis' or 'reform are nazis' or 'afd are nazis' or 'national rally are nazis'?

lokar 1y ago

Can anyone explain an act that is allowed by current IE law that the EU thinks should be criminalized?

snapplebobapple 1y ago
Not following eu directives?
- lokar 1y ago
  I would think that not following EU law is a violation of IE law, given they must have passed domestic legislation incorporating the various EU treaties as IE law.
defrost 1y ago
That's a good question .. Ireland moved forward with a Hate Crime Bill (proposed law for debate) in 2021 (IIRC) which has been through the house and passed into Irish law as of October 2024: Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 : https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/105/ https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/105/ It appears, by my very brief skimming, to cover issues raised in the article here but is seen as light on the Hate Speech aspects ... Hate crime legislation came into effect at the end of December last year but controversially omitted references to hate speech, defined as public incitements to violence of hatred against a group or member of a group based on certain characteristics. So .. Nuremberg style rallies (speech alone) are currently fine in Ireland but criminal in the EU? With mosque burning, synagogue grafitti, shop front smashing in the {X} neighbourhood, etc. criminal acts in both IE and the (non IE) EU.
- lokar 1y ago
  I’m having a hard time parsing “… public incitement to violence of hatred …” How does that work as English?
  - fakedang 1y ago
    (Public INCITEMENTS to violence) of (HATRED against a group) Capitalized the primary nouns in each phrase. Basically inciting people into hatred of a particular group, with violent connotations such as burning places of worship, etc.
    - Noumenon72 1y ago
      Does that make sense in English grammar? In American English, "incitements of hatred" works, "incitements to violence" works, but they can't both apply to that noun and you're left with "violence of hatred". It matters, too, because my suspicion is they want to punish hatred as though it were violence.
      - fakedang 1y ago
        Well they might be, not sure. They're already punishing hatred in the mildest form with months of arrest across the UK.
  - LodeOfCode 1y ago
    I'd assume that's a typo of "violence or hatred"
Animats 1y ago
The article says "conducts of condoning, denial, and gross trivialisation of international crimes and the Holocaust." The "gross trivialization" thing might cover "This was all settled 80 years ago after Germany surrendered and there were trials and executions for war crimes at Nuremberg."

richwater 1y ago

[flagged]

surgical_fire 1y ago
Free speech should not be absolute. No right is absolute, a healthy society is a huge compromise.
- smitty1e 1y ago
  There is an absolute need for people to mature and perpetuate a peaceful society. Maturity implies that, while I might retain a right to be a dickhead, everyone (including me) would be better off if I put on my big-people pants. Beside just repackaging your point, though, there is tremendous power to be had in setting oneself up as a gatekeeper. The power to regulate where the line is drawn on just how free speech can be is a gateway drug to tyranny. Thus, the concern is less the speech itself than the tyranny begotten from regulating the speech.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    > Thus, the concern is less the speech itself than the tyranny begotten from regulating the speech. Absolute freedom devolves into tyranny super fast. If a democratically elected government cannot regulate how society operates on a base level, my only resourcento you retaining your right to be a dickhead is me retaining my right to have you swallow my fist in retribution. I really don't want to live in such a society. Better to have some regulated basic civility.
    - smitty1e 1y ago
      The question is less the regulation than the feedback loops maintaining the regulation at that "goldilocks" point of balance.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        > feedback loops maintaining the regulation at that "goldilocks" point of balance. That is why a democracy with well functioning institutions is important. Power is fractured so that there are many checks and balances. It's important that we have the right to criticize the government, and to keep those in power in check. We don't need to ensure every dickhead can deny the Holocaust, or call black people monkeys, or claim that 5G technology is a conspiracy to kill those that take vaccines to ensure we have proper rights to speech in that 'goldilocks" zone.

blargthorwars 1y ago

>>The state has also been told that it must implement legislation against the denial, condoning of and gross trivialisation of international crimes and the Holocaust. Such heavy-handed, draconian laws give ammo to Holocaust deniers.

surgical_fire 1y ago
Eh, it gives them more ammo to allow them to spread their bullshit without any law forbidding it. I would rather them having imaginary ammo by being punished for it.
- d4v3 1y ago
  That's shortsighted. Today it's the holocaust. What is it tomorrow?
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    "what will be of us if we can't call black people monkeys anymore? RIP freedom".
    - d4v3 1y ago
      Once you open the door to criminalizing ideas, even vile ones, you risk that power being misused later in ways no one intended. Defending the principle of free speech isn’t the same as defending the content of the speech. It’s about protecting the framework that allows us to challenge bad ideas rather than bury them.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        And once you open the door of vile ideas being treated as valid information, you risk them becoming the norm. "Your knowledge is as valid as my ignorance" is a scocietal disease every country is facing right now to varying degrees of severity because bad ideas spread fast. The thought that bad ideas can be challenged fairly in an open marketplace is a utopia. Most people are not interested in truth. They would rather touch themselves.

motohagiography 1y ago

disappointing as it appears the EU is doing the opposite of what it was founded for, which was to end european wars. i dont think people understand how the recolonization of ireland is landing with the actual irish, an indigenous population with over a millennium of history and a distinct culture and identity facing erasure by EU anti-sovereign policies. dismissals from the administrative classes only inflame it. we are anticipating similar speech laws in canada to prevent resistance to a commitment by the new PM to double the national population within 14 years (5% annual immigration compounding). the message from the EU and the networks behind these policies elsewhere reduces to, "resistance is hate, citizen" and they're trying to move fast enough to get ahead of the growing sentiment for a just war of defence they know they are starting with their erasure of national cultures. i wouldnt underestimate the impact of these laws and the efforts behind them or the reaction that has been building.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
0dayz 1y ago
How is making a country have hate speech laws somehow causing wars to emerge? Ireland also choose to join the EU, how are they being "colonized".
- voidspark 1y ago
  > How is making a country have hate speech laws somehow causing wars to emerge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
  - 0dayz 1y ago
    ...That was due to taxation without representation not hate speech.
    - voidspark 1y ago
      It was due to many reasons, including taxes.

valianteffort 1y ago

Do EU nations consider themselves sovereign or not? Cause it seems like if the EU can punish them for exercising sovereignty, they are beholden to the whims of outsiders.

thomassmith65 1y ago
It wouldn't be much of a union if its member states insisted on absolute sovereignty.
- like_any_other 1y ago
  Granted the GP expressed themself vaguely, but there's a large gulf between "absolute" sovereignty, and meddling in internal affairs to such a degree that even what speech is permitted to citizens is out of the hands of the local government, and by extension, the local population. I wonder if the Irish would have still decided to join the EU, if they had known the EU would then write their speech laws.
  - thomassmith65 1y ago
    Ireland was a miserable place for most of the 20th Century. It's debatable to what extent the realization of the EU contributed to the Good Friday Agreement, and the Celtic Tiger, but in the minds of most Irish, the correlation is meaningful. So I will hazard a guess that few Irish regret joining the EU.
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      When Ireland joined, it was called the "European Economic Community". Presumably they did not expect those "economics" to include speech laws. They might resent being forced to abdicate sovereignty for economic development, by what to all appearances was a bait & switch.
      - thomassmith65 1y ago

9283409232 1y ago

The headline only mentions Ireland but the article mentions that Finland is also in the same hot seat Ireland is in.

gsf_emergency 1y ago
Interesting (to me). Ireland and Finland are 0.948 & 0.949 on the Human Development Index
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- 9283409232 1y ago
  I don't know whether those numbers are good or bad.
  - gsf_emergency 1y ago
    I don't either but they are right next to each other, so nobody can accuse causation :) (Another pair is Sweden-Germany: 0.959) Update: by good or bad I took you to having meant whether they are reliable or not. Oops!
  - UltraSane 1y ago
    It is out of 1.0 so they are very good.

notepad0x90 1y ago

Under EU law, are there protections for freedom of speech in the context of religious speech? If a soap-box preacher preaches out loud "adulterers should be stoned to death" or a Nazi holds out a banner saying "death to blacks and jews", is that protected? Even in trump's america, that is protected and we value that dearly. How does hate speech work in Europe, do they really forbid people from speaking their minds entirely? The distinction in the US as I understand it is that those speakers did not make specific or elaborate plans to incite violence, they mere shared or tried to spread their unpopular beliefs, and that is protected and their right. But if the preacher said "let us stone those prostitutes to death" or the Nazi said "Let us kill the blacks and jews in our city" that is a threat of violence, a very serious felony. I am just trying to understand the distinction here, because if those people are not free to simply share their views without inciting or threatening specific acts of violence, then I would deem Europe a dangerous place to visit for anyone that aspires towards original and critical thinking.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
whynotmaybe 1y ago
In the EU, freedom of expression has explicit limits on hate speech and holocaust denial, mainly because dignity and equality supersedes the "freedom" of speech. The general idea behind EU's freedom of speech is that its totally acceptable for expressing controversial ideas or questioning norms, like a religious leader could do. Calling for harm or hate (like some religious leader do) is not acceptable. > do they really forbid people from speaking their minds entirely? "Yes" could be an answer here, but we could legitimately wonder if a right mind would think "we should kill all the ones I don't like"
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  The problem is, people should be free to question even that belief that dignity and equality supersede freedom of speech. Who defines what is dignity and equality? If people can't express unpopular views (without making specific threats) that question what dignity and equality mean, then how do you know the current definition of those concepts is valid according to the people? It boils down to the EU essentially stating "certain concepts are beyond debate, they cannot be questioned". > "Yes" could be an answer here, but we could legitimately wonder if a right mind would think "we should kill all the ones I don't like" You're right, but the point is not whether such persons are in their right mind, evil, horrible,etc... society can view them as such just fine. The point is, should the state be imprisoning such people simply for stating their views. For example in the US, I'm sure you've seen videos of people being explicitly racist in public, they don't get arrested but they do lose their jobs and livelihoods. the concept of hate-speech gives the state the right to police speech that is merely unpopular, with no immediate harm to anyone. What if Europe slides to the far-right, and Nazis become a protected group and criticizing them is now considered hate-speech? That has dire implications. You can see this happening in the US right now, but at least we can still be critical of MAGA, the concept of making that hate-speech does not exist, so we still have a fighting chance, they can't pass laws that will allow them to spread false information without others criticizing it by redefining legal definitions of such terms (which they can do).

stodor89 1y ago

I'd much rather have EU focus on the very real existential threats we're facing, instead of bullying (checks today's news) ... Ireland? Seriously, EU?

tekla 1y ago
It's easier to ban speech than to deal with the issues that cause the speech in the first place.
rich_sasha 1y ago
EU is financing rearmament and Ukraine deal, poaching scientists from the US, common economic and agricultural policies seem to be working. On the diplomacy front, hard to tell but they are showing a united and focused front against Trump. It is discussing some kind of closer cooperation with the UK. So in short, doesn't seem to be failing terribly at lots of things. Do you think the EU is so bandwidth-limited it cannot do other things while discussing hate speech laws with Ireland?
- stodor89 1y ago
  I do. I hope they'll prove me wrong, but the last decade or so has been a string of political failures. Crimea, Brexit, the war in Ukraine.. etc.
  - rich_sasha 1y ago
    Political failures compared to what other large bureaucracy? It is miles ahead, IMHO, US federal government or UN. Hard to compare to China. Crimea is complex, but I can't really see what the EU could have done to prevent Brexit, while keeping itself whole. UK was so desperate to leave, they ended up crashing out. I personally think the EU gets the blame for a whole load of things that are not really in their remit, while not getting the credit for other things it does well. Like hate speech laws, or the other things I listed.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago

0dayz 1y ago

Always felt that the EU on this point should be a bit like USA and have lax laws on a federal/union level while allowing its member states to have whatever hate speech laws they want. While I support the idea the issue is that hate speech laws are usually only used in "majority against the minority", despite the minority being even more vulgar and racist than the natives.

mrandish 1y ago
> hate speech laws are usually only used in "majority against the minority" Indeed, history is full of examples of speech laws being used by those in power to silence those not in power, from war protestors (WW1 to Vietnam) to civil rights protestors. The U.S. courts didn't start out with the current expansive interpretation of free speech. Initially they tried various ways of stopping only the "bad speech" while permitting the "good speech. Over decades of trial and error, the U.S. courts saw how it always ended in abuse of the powerless by the powerful and eventually realized the only long-term solution is expansive free speech rights for all. Personally, I think the U.S. legal system eventually managed to get free speech rights into a very good balance. While I find the first amendment protected speech of some of my fellow Americans to be reprehensible and disgusting, I'll defend their right to speak because the alternative of granting the government the power to punish words instead of actions is far scarier.
- Anonbrit 1y ago
  The USA jailed a student for 45 days for worrying an op-ed suggesting that the situation with Gaza was plausibly genocide. The president of the USA punished a bunch of law firms for defending clients. It doesn't have free speech laws, it has a collective delusion.
  - mrandish 1y ago
    > It doesn't have free speech laws While I agree the current US administration is exercising the executive branch's discretionary power in novel and aggressive ways I certainly don't approve of, the student examples I'm aware of involve leveraging existing immigration laws where the student is on a conditional visa which can be revoked on subjective grounds which amount to little more than 'being undesirable'. The relevant immigration laws aren't new and haven't changed. The only difference is they are now being enforced in cases where they previously weren't. While some of these have clearly been examples of selective enforcement based on the student's behavior including speech, the administration is resorting to non-speech immigration laws because they can't punish the student's speech directly. In fact, there were many more students protesting alongside those deported who the administration has been unable to touch because they are citizens or legal residents. Despite the regrettable outcome for these students, this is evidence the first amendment is not only strong but remains an almost untouchable 'third rail' in both U.S. law and U.S. politics. The issues around various Washington law and lobbying firms which I know of aren't speech related, they're just a new tactic in typical partisan warfare. That warfare itself isn't new. Every time the administration changes parties the fortunes of 'the other side's' law and lobbying firms change through losing discretionary contracts, clearances and approvals. We normally just don't hear about it. This is especially true when Congress is controlled by the same party as the White House (which tends to happen every 8 to 12 years and last for two years). So, I agree with you in strongly disapproving of these new tactics and aggressive partisan gamesmanship, especially because now that the Republicans have introduced these new tactics, history shows the Democrats will use them in retaliation when they regain power. My point was specific. The US courts have done a good job balancing the interpretation of the first amendment (although it took over a hundred years of correcting early bad rulings), which I still believe is true. However, I didn't say that about other areas of U.S. law which still need improvement. Notably selective enforcement and executive branch discretionary authority. The silver lining to the current dark cloud is now that the current admin has 'weaponized' these discretionary powers it's already triggered a large number of legal challenges, so the courts will have the opportunity to tighten interpretations of current laws. In cases where current laws don't address these issues, it will be up to future Congresses to create or amend laws. Personally, I think both of these areas could benefit from new legislation - especially selective enforcement. Current U.S. law has some restrictions on selective enforcement but it's limited to certain domains. I'm in favor of making enforcement of most laws and regulations a 'use it or lose it' proposition for government. If they chose to not enforce it before, they can't suddenly start to enforce it now. Obviously, that's a pretty radical approach and would have a lot of interesting consequences but I think it would be net positive. For one, it would almost certainly result in unenforced laws being effectively repealed (and we have a lot of those, especially on the state level). But I think the most valuable aspect would be forcing administrators and courts to decide which laws we actually need and to more precisely define policies for enforcing them instead of relying on ad hoc subjective judgements of bureaucrats and politicians. Back on the OP topic of 'hate speech' laws in the EU, the current shit show in the U.S. should be a huge wake up call to EU citizens that it's a very bad idea to grant government the power to punish speech instead of just actions. I believe representative democracy is the best political system but worry not enough people understand that in a democracy, when choosing how much power to give to the government, it's crucial to realize people you don't like will sometimes be in power and they'll abuse the power you granted government back when people you liked were in control. What's happening now in the U.S. is a hard reminder of this eternal truth. I believe Trump's actions will lead to all U.S. presidents having less discretionary power in the future - and that's a good thing.

dissent 1y ago

I dunno, this whole idea of "hate speech" or even "hate" being something prohibited feels like a sleight of hand. I'm sure it's been said before many times, but it's so easy to subvert and weaponise this against a society - including those it was meant to protect. Is it not my right to not like something? Or even to hate it? If it is not, then we're policing thought crime through the only visible evidence - what is said. Whatever this is a cure for, it's worse than the disease. The cynic in me suspects it not intended as a cure though. It's intended to control.

pixxel 1y ago
[dead]
hbogert 1y ago
Precedent are already happening. Islamists in the UK spout the most ridiculous stuff on the internet and continue to do so. Meanwhile people saying "go home" are behind bars. I expect this to happen with those new laws as well. Hard rules and seemingly random application of them when it suits someone in power.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  > Islamists in the UK spout the most ridiculous stuff on the internet Can you provide some specific examples of this please? > Meanwhile people saying "go home" are behind bars Have you some specific examples that are not due to violent behaviour or inciting violence?
- arp242 1y ago
  > people saying "go home" are behind bars Who has been arrested for saying "go home"? I can't find any example of this. Or what is "the most ridiculous stuff" Islamists are spouting for that matter?
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    A bus driver in Ireland was arrested and convicted for telling a Gambian "You should go back to where you came from". However this was later overturned on appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Ir...

rdtsc 1y ago

> The government has repeatedly pointed to existing legislation that criminalises the incitement to hatred and hate speech, under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. In 2017, the Irish Courts Service said just five people were convicted under the law. Are the implying Ireland needs to boost up those conviction numbers? With only 5 convicted, someone is clearly not doing their job. I am getting a faint whiff of a conviction quota. Comrades Stalin and Yezhov would be proud Let us take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_Order_No._00447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_Order_No._00447 > By the autumn of 1937, the pressure to achieve arrests was so great that the NKVD interrogators began picking out names from the telephone directory or preselecting married men with children who, as every agent knew, were the quickest to confess Can't they just pick out some random names from Facebook and convict them, I am sure they are guilty of something /s

rich_sasha 1y ago

Having done this discussion on HN a few times, there seems to be a dogmatic difference, correlated to being American. Some people favour freedom of speech above all else, and reject the notion it should be curbed for fuzzy concepts such as societal benefit. Some people think freedom of speech should work for the society. We limit it anyway - threats of violence are always out. So might as well push this boundary a bit. I found it useless to debate the merits of these points because, as I say, it seems to be dogmatic. You believe either one or the other. Personally I'm in the second camp. And frankly more so since Trump and his "free speech absolutists" won. Musk seems to be censoring Twitter all over, support for Israel is boundless but speak up for Palestine and ICE detains you... If "absolute free speech" is curbed by whatever the government likes, then what's the point?

d4v3 1y ago
> Musk seems to be censoring Twitter all over, support for Israel is boundless but speak up for Palestine and ICE detains you... If "absolute free speech" is curbed by whatever the government likes, then what's the point? The existence of imperfections isn’t a reason to abandon the principle. Things take time to work thru the courts and such.
int_19h 1y ago
> Musk seems to be censoring Twitter all over Twitter is a private platform, though, so it's not government censorship. Musk can censor all he likes there, but there are still multiple alternative avenues for communicating those viewpoints. When government censors something, it applies universally, so this isn't comparable. > peak up for Palestine and ICE detains you ... if you're not a citizen. This is an example of why the 1st Amendment in US doesn't go far enough, because it doesn't fully protect free speech rights of certain groups (at least as this administration interprets it; the courts are still working through the challenges, so we'll see). I find it very strange that you're using this example as an argument that there should be fewer free speech protections - do you want FBI to start detaining citizens as well when they criticize Israel? Because that's exactly what would happen if 1A would be gone tomorrow somehow.

mieses 1y ago

Leave the EU! Join a body made up, at least partially, of elected representatives.

sincerecook 1y ago

If you don't like the "hate" speech, present a better argument. If you can't do that, the hate speech is simply the stating of inconvenient facts.

thomassmith65 1y ago
These are moral arguments, not the kind of arguments that we can settle by a mathematical proof. Typically it's not that sound arguments shape our moral positions, but that our moral positions determine what we consider sound arguments.
- thomassmith65 1y ago
  Upon reading this the next day, I realize it could use a concrete example: "We should pass a law to strip all legal rights from, and enslave, everyone who is of [pick some minority group]. Neither I, nor most people, belong to that minority, so most of us will benefit from this slave labor." That's a logical argument. Thankfully, most people today would find it morally repugnant and unacceptable.
IAmBroom 1y ago
That is a unique ethics basis. "Whoever has the most skill at arguing is morally right."

incomingpain 1y ago

When Canada had free speech, politics wasnt so divisive. After we made the 'exception' for 'hate' your political opponents transformed overnight to whatever the definition of 'hate' is. How difficult is it to find 'conservatives are nazis' or 'reform are nazis' or 'afd are nazis' or 'national rally are nazis'?