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.
Even that's a slippery slope. If I was to say publicly "death to all agile practitioners", it's up to interpretation whether I'm serious or not. I deserve the benefit of the doubt, which is traditionally how it's been handled. Perhaps if I was successful in inciting violence, I could be held accountable for my success. That would make a lot more sense.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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."
And it seems increasingly clear that Ireland has become the main target in the disinformation war, and the main place where racist sentiments are being stoked. Absolutely tragic given Ireland's history of solidarity and anti colonialism
You can say this sort of stuff about almost anything. I don't see how doing "the little stuff" (relatively) like this takes away from doing "the big stuff". It's not like "the EU" is a single person who only has 24/hours a day to spend.
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?
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.
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.
> I would deem Europe a dangerous place to visit for anyone that aspires towards original and critical thinking.
Only if your "original and critical thinking" is racism, homophobia, and similar.
You could argue that banning this comes with more downsides than upsides. Fair enough. But to call this "original and critical thinking" is very odd to put it mildly.
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"
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).
Readit News
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.
It's already a crime to incite violence in many countries, with a spectrum of definitions. Including the USA
The laws differ by country, but you'll find most EU countries don't require inciting violence to make it a crime - hate is enough by itself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
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?
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?
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
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.
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.
It doesn't have free speech laws, it has a collective delusion.
Dead Comment
Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 : 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 ...
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.
“… public incitement to violence of hatred …”
How does that work as English?
Do you think the EU is so bandwidth-limited it cannot do other things while discussing hate speech laws with Ireland?
Deleted Comment
"Whoever has the most skill at arguing is morally right."
Typically it's not that sound arguments shape our moral positions, but that our moral positions determine what we consider sound arguments.
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.
Only if your "original and critical thinking" is racism, homophobia, and similar.
You could argue that banning this comes with more downsides than upsides. Fair enough. But to call this "original and critical thinking" is very odd to put it mildly.
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"
> "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).
Deleted Comment