The resignation of Eamon Ryan, leader of the Irish Green Party, is welcome news to those of us who care about free speech, reports the ADF’s Lorcan Price for Spiked. He continues:
Given that Green support has been crucial in moving the hate-speech bill through the parliamentary process, Ryan’s decision to step down could be a critical moment.
If passed, the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 would criminalise the communication of material or speech that has the potential to ‘incite hatred’ against people with certain protected characteristics (race, religion and gender, for instance). What’s more, the bill would even criminalise having offensive material in your private possession.
Opponents of the hate-speech bill have successfully mobilised to challenge the bill, drawing support from outside Ireland. In fact, the bill first gained international following condemnation from Elon Musk’s condemnation in April 2023.
Musk has since pledged to directly challenge the law if it is passed. He has also committed to fund the legal defence of any Irish citizens who will face legal challenges as a result of its approval.
Last month, international free-speech experts convened at the Dublin Free Speech Summit. This event was organised by Free Speech Ireland with support from ADF International. Michael Shellenberger and Graham Linehan, as well as Irish senators Rónán Mullen and Sharon Keogan, were in attendance. The summit highlighted the global implications of the hate-speech bill. Thanks to its low corporation taxes, Ireland has successfully established itself as a hub for social media companies.
Wherever they exist, hate-speech laws suppress free expression, undermining basic civil liberties.
A significant issue with the Irish bill is that its definition of ‘hatred’ is worryingly vague. In 2023, then-Irish justice minister Simon Harris, who has now become Taoiseach, exacerbated fears by refusing to formulate a clear definition of ‘hatred’. Harris claimed that doing so would undermine the prosecution’s ability to secure convictions. Such a climate of legal uncertainty would fuel self-censorship, as citizens would take pains to avoid the risk of criminal charges under this new law.
One of the most shocking elements of the bill is that it proposes the criminalisation of the possession of material deemed capable of inciting hatred. Penalties for this offence include up to five years behind bars. So, saving an offensive meme could possibly land you in jail. Even refusing to hand over your passwords could generate legal trouble. Ultimately, this bill would further endanger privacy, granting the state sweeping powers to investigate and punish citizens based on subjective and politicized interpretations of ‘hate’.
This has already happened in countries that have adopted similar laws. Since 2019, Päivi Räsänen, the Finnish parliamentarian, has been facing a vicious legal battle after tweeting that she was uncomfortable with her local church supporting LGBT Pride. To emphasise her objection, Räsänen also posted Bible verses that supported her interpretation of the Christian view of marriage and sexuality.
Following two unanimous acquittals, the Supreme Court of Finland has agreed to hear her case. However, Räsänen’s ordeal proves that hate-speech laws will inevitably lead to the prosecution of everyday expression.
While Ireland has not yet adopted this approach, free speech is already in danger. Polling from March of 2024 has revealed a widespread concern regarding the retreat of free speech. A quarter of respondents indicated that they already feel restricted in expressing their views and opinions in public. This censorious atmosphere will only be heightened by the passage of this hate crime bill.
Ireland stands at a crossroads. The proposed hate-speech bill, while ostensibly designed to curb violence and protect vulnerable groups, risks undermining a foundational democratic principle. But it’s not too late for the government to put a stop to it. As history shows, once the state begins to curtail any form of expression, it sets a dangerous precedent. Censorship and the suppression of dissent are never far behind.
Worth reading in full.
