I'd much rather have EU focus on the very real existential threats we're facing, rather than bully (checks today's news) ... Ireland? Seriously, EU?
tekla · 17m ago
It's easier to ban speech than to deal with the issues that cause the speech in the first place.
lokar · 2h ago
Can anyone explain an act that is allowed by current IE law that the EU thinks should be criminalized?
Animats · 37m 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."
defrost · 1h 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:
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 · 1h ago
I’m having a hard time parsing
“… public incitement to violence of hatred …”
How does that work as English?
LodeOfCode · 50m ago
I'd assume that's a typo of "violence or hatred"
fakedang · 1h 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 · 48m 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.
snapplebobapple · 1h ago
Not following eu directives?
lokar · 1h 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.
notepad0x90 · 50m 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.
thomassmith65 · 37m ago
It's 2025; Americans either no longer understand liberal democracy, or do understand it but not longer desire it.
...which nation comes in 80th, half-way down the list? That was *last* year, too! America is in a bad way.
The USA should just copy whatever Europe does for the next decade.
valianteffort · 1h 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 · 1h ago
It wouldn't be much of a union if its member states insisted on absolute sovereignty.
ApolloFortyNine · 44m ago
There's absolute sovereignty, and then there's the speech of your own citizens within your own borders.
But in reality yea, the EU is essentially at the articles of confederation stage of the US. The EU has been flexing its muscles with what laws they can enforce on their members, and I'd expect the eventual EU army to be the turning point where people start to realize the EU election is likely more important, or at least equally important, as their local elections.
like_any_other · 1h 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 · 11m 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 · 40s 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.
9283409232 · 1h ago
The headline only mentions Ireland but the article mentions that Finland is also in the same hot seat Ireland is in.
gsf_emergency · 1h ago
Interesting (to me). Ireland and Finland are 0.948 & 0.949 on the Human Development Index
9283409232 · 1h ago
I don't know whether those numbers are good or bad.
UltraSane · 58m ago
It is out of 1.0 so they are very good.
gsf_emergency · 1h ago
I don't either but they are right next to each other, so nobody can accuse causation :)
(Another pair is Sweden-Germany)
blargthorwars · 1h 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.
like_any_other · 1h ago
Tangentially, one would expect Irish laws to deal more with their own atrocities, such as British occupation, their near-eradication of Gaelic, or denial of England's role in the Irish potato famine.
donohoe · 1h ago
To be fair, that was over 100 years ago at this point.
ImJamal · 11m ago
And the Holocaust was 80 years ago?
donohoe · 1h ago
It’s neither heavy-handed nor draconian, hate speech is hate speech.
voidspark · 1h ago
In the US that is free speech which is allowed under the First Amendment.
ApolloFortyNine · 54m ago
Pretty important too since now all you have to do to silence someone in Europe is argue it's hate speech.
There was a time the lab leak covid theory was hate speech, people were calling people racists for mentioning it. Sometimes simply stating statistics can get construed as hate speech.
I'm sure there's other good examples, but at the end of the day it just creates a bar for those trying to silence a topic to reach.
voidspark · 49m ago
Yes. “Hate speech” has a specific legal definition in the US.
Holocaust denial is not hate speech. People should be allowed to question a historic event. People should be allowed to think.
ImJamal · 9m ago
Your statement was quite hateful towards people who like free speech. You should be punished.
surgical_fire · 1h 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.
voidspark · 37m ago
So you are against the First Amendment. Authoritarian control of the narrative. North Korean style.
defrost · 1h ago
It pushes them torward defending their "truth" in multiple courts of law where it falls apart for lack of evidence.
David Irving had a great opportunity to make his case .. he failed several times over:
The court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".
Hardly generic "great ammo", just very specific ammo for those that want to rail against courts and law in addition to picking fault with recorded history.
richwater · 2h ago
EU hates free speech.
surgical_fire · 1h ago
Free speech should not be absolute. No right is absolute, a healthy society is a huge compromise.
bdd8f1df777b · 15m ago
Stop criticizing CCP for censoring speech then. They have their own definitions of "No right is absolute, a healthy society is a huge compromise.".
smitty1e · 1h 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.
motohagiography · 1h 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.
0dayz · 3m 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".
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?
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.
It matters, too, because my suspicion is they want to punish hatred as though it were violence.
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.
That is not hyperbole. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
...which nation comes in 80th, half-way down the list? That was *last* year, too! America is in a bad way.
The USA should just copy whatever Europe does for the next decade.
But in reality yea, the EU is essentially at the articles of confederation stage of the US. The EU has been flexing its muscles with what laws they can enforce on their members, and I'd expect the eventual EU army to be the turning point where people start to realize the EU election is likely more important, or at least equally important, as their local elections.
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.
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.
(Another pair is Sweden-Germany)
Such heavy-handed, draconian laws give ammo to Holocaust deniers.
There was a time the lab leak covid theory was hate speech, people were calling people racists for mentioning it. Sometimes simply stating statistics can get construed as hate speech.
I'm sure there's other good examples, but at the end of the day it just creates a bar for those trying to silence a topic to reach.
Holocaust denial is not hate speech. People should be allowed to question a historic event. People should be allowed to think.
I would rather them having imaginary ammo by being punished for it.
David Irving had a great opportunity to make his case .. he failed several times over:
Hardly generic "great ammo", just very specific ammo for those that want to rail against courts and law in addition to picking fault with recorded history.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.
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.
Ireland also choose to join the EU, how are they being "colonized".