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.
bestouff · 3m ago
I think the USA is a textbook example why unregulated "free speech" is harmful to a civilized society, with its rampant racism, divided communities and finally full-featured fascism.
mrandish · 1h 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.
dissent · 1h 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.
No comments yet
lokar · 4h ago
Can anyone explain an act that is allowed by current IE law that the EU thinks should be criminalized?
defrost · 3h 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 · 3h ago
I’m having a hard time parsing
“… public incitement to violence of hatred …”
How does that work as English?
LodeOfCode · 2h ago
I'd assume that's a typo of "violence or hatred"
fakedang · 3h 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 · 2h 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 · 3h ago
Not following eu directives?
lokar · 3h 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.
Animats · 2h 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."
stodor89 · 2h 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?
bestouff · 8m ago
Online propaganda is a real war weapon nowadays. EU focusing on mitigating it is rightfully a priority.
rich_sasha · 1h 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?
tekla · 2h ago
It's easier to ban speech than to deal with the issues that cause the speech in the first place.
notepad0x90 · 2h 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.
whynotmaybe · 1h 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 · 1h 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).
valianteffort · 3h 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 · 3h ago
It wouldn't be much of a union if its member states insisted on absolute sovereignty.
ApolloFortyNine · 2h 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 · 3h 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 · 2h 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 · 2h 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 · 1h ago
I'm not Irish. I know the country quite well, but not enough to speculate further on public opinion there.
If anyone reading this is actually Irish, perhaps they could address this?
9283409232 · 3h ago
The headline only mentions Ireland but the article mentions that Finland is also in the same hot seat Ireland is in.
gsf_emergency · 3h ago
Interesting (to me). Ireland and Finland are 0.948 & 0.949 on the Human Development Index
9283409232 · 3h ago
I don't know whether those numbers are good or bad.
UltraSane · 2h ago
It is out of 1.0 so they are very good.
gsf_emergency · 3h 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!
blargthorwars · 3h 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 · 3h 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 · 3h ago
To be fair, that was over 100 years ago at this point.
ImJamal · 2h ago
And the Holocaust was 80 years ago?
surgical_fire · 3h 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 · 2h ago
So you are against the First Amendment. Authoritarian control of the narrative. North Korean style.
donohoe · 3h ago
It’s neither heavy-handed nor draconian, hate speech is hate speech.
voidspark · 3h ago
In the US that is free speech which is allowed under the First Amendment.
ApolloFortyNine · 2h 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 · 2h 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 · 2h ago
Your statement was quite hateful towards people who like free speech. You should be punished.
mrandish · 1h ago
Yes, I agree. That hateful rhetoric against free speech threatens my first amendment rights by inciting government suppression of free speech. My rights are being attacked and feel unsafe.
defrost · 3h 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 · 4h ago
EU hates free speech.
surgical_fire · 3h ago
Free speech should not be absolute. No right is absolute, a healthy society is a huge compromise.
eyko · 1h ago
John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty"[1] offered one of the most comprehensive defences of free speech (that is as relevant today as it was then).
You do raise a good point re: tradeoffs in a healthy society. Mill anticipated this objection and addressed it directly. He didn't advocate for free speech without consequences but developed a harm principle specifically to establish what limits are acceptable. Acceptable limits on thought and speech should be based on demonstrable harm, rather than alleged offence, discomfort, or the current popular opinion or cultural disapproval.
He recognises the need to set some limits, yet also the dangers of who gets to set them. Historically, those with power to restrict speech have restricted truth as falsehood. The bar for restrictions should be very high, not because free speech should be absolute, but because the dangers of overzealous restrictions far outweigh the cost of permitting speech we might personally find objectionable. Even completely false opinions might have their value as they force defenders of truth to better articulate their position or reasoning, and prevents beliefs from becoming prejudiced, or platitudes.
I thought I'd share since it's relevant and there may be some younger readers here that might not have come across his work. I really recommend reading it, even if it's an LLM summary as an introduction (as seems to be the trend nowadays)
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 · 3h 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.
rich_sasha · 1h 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?
motohagiography · 3h 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 · 2h 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 · 52m ago
> How is making a country have hate speech laws somehow causing wars to emerge?
> 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
> 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
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.
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.
No comments yet
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.
Do you think the EU is so bandwidth-limited it cannot do other things while discussing hate speech laws with Ireland?
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.
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).
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.
If anyone reading this is actually Irish, perhaps they could address this?
(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!
Such heavy-handed, draconian laws give ammo to Holocaust deniers.
I would rather them having imaginary ammo by being punished for it.
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.
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.You do raise a good point re: tradeoffs in a healthy society. Mill anticipated this objection and addressed it directly. He didn't advocate for free speech without consequences but developed a harm principle specifically to establish what limits are acceptable. Acceptable limits on thought and speech should be based on demonstrable harm, rather than alleged offence, discomfort, or the current popular opinion or cultural disapproval.
He recognises the need to set some limits, yet also the dangers of who gets to set them. Historically, those with power to restrict speech have restricted truth as falsehood. The bar for restrictions should be very high, not because free speech should be absolute, but because the dangers of overzealous restrictions far outweigh the cost of permitting speech we might personally find objectionable. Even completely false opinions might have their value as they force defenders of truth to better articulate their position or reasoning, and prevents beliefs from becoming prejudiced, or platitudes.
I thought I'd share since it's relevant and there may be some younger readers here that might not have come across his work. I really recommend reading it, even if it's an LLM summary as an introduction (as seems to be the trend nowadays)
Edited to fix a few typos (typing from mobile)
1. https://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty.html#book-reader
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.
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?
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".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
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
> 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