Paul Murphy speaking on how the Hate Speech Bill passed by Dáil is essentially “thought crime” legislation

Paul Murphy speaking on how the Hate Speech Bill passed by Dáil is essentially "thought crime" legislation
by u/FreeSpeechIreland in ireland

37 comments

  2. We have made huge steps forward for freedom of the individual and freedom of expression in recent years. Marriage equality, reproductive rights, and hopefully cannabis legalisation soon.

    This is such a monumental step backwards, essentially replacing the recently repealed blasphemy laws. The government should not control what you say and get to define what “hate speech” is. Every time this type of law is brought in, it is immediately abused by politicians.

  3. So who decides what defines hate speech? Will there be whole groups, that any criticism of them counts as hate speech? Although hate speech should always be punishable.

  4. “That is the problem with hate speech legislation, who defines hate? The people you least want to. Rat Finks who never learned how to not tattle tale on their peers when they are children and run to totalitarian authority to wield their resentful power.”

  9. Wow Paul Murphy saying something I agree with. I didn’t expect that.

    Let’s face it though, this legislation is flawed by nature. Hate speech is a hugely subjective thing. This only serves to criminalize people who have opinions that are contrary to whatever the mainstream is at the time.

    It’s just blasphemy law under another guise.

  10. Glad to see this getting some attention.

    One of the scariest trends I see creeping into public opinion is the willingness to forfeit liberties in the name of some implied safety.

    The effectiveness of this bill for combating hate speech is debatable, but one thing is for sure, we are opening up a can of worms were any government present and future has the ability to define certain speech as illegal.

  12. This legislation is not designed to be standalone. In practice the accused must have “demonstrated” the intent to incite hatred with this stuff, ie they must have *done* something to put the possession of the material in a relevant context.

    Section 11 protects discussion and criticism in its own right. Talk of “thought crimes” is irresponsible nonsense.

    >Protection of freedom of expression

    >For the purposes of this Part, any material or behaviour **is not taken to incite violence or hatred** against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics **solely on the basis that that material or behaviour includes or involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to a protected characteristic**.

    People – or at least the 2 mth old Name Name Bunchonumbers accounts – do not seem to be aware we have had Incitement to Hatred legislation on the books for decades. This is actually way more specific than the existing, extremely vague law, which talks about “stirring up hatred” in really broad terms.

  15. The fuck. I want the Soma filled dystopian future. This 1984 business is minus craic.

    Any word on when our chocolate rations will be increased?

  16. I have enough “hateful material” memes in my phone to get me a life sentence. What a stupid legislation this is.

  18. I’m normally disdainful of Murphy but I’m genuinely surprised to find I agree with him on this. I would have thought he’d be against it but he’s proven me wrong.

    Props to him for this, in fairness.

  19. Fuck sake, why are so many so pro-censorship when it’s something they disagree with. Absolutely rediculous.

    People need to take a long look at themselves in the mirror and tell themselves to just grow up and grow a pair.

  22. How can people educate themselves if they cant view information on a particular topic from all possible perspectives, even if one perspective is from hateful cunt.

  23. People should have the right to say what ever they want to anyone. There should be complete free speech. And they should experience the outcome of their actions and be faced with any social fallout.

  25. This man is exactly right on this issue. I remember other laws being passed in the UK that I campaigned against having exactly the same promises instead of fixing the laws. Of course once the laws were passed they were abused.

  26. This is really, really bad. Murphy is a dyed-in-the-wool Trotskyist where no level of state control is too much control.

    The fact that even HE is saying that this goes too far is quite something.

    We’ve swapped the Catholic Church for a different set of zealots and ideologues. The beliefs have changed but the oppressive society where everyone must conform and there is no room for diversity of opinion has stayed exactly the fucking same. It’s just blasphemy laws reimagined.

  29. I really want to point out here that they define who would be targeted by this bill:

    [https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2022/105/eng/initiated/b10522d-p-c-sent.pdf](https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2022/105/eng/initiated/b10522d-p-c-sent.pdf)

    >Interpretation
    2. (1) In this Act—
    “Framework Decision” means Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28
    November 20082 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and
    xenophobia by means of criminal law, the text of which is set out for convenience of
    reference in the Schedule;
    “hatred” means hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere
    on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics;
    “protected characteristic” shall be construed in accordance with section 3.
    (2) A word or expression that is used in this Act and is also used in the Framework
    Decision has, unless the context otherwise requires, the same meaning in this Act as it
    has in the Framework Decision.
    Meaning of protected characteristic
    3. (1) In this Act, other than in section 8, “protected characteristic”, in relation to a person
    or a group of persons, means any one of the following, namely—
    (a) race,
    (b) colour,
    (c) nationality,
    (d) religion,
    (e) national or ethnic origin,
    (f) descent,
    (g) gender,
    (h) sex characteristics,
    (i) sexual orientation, or
    (j) disability

    ​

    So they clearly define here what would constitute a hate speech and….. look lads, none of these seem like anything to worry about unless you’re a gobshite that actually likes shouting slurs at somebody. There’s nothing in here about political alliegence, government etc.

    MAYBE some of these may seem like too much because of, say, how much we tend to dislike the English over here 😛 But I can’t see the harm of introducing this bill and including laws that help prosecute and prove someone’s a racist, bigoted homophobe etc. Because we can see he posts racist shit on facebook and has Homophobic memes on his phone. This would only ever come up if they’ve brought up to court in the first place for a crime, and I’d imagine if they want to trawl through their social media and devices they probably suspect its a hate crime in the first place.

    If the law ever were expanded to include political alligence etc. THEN I’d be worried and yell it down, but…. do we not want to try protect the minorities in the country that get abuse from gobshites?

  30. The spotlight on this bill couldn’t have come at a worse time for Michael following his scathing remarks of the ditch. Whenever a government starts to suggest independent media should report a certain way and their citizens should be punished for thinking a certain way, it’s cause for concern.

    Fair play to Paul Murphy for speaking up about it, he was only recently personally targeted by people that write that kind of BS.

  32. Thats proper fucked not only personal perceptions being actionable upon legally but also innocent until proven guilty is reversed. Horrific

  33. Dont like Paul Murphy, but I have to agree with him here. If he is saying is true regarding the bill, then yes its problematic.

  34. I remember I said this and was a conspiracy theorist , now pbp say it and it’s an important talking point

  37. It’s funny how on this thread people generally show concern and side with Murphy, but on every other post on this topic the past week, this sub dismisses the OP, insists there is nothing dodgy in the bill and insinuates the OP and others who are concerned are bigots or even nazi-sympathizers.

    Let’s face it, ye lads are full of shit, and the proof of how dangerous this bill is exemplified by how ye flip flop on this depending on who is talking, showing how easy it is to arbitrarily label someone as dangerous or hateful.

Leave a Reply