'Hate Speech' Laws And Ireland's Warning To The West
In a recent speech, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar expressed his commitment to "modernize laws addressing hatred" following the arrest of several dozen individuals involved in the Dublin riots, which ensued after an Algerian-born man stabbed five people, including three children, outside the Gaelscoil Colaiste Mhuire primary school in Dublin.
"I think it's now very obvious to anyone who might have doubted us that our incitement to hatred legislation is just not up to date. It's not up to date for the social media age. And we need that legislation through within a matter of weeks."
Per the recent legislation currently under consideration, anyone simply possessing material LIKELY to incite violence against persons on account of their protected characteristics could be found guilty under their new “Incitement to Hatred” laws.
And what is currently considered a “protected characteristic”?
(a) race,
(b) color,
(c) nationality,
(d) religion,
(e) national or ethnic origin,
(f) descent,
(g) gender,
(h) sex characteristics,
(i) sexual orientation, or
(j) disability
Conveniently, any leftist-aligned characteristic that falls under the protection of progressivism could not only be shielded from legitimate criticism but any organized political action emanating from the right. And make no mistake, this legislation directly targets Ireland’s “far-right,” which, given today’s political climate, is anyone who doesn’t buy into every aspect of wokeism.
Welcome to the dystopian era of “Hate Speech” pre-crime, when even the potential for incitement of violence can get you in legal trouble.
This is the kind of legislation that makes leftists everywhere salivate. If these types of “hate speech” laws were to be adopted across the West, could someone levy criticism of affirmative action programs that favor one race over another? Could patriotic citizens criticize the immigration policies of their home country if they object to a large influx of migrants from a specific national or ethnic origin? What about expressing outrage over a school curriculum that pushes radical gender ideology?
We already see those on the left in America call all of the above “hate speech,” whose definition is constantly expanding to stifle any and all dissent in the private sphere. Ireland’s new legislation would codify this sentiment into law, with other European countries sure to follow.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, Ireland hosts the European headquarters of most social media companies, including X, TikTok, and Facebook. How would this law play into the Terms of Service for social media companies that would need to comply with law enforcement in targeting any Irish social media accounts that run afoul of these new “hate speech” laws?
Sadly, we already have some insight into how online speech enforcement might play out within the United States, particularly against the right.
Douglass Mackey was recently sentenced to 7 months in prison for “conspiring to deprive others of their right to vote” by sharing internet memes against Hillary Clinton on social media.
Thanks to Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, now X, the “Twitter Files” revealed, among other things, that the FBI and various state, local, and federal entities extensively examine the political expressions of Americans, aiming to censor or eliminate lawful speech online.
And let’s not overlook the fact that President Trump was removed from mainstream social media platforms after his posts were deemed to be “coded incitement to further violence.”
These infractions all sound like they would fall nicely within Ireland’s new speech laws.
And what of the left? Are they affected by restrictions on speech? Of course, they aren’t.
After the October 7th terrorist attacks against Israel, antisemitic speech has been on the rise across college campuses and within cities around the country. Chants that Palestine will be free “from the River to the Sea” along with calls for “decolonization,” and Intifada all unquestionably call for the justified use of violence to achieve political ends, yet there is been very little legal pushback against this type of speech, and the media has by and large ignored its significance.
Why? Because this type of “incitement to hatred” emanates from the left, and the cause of Palestinian liberation falls within the safety of the left’s intersectionality coalition.
Additionally, even when we move from the left’s framing of “speech is violence” to actual examples of political violence within America, we can see how dissent is treated differently. Compare the government's (and media’s) framing of the “mostly peaceful” George Floyd riots of 2020 to the “insurrection” that occurred on January 6th. Trump supporters still being arrested, convicted and sentenced for their participation, while most charges against George Floyd protestors have been dropped.
The reality is the left only valued free speech as a means to destabilize the West and infiltrate its institutions. However, upon gaining dominance in these institutions, they recognized the necessity to limit free speech as a means to consolidate their hegemony over society and culture, ultimately targeting any speech that would fall in opposition to their various causes.
In the face of Ireland's ominous shift towards restricting free speech under the guise of combating hatred, it becomes abundantly clear that we are teetering on the precipice of a dystopian era, yet these laws are instructive.
Politics is about power, and the left has no issues wielding it. There is not and has never been, a neutral State. The idea of neutrality in a given political system is flawed because every decision or action undertaken by a state is shaped by a specific moral framework or a particular understanding of what is best for society.
Laws soon follow that codify that preferred moral framework. Merely opposing the current state through rhetoric is inadequate for the right. They must not only push back on every attempt to criminalize speech but articulate their own vision and exhibit the determination to implement conservative policies through laws of their own.
While conservatives continuously try to “win the argument,” progressives brand their political opposition as a bigger threat to America than al-Qaeda. The left has weaponized language not only to galvanize their side but demonize and criminalize their opposition.
The right in America needs to wake up to this uncomfortable reality and stop advocating for a return to the fallacy of neutrality within a mythical “marketplace of ideas,” as the left has used this naivety to forge a near monopoly on political thought and expression.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Every time I post something, or write an article, I wonder when I will be approached for "questioning" by the FBI or other government agency. I look at some of the books on my shelf and wonder, when will these become illegal. I wonder when saying "Good Morning" will be classified as hate speech if I say it to someone who's not having a good morning. We can no longer speak freely, unless our speech lines up with that of the ruling class. And the rules concerning speech change everyday.
I read the book "Lost Rights" by James Bovard referencing the multitude of rights Americans had lost by the mid-90s. He references a tariff on glass from Japan that was then used in laptops and computers. This disruption led to Apple and others going off shore, Ireland being one locale. Reading that passage, I wondered was this the start of Ireland having its history re-written by tech fools from the US who knew nothing of Ireland's history? It is as if Ireland has put on metaverse goggles and is seeing a history of a dominant colonizer instead of the colonizee. I am very embarrassed for this sick export from the US. Of course, the philosophy was exported from Germany and France. The US just refined it.