• Does the bill need some amendments to clear up some ambiguity? Maybe, idk, I’m not Irish nor am I a legal expert; I know virtually nothing about the Irish legal system.

    But based on the BBC article, it sounds like the intention of the bill is to get some hate crime laws on the books for Ireland, which they apparently have none so far.

    I am very much in favor of punishing hate crimes/hate speech. Free Speech absolutism is braindead, and those who preach it are often hypocrites. Take Musk for example, self proclaimed free speech absolutist. Sure he allows people to hurl a variety of slurs on his platform but then goes and bans a bunch of left-wing accounts. Advocating for white supremacy is covered by free speech but advocating for socialism is not? That really ought to make you question if free speech is really Musk’s goal.

    • I declare the use of the word “punish” to be hate speech.

      Sorry, the moment you say you agree with this idea, you’re starting down a road that goes nowhere good.

      Call me names. Call my family names. Use any language you want. I don’t care.

      The line is when you’re calling for a crime to be committed.

      “Hate speech” is a convenient tool to target whoever is in power wants to at the moment.

    • This is more of an argument against EM than free speech absolutism, since your point is that he doesn’t actually believe in it. But anyway it seems like there should be some possible middle ground between a truly absolutist position on free speech, and the overt disdain for free speech implied by a vague prohibition like the OP law. Isn’t it valuable for people to generally be able to speak their minds? That can be the case even if the loudest people hiding behind the idea are disingenuous, or if the furthest interpretations of it go too far.