Ireland given two months to implement hate speech laws or face action from EU

Gap between EU requirements and Irish law

• Commenters note Ireland already passed the Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024, focused on hate crimes, but it omits explicit “hate speech” provisions.
• The EU is pushing for laws covering “public incitement to violence or hatred” and the denial, condoning, or gross trivialisation of international crimes and the Holocaust.
• Some speculate that speech-only acts like Nazi-style rallies and Holocaust denial are the missing elements.

Meaning and scope of “hate speech”

• Several participants struggle with the legal phrase “public incitement to violence of hatred,” reading it as poor drafting and likely intended to mean “violence or hatred.”
• There’s disagreement whether this is about punishing actual incitement to violence, or punishing hatred itself.

Free speech absolutism vs regulated speech

• One camp (often self-identified as US-influenced) argues that even vile ideas must remain legal; state censorship is more dangerous long-term than offensive speech.
• The other camp, more aligned with European practice, argues dignity and equality can legitimately override speech, citing Europe’s experience with fascism and genocide.
• Debate centers on whether the “marketplace of ideas” works in practice, given that bad ideas can spread faster than they can be debunked.

Risk of abuse and slippery slope

• Multiple comments warn that once “hate speech” is criminalized, governments can stretch definitions to silence opposition, minorities, or even criticism of the laws themselves.
• Examples invoked: Russia’s “identifiable social groups” including police and MPs; fears that future majorities could protect extremists and criminalize criticism of them.
• Others counter that laws are written and interpreted by courts with checks and balances; they see these fears as exaggerated.

EU sovereignty and legitimacy

• Some see EU pressure on Ireland as anti-sovereign “recolonisation” and part of a broader project to suppress resistance to immigration and other policies.
• Others argue EU membership is voluntary, Ireland benefits greatly, and common minimum standards (including on hate speech) are inherent to a union.

Comparisons and enforcement concerns

• Comparisons are drawn with US First Amendment jurisprudence, recent US visa/enforcement cases, and Canadian/UK hate speech experience.
• Several worry about selective or politically biased enforcement, low conviction numbers being treated as a problem, and potential “conviction quotas.”