[2015bok1]

This thread and the comments here don't make it clear how extreme the Irish law is. If you're found in possession of anything deemed hate speech, you are legally presumed to be guilty unless you can prove you are using it for law enforcement or academic purposes. Possession is punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment.

https://twitter.com/LFJIreland/status/1652774182210396165

It's an enormous amount of power that could allow the government to target literally anyone - if you look hard enough, many texts could be read as hate speech in this law (for example, the Bible advocates genocide against certain ethnic groups).

[kennywinker]

The phrasing of this feels a little hyperbolic. If you’re found in possession of illegal guns, you’re “automatically assumed to be guilty” unless you can prove you have a valid reason to possess illegal guns. That’s how making things illegal works. You could just say “possessing hate material is illegal under this law”. Which is not a weird thing snuck into the law - it’s literally what the law is about.

[molotovh]

Last time I checked, "innocent until proven guilty" was still a foundational principle of Western law. Certain factions may be working hard to chip away that foundation with the intent of enforcing an ideological homogeny, but it's not gone yet.

[kennywinker]

And as far as i understand this law doesn’t change that. The state would still have to charge you and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did indeed possess hate material. Just like how it would have to prove you possessed a stolen gun or whatever. Which is exactly my point - the phase “automatically assumed to be guilty” is phrased to make it seem like the law throws out innocent until proven guilty, which i don’t think it does.

[catiopatio]

We’re talking about the possession of illegal words.

That’s what makes this quite a bit different than your gun analogy.

[kennywinker]

Does it? I mean we can argue if making hate speech illegal is a good idea or a bad idea - but making it illegal doesn’t throw out the concept of innocent until proven guilty as the phase “automatically assumed to be guilty” suggests.

Someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn’t “automatically assumed to be guilty”, they’ll be charged and placed on trial and the state will have to prove that a) they yelled fire, and b) this was the kind of speech we agree isn’t protected because it’s intended to cause harm. Similarly, if i’m caught possessing hate material the state would charge me and have to prove that i did possess that material, and that material fits the definition of hate speech.

[catiopatio]

If it’s possible to possess illegal words, then yes, we’ve abandoned the presumption of innocence. What moral failing is the possessor of illegal words guilty of?

[kennywinker]

That’s a strawman. There’s no illegal words in hate speech laws like the one in question. There are illegal intents, illegal publications, etc. - those already exist. To go back to my previous example: “fire” isn’t an illegal word. But shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre (where there is no fire) is an illegal action intended to cause harm.

Thinking genocidal thoughts, even saying genocidal ideas aloud, all are ok under most western hate speech laws. The line is usually in publishing or broadcasting genocidal ideas.

Hate speech laws are on a slope, and at the bottom is of that slope is authoritarian thought police territory, for sure, but it doesn't seem that slippery a slope from where i’m standing.

[2015bok1]

The law here states that if you possess the hate speech the assumption is that you intend to publish or broadcast it. You have to prove that you don't (by being an academic or law enforcement for instance). This is an attempt to keep people from engaging with crimethink, not broadcasting it.

[prepend]

I think the issue is that by the law’s definition, Huckleberry Finn contains hate speech. And many other items.

So everyone has hate speech and the government can selectively choose who to prosecute. And just the act of defense is punishment enough, so the law is bad on that account.

If everyone in the country has an illegal gun then the law would be similar. In this case the law is not properly able to be enforced. In the US this would render it invalid.

[Am4TIfIsER0ppos]

Yes. The banning of private ownership of weapons is also tyranny.

[kennywinker]

Sorry, i forgot 2nd amendment absolutists exist. Replace “illegal guns” with “stolen guns” to make the point make sense again. Also while you’re at it try out replacing “illegal guns” with “icbm launchers” just to check if you actually believe banning private ownership of weapons is always tyranny.