Ireland went from being the most conservative country in Western Europe to a totally deranged nightmare dystopia at rocket speed.
These new speech laws are simply incomprehensible.
Of course, this is the plan for everyone: the government has asserted a right to decide what you are allowed to think, and there is no bottom to that pit.
Ireland’s media watchdog, Coimisiún na Meán (Media Commission), headed by executive chairman Jeremy Godfrey, has voiced concerns about online “misinformation” and the possibility of foreign interference in the upcoming local and European elections. However, this stance has raised questions about the potential for overreach in online censorship in the country, especially as it has come to light that Ireland considered censorship plans over the recent backlash to the stabbing of a child caused heated arguments and riots over the nation’s immigration policy.
While discussing these concerns with the Irish Examiner, Godfrey emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity of elections and civil discourse. Yet, this focus brings to the fore the delicate issue of how far regulatory bodies should go in controlling online content without infringing on free speech and the right to information.
“I suppose from around Thursday lunchtime, we first found out about the stabbing incident,” Godfrey said. “And we decided that this was something that we needed to do something about.
“Our concerns were firstly there might be imagery of the incident itself that could circulate online. It could be damaging if children saw it, and damaging to the relatives of people who’d been hurt, and could actually result in the identification of a suspect. All those things are to be avoided.
“But then we were also worried that it could become a lightning rod for the incitement of hatred against ethnic minorities or incitement to violence. That is absolutely illegal content that will definitely fall within our regulatory remit.”
Godfrey’s additional concerns about “hate speech,” particularly against women in public roles, point to the complexity of regulating online discourse. While the intention to protect individuals from harmful content is clear, elsewhere such regulations are being used to suppress dissenting voices or controversial viewpoints.
Wait – isn’t being against women in public roles a “controversial viewpoint”? I don’t think it should be controversial, because it is so obviously the correct viewpoint, but at the very least, it is a viewpoint.
How is this creepy ass faggot allowed to decide which viewpoints are allowed and which are not? How does any government have that right?
People have to be able to think what they want to think. In the age of the internet, and mass communication generally, that means they have to be able to type their thoughts online.
The government is supposed to build roads and prevent military invasion. They’re not allowed to decide how the population is allowed to view women in public roles.
This is insane.
And the planned censorship laws will make everything much worse