
US values must not trump valid concerns about social media
She stated that, after in-depth meetings with various civil society and community groups, academics and experts, her aim was to identify how Ireland's law in this area could be improved, based on a clear understanding of the experiences of those affected by hate speech and hate crime.
McEntee ultimately proposed that the new law would cover both incitement to hatred and hate crime with the latter offences being aggravated versions of existing crimes. The idea was that offences against the person, criminal damage or public order offences — when they were carried out because of prejudice against a protected characteristic — would be criminalised.
Close to four years after first mooting the legislation, and with a general election looming, McEntee dropped her plan, claiming the incitement to hatred element of the criminal justice bill did not have a consensus. It would be dealt with, in that classic Irish tradition, at a later time.
The hate speech element had caused unease within her Fine Gael party and coalition partner Fianna Fail, and was criticised by various backbenchers, opposition parties and independents, free speech groups and even the world's richest man, Elon Musk.
• Ireland's 'vague' anti-hate law threatens flood of court challenges
Six weeks later, Donald Trump won the United States presidential election — and on free speech, like much else, the world turned. As Patrick O'Donoghue reveals in today's paper, the US State Department has recently warned Irish regulators against pressuring American tech companies to limit, or what it more evocatively calls chill, free speech following a meeting with the Irish media commissioner, Coimisiun na Mean, and officials from the Department of Justice.
Ireland is an important battleground in the global culture war that is free speech because of the American social media giants headquartered in Dublin. All have proven hostile to any attempts to hold them liable for what is posted on their platforms, no matter how heinous or potentially libellous the context.
All have also been brought to heel by the Trump administration. Their chief executives were only too happy to line up like lapdogs to have their picture taken with Trump at his inauguration, having stumped up large amounts of coin to contribute to the costs of the festivities.
• Who's who in Trump's tech bro club
Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Tim Cook of Apple, Sundar Pichai of Google and Elon Musk of X (and much else besides) were centre stage while TikTok's Shou Zi Chew also put in an appearance. Earlier that month, Zuckerberg announced that Meta was to get rid of fact checkers and dramatically reduce the amount of what he called 'censorship' on its platforms.
Facebook kicked Trump off its platform in the aftermath of the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, which led Trump to call Facebook 'an enemy of the people'. Once the American people re-elected Trump, however, Zuckerberg was only too keen to ingratiate himself back into the president's capricious good books.
Musk donated some $300 million to Trump's election campaign and, notwithstanding the pair's rather hilarious X spat last week, must be delighted at how the administration so clearly aligns with his views on hate speech, ie there is literally nothing that cannot be said on his platform.
The US secretary of state, the sycophantic Marco Rubio — a man with no principle he won't change — recently announced a view to impose visa bans on foreign nationals it deems to be censoring Americans. He has rather weirdly tied this into a touchstone for the security of the country, something he also did when supporting Trump's tariffs.
The delegation that came to Ireland to dissuade regulators from doing anything that might cause American tech giants even the slightest discomfort was led by one of Rubio's chief advisers, Samuel Samson, who complained that Europe had devolved into a 'hotbed of digital censorship'. He accused Europe of democratic backsliding, whatever that is, claiming that it affected American security and the free speech rights of US citizens and companies.
Whatever about security concerns — and it seems there is no policy, no matter how esoteric or insignificant, that the Trump administration won't link to the country's security — Americans have always been protective of their first amendment rights to freedom of expression.
Flag-burning, money in politics, pornography, school prayer, mobile phone data, protests at funerals, document leaks and anti-war protests have all gone before the US Supreme Court. While that court has been somewhat haphazard in its judgments over the years, the overriding consistency about free speech cases is that the government can limit free speech if it poses a clear and present danger. Beyond that, almost everything else is fair game.
In that context, the Trump administration now wants to flex its free speech muscles globally — and Ireland is as good a place as any to start. Trump started a metaphorical war on tariffs that has caused division in the European Union as individual states try to protect their patches, including Ireland, as Simon Harris, the tanaiste, showed last week in seeking exemptions from the EU in terms of tariff retaliation.
Another war over any European plans to enforce new laws on social media platforms is also brewing, with ominous threats of sanctions. When McEntee first mooted the idea of combating incitement to hatred through legislation, she framed it in the context of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. There are completely differing interpretations of how far this fundamental right goes in Europe and America.
Under Trump, the US has constantly asserted that it will pursue policies that are in America's interests. Those who come to lobby on its behalf should be told that Ireland and the EU follow their own path.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Welfare, winter fuel payments and Trump: key markers of Labour's first year in power
The Labour party's first year in power has seen a determined and relatively successful approach to foreign policy coupled with a number of controversial domestic policies, such as the winter fuel payments and the welfare bill. One year on, we reflect on the moments that have marked the party's first 12 months in power


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Ban on Palestine Action to take effect after legal challenge fails
Being a member of, or showing support for, Palestine Action will be a criminal offence from Saturday after a last-minute legal challenge to suspend the group's proscription under anti-terrorism laws failed. A ban on Palestine Action, which uses direct action to mainly target Israeli weapons factories in the UK and their supply chain, was voted through by parliament this week but lawyers acting for its co-founder Huda Ammori had sought to prevent it taking effect. After a hearing at the high court on Friday, however, Mr Justice Chamberlain declined to grant her application for interim relief. Ammori said: 'The home secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect.' Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Ammori sought permission to appeal against Chamberlain's decision in an 8pm hearing that lasted approximately one hour at the court of appeal on Friday night, in an attempt to prevent the ban coming into force. But at about 10.25pm – less than two hours before it was due to take effect – the three judges, led by the lady chief justice, Sue Carr, refused permission. It means Palestine Action will become the first direct action protest group to be banned under the Terrorism Act, placing it in the same category as Islamic State, al-Qaida and the far-right group National Action. Raza Husain KC, representing Ammori, described the proscription decision in the hearing before Chamberlain, as 'an ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'. He said it was 'absurd' to label a civil disobedience direct action protest group that does not advocate violence as a terrorist organisation. 'The main target has been stopping Elbit Systems … which markets itself as the backbone of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces],' said Husain. 'As my client says: 'The aim of terrorism is to take lives and hurt people, that's the opposite of what we do.'' He said before making the decision the government had engaged with the Israeli government, Elbit Systems and pro-Israeli lobby groups, while Palestine Action and other pro-Palestine groups were not consulted. Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC, also representing Ammori, said what was going on in Gaza was 'an annihilation, it is a genocide' and Palestine Action was 'seeking to disrupt and prevent' UK complicity in it. Ben Watson KC, representing the home secretary, focused on the proscription procedure in his submissions. 'All of these issues, all of that evidence is supposed to go to the secretaries of state… it's only after that process, after the secretary of state has had a chance to consider … then the matter goes before Poac [the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission].' He said only then could the case go to the court of appeal and then, potentially, the supreme court. Watson said Palestine Action's activities met the statutory test for proscription and that if the ban took effect but the group subsequently won a judicial review against proscription it would not cause 'irreparable harm' to it. He told the court that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. The protest group Defend Our Juries wrote to the Met police commissioner, Mark Rowley, on Friday to tell him that it 'may be committing offences under the Terrorism Act' in Parliament Square from 1pm on Saturday. It said non-violent protesters would hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The letter said that they 'refuse to be bystanders to what's happening to the people of Palestine, who are bombed, starved and gunned down as they queue for food'. Several hundred protesters gathered, waving Palestinian flags and carrying signs saying 'Free Palestine' and 'We are all Palestine Action' outside the Royal Courts of Justice. UN experts, civil liberties groups, cultural figures and hundreds of lawyers have condemned the ban as draconian and said it sets a dangerous precedent by conflating protest with terrorism. Another hearing is scheduled for 21 July when Palestine Action will apply for permission for a judicial review to quash the order. In the meantime, and unless the judicial review is successful, membership of, or inviting support for, the group will carry a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Home Office orders ‘nationwide blitz' on asylum seekers working for delivery apps
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has ordered a nationwide immigration "enforcement crackdown" aimed at tackling illegal working in the gig economy. Officers will conduct checks in hotspots across the country, specifically targeting asylum seekers suspected of working as delivery riders without permission. This initiative follows discussions with ministers, leading Deliveroo, Uber Eats, and Just Eat to announce they will ramp up facial verification and fraud checks in the coming months. Last week the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, claimed in a post on X to have found evidence of people working illegally for the food delivery firms during a visit to a hotel used to house asylum seekers. On Saturday, the Home Office said anyone caught 'flagrantly abusing the system in this way' will face having state support discontinued, whether entitlement to accommodation or payments. 'Strategic, intel-driven activity will bring together officers across the UK and place an increased focus on migrants suspected of working illegally whilst in taxpayer-funded accommodation or receiving financial support,' the Home Office said. 'The law is clear that asylum seekers are only entitled to this support if they would otherwise be destitute.' Businesses who illegally employ people will also face fines of up to £60,000 per worker, director disqualifications and potential prison sentences of up to five years. Asylum seekers in the UK are normally barred from work while their claim is being processed, though permission can be applied for after a year of waiting. It comes as the Government struggles with its pledge to 'smash the gangs' of people-smugglers facilitating small boat crossings in the English Channel, which have reached record levels this year. Some 20,600 people have made the journey so far in 2025, up 52 per cent on the same period in 2024. Ms Cooper said: 'Illegal working undermines honest business and undercuts local wages, the British public will not stand for it and neither will this Government. 'Often those travelling to the UK illegally are sold a lie by the people-smuggling gangs that they will be able to live and work freely in this country, when in reality they end up facing squalid living conditions, minimal pay and inhumane working hours. 'We are surging enforcement action against this pull factor, on top of returning 30,000 people with no right to be here and tightening the law through our Plan for Change.' Home Office director of enforcement, compliance and crime, Eddy Montgomery, said: 'This next step of co-ordinated activity will target those who seek to work illegally in the gig economy and exploit their status in the UK. 'That means if you are found to be working with no legal right to do so, we will use the full force of powers available to us to disrupt and stop this abuse. There will be no place to hide.' Deliveroo has said the firm takes a 'zero tolerance approach' to abuse on the platform and that despite measures put in place over the last year, 'criminals continue to seek new ways to abuse the system'. An Uber Eats spokesperson has said they will continue to invest in tools to detect illegal work and remove fraudulent accounts, while Just Eat says it is committed to strengthening safeguards 'in response to these complex and evolving challenges.' Responding to the announcement, Mr Philp said: 'It shouldn't take a visit to an asylum hotel by me as shadow home secretary to shame the Government into action.' He added: 'The Government should investigate if there is wrongdoing by the delivery platforms and if there is a case to answer, they should be prosecuted. 'This is a very serious issue because illegal working is a pull factor for illegal immigration into the UK – people smugglers actually advertise it.' Mr Philp also said women and girls were being put at risk because deliveries were being made to their homes by people 'from nationalities we know have very high rates of sex offending', without specifying which nationalities he was referring to.