Ireland is reportedly set to pass a law that would allow police to “walk into your home, unannounced, search your computers and phones, and arrest you for things you read, watch, or post online “. At least that’s what it says a video posted on December 6, 2023 on X (Twitter), which has more than 4 million views.
We see the American author Michael Shellenberger warning against the dangers of this “Hate Speech” law, which “sounds like an episode of Black Mirror”. The post made several assertions about the bill, including that it would actually be “a Trojan horse designed to control the world’s major technology companies: X, Facebook, Google and YouTube.” » The post also claims that the law aims to “censor independent journalism” as well as people residing in Ireland.
Dating from 2022, the “ Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hate and Hate Crimes) Bill “, nicknamed “hate speech bill”, has been the subject of numerous debates in Ireland for several months. Following the riots initiated by the far right after the knife attack on Thursday November 23, 2023 in Dublin, the bill returned to the forefront. The Irish Prime Minister announced want to “modernize [les] laws against incitement to hatred and hatred in general” in the coming weeks.
False or exaggerated statements
The first claim in the video is misleading. “No, the bill, as currently drafted, would not allow authorities to freely search homes to control individuals’ electronic devices,” said Kamel El Hilali, doctor of law at Paris Panthéon Assas University and associate researcher. at Yale, contacted by 20 minutes. “It should be remembered that this bill expressly limits this type of search to cases of incitement to hatred or violence, apology, negation or trivialization of genocide. »
As section 15 of the law Project, authorities must obtain a warrant from a judge before carrying out a search. “To do this, the authorities must demonstrate to the judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the evidence of the commission of an offense is found in a specific location,” explains the legal specialist, who also specifies that the Control of electronic devices that contain evidence of the offense is not new to searches. In addition, “it is a safe bet that this provision makes it possible to launch investigations and searches within companies more than among individuals,” indicates Kamel El Hilali.
Concerning the fact that this bill would implicitly threaten “independent journalism”, there too, nothing in the text allows us to assert this. For the doctor of law, “This is again an argument used to arouse unfounded fears against this bill. » The European Newsroom platform, which brings together European press agencies, has also already dedicated an article to deconstruct this statement.
Protections regarding freedom of expression
Limits are also included in the bill to guarantee freedom of expression. The intentional criterion, in particular, “is central to the bill”. Clearly: “the case of strictly private use, or personal use, is excluded here. […] The Irish authorities cannot prosecute individuals simply because they have content on their devices likely to incite violence or hatred,” specifies the doctor of law.
Section 10 discusses the exceptions concerning this offense, in particular if the comments relate to an academic/university, artistic, literary, political, religious or scientific dimension. “There is real protection for free speech in the text. Article 11 provides that the offense cannot be committed when the content (words, image, communication) or the behavior of the person involves debate (discussion) or criticism relating to protected categories (race, religion, ethnicity, etc.). )”, underlines the researcher.
A law to constrain tech multinationals?
Concerning the “hidden” objective of this bill according to the video, namely to force platforms to apply stricter rules in order to “avoid censorship”, here too the point must be put into perspective. As Kamel El Hilali reminds us, companies are already subject to the European Regulation on Digital Services (DSA), which requires them to “take measures and establish procedures (reporting, moderation, appeal of decisions) in order to delete illegal content (and in particular hateful content) when reported by Internet users. »
One of the new features concerns the recognition of the criminal liability of employees of tech companies in the event of inaction in the face of illegal content. But this responsibility is not easy to prove: “It is necessary to demonstrate the existence of negligence […] attribute it to an individual within the company […] and demonstrate that that person had an effective level of control and supervision at the time of the commission of the offense.”
Another new feature of the bill provides that the company can be prosecuted if it gave consent or was aware of an offense. “The sanction, however, is simply monetary; no prison sentence can be imposed against the employees or managers of the legal entity. »
What does the bill contain?
The bill aims to repeal a law existing since 1989 on the prohibition of incitement to hatred, in order to replace it. As indicated in the preamble to the bill, the latter aims to integrate the provisions of a decision adopted by the European Council in November 2008“on the fight against certain forms and manifestations of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law”.
The objective of the law is to create sanctions for inciting hatred against “protected characteristics”, of which there are ten: race, color, nationality, religion, ethnicity, descent, gender, sex characteristics, sexual orientation and disability.
Section 7 states that a person may be guilty of an offense if they communicate to the public or a section of the population material which is likely to incite violence or hatred, or if they behave in a public place in a way that is likely to call for violence or hatred. In both cases, the intention to incite violence or hatred must be established. The sentence is a maximum of 5 years.
Section 8 mentions an offense if a person communicates material to the population or part of the population or behaves in a public place in a way that advocates, negates or trivializes genocide. The penalty incurred is a maximum of one year in prison.
Finally, section 10 concerns the offense of preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred with a view to communicating it to the population, or of preparing or possessing material with the intention of inciting to violence or hatred. This offense is punishable by up to two years of imprisonment.
A bill that sparks debates and questions
Michael Shellenberger, author of the video, is not the only public figure to have taken a position on this bill. As recalled by the BBCElon Musk, for example, has announced last August that X was going to “take legal action to stop this”, while Donald Trump’s son also positioned himself against this bill.
Beyond the false claims and exaggerations, this bill is sparking debate and much discussion in Ireland. As Kamel El Hilali explains, section 15, which concerns search warrants, is the subject of criticism from several groups defending public liberties. “While these organizations welcome the progress that this bill represents, because it takes seriously the issues of incitement to hatred and violence against people in the age of social networks, these organizations consider that section 15 will too far. We can therefore criticize the scope of this provision without waving the red rag of totalitarian censorship. »