TRIGGERnometry - Why We Should Abolish Hate Speech Laws - Andrew Doyle

Episode Date: April 12, 2024

The state has no right to police our thoughts and words. Adapted from Andrew’s Substack. This and other articles will be made available there first. https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/ Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! https://triggernometry.locals.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here:  Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailing... Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  @triggerpod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Not loving your AT&T or T Mobile Bill? Yeah, we've been hearing that a lot. Good news. Bring your AT&T or T Mobile Bill to Verizon and we'll give you a better deal. So get away from that unfortunate phone bill and get to Verizon. Run, ride, canoe. Whatever it takes, we'll be here. Bring your AT&T or T Mobile Bill to a Verizon store today

and we'll give you a better deal on the best network. A better deal. No surprises. That's Verizon. Best Network based on Route Metrics, Best Overall Mobile Network Performing U.S. Second Half 2025. All rights reserved. It must provide a recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person

for giving me the deal. Additional Terms, Conditions, and Restrictions Apply. Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money, whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings. There's a money side to every story. Get the money side of the story.

Subscribe now at Bloomberg.com. Since when did it become the business of the state to audit our emotions? In effect, this is precisely what's happening by means of the various hate speech laws that have been implemented throughout Europe in recent years. In Ireland, the imminent criminal justice, bill would represent one of the most draconian forms of hate speech legislation yet produced.

And how is hatred defined in the bill? Well, the following is a direct quotation. Hatred means hatred against a person or a group of persons in the state or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics. So hatred means hatred. Glad we cleared that up. This kind of circular definition is what we've come to expect from legislators when it comes to this most nebulous of concepts. In his book censored, Paul Coleman helpfully includes all of the existing legislation on hatred from across Europe. And in doing so, he reveals that no two governments are able to agree on its meaning. In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights concluded

that there is no universally accepted definition of the expression hate speech. And a manual published by UNESCO in 2015 accepted that the possibility of reaching a universally shared definition seems unlikely. When it comes to the statute books, one would have thought that precision and detail would be of paramount importance. After all, we've seen how vaguely worded legislation is wide open to exploitation. Consider, for instance, how trans rights activists are now claiming that the reference to sex in the Equality Act 2010 connotes a sense of gender identity rather than, you know, the biological designations of male and female. If the state is empowered to imprison its citizens on the basis of hatred, surely we need to know what that means.

Hatred, like any other emotion, cannot be legislated out of existence. Will we be seeing laws against envious speech on the statute books? And what about codes against Roth or pride? If the government were to prohibit narcissistic speech, most of the flag-waving pronoun declaring gender ideologues would have to be incarcerated. And while this would doubtless create a much more sane and serene society, it would also involve the obliteration of our fundamental values. As for hate crimes, there is no need for mind reading in order to determine the appropriate punishment. If I am physically assaulted, it makes little difference to me if the assailant was motivated by homophobia. I would prefer the sentence to reflect the crime itself, not to be

moderated according to speculations about the perpetrator's private thoughts. The state should have absolutely no licence to probe inside our heads any more than implore. should insist on compulsory unconscious bias training. In a free society, we are entitled to think and feel as we see fit. And so long as that does not interfere with the liberties of others, that includes the right to hate. But even if one were to accept the premise that the state must crack down on hateful thoughts, which I most assuredly do not, hate speech legislation is wholly ineffective. Censorship of hateful ideas does not cause them to disappear. It drives them underground, where they confess to unchallenged. Moreover, hate speech laws are easily weaponised

by activists seeking to silence their political opponents. For example, in the UK, we have seen people arrested for misgendering, that is to say, for accurately identifying the sex of another person. The journalist Caroline Farrow was investigated by police for six months after an appearance on Good Morning Britain. According to a complainant, Farrow had referred to another contributor's female identifying child with a male pronoun during a conversation that took place off-air. And although such instances have not led to convictions, we all know that the process is the punishment. As one who has received my fair share of abuse online, I understand that free speech has its downsides. But I choose to ignore those of the obnoxious and

hateful ilk rather than call for them to be censored. The price we pay for living in a free society is that unpleasant people are going to say unpleasant things. But their right to do so is precisely the same right that allows us to counter them. If we attempt to silence even our most abusive critics, we are essentially surrendering our principles at their behest. No doubt the trans-identifying individual who is described as a faggot with tits in a recent case in Spain didn't relish the experience, but it should concern us all that the state has intervened and sentenced the woman who posted the offending words to six months in prison suspended on condition of the payment of a 3,850 euro fine. In addition, she's been banned from employment in teaching in sports for three

and a half years. This is the very definition of authoritarian overreach. Those who are skeptical of gender identity ideology are particularly susceptible to the misapplication of hate speech laws, and there is no way of knowing which other beliefs will eventually be criminalised. Once a state has outlawed hatred and failed to define it, the law becomes a cudgel to beat anyone who holds heterodox points of view. Who is to say. say that a future government might not deem it hateful to criticize its policies. What starts with the chilling of free speech ends with the criminalisation of dissent. A new law in Canada, for instance, Bill C-63, empowers the state to imprison a citizen for life for advocating genocide. But of course,

activists and even politicians have insisted that claiming biological sex is real and immutable is a form of transgenocide. In the hands of authoritarian, these words, are very slippery, they can mean whatever they want them to mean. And that's why we should be so worried about free speech in Ireland. Last year, the Irish Green Party Senator Pauline O'Reilly made no effort to disguise the authoritarian nature of the new bill. That's exactly what we're doing here, is we are restricting freedom, but we're doing it for the common good.

Hasn't every tyrant in history made an identical claim? In her speech, O'Reilly invoked the notion of safety to justify state censorship. If your views on other people's identities go to make their lives unsafe, insecure, and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, she said, then I believe it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms. Well, it's a common tactic of activists to claim that certain opinions make them feel unsafe as a means to provoke a sensorial response, either from employers or from the state. But this is linguistic sleight of hand. And the strategy has been remarkably effective, the Irish hate speech bill goes further than most of its equivalence

in European countries. It will give the state the right to prosecute those who cause offence under the catch-all of inciting hatred, and those found guilty could face up to five years in prison. Even more worryingly, a citizen can be jailed for two years simply if they prepare or possess material that could potentially incite hatred. So if you have a gender-critical, meme on your iPhone, that could be sufficient to see you in jail. In the UK, hate speech laws exist in the form of the Public Order Act, 1986, and the Communications Act 2003. 3,000 people are arrested each year in the UK for comments posted online that have been deemed offensive, and in some cases have even been imprisoned for jokes. If we're going to tackle this problem,

we might start by repealing Section 127 of the Communications Act, which criminalises online speech that can be deemed grossly offensive. Of course, no attempt is ever made to define grossly offensive in the legislation, so anyone can be vulnerable. In Scotland, the situation is even graver. When First Minister Humza Yusuf was Justice Secretary, he was instrumental in the passing of the Hate Crime and Public Order Act, and disturbingly, these new laws can see citizens prosecuted for words that they have uttered in the privacy of their own homes. I'm reminded of a speech by William Pitt, the elder delivered in the House of Commons in March 1763. The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown.

It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter. All his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. Evidently, these sentiments would not be echoed by the SMP. Given that hatred and offence are entirely substantial, subjective concepts, we should be resisting any attempt to codify in law restrictions against them. No two figures of authority will interpret these terms in the same way. And as human beings with frailties and biases, they will doubtless be tempted to wield such laws against their detractors.

If the state is willing to dispense with our right to free expression, there can be no guarantees for any of us. Hate speech laws are an affront to human liberty. It's time to ditch them for good. This video is available as an article on my substack, and this and other articles will be available there first, so make sure to head on over there now and subscribe.