12 Seeking a


crucial balance in addressing hate speech


By Michael Foley Ireland’s incitement to hatred legislation dates


back to 1989. Think about that for a second: It was the year the


Berlin wall fell; there was still a Soviet Union, there was, of course, no Facebook or Twitter. There were only a handful of TV channels, and no streaming services. That was also the year when the first legal commercial radio went on air. The digital revolution had yet to arrive. Given that, one might say a review of the legislation is clearly an idea whose time has come. In fact it came some years ago, in 2000, when the then-Minister announced that a review was actually taking place in the Department of Justice on the effectiveness of the legislation. The Department must have found it was effective because we heard nothing of that review. Since that date there have been five prosecutions under the Act. There were none prior to that.


The present Minister has called for another review, this time a bit more open. There will be a consultation process and interested parties are to submit proposals and contribute to a workshop, which presumably will help shape new legislation. The NUJ has made its contribution and has tried to


strike that crucial balance between the harm that can be done by hate speech and defending freedom of expression: “As a union representing media workers, we have a strong commitment to defending the right to freedom of expression and would always be alert to the danger of the unintended consequences of inhibiting or curtailing press freedom in a manner which could be detrimental to democracy.” Our submission defends the right to, and the


protection of, robust political and social discourse with the need to promote respect for the dignity and autonomy of others. Any limitations to free speech are not about avoiding giving offence or curtailing the right to freely express an opinion, “but about seeking to prevent or to punish the abuse of the right to freedom of expression in a manner which has harmful consequences”. There is a self-interested reason why the NUJ should be involved in any discussion concerning hate speech. The International Federation of Journalists, to which we are a major affiliate, has been in the forefront of the Europe-wide ‘Media Against Hate’ campaign, which is seeking ways for the media to defend democracy against the growth of right-wing


Natasha Hirst, chair of the NUJ’s equality council.


populist extremists. We also know that journalists are one of the groups often subject to hate speech online, more often than not women journalists. The Guardian newspaper analysed its own comment section and found over a 10-year period that of the 10 most abused journalists, eight were women and the other two were black men. As Natasha Hirst, chair of the NUJ’s equality council, said in a video on the NUJ website, it was hugely concerning that people were being targeted based on their identity, gender, race or disability. The issue is one of censorship, but not as free speech libertarians might see it. Hate speech is itself a form of censorship, as its purpose is to silence those at whom it is directed. Whether through fear or actual harm, whether they are women journalists, ethnic, sexual or religious minorities, or people with disabilities, all can be silenced when they are the focus of hate speech. The Human Rights and Equality Commission, in its submission to the consultation process, recommended support and training for journalists as to the nature and dynamic of hate speech. It also said that “where hateful material is published by the press, the Commission supports the swift imposition of remedial action such as the publication of a correction, clarification or apology, a right of reply, or the amendment or deletion of hateful content online”. Alongside the present consultation process of the


legislation, journalists should also ensure our own codes and guidelines, as well as those of the Press Council and the BAI, are fit for purpose and that our members have internalised them. The NUJ’s submission does warn politicians that in finally confronting the failure of social media to address online abuse it does not compromise the rights of independent, ethical journalism. Journalism must not become “collateral damage in a belated attempt to enforce standards and compliance on social media conglomerates”.


Michael Foley is vice chair of the Ethics Council, where he represents the Republic of Ireland.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15