Freedom of Speech

tolosenc

Hi,

Could anyone point me to the Irish equivalent of the 1st Amendment to the constitution of the USA? I've been wondering to what extent we actually have freedom of expression in this country.

Thanks.

blueythebear

tolosenc wrote: »

Hi,

Could anyone point me to the Irish equivalent of the 1st Amendment to the constitution of the USA? I've been wondering to what extent we actually have freedom of expression in this country.

Thanks.

Article 40.6.1 i) of the Constitution

6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
This is subject to the expression not undermining public order, morality or the authority of the State.

FreudianSlippers

Excuse it being wikisource (some people get a bit :rolleyes: about it, but it's accurate) but here is the link.

Article 40.6.1:

The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

There is the qualification of criminality of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" material, which I always find to be a massive impingement on the so-called freedom.

Of course, whether or not that is in line with the European Convention on Human Rights (brought into law but antecedent to the Constitution by the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003) - see Article 10. Similarly though, there is a "protection of health or morals" in this too, so likely it is mostly in line with the ECHR.

FreudianSlippers

blueythebear wrote: »

Article 40.6.1 i) of the Constitution

6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
This is subject to the expression not undermining public order, morality or the authority of the State.

Beat me

Wolfe Tone

Whats the definition of seditious and indecent matter?


I know blasphemy is "matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

FreudianSlippers

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Whats the definition of seditious and indecent matter?


I know blasphemy is "matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

Well sedition is any conduct which is deemed to be anti-establishment or of an insurrectious (not a word, but oh well) nature.

Indecent could literally be anything I'd imagine.

I'm very pro reform in this matter as is probably clear

blueythebear

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well sedition is any conduct which is deemed to be anti-establishment or of an insurrectious (not a word, but oh well) nature.

Indecent could literally be anything I'd imagine.

I'm very pro reform in this matter as is probably clear

The Constitution states that the publication or utterance of i) blasphemous, ii) seditious and iii) indecent matter is an offence punishable by law.

S36 of the Defamation Act 2009 criminalises i) and iii) appears to be controlled by censorship of publications act and censorship of films act.

S35 of the Defamation Act 2009 abolishes the common law offence of seditious libel but does that cover seditious utterances as a whole?

FreudianSlippers

blueythebear wrote: »

The Constitution states that the publication or utterance of i) blasphemous, ii) seditious and iii) indecent matter is an offence punishable by law.

S36 of the Defamation Act 2009 criminalises i) and iii) appears to be controlled by censorship of publications act and censorship of films act.

S35 of the Defamation Act 2009 abolishes the common law offence of seditious libel but does that cover seditious utterances as a whole?

No, it's my understanding that we'd need a referendum to do away with that - since it's clear in the Constitution.

blueythebear

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, it's my understanding that we'd need a referendum to do away with that - since it's clear in the Constitution.

So in recent days, there would be a lot of people (including myself) who could be guilty of uttering seditious material and liable for an undefined offence with an undefined penalty. I've lost count of how many times I've heard people saying to kick the m***ets out of the Dail (and they weren't talking about lawful democratic elections!).

I believe it's a common law offence but has anyone ever been prosecuted in this country for it? As in post independence?

Wolfe Tone

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well sedition is any conduct which is deemed to be anti-establishment or of an insurrectious (not a word, but oh well) nature.

Indecent could literally be anything I'd imagine.

I'm very pro reform in this matter as is probably clear

Is any of that legislated for?

I would be pro reform here myself. Makes a mockery of free speech.

krd

Is the seditious speech law ever actually used?

I've never heard of shinners being sent to jail for seditious speech. A few decades back they were very seditious. For a long while the provos didn't even recognise the Dail.

I've seen plenty of statements on various boards that could be breeches of the law. I think a few people in England have been prosecuted for inciting hatred or terrorism, on bulletin boards. In general, people have been able to get away with murder.

FreudianSlippers

My understanding of the situation is as follows.

1999, Supreme Court in Corway v. Independent Newspapers holds that without there being a statutory definition of blasphemy, "it is impossible to say of what the offence of blasphemy consists."
Furthermore that this was possibly contrary to Article 7 of the ECHR... this effectively made blasphemy and sedition criminal legislation worthless.

Fast forward to 2009 and we have Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern saying there is a "constitutional obligation and imperative on me not to leave a legal void … It is not just me as Minister; the Oireachtas is not entitled under the Constitution to leave that legal void" - referring to the legislative hole in not complying with Art 40.6.1

A few people in government suggest adding to Lisbon (2) the repeal of this provision of Art 40.6.1, since we were already having a referendum. IMO this seemed like a no-brainer... but Mr Ahern felt otherwise and for some crazy reason abolished the common law offence of sedition while placing blasphemy as a statutory offence.
Both are equally bad in the Constitution, so why is one legal and one isn't?

So sedition is still an offence, Constitutionally... will it ever be used? not likely... but it, as well as our blasphemy laws, are making us look pathetic and a laughing stock in the modern western world IMO.

Wolfe Tone

Along with fixing up article 44, make it secular and article 41 section 2. Im sure there are more stupid bits.