Free speech:not in our constitution

[drkpower]

Absent legislation the issue of "no free speech that undermines the public order" wouldn't even arise

However if the government passed a new bill, in line with Bunreacht, as they did for Blasphemy, that would tie the SC's hands.

Not sure what you mean by the above.

Legislation can very rarely 'tie the SC's hands'. The consititution is (almost) all about balancing of rights, so even if the Gov enacted a law restricting freedom of sppech on the basis of 'public order' or 'morality', it could still be struck down as being unconstitutional if the SC believe that the balance it strikes is unconstitutional.

[cyberianpan]

Not sure what you mean by the above.

Legislation can very rarely 'tie the SC's hands'. The consititution is (almost) all about balancing of rights, so even if the Gov enacted a law restricting freedom of sppech on the basis of 'public order' or 'morality', it could still be struck down as being unconstitutional if the SC believe that the balance it strikes is unconstitutional.

There was no workable offense of blasphemy until Dermot Ahern's Act.

The first draft of his bill was constitutional - and had that come into play: we'd have had blasphemy prosecutions. Lucky Bono, Gormley et al had it toned down.

Similarly if new statute was passed for this "Public order" stuff.. and it was in line with Bunreacht:

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.

Then things would not be so good - the SC can't ignore a constitutional Act (though if you recall they ruled on Blasphemy before , and said they could ignore it due to absence of adequate primary legislation that defined it properly)

cYp

[drkpower]

Similarly if new statute was passed for this "Public order" stuff.. and it was in line with Bunreacht:

The point is that the SC decides if it is 'in line with' the Constitution. They decide what each piece of text means and whether a piece of legislation is consistent with that meaning. The SC's hands are very rarely tied.

Blasphemy is a good example - who would have thought that the offence of blasphemy, specifically voted for by the people, was actually not an offence at all, simply because it wasnt defined by the legislature. The SC could have easily defined it (like they have defined many constirutional words) - but they chose not to. Because they didnt want to!

the SC can't ignore a constitutional Act

No; but they decide if the Act is constitutional in the first place; not the Gov.

[cyberianpan]

The point is that the SC decides if it is 'in line with' the Constitution. They decide what each piece of text means and whether a piece of legislation is consistent with that meaning. The SC's hands are very rarely tied.

No; but they decide if the Act is constitutional in the first place; not the Gov.

They do... and the first draft of the blasphemy bill was constitutional (and horrid)

Blasphemy is a good example - who would have thought that the offence of blasphemy, specifically voted for by the people, was actually not an offence at all, simply because it wasnt defined by the legislature. The SC could have easily defined it (like they have defined many constirutional words) - but they chose not to. Because they didnt want to!

They did... which is my point.

An Act ties their hands...

cYp

[Foghorn]

So free speech except for anything that undermines:
public order : possibly reasonable but wide interprative leeway
morality: bit fuzzy ?
authority of the State: possibly reasonable but wide interprative leeway

seditious: possibly reasonable but wide interprative leeway
blasphemous: huh
indecent matter

Of course people will say that "sure look at all the dirty mags & Monty Python is allowed now" and yes I think it highly unlikely that Ireland will slide into a tyranny but fact is that our "free speech" is far from guaranteed. How can we explain to any African country what proper statehood is with these relics in Bunreacht ?

Compare to the US:


cYp

Actually it is a bit of misconception. The Bill of Rights only restricts Congress from restricting Freedom of Speech - it doesn't guarantee it. According to Political Philosopher and Professor at Harvard, Michael Sandel (Michael Sandel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), the architects of the Constitution had an opinion that the Federal Govt should restrict only such items as absolutely necessary - Govt was a necessary evil if you will - but they didn't restrict Freedom of Speech at Federal level because they figured that it could be restricted by the states individually. That was the overriding principle of the Constitution, give to Federal Govt only the power it needed to do its job. But that did not mean that Freedom of Speech was guaranteed or that all speech was valued.

Just one of those quirks of history (of which there are many) that didn't work out as expected and became successful as a result of not being successful.

In fact from my reading on this matter I would surmise that the US founding fathers would not have deemed all speech worthy of equal value. They had a highly principled aspiration for Citizens. Their conception of Citizenship meant that Citizens must be of good moral character, educated, participate in a lifestyle that was consistent with a good life (they saw this as farming) and not be slaves to work (so as to have time to debate issues and not to be overly dependent on wages - a waged man is a slave by other means according to early Republican ideals).

It is a strange twist of history that any liberal could agree with US Republican principles of freedom as if they were entirely understood, and the judgemental nature of the Good Life that they expressed were clear, they represent entirely the politics that Liberals despise most.

[Christine Murray]

So free speech except for anything that undermines:
public order : possibly reasonable but wide interprative leeway
morality: bit fuzzy ?
authority of the State: possibly reasonable but wide interprative leeway

seditious: possibly reasonable but wide interprative leeway
blasphemous: huh
indecent matter

Of course people will say that "sure look at all the dirty mags & Monty Python is allowed now" and yes I think it highly unlikely that Ireland will slide into a tyranny but fact is that our "free speech" is far from guaranteed. How can we explain to any African country what proper statehood is with these relics in Bunreacht ?

Compare to the US:


cYp

Interesting, I wonder if reducing Free-speech through legislative instruments is part and parcel of the
wholly disliked policies of modern-western governments? Both the UK and Irish governments have
encountered (and rightly) campaigns opposed to what they'd term *Reform*-

In the UK , PEN, most of the Media and bloggers/artists have been opposing Jack Straws risible attempt
(post Trafigura) to snip away at Free speech (cf Libel Reform Campaign - Free Speech Is Not For Sale)
and here Ahern enacted the Blasphemy clause under the 2006 Defamation legislation.

Neither was advised and both were opposed on multiple levels but they feel they have licence to do so!
So are defamation and libel laws cutting away our rights to Free-speech and indeed Publication ?

This link has discussion on the Irish problem : Referendum on blasphemy should revise free speech clause - The Irish Times - Mon, Mar 22, 2010

[drkpower]

They do... and the first draft of the blasphemy bill was constitutional (and horrid)

How do you know that....? The point is, you dont. Even though the constitution prescribes that blasphemy is an offence, the SC could decide that the Act elaborating on that offence is unconstitutional as it unduly and unreasonably interferes with other rights within or imported into our constitution (ie. unenumerated rights).

Your initial suggestion was that, based on a reading of the text of our free speech article (versus the US one), our protection of free speech is incomplete. The point (again....) is that you are missing the point. Any constitution limited in text can be (and is) interpreted in a myriad of ways. It is dependent on a number of other things, most notably the effect of the rest of the constitution. The really important factor is the views of the SC. They can turn a seemingly restrictive piece of text into a liberal feast - or vice versa.

They did... which is my point.

An Act ties their hands...

What Act tied their hands?