Following widespread criticism from free speech advocates, including X owner Elon Musk, the Irish government is dropping portions of its controversial hate speech laws. These laws, which have drawn comparisons to the concept of “thoughtcrime” from George Orwell’s “1984,” would have allowed for the imprisonment of individuals simply for possessing material that criticizes protected characteristics like gender identity or national origin.

Irish Justice Minister Helen McEntee announced the removal of components related to incitement to hatred or violence from the proposed hate speech bill, as reported by RTÉ News.

The bill, officially titled the Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences bill, had already passed through the Dáil (Ireland’s lower house) but faced delays in the Senate (upper house). McEntee stated that the most contentious provisions are being removed and that legislation focusing on stricter penalties for physical hate crimes will proceed.

“The incitement-to-hatred element [of the bill] does not have a consensus, so that will be dealt with at a later stage,” McEntee explained to RTÉ News.

“This will send a very clear message: if you attack a person, if you commit a crime against a person or a group of people, simply because of who they are, the color of their skin, where they have come from, there will be a tougher sentence, a harsher sentence at the end of the day,” McEntee emphasized.

“I am adamant that hate crime legislation will be enacted,” she added.

The removal of the incitement measures is considered a partial victory for free speech advocates.

The hate speech bill faced opposition from within the government and the opposition party. While Sinn Féin, Ireland’s main opposition party, initially voted in favor of the bill, they later called for its complete removal.

Many online users argued that the legislation was intentionally vague and suggested that individuals could face imprisonment for possessing certain memes on their phones or simply being found in possession of books or videos deemed politically offensive.

Musk, who promised to fund the legal fees of Irish citizens challenging the bill, brought international attention to the legislation. He emphasized the importance of free speech in a democracy, stating, “You have to be able to speak your mind within the context of the law: without that you don’t have a real democracy.” He pledged to defend the Irish people’s right to free speech, given that Twitter’s European headquarters is located in Dublin.

Irish MMA fighter Conor McGregor also supported Musk’s efforts, declaring, “We, the people of Ireland, will never tolerate any draconian/corruptible bills being passed into law here. We will not tolerate the attempted removal of our right to speak our minds and engage in fair, honest debate.”

“A silly and weak attempt to silence opposition opinion is what this is and WE SAY NO! We will fight this all the way if it is attempted to be pushed forward. We will fight it and we will win. Thank you Elon, as we say in Ireland, fair play!” McGregor added.

Senator Pauline O’Reilly of the Green Party, a coalition partner in the government, drew criticism for stating that the hate speech bill was about restricting freedom “for the common good.” She argued that constitutional rights can be limited in the interest of the common good, particularly when views on identity create an unsafe environment for others.

The Irish government claimed that it was inspired to act on the hate speech legislation after experiencing riots in the city of Dublin. The riots were sparked by the arrest of an Algerian-born man accused of stabbing a woman and three children outside a primary school. These incidents occurred amidst concerns over migrant-related crime in the country.

Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International and author of the book “Censored,” asserted that it is the government’s responsibility to protect free speech, not suppress it.

“In any democracy, there must be space for disagreement. Ireland’s draconian proposal to ban ‘hate speech’ — something the government refuses to define — will have severe implications for the basic human right to free expression in the public square,” Coleman stated.

“It’s clear that where ‘hate speech’ laws have been introduced, the result is a severe crackdown on peaceful expression.” 

Coleman cited the case of Finnish parliamentarian and grandmother Paivi Rasanen, who faced criminal charges for expressing her faith-based beliefs about human sexuality and posting a Bible verse on X that supported her views.

’ Brianna Herlihy, Danielle Wallace and Alexander Hall contributed to this report.