Irish Blasphemy

Here’s an Op-Ed I’ve written about a new law passed in Ireland regarding blasphemy. Be afraid.

 

Under the guise of promoting religious tolerance, Ireland has enacted a draconian defamation law that seems more at home in a Middle Eastern theocracy than a Western developed democracy.

 The reasons for the sudden passage are unclear, but a new law has been enacted that criminalizes “the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent material.” It is true that Ireland’s constitution requires a law that expressly prohibits blasphemous speech, but such a law has not existed for decades.

 In fact, there have been some calls across Ireland, especially since the new law was first proposed, to amend Ireland’s constitution in order to remove the section requiring such a law. There will even be a popular referendum later in the year on an unrelated matter, so the cost of adding a proposal to amend the Constitution in this manner would be essentially zero for the government.

 And while political commentators must always be wary of cultural imperialism when evaluating foreign practices, it can safely be concluded that the new law is an unacceptable infringement on the rights of Ireland’s citizens. We in the United States have long recognized the right to free speech and the positive social results (with a few historical exceptions), but it appears that not everyone is aware of the benefits.

 Not only does the marketplace of ideas enhance political and intellectual discourse, but it is also an essential right of a free people capable of expressing their beliefs. There are a host of reasons to fear any law that restricts speech, but one can even challenge this law on the ground that it its vagueness will chill speech even amongst the innocent.

Ever since America enshrined speech in the Bill of Rights as one of our basic freedoms, there has been debate over what constitutes “protected speech” and what laws violate such speech. There is a general consensus, and the Supreme Court has agreed, that even laws that “chill” speech are at odds with a free people. These are laws that may not prohibit speech per se, but still have the effect of reducing the amount of speech that citizens engage in.

 Since the Irish law is so murky, citizens will be far less likely to express themselves on any controversial issue for fear of running afoul of the Court. And if this protection extends to members of the government, it can then be used as a cudgel to silence members of the opposition who criticize the current administration.

 However, the most unsettling element of this legislation is not the effect it will have on Irish citizens, but what it bodes for the rest of the world. We are living in an increasingly sensitive world, where criticism of any kind is met with shrill denunciations of intolerance and prejudice. The list of unmentionable subjects is growing longer every day, as more groups realize that reasonable members of the public can be effectively silenced by defensive hysteria.

 Outright prejudice and hatred certainly still exist, and these should be fought by responsible people everywhere. But it is crucial to remember that just because an idea is unpopular, it cannot be assumed to be without merit. Even if we find the views of others immoral and reprehensible, we must use reason to persuade them, not government coercion. After all, we all run the risk of upsetting the majority on some issues.

 While some of Ireland’s citizens are fighting this repressive legislation, far too many accept it. Free people the world over should be denouncing this law, but the newspapers are oddly quite. Until concerned citizens make it their priority to resist this form of tyranny, government will continue to whittle away our freedoms. We can only hope that when this idea is eventually imported by our Congress, Americans will be more vocal in their outrage.

Cash for Clunkers, an anecdote

Jeff’s absolutely right about the cash for clunkers program: it creates an incentive for people to sell their cars to dealerships when they would have sold it to someone else. I’m one of those people.

I’ve been driving around my parents’ old 1995 Ford Explorer that had 225,000 miles on it but. But it has been maintained well and ran quite nicely. It actually would have been a great, cheap car for someone who only needs transportation to get to and from work.

But along came the government.

I  have been thinking about getting a new car for a while. I don’t actually need a big SUV and was planning on buying a sedan. My dad called me when he heard about the cash for clunkers program and suggested I take advantage of it. Since I am not at home right now (where my car is), he said he would be willing to trade in the car and co-sign on a new one.

Why act now and not wait until I get home? Well the government set aside a limited amount of money and if I had waited I may not have been able to take advantage of the program. So after deciding I could afford a new car, we went ahead and bought a 2010 Toyota Corolla.

I was never going to get $4,500 (plus trade-in value) for my old car. Heck, I would have been happy with half that. And I am sure someone would have been willing to pay me that asking price. But instead my old car is going to be scrap metal. I was looking at getting a new car and taking advantage of this program was good economics.

My dad half-jokingly referred to what we did as “misusing taxpayer money,” which raises a question I’ll address in my next post: should libertarians take advantage of programs that we disagree with (and know are wrong)?