Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

"I will not comply with any legislation that seeks to control or compel my speech, and there is no law or government on earth that can change that." From my speech at the weekend about the threat to civil rights in the West, and Ireland's upcoming "hate speech" legislation.

Ben Scallan 🇮🇪

85,435 subscribers

145,383 views • 3 years ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Comments

Ben Scallan 🇮🇪3 years ago

Watch the full speech here:

Karen Luby3 years ago

Excellent Ben, thank you and well said! If we don't have the freedom to speak, we have nothing. @rte @IrishTimes @irishexaminer @NewstalkFM @HMcEnteech spee@MichealMartinTD @LeoVaradkar take note. This is what people want and are entitled to.

Gavin Thornton3 years ago

Only speaking what any normal person in Ireland is thinking well said young man 👏👏👏🤜

Padge3 years ago

Ben, is there any chance you could do a deep dive into the protest at the dail yesterday. Would be very interesting for know if there was any paid actors within the crowd.

Jim Dowson B.Th MA3 years ago

Good speech young sir.

Paddy O'Reilly3 years ago

It was a cracking speech Ben. Glad I was there to see it in real-time.

Melissa O Neill3 years ago

Well said Ben.

HenryC_19803 years ago

In fairness, a great speech

Maria3 years ago

Great speech 🔥🔥🔥

Jeannie 💚3 years ago

I stand with Ben ! Ireland is a free country we will have free speech

Related Videos

Dana White: We have to protect free speech. Piers Morgan: Is there any limit to that for you? Dana White: No. I think probably the most important free speech to protect is hate speech. I mean, because when a government or a certain person can come out and determine, say, 'this is hate speech,' it's a very slippery slope and it's dangerous, in my opinion.

Dana White: We have to protect free speech. Piers Morgan: Is there any limit to that for you? Dana White: No. I think probably the most important free speech to protect is hate speech. I mean, because when a government or a certain person can come out and determine, say, 'this is hate speech,' it's a very slippery slope and it's dangerous, in my opinion.

Jed I. Goodman ©

990,104 views • 1 year ago

Is this hate speech? Or is it speech that is the truth, that they now want to create a law that defines it as hate speech? Thoughts?

Is this hate speech? Or is it speech that is the truth, that they now want to create a law that defines it as hate speech? Thoughts?

BroBro🇦🇺🏇🏻

14,641 views • 8 months ago

The Irish government wants to pass a law that could see you or your loved ones jailed for possession of memes, cartoons or any content that could be deemed "hateful". The Bill includes no definition of hate and is wide open to abuse by bad actors. Defend free speech – say no to this legislation. Sign the petition: #BinTheBill

The Irish government wants to pass a law that could see you or your loved ones jailed for possession of memes, cartoons or any content that could be deemed "hateful". The Bill includes no definition of hate and is wide open to abuse by bad actors. Defend free speech – say no to this legislation. Sign the petition: #BinTheBill

Free Speech Ireland

19,583,269 views • 2 years ago

Breaking… Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announces new free speech legislation to ensure that professional regulatory bodies can no longer limit the speech of professionals or “compel Albertans to some official version of truth.” Very good. 👍

Breaking… Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announces new free speech legislation to ensure that professional regulatory bodies can no longer limit the speech of professionals or “compel Albertans to some official version of truth.” Very good. 👍

Paul Mitchell

170,213 views • 1 year ago

We have a Government smuggling a radical new definition of ‘gender’ into an already controversial hate speech law. The Government’s new definition of ‘gender’ is at odds with all previous definitions and with no basis in reality. Please see my press release below: See my twitter account for more thoughts on the hate speech legislation:

We have a Government smuggling a radical new definition of ‘gender’ into an already controversial hate speech law. The Government’s new definition of ‘gender’ is at odds with all previous definitions and with no basis in reality. Please see my press release below: See my twitter account for more thoughts on the hate speech legislation:

Senator Rónán Mullen

54,136 views • 3 years ago

Maria Steen eloquently destroys Micheál Martin and the government's false assertion that Constitutional change will not bring about changes to legislation in areas such as succession law, immigration law, social welfare law and so forth. Legislation can be amended and overhauled by the government. The government are under a duty to ensure that existing and new legislation does not conflict with our Constitution. Legislation is open to challenge in the courts if Constitutional changes are implemented that conflict with current laws. Indeed, by removing Article 41.2 mothers are left at the mercy of successive governments who can reduce or erode protections and benefits so that she can care for her children at home, as enshrined in our Constitution. We should be fighting for MORE rights for mothers to care for their children at home, NOT cancel those rights as enshrined in our Constitution. Extending the definition of a family to a 'durable relationship' will have a significant impact on existing and new legislation. Do NOT trust the government. #VoteNoNo

Maria Steen eloquently destroys Micheál Martin and the government's false assertion that Constitutional change will not bring about changes to legislation in areas such as succession law, immigration law, social welfare law and so forth. Legislation can be amended and overhauled by the government. The government are under a duty to ensure that existing and new legislation does not conflict with our Constitution. Legislation is open to challenge in the courts if Constitutional changes are implemented that conflict with current laws. Indeed, by removing Article 41.2 mothers are left at the mercy of successive governments who can reduce or erode protections and benefits so that she can care for her children at home, as enshrined in our Constitution. We should be fighting for MORE rights for mothers to care for their children at home, NOT cancel those rights as enshrined in our Constitution. Extending the definition of a family to a 'durable relationship' will have a significant impact on existing and new legislation. Do NOT trust the government. #VoteNoNo

Lawyers For Justice Ireland

607,433 views • 2 years ago

Free speech is not for the speech you like or for the people you like. Free speech is for the speech that you hate of the people you despise. If you're for free speech, you have to be for their free speech, or else you're not for free speech. You're for the government breaking the constitution. Full Video:

Free speech is not for the speech you like or for the people you like. Free speech is for the speech that you hate of the people you despise. If you're for free speech, you have to be for their free speech, or else you're not for free speech. You're for the government breaking the constitution. Full Video:

Jimmy Dore

69,678 views • 1 year ago

Even Tucker Carlson is raising awareness that California is ending Free Speech with passed legislation Elon Musk needs to be aware of this “The state of California — has passed a law in the state legislature, both chambers of the state legislature, it awaits a signature from Gavin Newsom, that would ban hate speech on the internet in California. Hate speech. Now, how do they define hate speech? I actually have the definition. I actually wrote it down because I was so shocked by it that this is happening. The state of California, if Gavin Newsom signs this law, and he has until October 13th to do it, he, people will be fined if the censors determine that speech constitutes, and we're quoting now, "Violence, intimidation, or coercion..." What's intimidation or coercion — coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics. Obviously, white Christian men are not covered under that - The state of California under Gavin Newsom is about to, we think, censor the opinions of Americans. Not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they can continue to do what they want to do in secret.” This new law will impose millions and millions of dollars in fines forcing social media companies to censor what California Democrats define as hate speech

Even Tucker Carlson is raising awareness that California is ending Free Speech with passed legislation Elon Musk needs to be aware of this “The state of California — has passed a law in the state legislature, both chambers of the state legislature, it awaits a signature from Gavin Newsom, that would ban hate speech on the internet in California. Hate speech. Now, how do they define hate speech? I actually have the definition. I actually wrote it down because I was so shocked by it that this is happening. The state of California, if Gavin Newsom signs this law, and he has until October 13th to do it, he, people will be fined if the censors determine that speech constitutes, and we're quoting now, "Violence, intimidation, or coercion..." What's intimidation or coercion — coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics. Obviously, white Christian men are not covered under that - The state of California under Gavin Newsom is about to, we think, censor the opinions of Americans. Not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they can continue to do what they want to do in secret.” This new law will impose millions and millions of dollars in fines forcing social media companies to censor what California Democrats define as hate speech

Wall Street Apes

867,001 views • 11 months ago

Yesterday in Canberra, the Albanese government released legislation to deliver a so called "Digital Duty of Care.". This is not about care. It is about control. It's about internet censorship. Everyone needs to understand that free speech is gravely threatened if this becomes law.

Yesterday in Canberra, the Albanese government released legislation to deliver a so called "Digital Duty of Care.". This is not about care. It is about control. It's about internet censorship. Everyone needs to understand that free speech is gravely threatened if this becomes law.

Rn_Lilydale

43,798 views • 4 days ago

Aontú questioned the government on Hate Speech legislation today. This is a big breakthrough. Aontú was the only party in the Dáil to oppose hate speech fully. Now the government has said they won't pursue it.

Aontú questioned the government on Hate Speech legislation today. This is a big breakthrough. Aontú was the only party in the Dáil to oppose hate speech fully. Now the government has said they won't pursue it.

Peadar Tóibín TD

34,349 views • 11 months ago

It was hate speech and propaganda that incited violence against the Tutsi, and today we continue to see hate speech propagated online. I promise to use my platform to say no to hate speech and support reconciliation. #NeverAgain

It was hate speech and propaganda that incited violence against the Tutsi, and today we continue to see hate speech propagated online. I promise to use my platform to say no to hate speech and support reconciliation. #NeverAgain

Arielle Kayabaga 🇨🇦

220,773 views • 3 years ago

The first amendment does not exist to protect polite speech that everyone agrees with. It exists to protect speech that people - or the government - find “offensive.” That’s the whole point. And that protection extends to Shiloh Hendrix.

The first amendment does not exist to protect polite speech that everyone agrees with. It exists to protect speech that people - or the government - find “offensive.” That’s the whole point. And that protection extends to Shiloh Hendrix.

Brittany Hughes

25,078 views • 1 month ago

Karnatka's Hate Speech Bill: Congress government in Karnataka has tabled a bill that claims to curb hate speech, but it attempts to risk free speech! The wording of the bill is vague and open to interpretation, which means even ordinary statements could be judged as ill will and lead to serious criminal action. India already has laws to deal with hate speech, and even the Supreme Court has said that the real problem is weak enforcement, not the absence of law. When the line between free speech and crime becomes unclear, people begin to self censor out of fear rather than responsibility!

Karnatka's Hate Speech Bill: Congress government in Karnataka has tabled a bill that claims to curb hate speech, but it attempts to risk free speech! The wording of the bill is vague and open to interpretation, which means even ordinary statements could be judged as ill will and lead to serious criminal action. India already has laws to deal with hate speech, and even the Supreme Court has said that the real problem is weak enforcement, not the absence of law. When the line between free speech and crime becomes unclear, people begin to self censor out of fear rather than responsibility!

Praffulgarg

11,269 views • 9 months ago