Here's the News: Ireland Just SHOCKED The World And Elon Is FIGHTING BACK!
As Elon Musk pledges to fund any Irish legal challenges to hate speech legislation, is Ireland on the verge of criminalising speech that would ordinarily be regarded merely as rude or controversial – and more worrying, is this just a pilot for laws that will be enacted around the globe?--💙Support this channel directly here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportWATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble: https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumbleVisit the new merch store: https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-StoreFollow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello there you Awakening Wonders on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you download your podcasts.
We really appreciate you, our listeners, and want to bring you more content.
We will be delivering a podcast every day, seven days a week, every single day.
You'll get a detailed breakdown of current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, but if they are covering, they're amplifying establishment messages and not telling you the truth.
Once a week we bring you in-depth conversations with guests like Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate and many more.
Now enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Remember, there's an episode every single day to educate and elevate our consciousness together.
Stay free and enjoy the episode.
No, here's the fucking news!
Hello there you Awakening Wanderers, thanks for joining us on our voyage to truth and freedom.
Remember, if you become a supporter of our content, you get access to conversations we have with Vandana Shiva, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Schellenberger, proper journalists and thought leaders, and you can ask them your own questions so we can participate in a conversation together, as well as get an exclusive access to our conversation with Tucker Carlson, which was pretty bloody great and you all loved.
And we do need to create a movement, because let's face it, whether it's Canada with weird assisted suicide laws or Australia with their pandemic internment camps or now Ireland proposing hate speech laws that will turn just controversial language or rudeness into hate speech and therefore make it a criminal offence with very vague definitions around what constitutes hate speech.
It seems to me that globalism is becoming Yet more potent, yet more priapic, yet more certain in their ideological right to control your thought, the information you'll have access to, the things you can freely say, the type of relationships you might have, the sort of information that you can consume online.
All of this is under threat and it's pretty bloody serious.
And it's being presented as if it's sort of no big deal and we've done some polling and it's all going to be okay.
You should see this dude prevaricating on the point of polling.
We polled some people on hate speech and what did you discover?
They don't like hate speech.
So are you going to implement that?
No.
Well what's the point in holding the poll then?
Well, democracy innit?
But you're ignoring the democracy.
No.
You are though!
Look at this!
This is the kind of double speak that we're seeing more and more of as the world slides into an Orwellian hellscape.
Taoiseach, your government conducted a public consultation regarding hate speech laws where citizens were asked to give their thoughts on the issue, and out of the thousands of responses from private individuals, over 70% were not supportive of such laws.
All these leaders that look kind of nice, and seem kind of nice, and you can tell they'll be really reasonable, and like, oh hello, no you're most welcome.
Then you listen to them, they're passing mad weird laws.
They feel someone that spoke like this, WE ARE GOING TO DO WHAT IS NE- You go, mate, Jesus Christ!
Just everyone's being so reasonable, they're getting away with sometimes literal murder, and always nearly tyranny.
And yet you're proceeding with them anyway.
So my question is, why did your government bother to do a public consultation if you were just going to ignore the results?
Reasonable question.
Why do a public consultation if you're going to ignore the results?
Let's see the answer to that reasonable question.
Well, we do public consultations because we think they're good practice.
It's a way to find out what people's thoughts are.
And then ignore it!
On issues.
And it's also, you know, a way to flesh out and highlight some of the issues we may not have considered.
And then ignore them!
But we're also, you know, wise to the fact that the vast majority of people don't make submissions to public consultations.
We have to bear that in mind.
So it's only a small number of people so we can ignore it.
It's only a small portion of the population that participate in these things so it's not necessarily reflective of public opinion and also we're wise to the fact that very often submissions are organized and campaign groups will organize responses so we're clear with that too.
Even the bloke in the background whose job it is to agree like he's laden with doubt it's like that doesn't make sense hold on a minute like we're literally in real time watching someone who works for the system go Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
Is that red pill in my mouth right now?
But why hold the consultation if the end result is just going to be disregarded on the basis that it's not representative of public opinion?
What's the point of it then?
Well, the point is that we're a democracy and in Ireland we have elections.
Well, the point.
Oh, I'm glad that you've asked me that because the point is we're a democracy and that's why we do elections and ask people's opinions.
But then you ignore their opinions.
Yeah, we don't have to do everything.
Listen, fuck off.
Look at him in the background going, hold on a minute, that poll was a complete waste of time!
He's realising, what I'd like to hear, instead of the leader there, is the inner monologue of that bloke who's listening.
As he slowly works out that the entire system is totally corrupt and what's being legitimised is the introduction of laws that people don't want because it's not about the people.
But if you just pull that one thread.
Right, you know people don't want this law.
That's right, people don't want it.
But you're doing it anyway.
Yeah.
Why is that?
Because it's not about the people.
Why is that?
Because it's about control.
Why is that?
Because the only way we're going to be able to abate and subjugate a population is by having the legal means to do it because people are waking up to the fact that governments That's not what they're about.
They're about testing the temperature.
So is it just for show then?
We're in a race against time to control the flow of information and be able to arrest people for dissent.
But you know, there's a nice scene of nature in the background, so it's not all bad.
Yeah, but it's synthesized nature.
I kind of have everything.
That's not what they're about.
They're about testing the temperature.
So is it just for show then?
No.
[Laughter]
Is it just for show then?
Because what you've just said is, is it's kind of a show.
It's also not that.
It's all of the things that I said it wasn't, and also that other thing, which is the thing it would have to be if it wasn't those things.
It's none of that.
It's Zen.
If you try and think about this for long enough, you will become enlightened, because it just doesn't make sense.
Anyway, now it's clear that this is something that the public want, or don't want, it doesn't matter.
Anyway, it's democratic.
Here is an Irish politician explaining what new power they're taking, even though you don't want to wear it.
The government is addressing the extremist content online.
Yeah, that's it.
Because, you know, there's a lot of extremist content online and it's actually getting on my nerves now.
Like hate speech and incitement to violence.
What?
There's Houthis and extremist content online?
Don't worry about a war against Russia that can't be won.
Don't worry about censorship everywhere we go.
It's Houthis now and extremist content online.
Oh, that's driving me nuts.
Cumann na mBan is Ireland's new online safety and media regulator.
Don't worry about the migration crisis and what the Irish people appear to feel about that, whether you agree with them or not.
It's not your country.
It's their country.
They're allowed to run their country however they want, having been oppressed for hundreds of years by a near neighbour.
Don't worry about any of those problems.
It's extremist content online.
And those bloody hoothies.
And we'll also be joint regulator along with the European Commission for the EU Digital Services Act.
Wow, so it's actually aligning with another bureaucracy for which you are probably taxed but not represented.
And when that happens, sensible countries have a revolution.
My department has ongoing engagement with Onkoma Shun and I, having met them two weeks ago, met with Onkoma Shun again yesterday.
I mean, that is globalism, isn't it?
Like, they've decided that they're doing it.
You lot don't want it.
We're doing it.
That's globalism in capsule.
We've asked you, do you want it?
No thanks.
Well, the EU want it.
Well, but, so we're doing it.
Oh, democracy though?
And why are we at war with Russia?
Well, to protect Ukraine and democracy.
But they don't allow elections and there's no opposing parties and there's a lot of dissent within Ukraine and they've started to shut down state media.
Stop doing so much hate speech.
They informed me that they had engaged immediately with the large platforms and with the Gardaí and the European Commission and that the platforms had activated their instant response plans and their engagement is continuing.
An Comisión is calling for those who see hate speech or other illegal content online to report it to the platforms or to An Gardaí Síochána.
And then we'll decide if it's hate speech that we can utilise to control the conversation, and we'll act on it if it's convenient hate speech, and we'll ignore it if it's hate speech that we can't really utilise to manage the flow of information.
So we'll keep this all nice and vague, but the end result will be we've got control of social media and therefore the public conversation, and we can then essentially facilitate globalism, which you know is the agenda, because we've asked you what you wanted, you told us no, they told us yes, we're doing what they want.
So there'll be a lot more of that coming down the line.
And I don't know if there's anything in Irish history about informing on your community in order to facilitate an external colonial imperialist oppressor, whether or not you have any taboos against that or anything, or the black and tans, but there's going to be a lot more of that also.
This is important, but even more so important next year, because once An Comission is fully operational next year, People will be able to report to them directly if they think a platform has ignored or wrongly rejected their complaint.
And these reports can then be used by Cumann na mBan to decide where to focus their oversight and investigations and ultimately their enforcement action.
A lot of this goes on in the world now, doesn't it?
We can use people to grass snitch, spy on one another.
Oh, people were going out during the lockdown.
Well, in retrospect, there was nothing wrong with them doing that, it turns out.
Turning us all into little agents of the state.
Finally, Uncomissioned's first online safety code, as provided for under the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act, will be adopted in early 2024.
A draft code will be published very shortly for stakeholder consultation and this will hold the video sharing platforms accountable for how they protect their users online and will deal with extremist content like hate speech and incitement to violence.
There's already laws about incitement, that's legal already, you don't need a new law for that.
This is a new era.
For a new age, a new era, a great reset perhaps.
In which the regulators and the people they serve will be empowered to make the online world... Empowered?
You dare to say that this is about empowerment?
Safer for all.
It's a brave new world, baby.
Let's get into it.
Elon Musk has said his social media company X, previously known as Twitter, will fund Irish legal challenges to forthcoming hate speech legislation.
Musk warned of risks associated with laws that aim to curb free speech and said there was a need to challenge them.
In an online interview with Gripped, Musk said X's default position is that it will challenge any laws it believes would infringe upon someone's ability to say what they want to say.
He was speaking in relation to Ireland's pending criminal justice incitement to violence or hatred and hate offences bill, which Minister for Justice Helen McEntree said would be progressed early this year.
And we will also fund the legal fees of Irish citizens that want to challenge the bill as well.
So Mr. Musk, whose ex-platform has its European headquarters in Dublin.
So we'll make sure that if there is an attempt to suppress the voice of the Irish people, that we do our absolute best to defend the people of Ireland and their ability to speak their mind.
He said there should be concern if the Irish Parliament defined hate speech in its own terms.
People should be extremely concerned about that.
We're just at the mercy of the ruling party and whatever bureaucrats they put in place and they can just define something that is really not hate speech as hate speech just because they don't like it.
That's the key issue.
It's a very diffuse term, hate speech.
What do you mean hate speech?
Let's absolutely define that just in case it became exploitable in order to impose undue regulation and control over public conversation.
The reason that it allows that is because that's what it's for.
It's not for for protecting people from hearing racist terms or rudeness
or whatever.
It's not for that.
And in fact, you could make an argument that's not even the business of the state.
The business of the state should be to run facilities and amenities for people correctly
and fairly and justly.
And even words like fairly, of course, would need some scrutiny.
But what this plainly is about, and we saw it because we witnessed the dynamic of it,
is create a citizenry of informants, impose laws that have been designed and determined
centrally globally elsewhere against the will of the people in order to legitimise control
that is currently unavailable because of free speech and is sort of creating a global uprising
really which at the moment is still somewhat atomised because our cultures are so atomised
but could become an anti-globalist movement.
Look at the farmers, look at the truckers, look at the rage in Ireland around what's been happening there lately.
Look at the possibility, indeed, for change when people are united and able to speak freely.
That's the threat.
You're the threat, not anything else.
In relation to misinformation and disinformation, he said unlike in newspapers, X had a community notes function which allowed its users to add responses and comments on people's tweets.
The biggest lie in the media is the choice of narrative because they can simply ignore anything they don't like and they can overly focus on things they do want to talk about, he said.
Yes, that is what the legacy media does.
It amplifies stories, it creates stories, it ignores information that's detrimental to the interests of the powerful.
for whatever failings there may be within any institutional organisation doesn't do that.
And it allows and facilitates potentially epochal events like the disruption of our trajectory to World War 3
because of the Tucker-Elon axes.
It's really the best shot we have currently of free speech and maybe even freedom.
Further critiques of the proposed law labelled as authoritarian point to the lack of a legal definition of
hate and the potential overreach of authority such as the
seizure of personal electronic devices and prison sentences for possession of supposed hateful
content.
Last year, Musk committed to covering legal charges for ex-users who unfairly faced employer retribution due to their activity on the platform.
Even corporations drawing his ire due to the unfair treatment of ex-users were not safe from potential legal consequences.
In a case involving X, the company's legal team defended an Illinois student threatened with disciplinary action by his university over posts made on the platform.
An advocate for freedom of speech writes, Musk posted, What we're told we live in are democracies.
What we're told we fight for are democracies.
Kind of a version of freedom, or the best way of achieving freedom, is through the consensus of an electorate.
We're told that all the time.
It's our myth, in a way, because it's not what we live in.
As you just saw in that example, the polling data suggests that people are opposed to that.
And even if they were in favour of it, you'd have to question how are these contexts and
these consensus arrived at when you have a compliant media?
Perhaps the reason 70% of people polled don't want hate speech laws is because they use
independent media now and they recognise, "Hold on a minute, how does this benefit
me?
I could just go, 'Oh, that was hateful, I'm not going to look at that platform anymore.'"
Like, that's always an option, isn't it?
So if we don't live in democracies, because democracies are about representation and the
right to govern your own life and control your own community through referenda and through
consent, what do we live in?
One theory is we now live in anarcho-tyrannies.
Let's look at what anarcho-tyranny is.
Anarcho-tyranny is a system of government that fails to protect its citizens from violence while simultaneously persecuting conduct that would typically be regarded as innocent.
The experience of living under such a system may be familiar to you, even if the term itself is not.
A state of anarcho-tyranny might, for instance, see career criminals walk the streets murdering women mere days after being released from prison on license, even while offensive limericks, online poetry, and dogs trained to perform comical Nazi salutes are treated with the utmost seriousness by our criminal justice system.
Hmm.
The result is a disorienting combination of two different kinds of fear.
Fear of rising violent crime combined with a fear of arbitrary criminalization, including the criminalization of citizens who complain about what is being done to them by their governments.
Hmm.
Systems of anarcho-tyranny rely especially on laws that criminalise speech that would ordinarily be regarded merely as rude or controversial.
In Ireland, the Verac government is currently fast-tracking just such a law.
The Criminal Justice Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill, which will criminalise any person who prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or group of persons on account of their protected characteristics.
Note the flabbiness of this wording.
Violence, one might once have assumed, is pretty easy to objectively define.
But hatred?
Now that's a word that a vengeful prosecutor could really make hay with, particularly given the usefulness of that additional word, likely.
With the new law in place, the authorities could easily decree that all sorts of politically inconvenient speech is likely to incite hatred against particular groups.
We are restricting freedom, said Irish Senator Pauline O'Reilly of the Bill, but we're doing it for the common good.
Categories such as misinformation and disinformation have recently emerged.
And mal-information is, even by the definition of the tyrannical bureaucrats that impose it, information that's true but likely to create disobedience.
For example, during the pandemic period, if you said, hey, there are different ways of treating this other than the proposed and near mandated measures, that would be regarded as malinformation because it's true, but likely to generate dissent, further dissent, maybe even disobedience.
It would also be regarded as malinformation to say, hey, Vladimir Putin and the former Soviet Union said that if you encroached on former Soviet territory, it would lead to an escalation of hostility, particularly between them and Ukraine.
And the 2014 coup, where a legitimately elected government was replaced, has also escalated tensions in that region.
And Vladimir Putin might be interested in a peace deal were Ukraine not to join NATO.
Might be regarded as mal-information.
Hate speech, similarly, could be utilized and deployed according to the will of whoever is holding that law as a weapon.
I know now that the law can be used as a weapon.
In fact, the term lawfare is casually entering our discourse because so many dissenting voices are shut down using legal means.
Who does the law serve?
What is the law for?
Laws like this are being created to further empower centralised authority, often derived from globalist or at least continental organisations like the EU, which are ultimately a globalist organisation if you ask me, in order to further shut down dissent and impose control.
You'll see a lot more of this, particularly if bills like this one are allowed to pass.
It's the sort of thing that we should oppose, and it's pretty fascinating and exciting that Elon Musk is willing to put his money where his mouth is when it comes to backing free speech.
We'll be following this story in more detail, and I hope that you will continue to support our right for free speech.
Because in a sense, what you're saying is, if you don't agree with that, Yeah, we shouldn't be allowed to say what we want.
We're so silly, aren't we?
Well, I don't know what kind of hate speech I'll do next.
No, you don't, because you don't know what hate speech is, and they like it that way.
But that's just what I think.
Remember, you can become a supporter of our content, get additional content, join our conversations, and be part of our movement if it suits you to do so.
