Recently, I wrote a column about Meta’s restoration of free speech protections after the company admitted to censoring users on platforms like Facebook. The company also revealed that it was pressured by the Biden Administration to conduct such censorship. Now, Google has taken the same step in restoring a number of YouTube accounts and pledging to show greater respect for free speech.
Google made the disclosure in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH):
“Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect.”
This is another major victory for free speech. Google specifically acknowledged past political censorship and stated that it “values conservative voices on its platform.”
The company, for the first time, admitted that it yielded to comprehensive pressure from the Biden Administration to censor Americans. It acknowledged that the Biden censorship pressure was “unacceptable and wrong” and pledged to resist such pressure in the future.
Meta has substantially reduced censorship by replicating the approach of Elon Musk at X. These changes are a testament to Musk’s legacy in the restoration of free speech on social media. As I previously noted, we need companies like Facebook and Google. These are companies that are big enough to stand up to the European Union (EU) and its unrelenting campaign against free speech.
The censorship on Google and YouTube had a harmful impact beyond the loss of free speech. It suppressed opposing views on Covid policies from the efficacy of masks to the need to shut down our schools.
The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.
Some experts questioned the efficacy of surgical masks, the scientific support for the six-foot rule and the necessity of shutting down schools. The government has now admitted that many of these objections were valid and that it did not have hard science to support some of the policies. While other allies in the West did not shut down their schools, we never had any substantive debate due to the efforts of this alliance of academic, media and government figures.
Not only did millions die from the pandemic, but the United States is still struggling with the educational and mental health consequences of shutting down all our public schools. That is the true cost of censorship when the government works with the media to stifle scientific debate and public disclosures.
The disclosure is also a blow to many Democratic members of Congress who long attacked witnesses, including myself, who testified against the coordinated censorship by corporate and government officials. Before the release of the Twitter files, members insisted that there was no evidence of such coordination. Some still deny such coordination despite multiple companies now confirming it.
The greatest challenge, however, still lies ahead for these companies. The EU remains the greatest threat to free speech facing Americans. After Musk purchased X with a pledge to restore free speech, figures like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded that the EU use its infamous Digital Services Act to force X to censor Americans.
The Trump administration has warned the EU about its efforts to censor Americans. Meta and Google can now join X in creating a formidable corporate alliance for free speech. For the first time, the free speech community might have a coalition of government and corporate allies that could stand up to the EU.
There will likely remain a degree of mistrust from the free speech community towards these companies after years of censorship and stonewalling. However, we also need to accept our allies where and when we can find them. Free speech is in a free fall in Europe and many on the left are encouraging similar censorship laws for the United States. We need these companies and should support them as they take meaningful actions in favor of free speech.
It has been 157 years since the last ship taking convicts from the United Kingdom landed in Australia. Now, in a crushing historical irony, Australia is contracting with the small Pacific Island of Nauru to resettle foreign-born criminals who the courts have ruled cannot be imprisoned indefinitely. The court rulings show how our allies are facing the same dilemma in dealing with people who enter the country illegally and then oppose efforts to deport them for years in litigation.
Starting with the “First Fleet” in 1788, English courts regularly sentenced convicts to “transportation” to Australia, where they were used for labor in the then-British colony. For years, the British left prisoners in rotting warships called “hulks” in the Thames River. Under Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, the government solved the problem with the use of Australia. Convicts dreaded the common sentencing line issued by British judges: “The sentence of the court upon you is, that you be transported beyond the seas for the term of your natural life.” It became so common that Historian K. S. Inglis noted that “The founders were not a chosen people except in the old Australian joke that they were chosen by the best judges in England.”
The current move is not to use immigrants for labor, but to remove individuals without a technical deportation. The move follows the 2023 decision by Australia’s High Court that non-citizens who have no viable resettlement options outside of Australia must be released. These deportees are largely individuals who engaged in criminal conduct. However, the court ruled that some countries, such as Afghanistan, are considered unsafe for their nationals to be repatriated, while others, like Iran, simply refuse to accept them back if they are being transported involuntarily.
One such individual was identified as NZYQ in court papers and came from Myanmar through a smuggler and proceeded to rape a child soon after being released into the Australian community. After serving a prison sentence, he was held by authorities until he was ordered to be released again into the population.
The government is reportedly moving to introduce legislation to strip the right of fairness from deportation decisions under the new Nauru deal. It would negate canceled visas that are under appeal in court.
Like Australia, the United States needs to address an immigration process that allows individuals to game the system for years despite orders of removal. The system is simply not working and, with millions allowed into the country under the Biden Administration, Congress needs to streamline the system for expedited removals.
We recently discussed how the United Kingdom has continued its erosion of free speech by pushing an effective blasphemy law. Now, a London man has been convicted of a “religiously aggravated public order offence.” Hamit Coskun, 50, a Turkish-born Armenian-Kurdish atheist was arrested after burning a Qur’an.
Coskun was protesting the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara over his embrace of radical Islamic principles. Exclaiming “f**k Islam” and “Islam is religion of terrorism,” he burned the Qur’an and was then slashed by a Muslim man with a knife. Critics were outraged that the man (who later pleaded guilty) was released while police continued to hold Coskun.
Despite arguing that his protest was protected speech, District Judge John McGarva convicted him and declared that his actions were “highly provocative” and that they were “motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims.” Judge McGarva made clear that his views of Islam would not be tolerated in the United Kingdom:
“After considering the evidence, I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. That’s based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family. It’s not possible to separate your views about the religion to your views about the followers.’
“I do accept that the choice of location was in part that you wanted to protest what you see as the Islamification of Turkey. But you were also motivated by the hatred of Muslims and knew some would be at the location.”
Coskun later correctly condemned the decision as “an assault on free speech” and added:
“Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago, and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam. Would I have been prosecuted if I’d set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.”
Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire. Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement:
“I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
The fear is that an expanded hate speech law that includes criticism of Islamophobia will operate like a British blasphemy law. In 2008, the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in England. This new effort could constructively restore such prosecutions as they relate to Islam.
Nina Jankowicz, the former head of Biden’s infamous Disinformation Governance Board, was “back with a vengeance.” After the outcry over the board led to its elimination, Jankowicz did what many of the displaced disinformation experts have done: she peddled her dubious skills to Europeans and others like a wandering rōnin without a master. Now, Jankowicz has appeared before one of the most anti-free speech bodies in the world — the European Union — to call upon those 27 countries to fight against the United States, which she called a world threat.
How the “Mary Poppins of disinformation” came to alight upon Europe is a familiar tale. The European Union has become the global hub for censorship efforts and, after she departed from the government, Jankowicz made a beeline for Europe.
I have been a long critic of Jankowicz, who became an instant Internet sensation due to a musical number in which she sang “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation” in a TikTok parody of the song “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” After the Biden Administration reluctantly disbanded her board, she later moved to join a European group as a foreign agent to continue her work to block views that she considers disinformation.
The false portrayal of the United States as a lawless, autocratic nation no doubt thrilled the Europeans. In announcing her heading a private disinformation group called the American Sunlight Project, Jankowicz used the same hysteria to attract donors, insisting that “Disinformation knows no political party. Its ultimate victim is our democracy.”
Of course, Jankowicz herself has been accused of disinformation that served one particular party. She was previously criticized for allegedly spreading disinformation and advocating censorship.
The ultimate irony is that Jankowicz knows that she can count on many of us in the free speech community to support her right to spread such sensational and inflammatory information. She has every right to trash this country and the results of the election.
Jankowicz has clearly found a home with globalists in Europe where our “Mary Poppins of Disinformation” is “practically perfect in every way”
Below is my column in the Hill on recent disclosure that the Biden Administration may have withheld evidence contradicting the Chinese on the origins of COVID. Millions of Americans lost loved ones and would like to know who was responsible. It appears that our government and many experts were less motivated to find that answer.
Here is the column:
Imagine a world war that left more than seven million dead, hundreds of millions became ill, wrecked the global economy, and left a generation with lasting psychological and developmental injuries. We have seen such wars in history. What is different in this circumstance, however, is that all of that happened, and yet, years later, we still have no agreement on the original cause or possible culprits behind a pandemic that ravaged the world.
Worse yet, many politicians, experts and journalists do not seem inclined to find the answers. This is like fighting World War II and then shrugging off the question of what actually started it.
New questions are being raised over long-withheld evidence on the origins of COVID, information that contradicted the accounts of not just the Biden administration but also allies in academia and the media.
The Chinese first reported the outbreak in December 2019 and insisted that it came from a wet market in Wuhan — a natural or “zoonotic” transfer from bats sold at the market. Others were skeptical and pointed to the nearby Wuhan government virus lab, known to have conducted coronavirus studies with bats. This lab had a history of safety and contamination concerns.
The “lab-leak theory,” which was always the most obvious explanation, was further reinforced by scientists who saw evidence of possible manipulation of the virus’s genetic code, particularly the “spike protein” that enables the virus to enter the human body in a “gain of function” operation. There was (and still is) a serious controversy over the origins of the virus, but any debate was quickly scuttled in favor of the natural theory.
The Chinese immediately moved to crush any speculation of a lab-leak. Wuhan scientists were gagged and the Chinese refused to allow international investigators access to them or the lab in question. The Chinese also used their considerable influence over the World Health Organization and other groups to dismiss or downplay the lab theory..
Now, a long-withheld military report has finally been released by the Trump administration. It appears to confirm what was once denied by the Biden administration: U.S. military service members contracted COVID-19-like symptoms after participating in the World Military Games in October 2019 in Wuhan.
That contradicts China’s timeline. It suggests a longer cover-up in that country, which allowed the virus to spread not only to the U.S. but to countries around the world. Other nations also reported that their military personnel had fallen ill after attending the same games, suggesting that the virus was not only spreading but already raging in the area at that time.
The most disturbing aspect of this report is not the alleged conduct of the Chinese government, but that of our own. Rumors of U.S. military personnel coming down with the virus had long been out there. Republicans in Congress repeatedly asked the Biden administration about any report on the outbreak. Then-Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby told The Washington Post in June 2021 that the military had “no knowledge” of COVID-19 infections among the troops participating in those games.
Even as the illness associated with the games became known, the Biden administration repeatedly refused to confirm the U.S. cases, and a 2022 report was withheld from both Congress and the public. If true, the level of duplicity and dishonesty is shocking. In the U.S. alone, more than 1.2 million died and more than 111 million were made sick by this virus. Yet the Biden administration is accused of withholding this information from the world. Why?
This disclosure follows an equally troubling disclosure that scientists in the Biden administration actually found support for the lab theory but were silenced by their superiors.
Last December, the Wall Street Journal released an alarming report on how these scientists supported the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.
As scientists were being attacked publicly and blacklisted for supporting the lab theory, experts at both the FBI and the Energy Department found the lab theory credible. Although no theory could be proven conclusively, it was deemed a more likely scenario than the natural-origin theory. The CIA also found the lab theory credible.
What the public was hearing was entirely different. They were hearing the same narrative laid out by the Chinese government in December 2019. The Chinese relied upon western scientists to form a mob against anyone raising the lab-leak theory as a possible explanation. Many were enlisted to sign letters or publish statements denouncing the idea. It became an article of faith — a required virtue signal among university scientists. The western media were equally primed to quash the theory.
After President Trump embraced the lab theory, the Chinese had the perfect setup. The media was on a hair-trigger in opposition and denounced his comments as not only unfounded but also racist. MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified.”
MSNBC’s Joy Reid called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum.” Over at CNN, reporter Drew Griffin criticized the “widely debunked” theory and host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.
The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. After Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) raised the lab-leak theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”
The Post’s “fact checker” Glenn Kessler mocked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for entertaining the theory. “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus to jump from the lab,” he posted. “Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”
Even in 2021 when countervailing evidence was surfacing, the unrelenting attacks continued. New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli urged journalists not to mention the “racist” lab theory. Social media companies also enforced the narrative and, with the coordination of the Biden Administration, experts raising the lab theory were targeted, censored, and blacklisted.
It now appears that the COVID outbreak may have occurred months before the alleged wet market release — months that could have been used to contain the virus. Instead, China is accused of suppressing the news and allowing the virus to spread worldwide. Our military personnel alone went home from the Wuhan games to 25 states, potentially carrying it with them. When information on these infections connected to the games was reported around the world, China even suggested that the U.S. used the games to release the weaponized virus.
In 2020, I wrote a column on why China seemed poised to avoid any liability for what might be the greatest act of negligence in history. The sheer size of the disaster somehow seemed to insulate China. As Joseph Stalin had once said, “a single death is a tragedy” and “a million deaths is a statistic.”
Try more than seven million, and you have a statistic that was not worth confronting the Chinese over. What was done was done.
Below is my column in the Hill on the new American emigres: “disinformation experts” who are finding themselves unemployed with the restoration of free speech protections.
Here is the column:
President Trump’s election has brought about mass layoffs among federal employees and contractors, including some who have sued and others who have protested.
But one group — that of America’s would-be censors — is taking its cause worldwide.
During the Biden administration, a massive industry took root, sweeping up billions in taxpayer funds to research, target and combat those accused of misinformation, disinformation and “malinformation.”
Although the exact number is uncertain, many trained censors are now facing unemployment. These self-described “disinformation experts”have become the modern equivalent of rōnin, the Japanese samurai who found themselves without a master and wandered the land looking for a new use of their skill set. They are finding precisely that calling in academia, not-for-profit groups and, most importantly, Europe.
A speech-regulation industry that was booming under Biden has gone bust under Trump. Over the last four years, massive amounts of money were poured into universities, non-governmental organizations and other groups in an unprecedented alliance of government, academia and corporations. The media lionized many in the industry as “saving democracy”by controlling, targeting and suppressing others’ political speech. Not only did federal agencies fund these efforts, but they also coordinated censorship of groups and individuals with opposing views, even objecting to jokes on the internet.
Universities cashed in on this largesse as well. It was popular with most liberal administrators and lucrative for academics.
The sudden shutoff of the federal spigot comes as a blow, but it does not mean the speech warriors will simply convert their censor-shields into plowshares. Many will follow in the footsteps of Nina Jankowicz, briefly the head of a now-defunct disinformation governance board. After the outcry over the board, Jankowicz quickly found her skills were in demand in Europe.
Free speech has been in free-fall in Europe for decades. Germany has long enforced a robust system of speech criminalization that began with Nazi symbolism but steadily expanded to include inciteful speech, insults and merely “disinformative” statements. The United Kingdom and France showed the same insatiable appetite for the inexorable expansion of censorship and prosecutions.
The European Union has also been ground zero for the anti-free speech movement’s aggressive use of the Digital Services Act, which bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.”
When it passed over the objections of free speech advocates, European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager was perfectly ecstatic, declaring it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now, it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”
That is why Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent speech in Munich was so historic. For the free speech community, Vance went into the belly of the beast and denounced the anti-free-speech movement in the heart of Europe. The response to the Vance speech has been nothing short of panic in the anti-free-speech community. Many are assembling in conferences in Europe, including the upcoming World Forum in Berlin. Bill and Hillary Clinton will be in attendance. (I will also be speaking at the conference.)
It was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter with the pledge to dismantle the censorship system, called upon the EU to force him and others to censor her fellow U.S. citizens. She embraced the infamous Digital Services Act, which seeks to impose a global system of speech control. She has also suggested the arrest of those spreading disinformation.
Immediately after the speech, familiar European and American voices denounced Vance and doubled down on the need for Europe to hold the line against dangerous free speech.
For the free speech community, there could not be a better place for this debate to unfold. Germany has demonstrated the false claims of the anti-free-speech community over the years. Indeed, you might call their arguments “disinformation.”
Vance and others who have challenged the European censorship systems have been attacked as Nazi enablers or sympathizers. Many of those who have fostered this attack are part of the regulator ronin. Others simply repeated the narrative without thought or support.
Take CBS anchor Margaret Brennan, who confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the outrageous fact that Vance was supporting free speech while “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.” The claim is stupefyingly uninformed. The first thing that the Nazis did in coming to power was to crack down and criminalize free speech — just as many on the left have done in European countries.
A few have insisted that the Nazis were brought to power by the lack of government controls over what views could be expressed. But this is not true either. The crushing irony is that Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution guaranteed free speech only “within the limits of the general laws.” It did not protect statements deemed by the government as factually untrue, and speech was actively regulated.
Adolf Hitler, for example, was barred from speaking publicly. The Nazis did not use free speech because they did not have it. They did, however, use the denial of free speech to claim that the government was afraid to have certain views aired in public.
Germany has replicated the old system that failed to stop (and perhaps even helped) the Nazis, doubling down on speech controls and criminalization. As I discuss in my book, there has never been a successful censorship system in the history of the world — not one. Germany is again a chilling example of the true record of such systems.
Past polling of German citizens found that only 18 percent felt free to express their opinions in public. Only 17 percent felt free to express themselves on the internet. So, the neo-Nazi movement is flourishing, even as average German citizens feel chilled in their own speech.
Despite this history, the regulatory ronin are hard at work to scare the public back into empowering and especially into funding their efforts.
The outgoing chairman of the Munich Security Conference spoke through tears as he expressed his “fear” that Vance’s call for free speech could take hold in Europe. He tellingly added, “It is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief … that this multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles.”
This “international order” has striven to impose a single set of norms on speech, particularly through vehicles like the Digital Services Act. The effort stands at odds with the very essence of the American constitutional system and values.
The only thing both sides agree on is that this is an existential fight. For those in the free speech community, it will determine the future of what Justice Louis Brandeis called “the indispensable right.” For the other side, it is the future of a European model of free speech, limiting the right to deter those with extreme or inciteful views.
The recent successes in the U.S. at X and more recently at Meta are real. However, the displaced speech regulators are not just going to retool and learn to code or train to work in the hospitality industry.
As Vance’s speech showed, we are more isolated than ever. Even Americans like Clinton have joined with the Europeans to fight for censorship. It is time to take a side and fight for freedom of speech.
Founded in 1660, the Royal Society is one of the most prominent scientific organizations in the world with associations to such luminaries as Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin. Despite that proud history, British scientists are pushing to politicize the society and expel Elon Musk because they disagree with his political views. It is not simply anti-intellectual but self-destructive for a society committed to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
Few individuals in history have had a more pronounced impact on scientific and technological advances than Musk. His work on Space X alone has reshaped space technology. The upcoming mission to rescue the stranded scientists only highlights his transformative role and that of his company.
However, more than 2,700 scientists have signed an open letter that cited his public attacks on figures such as Anthony Fauci. They also noted that ‘The situation is rendered more serious because ‘Mr. Musk now occupies a position within a Trump administration in the USA that has over the past several weeks engaged in an assault on scientific research in the US that has fallen foul of federal courts.’”
It is unclear what cases are being referenced, since there have been several rulings against efforts to enjoin DOGE and Musk. More importantly, such litigation has only just begun. Whether the challengers or the Administration have “fallen foul” is yet to be determined.
Others made it clear that they simply disagree with Musk’s views.
Professor Dorothy Bishop, a University of Oxford psychologist, resigned earlier from the society, stating “I just feel far more comfortable to be dissociated from an institution that continues to honour this disreputable man.”
Others accused Musk of spreading “disinformation,” a much-abused category in the United Kingdom as a basis for censorship.
Many of these scientists seem selective in their outrage. I do not recall the Royal Society rushing to the defense of the many scientists who were fired or silenced over their dissenting views on COVID-19.
That includes the lab theory that led to scientists being denounced as conspiracy theorists or racists. Now, federal agencies agree that the theory is legitimate and indeed favored by some offices.
Some experts questioned the efficacy of surgical masks, the scientific support for the six-foot rule and the necessity of shutting down schools. The government has now admitted that many of these objections were valid and that it did not have hard science to support some of the policies. While other allies in the West did not shut down their schools, we never had any substantive debate due to the efforts of this alliance of academic, media and government figures.
Not only did millions die from the pandemic, but the United States is still struggling with the educational and mental health consequences of shutting down all our public schools. That is the true cost of censorship when the government works with the media to stifle scientific debate and public disclosures.
There is an alternative. The Royal Society could confine its review to the scientific contributions of figures like Musk. The subjectivity of this criticism should be antithetical to a scientific organization. Science is ideally a field that transcends political, social, and religious divisions. Few figures in history have advanced the cause of space travel and green technology as Musk.
I hope the Royal Society will decline to engage in such political exclusions, but I am hardly hopeful. However, in carrying out this expulsion, they will do far more harm to their society than to Elon Musk.
Below is my column in the Hill on the historic defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich last week. Where John F. Kennedy went to Berlin to declare “Ich bin ein Berliner,” Vance went in Munich to declare a type of “Ich bin ein Amerikanisch.” He spoke of free speech as an American with a power and clarity that is unrivaled in modern times. As expected, he is being attacked by Europeans and many in this country on the left. However, his speech was a tour de force of our core values.
Despite that profound point, on Feb. 14, Vance found that transformative moment. Speaking to European leaders at the Munich Security Conference, he shocked his audience by confronting them over their attacks on free speech in the West. For the free speech community, it was truly Churchillian — no less than the famous Iron Curtain speech in which Churchill dared the West to confront the existential dangers of communism.
Roughly 80 years after Churchill’s speech, Vance called our allies to account not for the growing threat from countries like Russia or China, but from themselves. To a clearly shocked audience, Vance declared that he was not worried about “external actors” but “the threat from within the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.”
Vance then pulled back the curtain on the censorship and anti-free-speech policies of the European Union and close allies ranging from the United Kingdom to Sweden. He also chastised one of the most vehemently anti-free speech figures in Europe, Thierry Breton, who led the EU efforts to control speech with draconian measures under the infamous Digital Services Act.
Vance called out the hypocrisy of these nations asking for greater and greater military assistance “in the name of our shared democratic values” even as they eviscerate free speech, the very right that once defined Western Civilization.
The point was crushing.
Before we further commit to the defense of Europe, he argued, we should agree on what we are defending. These European nations are erasing the very distinctions between us and our adversaries.
In my recent book, I discussed many of the examples cited by the vice president. One of the most telling came from Canada last year, when the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau temporarily blocked the citizenship of Russian dissident Maria Kartasheva. The reason was that she had a conviction (after a trial in absentia) in Russia for condemning the Ukrainian war. The Canadian government declared that Kartasheva’s conviction in Russia aligns with a Criminal Code offense relating to false information in Canada.
In other words, her use of free speech could be prosecuted in Canada under its abusive Section 372(1) of the Criminal Code, punishing speech deemed to be “convey[ing] false information with the intent to alarm or injure anyone.”
Vance ran through just a fraction of the parade of horribles, from Britain arresting people for silent prayers near abortion clinics to Sweden prosecuting a religious protester who burned a Koran, with Judge Göran Lundahl insisting that freedom of expression does not constitute a “free pass to do or say anything.” Apparently, it does not include acts once called blasphemy or insulting religion.
Vance also mocked the underlying premise for speech crackdowns to combat “disinformation,” pointing out that these measures constitute a far greater threat to citizens in the West than any external threat. He had the courage to say what has long been verboten on the restriction of speech to combat foreign influence: “if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.”
In perhaps the greatest single declaration uttered by an American leader since John F. Kennedy in Germany declared “Ich bin ein Berliner,” he added: “If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.”
The reaction of the European diplomats was one of astonishment. Few even offered the usual polite applause. Instead, rows of smug leaders looked straight ahead with the same level of disgust as if Vance were the second coming of the Visogoths threatening the Pax Romana, or Roman Peace.
In a single speech, Vance shattered the hypocrisy of our allies’ calling for a defense of the West while abandoning Western values. They did not like it, and many in the American press joined in dismissing his address. He was called a “wrecking ball” for bringing up the anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe. One German official declared “This is all so insane and worrying.” This is a diplomat from a nation that shredded free speech for decades, to the point of arresting people over their ringtones.
Of course, our own anti-free speech voices were in attendance, too. Politico quoted one “former House Democratic staffer” who bravely attacked Vance anonymously: “I was aghast … He was blaming the victim. What the f— was that? I had my mouth open in a room full of people with their mouth open. That was bad.”
No, it was not bad. It was glorious.
After Elon Musk purchased Twitter with the pledge to dismantle the company’s censorship system, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned to the EU, calling on it to use its Digital Service Act to force the censorship of her fellow American citizens. That did not leave many people agape. But Vance’s defense of free speech is considered a breathtaking outrage.
In “Hillbilly Elergy,” Vance explained his lack of faith in transformative moments.
“I’ve seen far too many people awash in a genuine desire to change, only to lose their mettle when they realized just how difficult change actually is,” he wrote.
And there is no “genuine desire to change” in Europe. The appetite for censorship is now insatiable, and free speech is in a free fall.
In the midst of this crackdown, Vance spoke with a quintessentially American voice. It was clear, honest and unafraid. There was no pretense or evasion. It was a speech about who we are as a nation and the values that still define us — and no longer define our allies. They saw him as a virtual hillbilly, an American hayseed who does not understand transnational values.
For the rest of us, it was a true elegy — part lament and part liberating.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the unhinged response to Vice President J.D. Vance’s historic defense of free speech in Europe. The chorus of criticism from press and pundits was immediate. Literally speaking through tears, German diplomat Christoph Heusgen responded to VP Vance: “It is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief that this more multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles.” Indeed, it is and that is a good thing. Vance was speaking truth to transnationalists who view free speech as a threat to the “international order” that they maintain. The response from the American left was even more bizarre. Not only did CBS’s Margaret Brennan suggest that free speech caused the holocaust, but Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) said that Vance, in defending free speech, used “some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.”
Here is the column:
On Friday, Vice President JD Vance gave a historic defense of free speech at the Munich Security Conference. In front of a clearly hostile assemblage of European diplomats, Vance confronted our allies with their systemic censorship as they demanded more support to “defend democracy.” For the free speech community, it was akin to Ronald Reagan’s call: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
Vance questioned how our allies could claim to be the bastions of freedom while denying free expression to their citizens. He then delivered this haymaker: “If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.”
Not surprisingly, the Europeans sat on their hands while glaring at Vance for calling them out for their hypocrisy. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius declared Vance’s remarks were “not acceptable.” An unnamed German official in attendance declared, “This is all so insane and worrying.”
The outrage of the Europeans was only surpassed by our own anti-free speech voices in government, the media and academia. Commentator and CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.” It appears that free speech is no longer viewed as pro-democracy. Indeed, it could be outright fascism.
In one of the most bizarre attacks, CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio over Vance’s support for free speech given the fact that he was “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.” In other words, it was free speech that brought Hitler to power and caused the Holocaust. Brennan’s statement is completely detached from history and logic.
Germans did enjoy free speech protections after World War I, though the Weimar Constitution was more limited than the First Amendment. However, one of the first things that the Nazis did in coming to power in 1933 was to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. Censorship is the harbinger of authoritarianism and Germany is the ultimate example of how no censorship system in history has ever succeeded in killing one idea or stopping a single movement.
Brennan could not have picked a better country to utterly destroy the point that she was trying to make in favor of limits on free speech.
Germany continued to censor and criminalize speech after World War II, targeting the neo-Nazi movement and other prohibited viewpoints. Authorities charged citizens for everything from wine labels to ringtones with banned content. The government has sought to force figures like X owner Elon Musk to censor Americans and others to combat anything that it deems “fake news” or “disinformation.”
Of course, Germany’s massive censorship effort has done little to deter the thriving neo-Nazi movement. What it has done is chill the speech of ordinary citizens. One poll of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet.
Other nations joined in the harrumphs with equally disingenuous statements, including the United Kingdom. British diplomats expressed shock despite their systemic suppression of free speech, including arresting citizens for simply praying to themselves near abortion clinics.
The British have doubled down on censorship with sweeping new laws. Hundreds have been arrested recently for speech crimes like spreading “fake news” or disinformation that could lead to “non-trivial psychological or physical harm.”Previously, British citizens were arrested for criticizing religious groups or opposing homosexuality or immigration. In one case, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime.
The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
In 1963, John F. Kennedy went to Germany to declare “Ich bin ein Berliner” to express solidarity with those who were fighting for the right to live and speak freely behind the Iron Curtain.
More than 60 years later, Vance returned to essentially declare “Ich bin ein Amerikanischer,” affirming our commitment to a right that not only defines the United States, but once defined Western civilization. He argued that if we are to defeat our foreign adversaries, we must first protect those rights that distinguish us from them.
The response of our press and pundits only proved Vance’s point. We have returned to the moment described by Tom Paine during our Revolution, a time that would “try men’s souls.”
Those opposing free speech today are like “the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot” who, Paine warned, would “shrink” from the defense of our values.
The anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe has finally reached our shores.
Vance drew a bright line in Europe and we will all have to decide on which side to stand. Some obviously have made the decision to stand with Europe.
For the rest of us, we will stand with free speech.
The defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich, Germany, has led to open panic on the left in fighting to maintain European censorship and speech criminalization. The response of the American press and pundits was crushingly familiar. From CBS News to members of Congress, Vance (and anyone who supports his speech) was accused of using Nazi tactics. It is the demonization of dissent.
The suggestion that free speech cleared the way for the Holocaust left many scratching their heads, but it is an old saw used by the anti-free speech community, particularly in Germany.
When they came to power, the Nazis moved immediately to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. They knew that free speech was not only the “indispensable right” for a free people, but the greatest threat to authoritarian power.
Figures like Brennan appear to blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis because the Weimar Constitution protected the right of Germans, including Nazis, in their right to speak. However, the right to free speech was far more abridged than our own First Amendment. Indeed, it had many of the elements that the left has pushed in Europe and the United States, including allowing crackdowns on disinformation and fake news.
Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution, guaranteed free speech but added that it must be “within the limits of the general laws.” It did not protect statements deemed by the government as factually untrue and speech was actively regulated.
Indeed, Hitler was barred from speaking publicly. It was not free speech that the Nazis used to propel their movement, but the denial of free speech. They portrayed the government as so fearful and fragile that it could not allow opposing views to be stated publicly.
This ridiculous and ahistorical spin also ignores the fact that other countries like the United States had both fascist movements and free speech, but did not succumb to such extremism. Instead, free speech allowed critics to denounce brownshirts as hateful, dangerous individuals. To blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis is like blaming the crimes of Bernie Maddoff on the use of money.
Nevertheless, before the last election, the left was unrelenting in accusing those with opposing views as being Nazis or fascists. During the election, it seemed like a one-answer Rorschach test where Democrats saw a Nazi in every political inkblot.
While the narrative failed in spectacular fashion, the script has not changed. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) expressed sympathy for the “absolute shock, absolute shock of our European allies” to be confronted in this fashion. Rather than address the examples of systemic attacks on free speech, Moulton reached again for the favorite talking point: “if you listen, listen carefully it’s actually much deeper and darker. He was talking about the enemy within. This is some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.”
Like Brennan, Moulton is warning that free speech can be a path to genocide. However, his take is that anyone claiming to be the victim of censorship is taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. The logic is simple. The Nazis complained about censorship. You complained about censorship. Thus, ipso facto, you are a Nazi.
Others joined the mob in denouncing Vance and supporting the Europeans. CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.”
By defending free speech, you are now viewed as anti-democratic. It is part of the Orwellian message of the anti-free-speech movement. Democracy demands censorship, and free speech invites fascism.
It is hardly a novel argument. It was the very rationale used in Germany after World War II to impose what is now one of the most extensive censorship systems in the world. It was initially justified as an anti-Nazi measure but then, as has occurred repeatedly in history, became an insatiable appetite for speech controls. Indeed, the country returned to the prosecution of anything deemed disinformation and fake news by the government.
The result has indeed silenced many, but not those neo-Nazis who are flourishing in Germany. Past polling of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet. As under the Weimar Constitution, fascist groups are portraying themselves as victims while finding alternative ways to spread their message.
Yet, the American media continues to peddle the same disinformation on the value of censorship. After its anchor made the widely ridiculed claim about free speech leading to genocide, 60 Minutes ran an interview with German officials extolling the success of censorship.
CBS’ Sharyn Alfonsi compared how the United States allows “hate-filled or toxic” speech while Germany is “trying to bring some civility to the worldwide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine.”
German prosecutors (Dr. Matthäus Fink, Svenja Meininghaus and Frank-Michael Laue) detailed how they regularly raid homes to crack down on prohibited views with the obvious approval of CBS.
They acknowledged that “the people are surprised that this is really illegal, to post these kind [sic] of words… They don’t think it was illegal. And they say, ‘No, that’s my free speech,’ And we say, ‘No, you have free speech as well, but it also has its limits.’”
Alfonsi explained that the law criminalizes anything the government considers inciteful “or deemed insulting.” She then asked “Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?” The prosecutors eagerly affirmed, but added that the punishment is even higher to insult someone on the Internet.
Meininghaus started to explain that “if you’re [on] the internet, if I insult you or a politician …” Alfonsi could not even wait for the end of the sentence and completed it for him: “It sticks around forever.”
As CBS was completing the sentences of speech regulators, many in Europe were celebrating the Vance speech as breathing new life into the embattled free speech community. What is most striking is how the press and the pundits could not help themselves. They are eagerly proving Vance’s point. This is an existential fight for the “indispensable right.”
Below is my column in the Hill on the resignation of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his anti-free speech legacy. The collapse of free speech in Canada is a cautionary tale for Americans. It shows how Trudeau and the Liberal Party used faux rhetoric of tolerance and inclusion to justify intolerance and exclusion.
Here is the column:
With Justin Trudeau’s announcement that he will step down as prime minister, Canada is now looking for a new leader after a decade under his policies. The question is whether anyone will look for the remnants of Canadian free speech in the wreckage of the Trudeau government.
Canada has long been a country caught between two influences: the United Kingdom and the United States. It has shared DNA with both nations. Unfortunately, it has largely followed the British approach in treating free speech more like a privilege than a right. That dubious tradition was magnified over the last decade by a wholesale attack on free speech deemed hostile, insulting or triggering for different groups. In many ways, Canada has been a cautionary tale for many in the U.S., as the same voices of censorship and criminalization grow on our campuses and in Congress.
Indeed, BlueSky, a social media site that offers a safe space for liberals who do not want to be triggered by opposing views, has apparently embraced Canadian-style standards for censorship as part of its pitch for those with viewpoint intolerance.
For over a decade, Trudeau has been the cheerful face of modern censorship. While exuding tolerance and inclusivity, he hammered critics with draconian measures and perfectly Orwellian soundbites. In the name of tolerance, he proudly proclaimed intolerance for opposing views.
Trudeau shows how speech codes and virtue signaling are now chic on the left. In a town hall event, Trudeau chastised a woman for asking a question that used the term “mankind” and instructed her, “We like to say ‘peoplekind’ … because it’s more inclusive.” (He later claimed he was joking. If so, many of his policies have the same punchline and are no joking matter.)
In many ways, Trudeau’s true colors emerged in his crackdown on the trucker protests opposing COVID-19 mandates in 2022, a campaign widely supported by an enabling media. Trudeau invoked the 1988 Emergencies Act for the first time to freeze bank accounts of truckers and contributions by other Canadian citizens, powers long condemned by civil liberties groups in Canada.
The anti-free speech apple did not fall far from the tree. It was Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, who as prime minister used the predecessor to the act for the first time in peacetime to suspend civil liberties.
Trudeau was widely criticized for his anti-free speech policies, including his move to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act to criminalize any “communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
It was used to prevent “social media platforms [from being] used to threaten, intimidate, bully and harass people, or used to promote racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, misogynistic and homophobic views that target communities, put people’s safety at risk and undermine Canada’s social cohesion or democracy.”
Under Trudeau, human rights commissions became virtual speech commissars in Canada. A conservative webmaster was prosecuted for allowing third parties to leave insulting comments about gay people and minorities on the site. Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley insisted that “the minimal harm caused … to freedom of expression is far outweighed by the benefit it provides to vulnerable groups and to the promotion of equality.” Even a comedian was prosecuted for insulting jokes involving lesbians.
Recently, a Canadian mayor and a town were prosecuted for not hoisting an “LGBTQ2 rainbow flag” in celebration of Pride Month — even though they did not have a flagpole.
Despite crushing the trucker protests, the Canadian parliament extended Trudeau’s emergency powers to allow him to continue to harass and threaten those on the right. Despite broad opposition, the Liberal Party, the NDP and other allies were able to muster 181 votes to keep authoritarian powers alive in Canada. (The Canadian courts later, belatedly, declared the Trudeau powers unconstitutional).
Many of the same legislators would later push to increase the penalties for certain speech crimes to life imprisonment. One of the most tragically ironic moments for Canada came last year, when Trudeau’s government blocked the citizenship of Russian dissident Maria Kartasheva because she has a conviction in Russia. She had been tried in absentia by a judge sanctioned by Canada for her exercise of free speech in Russia in condemning the Ukrainian war. The Canadian government informed Kartasheva that her conviction in Russia aligns with a Criminal Code offense relating to false information in Canada.
Think about that. Canada was concerned because she violated anti-free speech laws that are similar to its own. The Russians convicted her of disseminating “deliberately false information,” and Canada convicts’ people under laws like Section 372(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada for efforts “to convey, cause, or procure to be conveyed false information with the intent to alarm or injure anyone.”
That is why some of us spit out our soup in 2022 when Trudeau’s government condemned Cuba for its own crackdown on protesters, claiming that “Canada strongly advocates for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly free from intimidation.” Trudeau also condemned China for cracking down on protests over COVID-19, the very subject of his own crackdown on the truckers.
Yet Trudeau has been a darling of the Canadian and American press despite a disapproval rate of around 68 percent among Canadian citizens. The media clearly approves of his position that “freedom of expression is not without limits” when others seek “to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet.”
So the question is: Now that Trudeau is heading out, where do Canadians go to get their free speech back?
In the aftermath of the contentious Supreme Court arguments in United States v. Skrmetti over state bans on puberty blockers and gender-altering surgeries, the United Kingdom reaffirmed that it finds the risks far outweigh the benefits of such treatments for minors under the currently available scientific evidence. The move by the liberal Labour Party stands in sharp contrast with the portrayal of the Biden Administration and the treatment of the subject by the liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was widely criticized for analogizing puberty-blocking drugs to taking aspirin. It appears that doctors in the UK are not ready to tell minors to just “take two puberty blockers and call me in the morning.”
UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting said last week, “Children’s health care must always be evidence-led. The independent expert Commission on Human Medicines found that the current prescribing and care pathway for gender dysphoria and incongruence presents an unacceptable safety risk for children and young people.”
The decision follows the release of the Cass Review, which was raised by the conservative justices as contradicting the factual representations of the Biden Administration, even leading Justice Samuel Alito to suggest that Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and the government might not have fulfilled their duty of candor to the tribunal. He noted that the Cass study found scant evidence that the benefits of transgender treatment are greater than the risks. He then delivered the haymaker: “I wonder if you would like to stand by the statement in your position or if you think it would now be appropriate to modify that and withdraw your statement.”
🔥🔥🔥Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito presses Elizabeth Prelogar on the experimental nature of "gender-affirming care."
Streeting cited significant doubts about the benefits of puberty blockers while noting the “significant risks” to children.
The government will allow puberty blockers to be administered to children in clinical trials. It is not clear if the Supreme Court will take “judicial notice” of the new decision, but it can.
In fairness to Sotomayor, she was trying to argue that all treatments have risks in making her aspirin analogy. Yet, the comment was taken as trivializing the alleged harm and trauma raised by many in this debate. These studies clearly show greater risks than those associated with aspirin. However, what the Biden Administration was arguing (and the liberal justices were seemingly supporting) is that states would be barred by the Court from reaching the same conclusion as the UK and other countries. Indeed, Streeting echoed what the states argued to the Supreme Court that the government must “act with caution and care when it comes to this vulnerable group of young people, and follow the expert advice.”
Yesterday, I was notified by the Justice Department confirming that a recent swatting indictment includes the person or persons responsible for my own swatting a year ago. One of the defendants, Thomasz Szabo, was arrested a couple weeks ago.
The indictment below charges two foreign nationals: Thomasz Szabo, 26, of Romania, and Nemanja Radovanovic, 21, of Serbia.
Szabo and Radovanovic are each charged with one count of conspiracy, 29 counts of threats and false information regarding explosives, and four counts of transmitting threats in interstate and foreign commerce.
Their alleged conspiracy began as early as December 2020. It continued through January 2024, using personal identifying information, including home addresses, to falsely report emergencies to provoke a police response at the victim’s home. According to the Justice Department, they used various monikers to communicate. Szabo used “Jonah,” “Jonah Goldberg,” “Plank,” “Rambler,” “War Lord,” “Shovel,” “Cypher,” “Kollectivist,” “Mortenberg Shekelstorms,” and “NotThuggin2”. Radovanovic used “XBD31,” “XDR,” “Angus,” “Thuggin,” “Thug Hunter,” “NotThuggin,” “DCL,” and “AOD.”
The indictment alleges that their crimes encompassed 40 private victims and 61 official victims, including members of Congress, cabinet-level executive branch officials, and senior federal law enforcement officials. It also included four businesses, four religious institutions, and one victim university.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Conor Mulroe is prosecuting the case. Under the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771 (1), the indictment triggers ten rights for me and the other alleged victims, including the right to be heard at a hearing involving any plea, sentencing, or parole proceeding. I was given my own Victim Identification Number (VIN) and Personal Identification Number (PIN) under the CVRA for future communications.
I am grateful to the Justice Department and these cooperating U.S. and foreign offices for their work in finding the alleged culprits who swatted my home between Christmas and New Year’s in 2023.
Whatever the role politics may have played, or our current divisions, swatting constitutes a very serious crime that can result in lethal accidents and trauma for victims. It also pulls law enforcement resources away from real crimes. In my case, five or six officers were needlessly pulled from their other duties to respond to the call.
For some, these stories become irresistible opportunities to vent against the victims or even bizarre attacks on conservative legal theory. The liberal gotcha site, Above the Law, covered my swatting with the usual ad hominem attacks while adding a truly unhinged spin to the story. Senior Editor Joe Patrice (who has defended“predominantly liberal faculties” and not hiring conservative or libertarian law professors) insisted that swatting is somehow the fault of gun owners, Second Amendment advocates, and “edgy” police:
“Swatting is a byproduct of a nation awash in more and more powerful weapons and more and more edgy cops. And that makes these false police reports regrettably a manifestation of our age of failing to confront the disconnect between the text and history of the Second Amendment and the lazy ahistorical interpretation of this Supreme Court.”
Prosecutors notably did not include the conservative justices as co-conspirators with Szabo and Radovanovic.
This indictment is a valuable addition to deterring a crime that has become all too common. The fact that this investigation stretched to Hungary and Romania showed the extraordinary effort needed to make these arrests. The arrests are the result of an investigation that involved a global effort, including the U.S. Secret Service Washington Field Office and Criminal Investigative Division, the FBI’s Washington Field Office and Minneapolis Field Office, the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Secret Service’s Bucharest Resident Office, Miami Field Office, Syracuse Resident Office, Springfield Resident Office, the FBI’s Legat Office in Bucharest and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Western District of Washington, the District of South Dakota, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Illinois, and the Northern District of New York.
As more such cases are prosecuted, it will hopefully shatter the sense of anonymity and impunity of such culprits. Once again, I am very thankful for the effort of all of these agencies in bringing this case.
In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how free speech is in a free fall in Great Britain, where officials continue to crack down on an ever-widening array of viewpoints. Some of these actions are designated as “non-crime hate” but are still the subject of law enforcement actions. According to the Daily Mail, they now include children who have been pulled in for calling other children schoolyard names like “retard” or saying that other children smell “like fish.”
“A nine-year-old child is among the youngsters being probed by police over hate incidents… Officers recorded incidents against the child, who called a fellow primary school pupil a ‘retard’, and against two schoolgirls who said another student smelled ‘like fish.’ The youngsters were among multiple cases of children being recorded as having committed non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), The Times discovered through freedom of information requests to police forces.”
“Non-crime hate” was introduced in 2014 as part of the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines. It is chilling in its ambiguity and scope. It only requires the perception of either a victim or a third party that a statement is motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity.
The HCOG stresses, “The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required.”
That guarantees the maximal level of investigation and documentation of speech incidents. The chilling effect on free speech is glacial.
For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests:
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views. After the sentencing, Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing Southeast (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
Great Britain is now turning, it appears, to their children in speech crackdowns. Schoolyard taunts can be investigated by officers. The impact on both parents and children will obviously be immense. It adds a coercive element to speech laws. Given the subjective and vague standard, the response is to self-censor to avoid any such accusations. Raising children in such an environment will only erode free speech values. Indeed, it fosters the type of speech-phobic generation that many activists may welcome. Speech is viewed as dangerous and subject to continual monitoring by the state.
Stopping some kid from using a playground taunt will do little to instill mutual respect, but it will instill fear over how the state may respond to your words. It is a lesson that many in the free speech community may relish but one that most citizens should reject. “Non-crime hate” investigations are meant to maintain a constant sense of oversight and monitoring of speech, even with our children.
We previously discussed the defamation lawsuit against Deadspin and writer Carron Phillips over an article claiming that nine-year-old Holden Armenta appeared at a Chiefs game in 2023 in black face. I noted in a prior column that I believed that the court would view this as a matter that had to go to a jury. It now has. Superior Court Judge Sean Lugg this week rejected Deadspin’s motion to dismiss.
Phillips posted a side image of Holden at a game of the Kansas City Chiefs against the Las Vegas Raiders, showing his face painted black. The 9-year-old was wearing a headdress while doing the signature “Tomahawk Chop.”
Phillips went into full attack mode.
The senior Deadspin writer had a Pavlovian response in a scathing article on the boy’s “racist” and “disrespectful” appearance.
“It takes a lot to disrespect two groups of people at once. But on Sunday afternoon in Las Vegas, a Kansas City Chiefs fan found a way to hate black people and the native Americans at the same time…Despite their age, who taught that person that what they were wearing was appropriate?”
Phillips also denounced the NFL for “relentlessly participating in prejudice.” In a now-deleted tweet, Phillips later called people “idiots” for “treating this as some harmless act.”
Of course, the full picture showed that Armenta had the other half of his face painted in red paint — the Chiefs colors. It also turns out that he is Native American. Indeed, his grandfather is serving on the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.
Deadspin obviously valued Phillips’ take on race as do other journalists and columnists. Despite his past controversial writings, he was selected as the 2019 & 2020 National Association of Black Journalists Award Winner.
In Armenta v. G/O Media, Inc. Lugg wrote that “[h]aving reviewed the complaint, the court concludes that Deadspin’s statements accusing [Holden] of wearing black face and Native headdress ‘to hate black people and the Native American at the same time,’ and that he was taught this hatred by his parents, are provable false assertions of fact and are therefore actionable.”
The opinion turned on whether this could be treated as opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. California law applied in the case and the court focused on two opinions that held that claims of racism can be statements of fact. Lugg wrote:
Generally, statements labeling a person as racist are not actionable. “A term like racist, while exceptionally negative, insulting, and highly charged—is not actionable under defamation-type claims because it is a word that lacks precise meaning and can imply many different kinds of fact.”…
Deadspin argues that the statements alleging H.A. wore Black face are nonactionable for the same reasons that calling him racist would be non-actionable. {“Blackface is used to mock or ridicule Black people; it is considered deeply offensive.” Deadspin, in recasting Black face as “culturally insensitive face paint” in the December 7 Update, recognizes the negative understanding of the descriptive term.} … But there is a legally significant distinction between a statement calling someone a racist and a statement accusing someone of engaging in racist conduct; expressions of opinion are not protected if they imply an assertion of an objective, defamatory fact. Two recent decisions applying California law, Overhill Farms, Inc. v. Lopez (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) and La Liberte v. Reid (2d Cir. 2020), assist in clarifying this distinction.
The Court in Overhill Farms held that “a claim of racially motivated employment termination is a provably false fact.” In that case, a group of employees accused their employer of engaging in racist firings of Hispanic workers as a pretext to hide racist and discriminatory abuse against Latina women immigrants. After the employer sued for defamation, the employees moved to dismiss, arguing that their statements were non-actionable opinions. The California Court of Appeals denied the employees’ motion, reasoning:
[D]efendants did not merely accuse [their employer] of being “racist” in some abstract sense …. [I]n almost every instance, defendants’ characterization of [their employer] as “racist” is supported by a specific reference to its decision to terminate the employment of a large group of Latino immigrant workers. The assertion of racism, when viewed in that specific factual context, is not merely a hyperbolic characterization of [the employer’s] black corporate heart—it represents an accusation of concrete, wrongful conduct…. [T]he statements reflected in defendants’ written press release, leaflets and flyers accused Overhill of more than harboring racist attitudes; they accused Overhill of engaging in a mass employment termination based upon racist and ageist motivations. Such a contention is clearly a “provable fact;” indeed an employer’s motivation for terminating employment is a fact plaintiffs attempt to prove routinely in wrongful termination cases.
In La Liberte v. Reid, a community activist brought suit after a television host republished two photographs of her at a pro-immigration rally with captions alleging racist conduct. The first caption accused the plaintiff of screaming “You are going to be first deported … dirty Mexican!” at a 14-year-old boy. The second caption compared a photograph of the plaintiff to white Americans yelling at the Little Rock Nine. The television host moved to dismiss the activist’s defamation claims, arguing that her statements were “nonactionable statements of opinion.” The trial court agreed and granted dismissal. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, explaining:
A reader could interpret the juxtaposition of the Photograph with the 1957 Little Rock image to mean that [plaintiff] likewise screamed at a child out of racial animus—particularly in light of [defendant’s] comment that “[h]istory sometimes repeats.” That interpretation is bolstered by [defendant’s] description of the white woman in the Little Rock photograph as a “person screaming at a child, with [her] face twisted in rage” and [her] comment that it was “inevitable” that the photos would be juxtaposed. [Defendant] thus portrayed [plaintiff] as a latter-day counterpart of the white woman in 1957 who verbally assaulted a minority child. Like the defendants in Overhill Farms, [defendant] “did not merely accuse [plaintiff] of being ‘racist’ in some abstract sense.” Rather, her July 1 Post could be understood as an “accusation of concrete, wrongful conduct,” which can be proved to be either true or false. That makes it potentially defamatory.
The Armentas contend that the Original Article and its Updates involve defamatory statements regarding conduct that is provably false and, therefore, this Court should be guided by Overhill Farms and La Liberte. These statements include:
(1) H.A. was wearing “Black face;”
(2) H.A.’s conduct in wearing “Black face” was motivated by his hatred of Black people;
(3) H.A.’s wearing of a Native headdress resulted from his hatred of Native Americans;
(4) H.A. is part of a “future generation[ ]” of racists who had “recreate[d] racism better than before”; and
(5) Raul and Shannon Armenta “taught” their son, H.A., “racism and hate” in their home.
Deadspin’s audience could understand its portrayal of H.A. to mean that his entire face was painted black and, because his entire face was painted black, it was H.A.’s intent to disrespect and hate African Americans. The publication went beyond an expression of opinion and flatly stated H.A.’s motivation for appearing as he did.
Similarly, a reader could be left with the belief that H.A. wore a Native American headdress as a signal of disrespect to that population. Any doubt as to the thrust of these representations is resolved in the opening line of the article, where the author unequivocally asserts, “It takes a lot to disrespect two groups of people at once. But on Sunday afternoon in Las Vegas, a Kansas City Chiefs fan found a way to hate Black people and the Native American at the same time.”
While arguably couched as opinion, the author devotes substantial time to describing H.A. and attributing negative racial motivation to him. Further, the article may be reasonably viewed as derogating those who may have taught him—his parents. A reader might not, as Deadspin contends, interpret this assertion as a reflection of the author’s opinion. To say one is a racist may be considered opinion, but to plainly state that one’s attire, presentation, or upbringing demonstrates their learned hatred for identifiable groups is actionable. A reader may reasonably interpret the Article’s assertion that H.A. was wearing Black face as fact….
The CBS broadcast showed H.A. for approximately three seconds. In those three seconds, viewers could see that H.A.’s face was painted two colors: black and red. Deadspin published an image of H.A. that displayed only the portion of H.A.’s face painted black and presented it as a factual assertion that there was a “Chiefs fan in Black face” at the game. The complaint asserts facts that, reasonably interpreted, establish Deadspin’s Original Article and its Updates as provably false assertions of fact….
Deadspin contends that La Liberte and Overhill Farms stand as outliers from decisions recognizing that accusations of racist behavior are “inherently subjective and therefore non-actionable[.]” Not so. They reflect reasoned assessments of the lines between protected and actionable speech and offer a paradigm for identifying and assessing provably false allegations of racial animus. This Court may grant Deadspin’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6) only if “under no reasonable interpretation of the facts alleged could the complaint state a claim for which relief might be granted.” Applying the analytical framework of La Liberte and Overhill Farms to the facts here, the Armentas maintain a “possibility of recovery.” …
This is a well-constructed and well-supported decision that could have lasting importance. In an age of rage, including race-baiting columns like the one in this case, the opinion is a shot across the bow for publications like Deadspin.
We have seen a series of major rulings allowing public figures to go forward in other defamation lawsuits against media companies. In addition to alienating much of their markets with echo journalism, these outlets are now facing mounting legal costs due to attack pieces like this one. The bill is now coming due.
International Judo Federation (IJF) has suspended a Serbian judo champion for five months from any international competitions for making the sign of the cross after his match in the Paris Olympic games this year. It is another bizarre controversy from the games, including France barring French Muslim athletes from wearing hijabs in competition.
Nemanja Majdov, 28, has been told that he was found guilty of “having shown a clear religious sign when entering the field of play.”
“In the defense letter of the disciplinary proceedings, I did not want to apologize… and of course, I did not, nor will I ever, although I did not even know what the punishment could be. The Lord has given me everything, both for me personally and for my career, and he is number 1 for me, and I am proud of that. And that will not change under any circumstances. Glory to Him, and thanks for everything. Nothing new for me personally, just a new page in my career and a new life experience. I’m sorry that such a beautiful and difficult sport like judo has fallen to such things. God gave me a great career, 7 European and three world medals. When I started, I dreamed of winning at least one big medal and thus succeeding in my life and the life of my family, who sacrificed everything for my career. He gave us a lot more and even borrowed too much so that I would bow my head in front of them when it came either-or.”
The athlete was previously warned not to make the sign of the cross. The IJF said that this is simply an effort to ensure its members “feel respected and accepted.”
I am not sure how that tracks. Athletes expressing their faith does not condone other faiths or belittle competitors. It shows that their accomplishments are not their own. They may want to embrace their friends, their country, or their faith.
I fail to see how denying such gestures advances the game or its values. Part of these games is to respect our different values and cultures. While that justifiably means that the games do not officially endorse or demonstrate religious values, individual athletes should be able to acknowledge their faith in such small gestures. If we want to embrace the diversity of our world, the solution is not to bar expression of diverse values.
It appears that faith may move mountains, but not the Olympics.
We have previously discussed Thierry Breton, the European Union commissioner who has been an unabashed leader of the anti-free speech movement in Europe. Breton has threatened Elon Musk and others over the lack of censorship, including allowing candidates like former president Donald Trump to speak freely on his platform. For free speech advocates, Breton’s sudden and unexpected demise was reminiscent of the scene in the Wizard of Oz. Despite pledging to get Musk and his little platform too, Breton seemed to melt away faster than Margaret Hamilton after being hit with a bucket of water.
Call it Bretxit. The resignation of Breton came after reported tensions in the European Union and specifically with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Breton lashed out at von der Leyen and all of the EU munchkins. “You asked France to withdraw my name – for personal reasons that in no instance you have discussed directly with me – and offered, as a political trade-off, an allegedly more influential portfolio for France in the future College.”
According to Deadline, his unilateral action against Musk may have been the final straw for Breton who fulfilled the worst image of an imperial, arrogant EU bureaucrat.
The departure of such an vehemently anti-free speech figure is obviously welcomed by many in the free speech community. However, we should not have any delusions. The EU remains committed to an anti-free speech agenda and using the Digital Services Act to force greater censorship around the world.
Ursula von der Leyen is no free speech advocate. Many of our own anti-free speech figures have found a willing partner in the EU.
Notably, after Musk purchased Twitter, Hillary Clinton called upon European officials to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). Recently, Democratic leaders like Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison praised Brazil for its action to prevent citizens from having access to unfettered news sources.
Bretxit will not end or even slow this movement. Breton’s public chest pounding was an embarrassment for the EU, but not because they disagreed with his censorship agenda. They simply disagreed with his drawing so much attention to their censorship efforts.
As for Musk’s defiance, Breton seemed surprised by his melting away and could almost be heard to say “You cursed brat! Look what you’ve done! I’m melting! Melting! Oh, what a world, what a world! Who would have thought a good little [CEO] like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!”
Alissa Eleanor Azar, a well-known Antifa activist, was sentenced to jail recently in Oregon after being convicted of felony riot and disorderly conduct. What is notable about the case was the journalism defense put forward by Azar, who claims that she was not a participant but press. That assertion is belied by not just videotapes of Azar assaulting members of the far-right group The Proud Boys but her long record of violence.
The court rejected the journalism defense after reviewing videotapes showing Azar organizing with Antifa and then engaging in the attacks. Ironically, while arguing for press freedom, her counsel attempted to bar media from the courtroom, seeking an order to block the conservative outlet Post Millennial, which has dedicated much coverage to Antifa.
“Antifa originated with European anarchist and Marxist groups from the 1920s, particularly Antifaschistische Aktion, a Communist group from the Weimar Republic before World War II. Its name resulted from the shortening of the German word antifaschistisch. In the United States, the modern movement emerged through the Anti- Racist Action (ARA) groups, which were dominated by anarchists and Marxists. It has an association with the anarchist organization Love and Rage, which was founded by former Trotsky and Marxist followers as well as offshoots like Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. The oldest U.S. group is likely the Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, Oregon, which would become the center of violent riots during the Trump years. The anarchist roots of the group give it the same organizational profile as such groups in the early twentieth century with uncertain leadership and undefined structures.”
As I have previously written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association. Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray has repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated “And we have quite a number” — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”
Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”
It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.
Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
Antifa has often targeted journalists or critics for violent attacks. The conservative site Hot Air showed attacks by Antifa supporters after the hearing.
Judge Todd L. Van Rysselberghe for the 5th Judicial District Circuit Court of Oregon sentenced her to 14 days in a local jail, followed by 36 months of supervised probation and GPS monitoring. That short stint was still more than courts and prosecutors have been willing to impose in past cases involving Antifa violence.
Previously, Azar was charged with violence in the Portland riots. However, as with other district attorneys, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt dropped those and other charges despite massive property damage and injuries associated with those riots.
The use of media credentials by Antifa activists has dangerously blurred the line of press and protesters for police. That puts real journalists at greater risk.
In the meantime, Antifa (the group that supposedly does not exist) has elected members to legislative offices in Europe as more radical parties make inroads both in the United States and around the world.
In the 1999 cult classic The Blair Witch Project, one character tells his friends “I could help you, but I’d rather stand here and record.” For free speech advocates, we often feel that other citizens have become passive observers as an anti-free speech movement grows around us, threatening our “indispensable right.”
One of the most infamous figures in this movement has been former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has long been the smiling face of censorship. As the head of the Labour Party, Blair pushed through some of the early crackdowns on free speech in the United Kingdom. He is now calling for global censorship to expand these efforts.
In an interview on LBC Radio, Blair declared:
“The world is going to have to come together and agree on some rules around social media platforms. It’s not just how people can provoke hostility and hatred, but I think… the impact on young people particularly when they’ve got access to mobile phones very young, and they are reading a whole lot of stuff and receiving a whole lot of stuff that I think is really messing with their minds in a big way.”
We recently discussed how the UK is already using recent rioting to crackdown further on those with opposing or “toxic” views. For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.” Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views. After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing Southeast (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
Blair’s views have been echoed by Speaker of the House Sir Lindsay Hoyle who declared:
“Misinformation is dangerous. Social media is good but it’s also bad when people are using it in a way that could cause a riot, threat, intimidation, suggesting that we should attack somebody, it’s not acceptable. What we’ve got to do is factually correct what’s up there, if not I think the government has to think long and hard about what they are going to do about social media and what are they going to put through parliament as a bill.’
“I believe it should be across, it doesn’t matter what country you are in, the fact is that misinformation is dangerous and no misinformation, or threats, or intimidation should be allowed to be carried out on social media platforms.”
As with the effort in Brazil to block X entirely for refusing to censor political opponents of the government, Blair’s call for global censorship is where the movement is going next.
Notably, after Musk purchased Twitter, Hillary Clinton called upon European officials to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). Recently, Democratic leaders like Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison praised Brazil for its action to prevent citizens from having access to unfettered news sources.
Interviews like the one with Tony Blair are not just jump scares meant to intimidate or scare others. They reflect a comprehensive campaign from our political elite to enforce censorship on a national and transnational scale. If you think that this latest Blair Witch Project is just another scary production, you have not been paying attention.
Silicon Valley investor Roger McNamee this weekend went on MSNBC’s “Last Word” and called for the arrest of Elon Musk for “undermining” the federal government by sharing his opinions on X.
McNamee is the latest denizen of the global elite to call for criminalizing speech to silence those with opposing views. McNamee is the founding partner of Elevation Partners and has a colorful history as a band member, a volunteer for Eugene McCarthy and a protester against Vietnam.
As discussed in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”, he is like many liberal baby boomers now joining the anti-free speech movement. They have decided that free speech, once the defining right for the left, is now an existential threat.
McNamee’s rationale for criminalizing speech is chillingly shallow and irrational. He declared that somehow Musk’s political views made him a danger as the head of companies of major importance to the United States. It does not bother him when CEOs adopt far left views, just Musk opposing some of those views:
“You have somebody who runs a really strategic defense and aerospace projects for the federal government who’s actively undermining the government that’s paying him. And somewhere in that is a legal case that needs to be prosecuted.”
Perish the thought that a CEO might undermine the government. McNamee is using the government contracts with SpaceX as a reason to censor Musk’s political and social views.
“The critical element in thinking about Elon Musk is that, like any American, he has a right to his own opinion, and he has a right to express his opinion. However, that right is not unlimited. He is under some special limitations that would not apply to normal people because his company, specifically Starlink and SpaceX are government contractors and, as such, he has obligations to the government that would, for any normal person, and should for him, require him to moderate his speech in the interest of national security.”
So, according to McNamee, if your company makes something that the government wants (including rescuing the currently stranded astronauts in space), he must give up his right to express political views, including against censorship.
McNamee embraces the power of the government to dictate viewpoints or at least silence certain views as a matter of national security. It is no accident that the overriding objective is to “get Musk.” Musk has proven the single greatest barrier to the global anti-free speech movement.
As with the effort in Brazil to block X entirely for refusing to censor political opponents of the government, McNamee’s call for state-driven censorship is where the movement is going next.
Notably, after Musk purchased Twitter, Hillary Clinton called upon European officials to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). Recently, Democratic leaders like Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison praised Brazil for its action to prevent citizens from having access to unfettered news sources.
What is most striking about these efforts is that they occurred after the failure of Plan A: to get Americans to embrace censorship. Facebook even ran a creepy campaign to try to get young people to accept censorship, or “content moderation.” The commercials show people like “Joshan” who says that he “grew up with the internet.” Joshan mocks how much computers have changed and then objects how privacy and censorship have not evolved as much as our technology. As Joshan calls for “the blending of the real world and the internet world,” content moderation is presented as part of this not-so-brave new world. Joshan and his equally eager colleagues Chava and Adam were presented by Facebook as the shiny happy faces of young people longing to be content modified. They were all born in 1996 — the sweet spot for censors who saw young people as allies to reduce free speech.
It did not work. Despite some erosion of free speech among young people, it takes a great deal to get a free people to give up their freedoms. Plan B is now to accomplish this objective of speech controls through national and global regulation. Figures like McNamee and Bill Gates are ready to support this brave new world of speech regulation by global censors.
While claiming unprecedented threats from “disinformation,” these are the same voices and rationales discussed in my book that have been used for centuries to limit the speech of others. They are selling the same defective product with the promise that less freedom will lead to a better life.
For global elites like McNamee, free speech is not just dispensable but distracting. Only fools would listen to these voices in trading away our indispensable right.
Brazil has not just banned X (formerly Twitter) from the entire country, but citizens will now be fined $9000 a day (more than the average salary in the country) for using VPNs to access the platform. X is the main source of news for Brazilians, who will now be left with government-approved sources or face financial ruin in seeking unfettered information.
The Guardian is reporting that the confiscatory fines are part of a comprehensive crackdown on efforts to get news through X, including ordering all Apple stores to remove X from new phones. The move puts Brazil with China in the effort to create a wall of censorship between citizens and unregulated information. For the anti-free speech movement, Brazil is a key testing ground for where the movement is heading next. European censors are arresting CEOs like Pavel Durov while threatening Elon Musk.
However, it is Brazil that foreshadows the brave new world of censorship where entire nations will block access to sites committed to free speech values or unfettered news. If successful, the Brazilian model is likely to be replicated by other countries.
The reason is that censorship is not working. As discussed in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” we have never seen the current alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media interest against free speech. Yet, citizens are not buying it. Despite unrelenting attacks and demonizing media coverage, citizens are still using X and resisting censorship. That was certainly the case in Brazil where citizens preferred X to regulated news sources. The solution is now to threaten citizens with utter ruin if they seek unfettered news.
The question is whether Brazil’s leftist government can get away with this. The conflict began with demands to censor supporters of the conservative former president Jair Bolsonaro. When X refused the sweeping demands for censorship, including the demand to name a legal representative who could be arrested for refusing to censor users, the courts moved toward this national ban.
The man behind the effort is Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has aggressively used censorship to combat anything that he or the government deems “fake news” or disinformation. With Socialist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, they are the dream team of the anti-free speech movement.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison responded to the ban with a posting declaring “Obrigado Brasil!” or “Thanks, Brazil!” Ironically, he did so on X.
Ellison previously praised the virulently anti-free speech group Antifa and promised that it would “strike fear in the heart” of Donald Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.
Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’” Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
The question is whether Brazil will become a nightmare for free speech around the world as other nations seek to force citizens to read and hear news from approved, state-monitored sites.
We have previously discussed the anti-free speech views of Clinton’s former Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, who has tried to sell citizens on the perfectly Orwellian view that more freedom means tyranny when it comes to the freedom of expression. He also demanded that former president Donald Trump be banned from ballots as a “traitor” — all in the name of protecting democracy from itself. Last week, Reich wrote a column declaring Elon Musk “out of control” in his refusal to censor citizens and appeared to call for his arrest.
Reich has long been a prominent voice in the anti-free speech movement discussed in my recent book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. Indeed, he has given a voice to the rage in calling for others to be silenced or arrested.
Elon Musk has long been the primary target of Reich and his allies after dismantling the censorship system at Twitter, now X. Reich called Musk’s purchase of Twitter with a pledge to reduce censorship to be “dangerous nonsense.”
Notably, Reich’s friend, Hillary Clinton, was one of the first to call for a crackdown on Musk after his purchase of Twitter. Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans.
Reich has always shown a chilling fluidity in how free speech is protected and argued that public interest should be able to trump the right of any citizens in espousing views that he believes are dangerous.
In denouncing Musk, Reich encouraged a campaign to counter his efforts to resist censorship. He wrote that Musk “may be the richest man in the world. He may own one of the world’s most influential social media platforms. But that doesn’t mean we’re powerless to stop him.”
Like Hillary Clinton, Reich is calling on foreign governments and censors to silence American citizens including Musk: “Regulators around the world should threaten Musk with arrest if he doesn’t stop disseminating lies and hate on X.”
He even appears willing to undermine national security programs to stop unfettered free speech. He called for the U.S. government to cut off contracts with his companies despite their critical role in various national security efforts, including the possible rescue of the stranded two astronauts currently in space. None of that matters to Reich who appears to view free speech as a greater threat to our nation: “Why is the US government allowing Musk’s satellites and rocket launchers to become crucial to the nation’s security when he’s shown utter disregard for the public interest? Why give Musk more economic power when he repeatedly abuses it and demonstrates contempt for the public good?”
Reich’s call to regulate speech in the public interest is the Siren’s Call of every authoritarian regime in history. He will presumably tell us what speech is no longer tolerable for public policy reasons. Our “Indispensable Right” will, according to Reich, be safely in the hands of the European censors who can protect us from errant and dangerous thoughts.
As he explained earlier, “the kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.” In this way, speech regulations can keep us “moving towards how we recommend content and … how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.”
The “healthy public conversation” with Robert Reich increasingly appears to be his talking and the rest of us listening.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
We have previously discussed the cancel campaigns targeting JK Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series. Rowling was not only the greatest selling author of all time but a wildly popular writer until she publicly opposed certain transgender policies as inimical to the advances in feminism. Now, she is the target of a lawsuit by Algerian boxer Imane Khelif, the gold-medal winning athlete who had previously failed a gender test to confirm that she is a female fighter. We previously discussed that global debate, but Khelif is now accusing Rowling out of many thousands of critics of being a cyberbully. X owner Elon Musk has also been named in the lawsuit.
She held her ground after Scotland passed a draconian law, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. The new crime under the law covers “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. That crime covers insulting comments and anything “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive.”
Rowling has been the target of a global campaign due to her rejection of transgender laws and policies. Many on the left have unleashed book bans and burnings. I have been critical of that campaign. Even third parties who have supported Rowling’s right to free speech have been targeted in cancel campaigns.
Rowling previously posted various responses to the controversy on her X account on August 7, including: “For the record, bombarding me with pictures of athletic women to ‘teach’ me that women don’t all look like Barbie is like spamming me with pics of differently shaped potatoes to prove rocks are edible. I can still see the difference and you look frankly bonkers.”
She later also posted: “Commentators pretending critics of the IOC’s reliance on documents rather than sex testing think Khelif is trans are straw-manning. I don’t claim Khelif is trans. My objection, and that of many others, is to male violence against women becoming an Olympic sport.”
She further wrote on X how she was concerned over both boxers challenged over their gender at the Olympics: “What will it take to end this insanity? A female boxer left with life-altering injuries? A female boxer killed?”
France has eviscerated free speech protections over the last few decades with speech criminalization laws. There is some question whether the French laws would apply to tweets made outside of the country. These laws criminalize speech under vague standards referring to “inciting” or “intimidating” others based on race or religion. For example, fashion designer John Galliano has been found guilty in a French court on charges of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people in a Paris bar. At his sentencing, Judge Anne Marie Sauteraud read out a list of the bad words used by Galliano to Geraldine Bloch and Philippe Virgitti, including using ‘dirty whore” in criticism.
In another case, the father of French conservative presidential candidate Marine Le Pen was fined because he had called people from the Roma minority “smelly.” A French teenager was charged for criticizing Islam as a “religion of hate.”
Rowling has every right to be heard on the Olympic boxing controversy. This debate raises core issues that touch on a wide array of political speech. Khelif has the ability to refute these claims through the exercise of her own free speech. As in the past battles fought by Rowley, her effort to advocate for women’s rights is also a major test over free speech in Europe.
The crackdown on free speech continues in the United Kingdom as officials use recent rioting to justify a roundup of citizens who they view as “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” The government is ramping up arrests of those with “extremist ideologies” in the latest wave of arrests. The crackdown includes those accused of misogynist views. In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how difficult it is to get a free people to give up freedoms. They have to be afraid, very afraid. For that reason, governments tend to attack free speech during periods of public anger or fear. That pattern is playing out, yet again, in the United Kingdom. The recent anti-immigration riots have given officials a renewed opportunity to use anti-free speech laws to target those with opposing views. For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests. A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.” Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target of Ireland’s proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. It covers the possession of material deemed hateful. The law is a free speech nightmare. The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivializing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”
The Brock case proved, as feared, a harbinger of what was to come. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has vowed to crack down on people “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” That includes what she calls extreme misogyny.
Cooper said that the problem revealed by the recent protests was “gaps in the current system” and stressed that “it’s not OK any more to ignore the massive growing threat caused by online hatred towards women and for us to ignore it because we’re worried about the line, rather than making sure the line is in the right place as we would do with any other extremist ideology.”
She added: “For too long governments have failed to address the rise in extremism, both online and on our streets, and we’ve seen the number of young people radicalized online grow. Hateful incitement of all kinds fractures and frays the very fabric of our communities and our democracy.”
For free speech advocates, it is chilling to hear UK officials state that they have been too lax on free speech in the past and must now take censorship and arrests more aggressively. The United Kingdom has a myriad of laws criminalizing speech with vague terms allowing for arbitrary enforcement. For example, Public Order Act 1986 prohibits any expressions of racial hatred, defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group’s color, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
Section 18 of the Act specifically includes any speech that is “threatening, abusive, or insulting.” An arrest does not have to be based on a showing of intent to “stir up racial hatred,” but can merely be based on a charge that “having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”
For those Americans who have remained silent during as this anti-free speech movement grows, you need only to look to the United Kingdom to see what this movement means for our “indispensable right.” That wave has now reached our shores, and it will require each one of us to defend a right that defines us all.
Three years ago, we discussed the conviction of a British man for “toxic ideologies,” under the draconian laws criminalizing inciteful or dangerous speech. The erosion of free speech appears to have only accelerated in the UK. As is often the case, the attacks on free speech increase during periods of unrest, anger or fear. With the recent anti-immigration riots, British authorities have used their laws to round up a large number of citizens expressing anti-immigrant views and some have already been convicted. Those cases include Wayne O’Rourke, 35, who has been sentenced to three years in prison for “stirring up racial hatred.”
As I have previously written, the riots were triggered by false reports spread online about the person responsible for an attack at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event that left three girls dead and others wounded. Despite false claims about his being an asylum seeker, the alleged culprit was an 18-year-old British citizen born to Rwandan parents. The government and news outlets were quick to challenge these accounts, but violent riots have raged across the country, including such despicable acts as burning immigrant housing. There is no question that the government should crack down on such violence and arrest those engaging in criminal conduct. However, the government immediately pursued those who were expressing hateful or inciteful views.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the collapse of free speech protections in Europe and the United Kingdom specifically. That discussion includes the case of Nicholas Brock, 52, who was convicted for his collection of racist and extreme right material in his home. Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE) acknowledged that others might collect such items for historical or academic purposes but Brock crossed the line because he agreed with the underlying views:
“From the overwhelming evidence shown to the jury, it is clear Brock had material which demonstrates he went far beyond the legitimate actions of a military collector…Brock showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
That “commitment” is evident in a slew of arrests after the recent riots.
The United Kingdom is an example of what I describe as a pattern of “rage rhetoric” becoming “state rage” in these periods of unrest.
Once again, many of these postings are worthy of condemnation as racist and inflammatory. Many of us have done so. Defending free speech is not a defense of the underlying viewpoints but rather the right to express opposing viewpoints. Good speech can then rebut the bad speech.
The United Kingdom is now committed to silencing opposing views through censorship and criminal charges. As discussed in the book, such laws have never succeeded in history. Not once. They have never killed “toxic ideologies” or deterred any movement. What they do is suppress the free speech of everyone in an ill-conceived effort to legislatively ban hate in society.
An example is found in Germany, which has long had some of the harshest censorship and criminalization laws. According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet. They have silenced the wrong people, but there is now a massive censorship bureaucracy in Europe and the desire to silence opposing voices has become insatiable.
Recently, I wrote about the chilling message of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley that not only will British authorities arrest citizens for anti-immigration postings but may pursue others in countries like the United States for stirring up trouble. Now, they are imprisoning “keyboard warriors,” who express inciteful thoughts.
According to the local Lincolnshire Free Press, O’Rourke encouraged his 90,000 followers to join the protests and told them how to remain anonymous during protests. That is similar to many posts on the left by groups like Antifa. O’Rourke wrote such postings as “People of Southport where the f**k are you, get out on the street,” “give them hell lads,” and “Sunderland, go on lads.”
Notably, his counsel Lucia Harrington assured the court that her client wants to “re-educate” himself on these issues. His self-imposed “reeducation” was not enough for Judge Catarina Sjolin Knight, who denounced O’Rourke and “[t]he flames fanned by keyboard warriors like you.”
Lincolnshire Chief Superintendent Kate Anderson promised more such cases for those espousing disfavored views: “This charge demonstrates that we will take fast and decisive action against anyone suspected of sharing harmful content online. We retain a commitment to proactively police and keep people safe across the county.”
Many others have been similarly charged. That includes first offender William Nelson Morgan, 69, who was seen holding a stick and refusing to disperse at a protest at a library in West Yorkshire. He was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison even though he did not take part in rioting. While there can be legitimate charges and penalties for a failure to disperse, the roughly three-year sentence seems fueled on the content of his viewpoints rather than his specific actions.
Likewise, Billy Thompson, 31, received 12 weeks in jail for posting emojis depicting minorities and a gun with inflammatory language. He did not participate in the rioting. There are many more such cases being reported daily.
As in Germany, years of prosecuting free speech has achieved nothing beyond chilling the speech of all citizens. For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests.
There is an alternative to criminalizing speech. You can punish criminal conduct including proportionate sentencing for the failure to disperse. You can then allow free speech to combat false or hateful viewpoints. British politicians have acknowledged that a large number of citizens hold anti-immigration views. Cracking down on such viewpoints will change few minds and likely only reaffirm the anger directed against the government. Opposition to these laws has fallen to a dwindling number of free speech advocates in the UK, including author J.K. Rowling. Rowling has opposed a Scottish law, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, that criminalizes speech viewed as “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. That crime covers insulting comments and anything “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive.”
For those in the United States who have remained silent in the face of our own anti-free speech movement, Europe offers a glimpse into our future if we do not fight to preserve this indispensable right.
Below is my column in The Hill on the move of the European Union to force Elon Musk to censor X users, including political speech leading up to the 2024 election. The column discusses this Rockwell painting, which we often use in discussing free speech controversies.
Here is the column:
Eighty years ago, the U.S. government launched a war bond campaign featuring a painting by artist Norman Rockwell in the struggle against the authoritarian threat from Europe. The picture they chose was Rockwell’s Freedom of Speech depicting a man rising to speak his mind at a local council meeting in Vermont. The image rallied the nation around what Louis Brandeis called our “indispensable right.”
Now, that very right is again under attack from another European government, which is claiming the right to censor what Americans are allowed to say about politics, science and other subjects. Indeed, the threat from the European Union may succeed in curtailing American freedom to an extent that the Axis powers could not have imagined. They may win, and our leaders have not said a thing yet about it.
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the inspiration for Rockwell’s painting: a young selectman in Vermont named James “Buddy” Edgerton. The descendent of a Revolutionary War hero, Edgerton stood up as the lone dissenter to a plan to build a new schoolhouse over the lack of funding for such construction.
For Rockwell, the scene was a riveting example of how one man in this country can stand alone and be heard despite overwhelming opposition to his views. It was, for Rockwell (and for many of us), the quintessential American moment. In the 1940s, people like Edgerton had to travel to small board meetings or public spaces to speak their mind. Today, the vast majority of political speech occurs over the Internet and specifically social media. That is why the internet is the single greatest advancement for free speech since the printing press. It is also the reason governments have spent decades seeking to control speech over the internet, to regulate what people can say or read.
One of the greatest threats to free speech today is the European Digital Services Act. The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”
In Europe, free speech is in free fall. Germany, France, the United Kingdom and other countries have eviscerated free speech by criminalizing speech deemed inciteful or degrading to individuals or groups. The result had made little difference to the neo-Nazi movement in countries like Germany, which is reaching record numbers. It has, however, silenced the rest of society. According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet. They have silenced the wrong people, but there is now a massive censorship bureaucracy in Europe and the desire to silence opposing voices has become insatiable.
Some in this country have the same taste for speech-regulation. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.
In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans. The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin.
It was a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. The anti-free speech movement had finally found the one man who could not be bullied, coerced or threatened into submission. Musk’s defiance has only magnified the unrelenting attacks against him in the media, academia and government. If Musk can be broken, these figures will once again exercise effective control over a large swath of speech globally.
This campaign recently came to a head when Musk had the audacity to interview former president Donald Trump. In anticipation of the interview, one of the most notorious anti-free speech figures in the world went ballistic. European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton issued a threatening message to Musk, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.”
While offering a passing nod to the freedom of speech, he warned Musk that “all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events.” In other words, be afraid, be very afraid. Musk responded with “Bonjour!” and then suggested that Breton perform a physically challenging sexual act.
To recap, the EU is now moving to force censorship upon American citizens to meet its own demands of what is false, demeaning or inciting. And that includes censorship even of our leading political candidates for the presidency. The response from the Biden administration was not a presidential statement warning any foreign government from seeking to limit our rights or even Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling the EU ambassador to his office for an expression of displeasure.
That’s because Biden and Harris are not displeased with but supportive of letting the EU do what they are barred from doing under our Constitution. This administration is arguably the most anti-free speech government since John Adams signed the Sedition Act. They have supported a massive system of censorship, blacklisting and targeting of opposing voices. Democratic members have given full-throated support for censorship, including pushing social media companies to expand in areas ranging from climate control to gender identity.
So, after only 80 years, our leaders are silent as a European government threatens to reduce our political speech to the lowest common denominator, which they will set according to their own values. Not a shot will be fired as Biden and Harris simply yield our rights to a global governing system.
But we do not have to go quietly into this night. Free speech remains a human right that is part of our DNA as Americans. We can fight back and protect millions of Edgertons who want to express their views regardless of the judgment of the majority.
I previously called for legislation to get the U.S. government out of the censorship business domestically. We also need new legislation to keep other countries from regulating the speech of our own citizens and companies. While this country has long threatened retaliation in combatting market barriers in other countries, we need to do the same thing for free speech. We need a federal law that opposes the intrusion of the Digital Services Act into the U.S. If free speech is truly the “indispensable right” of all Americans, we need to treat this threat as an attack on our very existence. It is not only the rawest form of foreign intervention into an election, but a foreign attack on our very freedoms. This is why we must pass a Digital Freedom Act.
In my new book on free speech and various columns, I write about the European Digital Services Act (DSA) as one of the greatest assaults on free speech in history. One of the most notorious anti-free speech figures in the world is European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton. Where some censor’s express reluctance in their work, Breton is chillingly enthusiastic in threatening those with opposing views with charges and financial ruin. The latest is Elon Musk for his decision to interview former President Donald Trump.
After Musk bought Twitter and pledged to dismantle much of the company’s massive censorship system, Breton went after the company at the urging of Hillary Clinton.
For those who criticized the European Union as a dangerous step toward a transnational governance system, Breton is the personification of their worst fears. He has wielded the sweeping powers and vague standards of the DSA to force companies to engage in comprehensive censorship regardless of national laws or their own values.
As I wrote in the book:
“Under the DSA, users are ’empowered to report illegal content online and online platforms will have to act quickly.’ This includes speech that is viewed not only as ‘disinformation’ but also ‘incitement.’ European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager has been one of the most prominent voices seeking international censorship. At the passage of the DSA, Vestager was ecstatic in declaring that it is ‘not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.’”
This week, Breton was irate that Musk was giving Trump a forum on X, formerly Twitter. He was not the only one. The interview was interrupted by what Musk said was a distributed denial-of-service (DDS) attack by people trying to prevent the interview.
Notably, a DDS attack interrupted a prior interview with Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. Like Breton, many were working tirelessly to prevent others from hearing opposing views.
Breton threatened Musk that the EU was watching and that the Trump interview could bring crippling sanctions under the DSA: “As there is a risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in [the EU] in connection with events with major audience around the world, I sent this letter to @elonmusk.”
As in the past, Breton refused to recognize that he was interfering with elections in another country. Sitting in his EU office, he demanded that whatever is discussed in the interview should satisfy his own content standards: “As the relevant content is accessible to EU users and being amplified also in our jurisdiction, we cannot exclude potential spillovers in the EU.” Breton expressly warned that the censors were watching. Breton wrote of the Musk-Trump interview: “Therefore, we are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political – or societal – events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.” Breton added his perfunctory mantra that free expression is fine, but only if he does not consider it “harmful.”
“This notably means, on one hand, that freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism, are effectively protected and, on the other hand, that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events, including live streaming, which, if unaddressed, might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security.”
He then threatened to impose ruinous financial penalties until Musk censored others, including potentially one of two leading presidential candidates in the United States. Musk responded with a defiant message that began with “Bonjour!” He added a vulgar Tropic Thunder reference.
Breton is one of the key figures in an anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe. It is now using the DSA, as many of us predicted, to force other countries to censor their citizens and even their leaders. It is free speech regulated to the lowest common denominator, the level set by the EU and Breton.
There is a crushing irony. The left has made “foreign interference” with elections a mantra of claiming to be defending democracy. Yet, it applauds EU censors threatening companies that carry an interview with a targeted American politician. It also supports importing such censorship and blacklisting systems to the United States. When you agree with the censorship, it is not viewed as interference, but an intervention.
If citizens want to see where the anti-free speech movement will take us in the United States, they need only to look at Europe where free speech is in a virtual free fall. As I wrote in “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”:
“The impact of these laws was evident in a poll of German citizens. Only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans did not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. And just 17 percent felt free to express themselves on the internet. The only true success of censorship has been the forced or compelled silence of those with opposing views. That pretense of social harmony is treated as success even though few minds are changed as fewer voices are heard in society.”
Musk may be the only individual with sufficient money and commitment to stand up to the EU and the global censors. That is precisely why Musk is being targeted by so many in the media, academia, and government. It is also why many of us support X and its struggle against the EU and Breton.
We have been discussing media rating systems being used to target advertisers and revenue sources for certain cites and companies. NewsGuard and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) have been criticized as the most sophisticated components of a modern blacklisting system targeting conservative or dissenting voices. I recently had a series of exchanges with NewsGuard after a critical column. Now, the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is moving forward in demanding documents and records from leading companies utilizing the GARM system, a company that I have previously criticized. It is a welcomed effort for anyone who is concerned over the use of these blacklisting systems to curtail free speech. However, time is of the essence.
The demand to preserve evidence went to various companies, including Adidas, American Express, Bayer, BP, Carhartt, Chanel, CVS and General Motors.
In my new book, I discuss the rating systems as a new and insidious form of blacklisting. Notably, Elon Musk has now filed a lawsuit against GARM and may be able to get more evidence out in discovery on the operations of this outfit.
It is an effort to strangle the financial life out of sites by targeting their donors and advertisers. This is where the left has excelled beyond anything that has come before in speech crackdowns.
Years ago, I wrote about the Biden administration supporting efforts like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) to discourage advertisers from supporting certain sites. All of the 10 riskiest sites targeted by the index were popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. That included Reason.org and a group of libertarian and conservative law professors who simply write about cases and legal controversies. GDI warned advertisers against “financially supporting disinformation online.” At the same time, HuffPost, a far-left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation.
Once GDI’s work and bias was disclosed, government officials quickly disavowed the funding. It was a familiar pattern. Within a few years, we found that the work had been shifted instead to groups like the GARM, which is the same thing on steroids. It is the creation of a powerful and largely unknown group called the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), which has huge sway over the advertising industry and was quickly used by liberal activists to silence opposing views and sites by cutting off their revenue streams.
Notably, Rob Rakowitz, head of GARM, pushed GDI and embraced its work. In an email to GARM members obtained by the committee last month, Rakowitz wrote that he wanted to “ensure you’re working with an inclusion and exclusion list that is informed by trusted partners such as NewsGuard and GDI — both partners to GARM and many of our members.”
GARM is being used by WFA to achieve what GDI failed to accomplish. The WFA site refers to Rakowitz as “a career change agent” who will “remove harmful content from ad-supported digital media.”
Rakowitz’s views on free speech are chilling and his work shows how these systems can be used to conceal bias in targeting the revenue of sites with opposing views.
Rakowitz has denounced the “extreme global interpretation of the US Constitution” and how civil libertarians cite “‘principles for governance’ and applying them as literal law from 230 years ago (made by white men exclusively).”
He appears to be referring to free speech. If so, it is deeply troubling. Some of us believe that free speech is a human right, not just an American right. Those “white men” include philosophers from the Enlightenment whose ideas were incorporated in the Framer’s view of inalienable rights like free speech.
The threat against free speech today is being led by private groups seeking to exercise an unprecedented level of control over what people can read and discuss.
Pundits and politicians, including President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama, have justified their calls for censorship (or “content moderation” for polite company) by stressing that the First Amendment only applies to the government, not private companies. That distinction allows Obama to declare himself to be “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He did not call himself a “free speech absolutist” because he favors censorship for views that he considers to be “lies,” “disinformation,” or “quackery.”
The distinction has always been a disingenuous evasion. The First Amendment is not the sole or exclusive definition of free speech. Censorship on social media is equally, if not more, damaging for free speech. Those who value free speech should oppose blacklisting systems, as was the case during the McCarthy period. Now that conservatives and libertarians are being blacklisted, it is suddenly less troubling for many on the left.
Rakowitz now wields massive influence over public discourse in this collaboration with corporations and groups like GDI. As was done to the left during the McCarthy period, blacklisting systems are now being used to control public access to information by choking off the revenue of sites.
The current anti-free speech movement is the most dangerous in history due precisely to this sophistication and the unprecedented alliance of corporate, media, academic, and government interests.
GARM and other media rating systems have been embraced by many who would prefer to silence opposing voices than respond to them. Rakowitz was wildly popular at Davos in calling for a “safer” Internet that would target dangerous sites much like GDI: “GARM has been officially recognized as a key project for 2020 within the WEF’s platform on Shaping the Future of Media Entertainment and Culture.”
The House committees are pushing forward with a sense of urgency. It is clear that the investigations in government-supported censorship and these blacklisting operations will end if the Democrats retake the house. It is expected that these companies will seek to delay any disclosures in the hope that the House will change hands and this system will again be allowed to recede back into the darkness.
We have previously discussed schools such as Harvard, Yale, and even courts removing portraits of white people in the name of inclusivity despite complaints that the left is engaging in its own form of racism. The media as praised these efforts and, in one case, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow spurred Rockefeller University to change what she derided as the “Dude Wall.” Now Canada’s Dalhousie University Medical School has joined these ranks in ordering the removal of former “old” and “white” deans in a campaign to “put people first” … with some obvious exceptions.
Dean of Medicine David Anderson announced the portrait cleansing in a message as part of the school’s “Valuing People” initiative. He declared that showing former white deans was inimical to “creating positive, safe, and inclusive environments for people to thrive.”
He claimed that the appearance of white people in the portraits make students feel unwelcomed and “dominated by senior male white leaders.” In other words, their race was viewed as interfering with maintaining a healthy and friendly environment.
This exclusion was all done in the name of inclusion, part of the Orwellian logic of today’s culture in higher education.
What is lost is the history of the institution and the recognition of those who built the medical school regardless of their race. Whatever they may have done for the school has been now superseded by their race and gender. As greater gender and racial diversity is achieved, those portraits show an institutional progression that is reflective of a changing society and profession.
Below is my column in The Hill on the controversies surrounding the Paris Olympics. Criticisms of the Opening Ceremony continue with the Vatican weighing in this week to condemn the scenes discussed below.
Here is the column:
“I wanted no part of politics.” Those words of Jesse Owens after the 1936 Olympics echoed in my mind as I watched the string of controversies emerge from the Paris games.
From the scenes in the Opening Ceremony to even the food service in the Olympic village, the 2024 Olympics sometimes seemed like a clash not of individual athletes but of political agendas.
The Opening Ceremony of director Thomas Jolly is still raising protests from religious and other groups over two controversial segments. In one scene, three young people are shown flirting in a library while reading books like “Les Liaisons Dangereuses” (Dangerous Liaisons) and “Le Diable au Corps” (Devil in the Flesh). They then run to an apartment for what was clearly a threesome sex-romp, culminating in the participants pushing the cameraman out of the bedroom.
Many people (including me) could not care less about who or how many people you have sex with. Many also would prefer not to have to explain to kids watching what the scene meant if they failed to pick up the meaning from the hot stairway kissing scene.
Then there was the feast scene, featuring DJ and producer Barbara Butch, described as “an LGBTQ+ icon who calls herself a ‘love activist.’” For many, the tableau evoked Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” — an image that was brought home for many by the Christ-like halo worn by Butch in the center.
For the record, I loved many parts of the Opening Ceremony with its stunning imagery and wonderful music. I also welcomed the inclusion of scenes with gay or trans people to show the diversity of French culture.
But for games that are supposed to serve as a shared experience for a world composed of many religions, cultures and practices, these two scenes were gratuitously divisive. Why was a threesome sex romp so vital to the vision of these Olympics?
For many, the hoisting of the Olympic flag upside down seemed to capture the approach of the French organizers. The games are supposed to capture our shared love of sports and ability to come together as a world for these games.
But that was only the beginning of the controversies, as the games appeared to make political and social divisions into an Olympic sport. It seemed like every aspect of the games, no matter how small, had to “make a point.”
For example, the environmentalists prevailed in pushing a green agenda that succeeded in not only producing possibly more carbon emissions but certainly pushing many nations over the edge.
Athletes have complained that their performances were undermined by the conditions at the village. That included “green beds” made of cardboard — beds that are ideal for recycling and a nightmare to actually sleep on. Athletes complained that they competed with little sleep on the beds designed by some woke Marquis de Sade.
Air conditioning was a “non” at the Paris Olympics, leaving athletes sweltering on their cardboard beds. It was so miserable that various countries flew in air units to make the rooms inhabitable.
Then there was the food shortage. Many blamed the push for plant-based food to lower the games’ carbon footprint. The result was that many teams, given their athletes’ need for high-protein and high-calorie meals, turned up their noses at the “reasonable,” “sustainable” choices and flew in not just their own food but also their own chefs.
None of this, of course, was about the athletes, who were left literally scavenging for meat. Their food and living conditions were meant to send a message, much like the opening ceremony, that was separate from them or their competitions. It seems like only interest groups were cheering, as athletes literally sweated it out before even going to compete.
Ironically, the many planes and trucks used to ship air conditioning units, food, and staff to Paris likely wiped out any climate benefits.
The games then became the focus of an even more intense debate over the decision to allow transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports.
Imane Khelif of Algeria defeated Angela Carini of Italy in just 46 seconds in the ring. Carini tapped out, stating that in her entire career she had never been hit that hard.
It was later revealed that Khelif and another boxer, Lin Yu‑ting of Taiwan, had failed to meet gender eligibility tests at the Women’s World Boxing Championships in New Delhi just last year. (It should be noted that Khelif is not a transgender athlete but someone listed with differences of sexual development, known as DSDs.) Khelif and Yu-ting competed in the last Olympics without medaling. (Yu-ting won a fight on Friday in the women’s 57kg category against Uzbekistan’s Sitora Turdibekova to reach the quarterfinals.)
In fairness, the Olympics, like all federations, is struggling with this issue and it is not the responsibility of the French organizers. Yet the theme of the games also outraged some civil libertarians. For example, there was another controversy at the start of the games when France announced that its Muslim athletes would not be allowed to wear their hijabs, or hair coverings, a decision that some of us condemned as a gratuitous denial of their faith. France is infamous for barring religious garb in public as part of its secularist tradition.
At the same time, French authorities have announced that charges are being considered against critics of the participants and organizers of the “Last Supper” scene.
There is little debate that direct, intentional threats should be prosecuted as they are in the U.S. But France is now one of the most anti-free speech nations in the West, with its sweeping criminalization of speech that can be interpreted as “inciting” or “intimidating” others.
These measures reflect the most glaring disconnect in the Opening Ceremony where the French motto of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity (“liberté, égalité, fraternité”) was celebrated.
In today’s France, “liberté” is no longer valued. Individual rights of religion and speech are routinely sacrificed in the name of “equity” and “fraternity.”
Many in this country believe that we should follow the same path. As I discuss in my new book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” this movement has reached our shores, with many calling for individual rights like free speech to be limited by goals of equity. There is even a movement to amend the First Amendment as “aggressively individualistic.”
In spite of our best efforts, the athletes of the Paris games continue to inspire us. Ratings are soaring. I have been glued to the television and have already fallen into the habit of gasping in shock when a gymnast steps slightly out of bounds after doing a routine that would have left me crippled for life for just attempting. They make us believe that anything is possible, even superhuman feats.
There are times when athletes cannot escape the politics of our age. When Owens won four gold medals with Hitler watching, there was no missing the transcendent meaning of his achievement.
That message, however, was far more powerful because it was delivered by an athlete as part of his competition. The problem with the Paris games is that they are trying to make it more about us than it is about them.
Barbara Butch, the LGBTQ activist who was the center figure in the controversial “Last Supper” Paris Olympic scene is threatening to sue those criticizing her. Butch played the role (wearing a Christ-like halo) viewed by many as a spoof on Christ in the Last Supper. The creators insist that they were going for a type of “pagan party” of Olympic gods and sent a message of tolerance. Art experts have supported the creators and pointed to paintings that inspired the pagan motif. That is not exactly what was seen by millions of Christians who were deeply insulted by the parody.
The question is not the intent of the creators, but the intent of critics in denouncing the display and its participants.
The threat of legal action would not be especially serious in the United States where opinion is given robust protection in both criminal and civil cases. In France, however, free speech is in a free fall with the left pushing for the censorship and criminalization of an ever-expanding range of political and religious speech.
The ceremony itself had some truly powerful and stunning elements. I enjoyed the mix of music and imagery as well as the effort to show the diversity of France. However, other elements were more divisive or excessive. For example, the producers decided to use the ceremony to feature such elements as three young people hooking up for a “ménage à trois.” With many families watching with kids, many of us thought the scene was inappropriate for such an event. However, it was the supper scene that led to protests from clerics and critics. While claiming a message of “tolerance,” the scene was taken as yet another slap at religious elements in society. That is a debate that has continued to rage, particularly on the Internet.
Audrey Msellati, Butch’s attorney, posted a statement on Butch’s Instagram account that the DJ and activist will seek legal action after being “the target of an extremely violent campaign of cyber-harassment and defamation.” She is promising to file “several complaints against these acts.”
Clearly, any direct and intentional threats of violence against Butch should be prosecuted, as they can be prosecuted in the United States. However, the French laws sweep far more broadly in criminalizing opinion and what I have called “rage rhetoric.”
Once the cradle of individual liberty, France long ago became a global leader in the crackdown on free speech.
These laws criminalize speech under vague standards referring to “inciting” or “intimidating” others based on race or religion. For example, fashion designer John Galliano has been found guilty in a French court on charges of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people in a Paris bar. At his sentencing, Judge Anne Marie Sauteraud read out a list of the bad words used by Galliano to Geraldine Bloch and Philippe Virgitti, including using ‘dirty whore” in criticism.
In another case, the father of French conservative presidential candidate Marine Le Pen was fined because he had called people from the Roma minority “smelly.” A French teenager was charged for criticizing Islam as a “religion of hate.”
That is why the homage in the Olympics to Liberté rang hollow for many of us in the free speech community. The French leaders have long been hypocritical in claiming to support free speech, such as marching in support of the Charles Hebdo magazine after the massacre after cracking down on its editors and writers.
Thomas Jolly, the artistic director for the opening ceremony of the Olympics, clearly wanted to be provocative in these scenes. He succeeded. Clearly, such provocative elements will spur debate and discussion, including heated opinions. Use of criminal sanctions for those expressing opinion would make a mockery of the display of fealty to French liberties that Jolly features in his ceremony.
France’s Sports Minister, Amélie Oudéa-Castéra, has announced that French Muslim athletes will be barred from wearing hijabs at the Olympics. The decision is a gross violation of the religious freedom of Muslim athletes and should be condemned throughout the world.
I have long been critical of the French crackdown on Muslim head coverings and swimwear. Officials insist that such religious clothing is inconsistent with the secular laws of the country. The denial of basic religious freedom in France is consistent with the French denial of free speech protections. As discussed in my new book, free expression is in tatters in France.
France has been a leader in the rollback on free speech in the West with ever widening laws curtailing free speech. These laws criminalize speech under vague standards referring to “inciting” or “intimidating” others based on race or religion. For example, fashion designer John Galliano has been found guilty in a French court on charges of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people in a Paris bar. At his sentencing, Judge Anne Marie Sauteraud read out a list of the bad words used by Galliano to Geraldine Bloch and Philippe Virgitti, including using ‘dirty whore” in criticism.
In another case, the father of French conservative presidential candidate Marine Le Pen was fined because he had called people from the Roma minority “smelly.” A French teenager was charged for criticizing Islam as a “religion of hate.”
The freedoms of speech and religion are co-existent and co-dependent. Religious speech is the leading target of government crackdowns under blasphemy laws and censorship systems. The freedom of speech sustains all other rights, which is why it is accurately called “the indispensable right.”
It is little surprise that a nation that criminalizes speech would also deny religious expression and observances.
There should be global outrage over the refusal to allow French Muslim women to adhere to their religious values in sporting events. These women want to compete for their nation, but their nation will not allow them to do so in a way that is consistent with their faith.
Every nation should protest this action and demand that France reverse its intolerant position.
For many years, I have testified and written about Antifa and its growing anti-free speech philosophy. Some Democratic leaders have embraced this violent movement, which continues to gain strength on campuses and its cities across the nation. It is also a global movement. That is reflected in the alarming election of Antifa candidates to the French National Assembly as well as the European Parliament. That is quite an accomplishment for a movement that President Joe Biden dismissed as “just an idea.”
“Antifa originated with European anarchist and Marxist groups from the 1920s, particularly Antifaschistische Aktion, a Communist group from the Weimar Republic before World War II. Its name resulted from the shortening of the German word antifaschistisch. In the United States, the modern movement emerged through the Anti- Racist Action (ARA) groups, which were dominated by anarchists and Marxists. It has an association with the anarchist organization Love and Rage, which was founded by former Trotsky and Marxist followers as well as offshoots like Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. The oldest U.S. group is likely the Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, Oregon, which would become the center of violent riots during the Trump years. The anarchist roots of the group give it the same organizational profile as such groups in the early twentieth century with uncertain leadership and undefined structures.”
As I have previously written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association. Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray has repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated “And we have quite a number” — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”
Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”
It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.
Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
The movement continues to take hold among parties on the left. An Antifa leader who is on France’s national security watchlist was elected to the National Assembly as a member of the New Popular Front leftist bloc. Raphaël Arnault will represent Vaucluse in Provence in the French parliament after winning with 54.98 per cent of the vote, according toLe Figaro.
French President Emmanuel Macron and his moderate party worked with the New Popular Front in a power deal to defeat conservatives. Antifa was part of that front.
In Italy, Ilaria Salis, a schoolteacher by trade from Milan, Italy, has been elected to the European Parliament despite being arrested in 2023 in Budapest for allegedly taking part in the organized attack by Antifa on attendees of an event commemorating the anniversary of the siege of the Buda castle by the Soviet forces in 1945. Salis’ far-left green alliance Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra (AVS) succeeded in securing the seat with the backing of far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise (LFI) party — a member of the New Popular Front alliance.
These two milestones were secured only with the help of mainstream parties and leaders who continue to delude themselves about Antifa and its true agenda. While convenient allies now to win elections, these same leaders could soon find themselves the next reactionaries denounced by these same radical groups as they gain greater power.
Will Rogers once said that “if you ever injected truth into politics, you’d have no politics.” In Wales, it appears that the government is challenging that assessment. However, if the new legislation criminalizing political lies is successful, the Welsh are likely to find themselves with the same abundance of lies but little free speech.
A proposal in the Welsh parliament (or the Senedd) would make it the first country in the world to impose criminal sanctions for lying politicians. Adam Price, the former leader of the liberal Plaid Cymru Party is pushing for the criminalization, citing a “credibility gap” in UK politics.
Astonishingly, this uniquely bad idea has received support from a key committee. Once on track for adoption, this is the type of law that can become self-propelling through the legislature. Few politicians want to go on record voting against a law banning political lies. The free speech implications are easily lost in the coverage.
The new law would make it a criminal offense for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to willfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive. There is a six-month period for challenges to be brought. The law allows a defense that a statement could be “reasonably inferred” to be a statement of opinion, or if it were retracted with an apology within 14 days. If guilty, the politician would be disqualified from being a Senedd member.
The defense is hardly helpful. It creates an uncertainty as to which statements would be deemed an opinion and which would be treated as a statement of fact. It invites selective and biased prosecutions. After all, what does it mean to accuse a politician of trying to “mislead” the public?
Winston Churchill said “a politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”
It is a standard heavily laden with subjectivity and potential selectivity in prosecution. It is more likely to determine not whether lies can be told but which lies can be told. The government and the majority of the public are likely to hold certain “misleading” claims of politicians to be true or opinion while holding a harsher view of the claims of the opposition.
Consider the massive censorship system in our own country. During Covid, you were labeled a liar, conspiracist, or racist for holding views now viewed as credible. For example, academics joined this chorus in marginalizing anyone raising the lab theory. One study cited the theory as an example of “anti-Chinese racism” and “toxic white masculinity.” As late as May 2021, the New York Times’ Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was calling any mention of the lab theory as “racist.” Mandavilli and others made clear that reporters covering the theory were Covid’s little Bull Connors. She tweeted wistfully “someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here.”
Now federal agencies have stated that they believe that the origin of the virus was indeed the Chinese lab. If this law were in place, politicians could have been charged with lying and barred from the legislature — would have only served to diminish dissenting views further in the government.
Politicians have long been accused of lying to the public. In this country, presidents routinely lie on matters great and small. Many of those lies cost citizens dearly, from “keeping your doctor” under ObamaCare to losing your life in Vietnam. Criminalizing lies in campaigns because of the spread of disinformation or disorder is a slippery slope that vests unprecedented power in the Justice Department.
There is obviously an abundance of statements from politicians that could be deemed as intentionally misleading. Officials can then simply pick and choose which politicians they want to tar with the allegation and potentially bar from office.
Scotland recently passed a new crime law covering “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. That crime covers insulting comments and anything “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive.”
Free speech is in a free fall after years of criminalization of speech. Generations have been shaped in the educational system to fear free speech. The alliance of government, media, and academic forces have created generations of speech phobics. The anti-free speech movement in the United Kingdom should be a cautionary tale for every American. The tide of this movement has reached our shores and the same alliance is working to reduce the protections for free speech.
As I discuss in my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, this international movement has left free speech in tatters in the West. Now there are law professors calling for the First Amendment to be rewritten to remove its “excessively individualistic” protections.
The free speech community in the United Kingdom has fought bravely to preserve this right against all odds. Wales is a reminder that this remains a global struggle that requires free speech advocates to unite against this rising tide.
Now this could truly be educational. Students protesting on our campuses have been offered free scholarships at Shiraz University in Fars. So, while Northwestern has reached a settlement with protesters to give scholarships to Palestinian students and positions to Palestinian faculty, U.S. protesters can now go to Iran for their education.
Mohammad Moazzeni, head of Shiraz University told media that “students and even professors who have been expelled or threatened with expulsion can continue their studies at Shiraz University and I think that other universities in Shiraz as well as Fars Province are also prepared [to provide the conditions].”
Warning: vegan meals are not available at Iranian protests. Instead, it has ordered the arrest and killing of writers and artists while holding such fun events as a cartoon competition on the Holocaust.
While expungements are not a common feature of the criminal justice system, it does have unique elements like judicially ordered blindings. Likewise, where else can you go where a criminal defendant was ordered to be executed by being tied into a burlap bag and thrown down a cliff with sharp rocks?
Some universities clearly have space after students were arrested for protesting the death sentence given a rapper. That includes Shiraz University where the Iranian regime’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) arrested students for protests.
The good thing is that U.S. students are already covering up their faces. Iranian women have faced arrest for being photographed without hijabs.
Students like Khymani James, the Columbia organizer declaring that “Zionists don’t deserve to live” have the right viewpoint but may find that the Iranian officials are less supportive in other respects.
Just a year studying abroad in Iran is worth a lifetime of education.
So Iranian universities are making the ultimate pitch to come for the free education and stay for the free amputations.
I wonder if now that the Obama administration has paid the ransom “we owed” the Iranian regime, whether it will set a precedent for others to put their hands out and demand, or at least request funds from the U.S. treasury?
Heck, even before the precedent, the Israeli government asked the U.S. to bump up its annual military stipend from $3 billion to $5 billion. Those dirty, money-grubbing Jews – asking for an additional $2 billion. You might think that, but they are blaming the Obama administration for the fact that they must request it in the first place.
It seems the Middle East is poised to get a lot more dangerous thanks to the huge infusion of cash which was part of the US-Iran nuclear agreement. So thanks to Obama, Israel expects to have to spend a lot more on defense. They do have a point.
Now in, we’ll call the post-ransom period, another has come forward asking for cash. Our old buddy, “former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is asking President Obama to release nearly $2 billion in Iranian assets frozen in a New York bank account.”
The Hill reports that Mahmoud is back and may be considering another run for president next year.
I guess he plans to return to the election circuit as the conquering hero, with $1.75 billion in tow.
However, as you may recall – this is the same $1.75 billion that the supreme Court voted 6-2 to disperse over 1,000 victims of various terrorist atrocities perpetrated on Americans over the years, “including the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut and the 1996 attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Khobar towers…”
“Iran is appealing the case at the international Court of Justice.” Court of Justice. Sounds like a place where superheroes gather. Not quite – more like super-leftists.
But Mahmoud isn’t content to leave it in the hands of the courts. He instead has penned an open letter to Obama.
After a full paragraph of praising Allah and Mohammed, he gets down to it, spending the next couple paragraphs buttering up Obama – telling him that basically nothing is his fault. Birds of a feather, I suppose, as Obama has said the same for years.
However, Mahmoud doesn’t mention Bush specifically as does Obama – just past administrations that have been responsible for “about 60 years of oppression and cruelty by different American governments against the Iranian nation…”
He then cites the supreme Court case which he claims illegally seized Iranian assets. He asks for “his Excellency,” Obama to “quickly fix” the problem and “that not only the Iranian nations must be restored, and the seized property released and returned, but also the damages caused be fully compensated for.”
Wow – he sure knows the American legal system. If he loses his bid for the presidency, Mahmoud could no doubt become a slip and fall lawyer. And he also knows Obama, the leftist, as he plays to Obama’s legacy. “I passionately advise you not to let the historical affirmation and bitter incident be recorded under your name,” writes Mahmoud.
I don’t know whether Obama has the authority to release the funds the court has already allocated. Of course I also don’t think the court should have the authority, regardless of the good cause.
In my opinion, if Obama does “find” the authority, he would certainly get out the forklift again and load up the unmarked jet with more pallets of Euros. Anything for his pals in Iran.
A 25 page document recently released by the Atlantic Council (AC), based in the U.S., states that Russia could “attack Poland overnight.” The report claims that Russia could take advantage of NATO “being distracted by another crisis” or by misinterpreting activities NATO is involved in. After the annex of Crimea in 2014, the Baltic States have become legitimately nervous, wondering who Ruusia’s next target may be.
Many of these think tanks are employed from time to time to hash out war-game scenarios, as it were. But this is no game. The Atlantic Council is deadly serious, even going so far as to suggest possible counterattack targets should Russia decide to move on Poland – targets including the Kaliningrad and Metro Moscow.
They warned that “Even if Moscow currently has no immediate intent to challenge NATO directly, this may unexpectedly change overnight.” The Council also recommends that the Obama administration authorize more shipments of missiles to the Baltic region.
In recent years Poland has had a tough time holding onto its citizens. Young men of fighting age have been pulling up stakes and leaving to find work elsewhere. The report recognizes this to be a potential problem and urges Poland to find a way to halt the exodus. They give no suggestion of how this should be accomplished – only that it needs to be a priority.
Vladimir Putin seems to think the escalation between Russia and the West was and is inevitable and claimed in a speech from earlier this year that, “Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war is almost inevitable, is prepared for, and is continuing to prepare for it.”
Do you believe him? Neither do I. I’m not sure he wants to start World War III and I don’t think he thinks war is inevitable. Escalation of tensions yes – war – I’m not so sure. I do however believe that Putin thinks the West is weak and has grown cowardly.
But I also believe he has a bit of a hotheaded streak and could be prone to overreaction. He is also, for good or bad (mostly bad), bold and does not go in for the covert.
The report states that, “Russia rarely disguises its true intentions. On the contrary, it has proclaimed to them very publicly on various occasions, but, in general, the West is chosen not to believe Russia’s declarations and disregards its willingness to carry them out.”
Needless to say Poland is not thrilled by the report. Not that they don’t believe it, but they are tired of the whole thing – after centuries of being ruled by others. First by the Russian Empire – then Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939. After World War II, it was back under the Soviet boot until 1989 and now this again.
Whether it’s a coincidence or due in part to the AC report, four NATO countries, the United States, Canada, Germany and Britain will send 1000 troops each to the region. Naturally Russia took this as a provocation and warned if NATO dispatched the 4000 troops, “Moscow would respond by posting three new divisions of its own close to the frontier.”
Although many still believe Putin is bluffing about his intentions, the defense minister of Lithuania is certainly not. When questioned on the feasibility of a Russian attack he said: “We cannot exclude it. They might exercise on the borders and then switch to invasion in hours.”
This situation is as serious as it gets. Much more so than ISIS or other terrorist networks. And who do we have as commander-in-chief? The feckless Obama. As long as he remains at the helm, Putin believes he can act without regard. And Putin is not prone to bluffing. He may take a while to set up his chess pieces, but don’t be surprised if you wake up one morning and find he’s made his first move (or second if you count Crimea).
According to Saudi’s Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Asheikh, both ISIS and al-Qaeda are enemy number one. I guess he couldn’t choose just one. Maybe it’s one of those 1 and 1A kinds of things.
Off topic as it is – who chooses the names for these characters anyway? Do they get to choose? If so, why must they always be so long? Could you imagine having to endorse a check or sign one of the tiny electronic keypads at the grocery store – or signing autographs for the Grand Mufti groupies? Sheesh!
Anyway, the Mufti – oh excuse me – the Grand Mufti stated emphatically that, “The ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism … have nothing to do with Islam and (their proponents) are the enemy number one of Islam.”
Yet about the time he was condemning the two terror groups for their barbarism, he was signing off on one of the largest mass executions in the country’s history. They executed 47 “criminals.” Among these criminals was a Shiite cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr (again with the names). This did not please Shiite Iran, as response to the executions, they attacked and burned the Saudi embassy in Tehran.
No one knows exactly what their “crimes” were – only that the verdict against the “47 criminals was based on Allah’s Book and the Prophet’s Sunnah.”
The Grand Mufti, or G-Muf to his homies, claims they were tried properly according to Shariah law and found guilty of killing and making explosives. Well, that’s good enough for me, cause we can’t have anyone killing or making explosives. And I’m sure the cleric Nimrod al-Nimrod, being Shiite, where as the Saudi’s are Sunni, was just a happy coincidence.
G-Muf
But the 72 old Grand Mufti, complete with gray beard and gnarled eye, is evidently not without a sense of humor as he stated that not only is ISIS enemy numero uno, but that they “are in actuality Israeli soldiers.” Huh – who knew.
“This threat against Israel is simply a lie. Actually, Daesh (ISIS) is part of the Israeli soldiers,” said G-Muf. “The mufti also dismissed the seriousness of the threat declared by self-proclaimed Islamic State caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. If the Islamic State was serious, al-Asheikh said, they would be ‘killing Jews and liberating Palestine.’” He labeled the Islamic State heretics and they were doing damage to Islam and Muslims.
Well G-Muf –ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black. Sure the Saudi royal family and their holy men, like G-Muf, all publically proclaim their disgust of Islamist terror, but there’s a little thing called Wahhabism, the radical Islamic ideology that dates back a lot further than that of the Islamic State. So it’s time for another history lesson that I’ll guarantee the Grand Mufti knows all about and I also bet he’s a big booster.
The radical Wahhabi movement was founded by – here we go again – Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab in the 1700’s. Now, we’ve heard that terrorists like ISIS wish to return to the time of the earliest Muslims in the 7th century. Well, that’s exactly what al-Wahhab wished to do.
Al-Wahhab created the “Kitab al-Tawid” or “Book of God’s Uniqueness,” which became the “guiding text for his followers, who consequently speak of themselves as Muwahhidun (total monotheists) or as Salafis (followers of the ways of the first Muslims).”
After being run out of his home town, al- Wahhab found refuge in the city of Diriyah, north of what is now Riyadh, a city then ruled by Muhammad ibn Saud. The two had a commonality of cause and al-Wahhab agreed to help Saud fight his battles and send messengers of the faith out to spread the word and convert Muslims to Wahhabism. Of course those who refused, just as today, didn’t fare well. The messengers declared that, “King Saud, who was presented as Allah’s chosen monarch to whom all Muslims had to pledge baya, or absolute allegiance, so as not to face annihilation as foes of god.” Sound familiar?
Between 1744 and 1818 Wahhabist preachers, and the troops that backed them up, swept across the region securing the first kingdom of the House of Saud, or Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabist beliefs ran so deep that even the mighty Ottoman empire couldn’t wipe them out completely.
In 1824 the Saudi kingdom reemerged. At the throne was Emirate of Nejd, who ruled the kingdom from it’s new capital, Riyadh, between 1824 and 1891. The third Saudi kingdom started in 1932, who’s ruler, Abdulaziz ibn Saud (’32 – ’53) used Wahhabism to unite the many tribes under the Saudi umbrella.
“King Faisal ibn Abdulaziz al-Saud (ruled 1964–75) decided the propaganda of Wahhabism, which proclaims the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the sole rightful defender of Islam, would become the long-term strategy for the monarchy’s survival.”
During the Cold War, Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (ruled 1982 until his death in 2005) saw the opportunity to spread Wahhabism using weaponized jihad. During Fahd’s reign, “Saudi Arabia spent $4 billion per year on mosques, madrassas, preachers, students, and textbooks to spread the Wahhabi creed over the next decades.” But they weren’t/aren’t educating aspiring holy man. They were/are training terrorists – jihadis using Wahhabist theology and oh by the way, American supplied weapons.
And it’s no different today. The Saudis claim to be our friends and allies against terror, but the House of Saud has been quietly funding Wahhabist terror for many decades. They have created the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and ISIS and their influence is global through their funding of thousands of Mosques and Muslim Centers, where radical Wahhabist preachers recruit new jihadists. Most of the more than 1200 Mosques in the U.S. were funded by the Saudis.
The Saudis are bad people and certainly not our friends. Their radical Wahhabist ideology, while kept under wraps, is entirely incompatible with America and a free, secular society.
So when we hear old G-Muf state that extremism and terrorism are not Islam, you know for fact, he is lying his a** off.
The global warming chicken little’s keep crowing their concern about the world heating up and how it’s all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s all bull and finally, a United Nations official has now confirmed this.Also known as “the bottom line” for environmental activists, who are malcontents, perpetuating a lie ofHitlerian proportions. They want to control other people. They’re mentally unstable to want to limit freedom. The scam is beginning to fold:
U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres speaks during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 22, 2014.
Investor’s Business Daily reports on a news conference last week in Brussels, where Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said. Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionallytransform the economic development modelfor the first time in human history.”
Got bad news for you Maoist wannabes – the only economic model that works well is Capitalism. Countries who have embraced free-market capitalism over the past 150 years have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work dayshave been halved and lifespans doubled.
But pesky facts don’t matter to facist control freaks. They want to tell you what to do, where to do it and when to wipe.
About the Author: Rodney Lee Conover
Rodney Lee Conover is a writer, producer and Senior Editor at JoeForAmerica.com
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
August 9, 2016
another run for president next year.
But Mahmoud isn’t content to leave it in the hands of the courts. He instead has penned an 
Wow – he sure knows the American legal system. If he loses his bid for the presidency, Mahmoud could no doubt become a slip and fall lawyer. And he also knows Obama, the leftist, as he plays to Obama’s legacy. “I passionately advise you not to let the historical affirmation and bitter incident be recorded under your name,” writes Mahmoud.
A 25 page document recently released by the Atlantic Council (AC), based in the U.S., states that Russia could “attack Poland overnight.” The report claims that Russia could take advantage of NATO “being distracted by another crisis” or by misinterpreting activities NATO is involved in. After the annex of Crimea in 2014, the Baltic States have become legitimately nervous, wondering who Ruusia’s next target may be.
game. The Atlantic Council is deadly serious, even going so far as to suggest possible counterattack targets should Russia decide to move on Poland – targets including the Kaliningrad and Metro Moscow.
Vladimir Putin seems to think the escalation between Russia and the West was and is inevitable and claimed in a speech from earlier this year that, “Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one.
However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war is almost inevitable, is prepared for, and is continuing to prepare for it.”
Whether it’s a coincidence or due in part to the AC report, four NATO countries, the United States, Canada, Germany and Britain will send 1000 troops each to the region. Naturally Russia took this as a provocation and warned if NATO dispatched the 4000 troops, “Moscow would respond by posting three new divisions of its own close to the frontier.”
Got bad news for you Maoist wannabes – the only economic model that works well is Capitalism. Countries who have embraced free-market capitalism over the past 150 years have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work dayshave been halved and lifespans doubled.
Rodney Lee Conover is a writer, producer and Senior Editor at JoeForAmerica.com
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.