I'm not sure any countries have totally free speech, for example "I'll pay $x million to have politician $y killed" will get you into trouble most places. It's a question of where you draw the line.
Even in the US the constitution says the government can't pass laws against free speech, not that you can say anything without getting into trouble. See Rumeysa Ozturk for example detained for six weeks for writing an op ed criticising Israel.
Free speech is both paramount for its own sake and necessary for democracy. You cannot have a functional electoral democracy if the people already in power can decide what arguments and opinions everyone else can express. The viewpoint that censorship of expressions that those in power deem dangerous to democracy is justified to protect democracy is perhaps itself the viewpoint most dangerous to democracy. That doesn't mean it should be censored. It means it should be expressed by those who wish to express it and argued against by those who wish to argue against it, as with all viewpoints.
I've literally not seen anyone in the last two generations who espouse free speech principals who then followed them when they reached a position of power. Quite the opposite, actually, the creeping fascism currently spreading its roots in the United States features heavily decrying limits to its freedom of speech, and then instantly abusing ambiguity and leveraging the inherent unbalancing of truth with misinformation and propaganda.
Just to be clear, I agree with everything you said. I just think "freedom of speech" shares a lot of issues with things like "communism" when put into practice by eminently flawed humans.
They did try to, as well, in Manvers. Can't remember if this was before or after her post, and presumably they weren't really following her instructions, but given the high probability that her post might cause somebody to set a hotel on fire, it seems that she could have been convicted even under US law.
"Bins were set alight and pushed against fire exits"
Well, the test is if it's directed to and likely to cause a panic (in the US). So if you avoid causing a panic by sheer luck - like something counteracts your yelling and everybody settles down again, and that's the only reason nobody was crushed - you're still in trouble.
Though moral luck is certainly a thing in general, where negligence and risk-taking is not a crime until it goes wrong.
Aware of the US distinction, and it's mostly sensible. I believe in the US you actually can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and if nothing happens, you'll be given the benefit of the doubt. As it should be.
Absolutely, at least they had to honesty to include what she said - incitement to mass murder immigrants and politicians - while there were rioters actively attacking hotels and mosques and after 2 MPs were murdered in office. The rest of the article is the same predictable hand-wringing over EU countries (whose actions are concerning), while white-washing what the US does. For example:
> ...the administration suspended her visa and put her in immigration detention.
In that case the student was grabbed off the street by masked men (which bystanders thought was a kidnapping) and disappeared to another state (against judge's orders), kept in dire conditions, with her friends/family/lawyer initially not knowing what happened is.
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the
bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government
and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these
families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it”
Other protesters also have said some vile things about other people and it's allowed to go on. So it seems that the law isn't applied evenly.
In any case, people should be able to protest and should only face lawful restrictions if they cause immediate property damage (looting, burning cars, etc.), physical assault or pose an immediate danger to people or things in their immediate vicinity.
Just saying vile and disgusting things should not be a basis for prohibiting and or arresting people. If they become physically violent or threatening, then sure, arrest them. "Shitposting" on X/Twitter, etc., should not get you arrested.
People in China know the consequences of not being able to say vile and disgusting things about their own government when they crush dissent.
He was charged, but the jury took little more than half an hour to reach a not guilty verdict. Speculation is that this was simple in-group preference - The trial was at Snaresbrook Crown Court, in the constituency of Leyton and Wanstead. At the 2021 Census, the white British population in Leyton and Wanstead was less than 34% of the total population. The jury likely reflected that. And such in-group preference is well documented: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/judicial-institute/sites/judicial-inst...
Of course. It is applied by humans, with all the failings that implies.
>In any case, people should be able to protest and should only face lawful restrictions if they cause immediate property damage ... Just saying vile and disgusting things should not be a basis for prohibiting and or arresting people.
That may be your viewpoint, but UK law says otherwise.
Most people don't want to live in a society where:
* people can say vile racist/sexist/homophobic things.
* where the state censors what you can say.
But you pretty much have to pick one or the other. The US took the maximalist free speech approach. Europe didn't. Due to differences in culture and history. I think both are defensible on various grounds.
However successive UK governments also seem keen to restrict the right to peaceful protest. I would say that is a different thing and I'm not sure it is helpful to conflate the two.
I don't want people to say vile racist/sexist/homophobic things, but I believe you should have the right to do so anyways (and others should have the right to speak against such things). The government should not censor what you say, even if the result is that people do say bad things sometimes, if you have free speech, then in addition to bad things it also means that people can (and do) say good things sometimes too, so it is good.
It's not a conflation. Being able to protest is part of free speech. It's like saying, the ability to publish a book isn't about "speech" but instead that is actually freedom of the press.
> people can say vile racist/sexist/homophobic things
The definitions of what speech falls under "racist/sexist/homophobic things" tends to be highly subjective and varies between who you ask and who's in power, which means they instantly become hammers of those in power to suppress speech of the opposing camp.
It's basically tools for selective enforcement and will 100% gonna be abused because those in power can never be handed a powerful weapon and expect to never misuse it for personal gains.
Like for example, during Democrat rule, before Elon bought Twitter and before Trump came to power, it was considered homophobic to say there are only two genders, or to even ask how many genders there are, and could get you banned on Twitter and other major platforms. Pointing out crime statistics on illegal migrants was considered racism, and so on.
So once you brush everything you don't like under the "racist/sexist/homophobic" speech, you've successfully achieved totalitarian rule while cosplaying as protecting democracy, which is what Europe is trying to do.
Both of those examples invalidate and/or endanger people though.
For example, repeatedly asking how many genders there are ignores the obvious 'its a continuum' and implies its a finite number. The person asking almost always then goes on to push that there's two because that's "how its always been" and then folks can't get gender affirming care are are essentially classified as "nonexistent".
The right, being rooted in conservatism, loves to ressurect old arguments in the name of " just asking questions" and have the rest of us redo the battles of old. For example, race science is discredited pseudoscience, there's no need to keep bringing it up unless you're trying to use it for, imo nefarious, political means.
> Much of Europe concluded that, although free speech is important, views that threaten democracy itself are different and can be criminalized; see laws in various European states against Nazi propaganda.
It should be noted that being the one to define what "democracy itself" means comes with great advantages. It has little to do with what the people want (what one might naively think "democracy" means) - no no, that is "populism". "Protect democracy", rarely (if ever) means free elections, free speech, or the right to oppose government. What it means is more censorship.
> Europeans might retort that the American system, too, has failed to stop threats to freedom of expression.
As a European, it brings me no comfort that free speech is in peril even in the US.
I think what we saw during the pandemic was chilling. You could not discuss origin theories, you could not talk about Ivermectin, you could not challenge the 6 foot distancing or the surgical mask (lack of) effectiveness. The administration had "embeds" in Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. giving them "suggestions" as to what was questionable. Canada debanked a lot of incidental people in the great trucker protest. Lots of other examples too.
Now, people may agree with the censorship, never the less it is censorship and looking back it was unproductive and now the establishment has lost many regular people who now distrust “the science.”
Then how come I heard about the Ivermectin nonsense, whining about social distancing and masks, and the ridiculous "protest" in Canada? If there was censorship, it wasn't very effective.
Because some of it got through but it's not because they wanted free an open discussion. I don't know if Ivermectin would have helped anyone, but suppressing discussion is not good --especially when the thwarting was at the behest of the government.
The Canadian truckers could be dicks if they wanted to, that's no good reason to de-bank people en-masse.
Suppose the police were targeting red cars and were pulling them over and you have a red car and your retort is, I have a red car and also saw other red cars not getting pulled over, therefore everything is alright.
> Unfortunately, the Trump administration is so hypocritical on free expression, so unpopular in Europe, and so undiplomatic that it and its supporters are poorly positioned to persuade Europeans to reverse course
Understatement of the year, I think Americans don't grasp how much of a clown show their government offers to the rest of the world these days.
That’s the thing - Europeans love to criticize the US, all while milking it on trade and defense.
Americans for the most part do not care what Europeans think of them or their government, and seem to be happier for it.
Au contraire it seems they care too much. One side is gravely worried that trump is dismantling euro alliances, the other side is very keen to see it happen because they believe isolationism is the solution to all problems
I'm not sure any countries have totally free speech, for example "I'll pay $x million to have politician $y killed" will get you into trouble most places. It's a question of where you draw the line.
Even in the US the constitution says the government can't pass laws against free speech, not that you can say anything without getting into trouble. See Rumeysa Ozturk for example detained for six weeks for writing an op ed criticising Israel.
Free speech is both paramount for its own sake and necessary for democracy. You cannot have a functional electoral democracy if the people already in power can decide what arguments and opinions everyone else can express. The viewpoint that censorship of expressions that those in power deem dangerous to democracy is justified to protect democracy is perhaps itself the viewpoint most dangerous to democracy. That doesn't mean it should be censored. It means it should be expressed by those who wish to express it and argued against by those who wish to argue against it, as with all viewpoints.
I've literally not seen anyone in the last two generations who espouse free speech principals who then followed them when they reached a position of power. Quite the opposite, actually, the creeping fascism currently spreading its roots in the United States features heavily decrying limits to its freedom of speech, and then instantly abusing ambiguity and leveraging the inherent unbalancing of truth with misinformation and propaganda.
Just to be clear, I agree with everything you said. I just think "freedom of speech" shares a lot of issues with things like "communism" when put into practice by eminently flawed humans.
[dead]
"When a middle-aged mother lashes out at asylum seekers in a social-media post"
She urged people to set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers.
They did try to, as well, in Manvers. Can't remember if this was before or after her post, and presumably they weren't really following her instructions, but given the high probability that her post might cause somebody to set a hotel on fire, it seems that she could have been convicted even under US law.
"Bins were set alight and pushed against fire exits"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyj2nlw9wgo
Some people broke the law, and the poster can be held accountable for successful incitement. It's not the post that broke the law per se.
You can yell fire in a crowded theatre. Just hope you don't cause a panic or you'll be in trouble.
Well, the test is if it's directed to and likely to cause a panic (in the US). So if you avoid causing a panic by sheer luck - like something counteracts your yelling and everybody settles down again, and that's the only reason nobody was crushed - you're still in trouble.
Though moral luck is certainly a thing in general, where negligence and risk-taking is not a crime until it goes wrong.
Aware of the US distinction, and it's mostly sensible. I believe in the US you actually can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and if nothing happens, you'll be given the benefit of the doubt. As it should be.
Anything else a genuinely slippery slope.
> You can yell fire in a crowded theatre. Just hope you don't cause a panic or you'll be in trouble.
But what if laws get interpreted through an ideological lens, and the person shouting happens to be a fellow member of the "Pro-Trampling Party"?
Then that'll be factored in as intent and they'll be held accountable for the consequences - not the speech itself.
The important part is that yelling "fire" is fine if the entire theatre laughs it off.
Absolutely, at least they had to honesty to include what she said - incitement to mass murder immigrants and politicians - while there were rioters actively attacking hotels and mosques and after 2 MPs were murdered in office. The rest of the article is the same predictable hand-wringing over EU countries (whose actions are concerning), while white-washing what the US does. For example:
> ...the administration suspended her visa and put her in immigration detention.
In that case the student was grabbed off the street by masked men (which bystanders thought was a kidnapping) and disappeared to another state (against judge's orders), kept in dire conditions, with her friends/family/lawyer initially not knowing what happened is.
What's the exact quote?
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it”
Other protesters also have said some vile things about other people and it's allowed to go on. So it seems that the law isn't applied evenly.
In any case, people should be able to protest and should only face lawful restrictions if they cause immediate property damage (looting, burning cars, etc.), physical assault or pose an immediate danger to people or things in their immediate vicinity.
Just saying vile and disgusting things should not be a basis for prohibiting and or arresting people. If they become physically violent or threatening, then sure, arrest them. "Shitposting" on X/Twitter, etc., should not get you arrested.
People in China know the consequences of not being able to say vile and disgusting things about their own government when they crush dissent.
> Other protesters also have said some vile things about other people and it's allowed to go on. So it seems that the law isn't applied evenly.
For example: The now-suspended councillor, wearing a black polo top and surrounded by cheering supporters, said: “They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.” - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/15/suspended-labour... (unpaywall: https://archive.is/gT2fa)
He was charged, but the jury took little more than half an hour to reach a not guilty verdict. Speculation is that this was simple in-group preference - The trial was at Snaresbrook Crown Court, in the constituency of Leyton and Wanstead. At the 2021 Census, the white British population in Leyton and Wanstead was less than 34% of the total population. The jury likely reflected that. And such in-group preference is well documented: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/judicial-institute/sites/judicial-inst...
> So it seems that the law isn't applied evenly.
Of course. It is applied by humans, with all the failings that implies.
>In any case, people should be able to protest and should only face lawful restrictions if they cause immediate property damage ... Just saying vile and disgusting things should not be a basis for prohibiting and or arresting people.
That may be your viewpoint, but UK law says otherwise.
All the failings occur on one side, then it’s not an issue of human error
It's, to borrow a locally inspired term of a local socialist, "Orwellian." It's a bit ironic.
Are you saying that because Orwell was a socialist? Not so re he's local though.
[dead]
Thank god we have the Like to tell free speech from propaganda in a functioning self censoring democracy.
Most people don't want to live in a society where:
* people can say vile racist/sexist/homophobic things.
* where the state censors what you can say.
But you pretty much have to pick one or the other. The US took the maximalist free speech approach. Europe didn't. Due to differences in culture and history. I think both are defensible on various grounds.
However successive UK governments also seem keen to restrict the right to peaceful protest. I would say that is a different thing and I'm not sure it is helpful to conflate the two.
I don't want people to say vile racist/sexist/homophobic things, but I believe you should have the right to do so anyways (and others should have the right to speak against such things). The government should not censor what you say, even if the result is that people do say bad things sometimes, if you have free speech, then in addition to bad things it also means that people can (and do) say good things sometimes too, so it is good.
It's not a conflation. Being able to protest is part of free speech. It's like saying, the ability to publish a book isn't about "speech" but instead that is actually freedom of the press.
> people can say vile racist/sexist/homophobic things
The definitions of what speech falls under "racist/sexist/homophobic things" tends to be highly subjective and varies between who you ask and who's in power, which means they instantly become hammers of those in power to suppress speech of the opposing camp.
It's basically tools for selective enforcement and will 100% gonna be abused because those in power can never be handed a powerful weapon and expect to never misuse it for personal gains.
Like for example, during Democrat rule, before Elon bought Twitter and before Trump came to power, it was considered homophobic to say there are only two genders, or to even ask how many genders there are, and could get you banned on Twitter and other major platforms. Pointing out crime statistics on illegal migrants was considered racism, and so on.
So once you brush everything you don't like under the "racist/sexist/homophobic" speech, you've successfully achieved totalitarian rule while cosplaying as protecting democracy, which is what Europe is trying to do.
Both of those examples invalidate and/or endanger people though.
For example, repeatedly asking how many genders there are ignores the obvious 'its a continuum' and implies its a finite number. The person asking almost always then goes on to push that there's two because that's "how its always been" and then folks can't get gender affirming care are are essentially classified as "nonexistent".
The right, being rooted in conservatism, loves to ressurect old arguments in the name of " just asking questions" and have the rest of us redo the battles of old. For example, race science is discredited pseudoscience, there's no need to keep bringing it up unless you're trying to use it for, imo nefarious, political means.
So how many genders are there? The answer is simple, it's in all biology books. Any other answer is virtue signaling revisionism.
> Much of Europe concluded that, although free speech is important, views that threaten democracy itself are different and can be criminalized; see laws in various European states against Nazi propaganda.
It should be noted that being the one to define what "democracy itself" means comes with great advantages. It has little to do with what the people want (what one might naively think "democracy" means) - no no, that is "populism". "Protect democracy", rarely (if ever) means free elections, free speech, or the right to oppose government. What it means is more censorship.
> Europeans might retort that the American system, too, has failed to stop threats to freedom of expression.
As a European, it brings me no comfort that free speech is in peril even in the US.
I think what we saw during the pandemic was chilling. You could not discuss origin theories, you could not talk about Ivermectin, you could not challenge the 6 foot distancing or the surgical mask (lack of) effectiveness. The administration had "embeds" in Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. giving them "suggestions" as to what was questionable. Canada debanked a lot of incidental people in the great trucker protest. Lots of other examples too.
Now, people may agree with the censorship, never the less it is censorship and looking back it was unproductive and now the establishment has lost many regular people who now distrust “the science.”
Then how come I heard about the Ivermectin nonsense, whining about social distancing and masks, and the ridiculous "protest" in Canada? If there was censorship, it wasn't very effective.
Because some of it got through but it's not because they wanted free an open discussion. I don't know if Ivermectin would have helped anyone, but suppressing discussion is not good --especially when the thwarting was at the behest of the government.
The Canadian truckers could be dicks if they wanted to, that's no good reason to de-bank people en-masse.
Suppose the police were targeting red cars and were pulling them over and you have a red car and your retort is, I have a red car and also saw other red cars not getting pulled over, therefore everything is alright.
I heard about all that. I saw it discussed. I saw Qanons push all that obvious rubbish real hard, to the point of dog piling on anyone disagreeing.
Free speech doesn't mean that any obviously false viewpoint is considered as just as valid as the reasonable viewpoints.
> Unfortunately, the Trump administration is so hypocritical on free expression, so unpopular in Europe, and so undiplomatic that it and its supporters are poorly positioned to persuade Europeans to reverse course
Understatement of the year, I think Americans don't grasp how much of a clown show their government offers to the rest of the world these days.
That’s the thing - Europeans love to criticize the US, all while milking it on trade and defense. Americans for the most part do not care what Europeans think of them or their government, and seem to be happier for it.
Just curious, how are Europeans "milking the US on trade"?
Au contraire it seems they care too much. One side is gravely worried that trump is dismantling euro alliances, the other side is very keen to see it happen because they believe isolationism is the solution to all problems
Do the average Democrat really cares about our euro alliances or are you talking about the left media talking points?
I've yet to met a normal person mention how worried they are about our relationship with Europeans.
Well no, but they use those points to bash each other
archive link: https://archive.ph/GRtj2