From the E.U. to China to Uzbekistan — censorship is so hot right now!
Bringing you the latest free speech news (6/9/24)
Stories of the week
Report: E.U. Censorship Laws Mostly Suppress Legal Speech by J.D. Tuccille in Reason Magazine (featuring quotes from FIRE Senior Fellow Jacob Mchangama)
Among those who think the United States is an unseemly cesspool of unrestrained opinions voiced by those people, Europe is often touted as an alternative for speech regulation. European Union law, following in the footsteps of national legislation, imposes enforceable duties on private platforms to purge "hate speech" and "disinformation"—or else. But free speech advocates warn that these laws are clumsy and dangerous tools that threaten to muzzle expression far beyond the bounds of their nominal targets. They're right, and they now have receipts.
Damned in Amsterdam: A Bizarre Deplatforming by Jerry A. Coyne and Maarten Boudry for Quillette
Like being struck by lightning, getting deplatformed—first invited to speak and then disinvited for your political views—is something you assume happens only to other people. But, unlike a lightning strike, it’s not a rare occurrence. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)’s “campus deplatforming database” of US universities lists 626 successful deplatforming attempts since 1998. This year alone, there have already been 110 attempts to cancel talks, most involving speakers sympathetic to Israel. Neither of us, however, had ever personally experienced this kind of cancellation before.
This week in ERI
This week on ‘So to Speak’
FIRE’s executive vice president and host of “
” sits down with FIRE’s chief counsel Robert Corn-Revere to discuss Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, recent efforts to reform it, and new proposals for content moderation on the internet.
This week in FIRE’s blog
Utah librarians score free speech victory for right to post on social media by Daniel Ortner
FIRE asks federal court to stop Utah’s unconstitutional social media law . . . AGAIN by David Rubin
Moving events online due to protests is still a heckler’s veto by Jessie Appleby
International free speech stories of the week
In Pictures: Tiananmen crackdown commemorations foiled by large Hong Kong police deployment by the Hong Kong Free Press
Uzbekistan: Imprisoned for ‘Insulting the President Online’ by Human Rights Watch
Canada’s Extremist Attack on Free Speech by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic
FIRE in the press!
Here’s how Congress can help stop backdoor government censorship by John Coleman
‘Canceling’ in the news
I had a great conversation with Rep. Dan Crenshaw on his “Hold These Truths” podcast about cancel culture, the limits of free speech, and social psychology.
London Calling: Ronnie’s First Amendment Rundown
Little v. Lanno County (Texas)
Here’s a decision protecting the right to access information and ideas, particularly at your public library. In this case, users alleged the county, members of its commissioners court, a county library system director, and the library board violated the First Amendment by removing books based on their content and messages. Specifically, a judge on the commissioners court ordered the system director to pull all books that “depict any type of sexual activity or questionable nudity” in response to a citizen complaint, based on a list of books that a Texas Representative claimed contained objectionable material – which he referred to as “pornographic filth” – including “butt and fart” books (like I Broke My Butt! and Larry the Farting Leprechaun), Maurice Sendak’s Night Kitchen (which has cartoon drawings of a naked child), books on sexual health, young adult books touching on sexuality and homosexuality, books centered on gender identity and dysphoria, and two books about the history of U.S. racism. After the district court issued a preliminary injunction restoring the status quo, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding removal of books on these bases violated the First Amendment. (Though it narrowed the injunction by ordering that only 8 of 17 removed books be immediately restored.) As the appellate court explained: “a book may not be removed for the sole—or a substantial—reason that the decisionmaker does not wish patrons to be able to access the book’s viewpoint or message.” This is good news for library patrons – as FIRE’s amicus brief explained, culture war waged in America’s public libraries will persist until courts declare the only way to win is not to play.
Toast of the month
I gave this toast at the FIRE staff retreat two weeks ago, and DISCLAIMER: I look absolutely ridiculous in it because I'm wearing a goofy, unflattering t-shirt, and that bandana I have around my neck was to establish which teams we were on for the retreat — and at the time it was actually holding a handful of ice cubes in it because I was so damn hot.
But I'm proud how this came out, and it was something I had been meaning to say to staff for a very long time.
Special shout-out to
, with whom I worked on this toast and who gave me the very good idea to look into C.S. Lewis’ book “The Four Loves.”
Censorship is so hot, the idea of an Israeli flag didn't even cross the artists mind;)
Is there a better word than jawbone for what the government has been doing? The term seems to cover both public exhortations and private communications. I know that both are powerful means by which to suppress allowable speech and behavior, and we need look no farther than than Thomas Becket and Henry II’s “will no one rid me of this troublesome priest” for an example.
Yet, there seems to me a difference between the King’s utterances and the actions of his henchmen. Fiery pronouncements from a podium are materially different from visits by the police. Maybe, we have a chain of implied commands resembling the children’s game of telephone. Until recently, I would have dismissed any police involvement in the suppression of the first among the rights as an aberration or the act of a rogue zealot. However, like a black stain on a white shirt, these transgressions against freedom of conscience are spreading. Remarkably, my acquaintances in Canada and in Europe are proud that “free-speech absolutists” are not tolerated. I have heard speech suppression described by a European government official as due to their “more advanced thinking.”
Fortunately, there are still people who are shocked by this. I am still shocked that a culture has seemingly developed within government and other institutions that finds implied threats acceptable whether we call it jawboning or not. My FIRE donations are well worth the price.