This is why I refuse to be lectured by Europeans about the shortcomings of the USA. Yes, we do have shortcomings, but the European populace seems quite willing, if not enthusiastic, to give up what I believe to be the most fundamental right that someone living in a democratic society ought to consider sacrosanct.
What about private censorship and what about self-censorship? Constitutional protections are essential, and they are arguably stronger in the United States than in most democracies. Yet non-governmental constraints—driven by cultural norms, workplace dynamics, and social pressure—also shape what people feel able to say. The gap between legal rights and lived experience matters.
Europe generally imposes more formal restrictions on speech, but it also provides stronger labor protection. Parts of Europe may enjoy greater freedom in everyday interpersonal dialogue, with less fear of termination by private employers. This difference is reflected institutionally as well: European democracies typically support multiple political parties, while the United States’ two-party system encourages polarized, binary thinking. Those who don’t fit neatly into one side often choose silence over social or professional isolation.
To be clear, the examples discussed in this article are abhorrent and warrant unequivocal condemnation. However, my point is that we shouldn't ignore the chilling effects of private and self-censorship.
Much of the American understanding of European free speech culture relies on quantitative indicators—arrest statistics or court cases—rather than lived experience. Born in Iran, and having lived, studied, and worked in Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States, I’ve seen firsthand that while the First Amendment offers extraordinary legal protection, perceived freedom plays an equally important role in shaping everyday discourse.
It's disappointing, albeit unsurprising, to see that the WaPo commenters were almost universally dismissive of your warning. It's really quite baffling, as they simultaneously support these laws while inveighing against Trump for his mendacity and attacks on free speech. Do they not realize that, had we laws like these, he would be the one who gets to use them? That he would be the one to define what is truth and what is hate? I can only hope that WaPo's readership at large is more receptive.
I'm not sure Greg and his colleagues at FIRE see this: The massive tide against free speech originates from the left, not right. Whether Europe, university campuses in the USA or candidates such as Tim Walz, the threat against free speech -- by far! -- starts with so-called left wing progressives. Free speech peccadilloes from right wingers are wrong, and often self correcting, but the threat, threat, threat is a left wing agenda.
Why in the world should the US remain a part of NATO when free speech is no more protected in the UK and the EU than in Russia, China and Iran? The places we are supposedly defending NATO countries against.
I don't always agree with the viewpoints presented by FIRE. But I'm 100% behind this.
Nothing is more Orwellian than to presume that the government should be in charge of what criticism of government, or of anyone, will be allowed. Governments are made out of people, just like the rest of the population. The people of government have LESS rights than the rest of us, not more. We have authority over them far more than they have over us. There is no reason to think that the people of government are smarter, more principled, more honest or less bigoted than the rest of us.
Give up your free speech at your peril. Once they are able to silence you, the game is over. The loss of all of your other freedoms will fall like dominos after. Anyone that advocates to censor you, or to unmask your anonymity is your adversary. Treat them like one - no matter what else they say.
But why is it so vital and necessary for the combined monolithic apparatus of government, corporations, and NGOs, to brute force censor everyone while decimating the careers and reputations of the dissenters? Here is why:
The reason the First Amendment is prime directive order 1, is because it is the most important freedom we have for the same reason it is the first target an adversary subverts, disrupts, and destroys during a crime, a war, or a takeover—preventing a target from assembling, communicating, and organizing a response to an assault grants an enormous advantage to the aggressors.
"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent will be led, like sheep to the slaughter." -Washington
And i am sorry to say it but this is where the rubber meets the road: The Second Amendment is second because it is the remedy for anyone trying to subvert the First.
"The 1-A is first for a reason. The 2-A is it's twin. Together they make a bond of freedom." —S.P.H.
This is why I refuse to be lectured by Europeans about the shortcomings of the USA. Yes, we do have shortcomings, but the European populace seems quite willing, if not enthusiastic, to give up what I believe to be the most fundamental right that someone living in a democratic society ought to consider sacrosanct.
Ask people, do you want Donald Trump (or Gavin Newsom) defining “hate speech”? Because that’s what it will come down to.
“Hate speech”, despite self-serving “definitions” to the contrary, has no objective definition.
What about private censorship and what about self-censorship? Constitutional protections are essential, and they are arguably stronger in the United States than in most democracies. Yet non-governmental constraints—driven by cultural norms, workplace dynamics, and social pressure—also shape what people feel able to say. The gap between legal rights and lived experience matters.
Europe generally imposes more formal restrictions on speech, but it also provides stronger labor protection. Parts of Europe may enjoy greater freedom in everyday interpersonal dialogue, with less fear of termination by private employers. This difference is reflected institutionally as well: European democracies typically support multiple political parties, while the United States’ two-party system encourages polarized, binary thinking. Those who don’t fit neatly into one side often choose silence over social or professional isolation.
To be clear, the examples discussed in this article are abhorrent and warrant unequivocal condemnation. However, my point is that we shouldn't ignore the chilling effects of private and self-censorship.
Much of the American understanding of European free speech culture relies on quantitative indicators—arrest statistics or court cases—rather than lived experience. Born in Iran, and having lived, studied, and worked in Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States, I’ve seen firsthand that while the First Amendment offers extraordinary legal protection, perceived freedom plays an equally important role in shaping everyday discourse.
Absolutely.
Real freedom is in the heart, not on a piece of paper.
It's disappointing, albeit unsurprising, to see that the WaPo commenters were almost universally dismissive of your warning. It's really quite baffling, as they simultaneously support these laws while inveighing against Trump for his mendacity and attacks on free speech. Do they not realize that, had we laws like these, he would be the one who gets to use them? That he would be the one to define what is truth and what is hate? I can only hope that WaPo's readership at large is more receptive.
The same thing is going on in Canada.
I wish I had more money, so I could donate it to FIRE
Encroachments upon the 1st Amendment will eventually be the inroad for encroachments upon the 2nd.! Patriots take notice!
I'm not sure Greg and his colleagues at FIRE see this: The massive tide against free speech originates from the left, not right. Whether Europe, university campuses in the USA or candidates such as Tim Walz, the threat against free speech -- by far! -- starts with so-called left wing progressives. Free speech peccadilloes from right wingers are wrong, and often self correcting, but the threat, threat, threat is a left wing agenda.
Did you…not read the piece?
Why in the world should the US remain a part of NATO when free speech is no more protected in the UK and the EU than in Russia, China and Iran? The places we are supposedly defending NATO countries against.
I don't always agree with the viewpoints presented by FIRE. But I'm 100% behind this.
Nothing is more Orwellian than to presume that the government should be in charge of what criticism of government, or of anyone, will be allowed. Governments are made out of people, just like the rest of the population. The people of government have LESS rights than the rest of us, not more. We have authority over them far more than they have over us. There is no reason to think that the people of government are smarter, more principled, more honest or less bigoted than the rest of us.
Well said, but we do suffer some speech restrictions already, has anyone who has been arrested for speaking out against genocide can testify.
Well said, but we do suffer some speech restrictions already, has anyone who has been arrested for speaking out against genocide can testify.
Give up your free speech at your peril. Once they are able to silence you, the game is over. The loss of all of your other freedoms will fall like dominos after. Anyone that advocates to censor you, or to unmask your anonymity is your adversary. Treat them like one - no matter what else they say.
But why is it so vital and necessary for the combined monolithic apparatus of government, corporations, and NGOs, to brute force censor everyone while decimating the careers and reputations of the dissenters? Here is why:
The reason the First Amendment is prime directive order 1, is because it is the most important freedom we have for the same reason it is the first target an adversary subverts, disrupts, and destroys during a crime, a war, or a takeover—preventing a target from assembling, communicating, and organizing a response to an assault grants an enormous advantage to the aggressors.
"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent will be led, like sheep to the slaughter." -Washington
And i am sorry to say it but this is where the rubber meets the road: The Second Amendment is second because it is the remedy for anyone trying to subvert the First.
"The 1-A is first for a reason. The 2-A is it's twin. Together they make a bond of freedom." —S.P.H.
Not sure why you are sorry to say it - the Second protects the other nine. That's the intent.