I can't thank you enough for all your work and writings about free speech and the rule of law, but I just need it to be said that it cannot be understated how bad the situation is right now in the UK. As an Englishman, I've watched my country decay over the past ten years, and I've never been so terrified in my life. What we need is our brothers across the pond, now more than ever.
Do not abandon us just because of our despotic leaders. It was only a few years ago when the Joe Biden administration was doing very much similar things. I see many Americans speaking of Britain as if Biden's curbs against free speech didn't happen. (Disinformation Governance Board, Covid censorship)
Starmer is destroying our once great nation faster than I ever thought possible. We cannot survive until 2029, which is the next general election. I'm speaking here with genuine fear that if the United States doesn't intervene, they will not have any of Britain left to rejuvenate when Farage wins. If that means a US warship sailing up the Thames (to be parked outside Parliament, so be it), I am that serious. My country is dying.
But, for now, until it does fall, I can at least read your work (via VPN) as sometimes even Substack is blocked and unable to be accessed. Often coincidentally, topics that the government wants controlled, fancy that. Many an article on immigration I can’t access without workarounds.
So until I can no longer read your work, I thank you for it
Seconded. I grew up in Britain. Its modern form, the "yookay", is something unrecognizable to me. Given recent events I fear even Farage/Reform will do nothing now, assuming it's even possible to elect them by 2029 at all. Given where the UK is going it wouldn't be a surprise if the entire political platform of the most popular party might just be openly illegal to support by the next time there's a vote. Or they enfranchise millions of immigrants to buy the vote.
But I must say, it is deserved. Even now, even here, _even Greg Lukianoff_ is making some of the same mistakes my parent's generation made, the mistakes that led to this outcome. If Americans don't learn the right lessons from Europe he is absolutely correct that the same things could happen there too. Indeed, it already is.
1. Don't over-focus on the law! European speech laws haven't actually changed much over time, just the way they are implemented in practice. America doesn't have formalized hate speech laws due to the 1A, but it does have a large and rapidly growing problem with organized Nazi-style street armies. Antifa and the NGO network are, today, imposing hate speech laws on Americans via extra-governmental mechanisms. The 1A is a useful finger in the dam but until the core problem is recognized they will continue to find clever legal workarounds, like electing prosecutors who allow private "police forces" to operate with impunity, or capturing social networks and newspapers.
2. Stop apologizing on behalf of people being persecuted. Don't describe Jamie Michael as "emotional", Darren Bradie as "heavy-handed", put "traditionalist" in scare quotes or say that "almost nobody likes" the WBC. Defenders of free speech always do this and it's fatal. The censors don't use a normal moral code, but when people talk like this it concedes the moral point in the eyes of waverers who do. And it imputes a state of mind onto people, typically without evidence. Was Jamie Michael actually emotional or was he giving a rational assessment of the situation? You could easily argue the latter. Free speech defenders always describe the people they're defending as irrational or defective in some way: it attacks the victims, emboldens the censors and sows doubt in the minds of the apolitical masses.
In fairness to Greg, in most of his case descriptions he does avoid this error and describes what happened without passing judgement on the speakers.
3. It's critical that we stop misreading European history. That is the key mistake made in Britain, the one that enabled this dystopian outcome. Again, to be fair, Greg starts by identifying wokeness as the problem and says that Germany learned the wrong lessons from history. But I'm not sure he's taken that to the logical conclusion.
In Europe the case for free speech was systematically weakened by the cultural assumption that "far right" = Nazis, and therefore left and right can be equally dangerous. If you believe that then it follows logically that the primarily political danger is "extremism", because good and moral people exist in the "center". The problem is that there is no actual line, the "center" is a mirage created by media coverage and that assumption allowed an entire censorship apparatus to be smuggled past the European conservative parties to become a bipartisan consensus encoded into law because who could be against censoring Nazis?
If you look at all the speech prosecutions happening, they are almost always against either conservatives, or random people who get angry at leftist client groups when they commit crimes. But the laws don't explicitly ban the right or right wing parties by name. Instead they are all phrased as banning "extremism" of various kinds. The left then uses a bogus reading of 20th century history to define anyone who opposes their agenda as driven by hate.
To fix this everyone who cares about freedom must systematically push back on two ideas:
1. That hate is morally wrong (hate is an evolved reaction because sometimes it's necessary)
2. That far left and far right are the same.
There has never been a society that fell apart because it was too pro-capitalism, pro-free speech or pro-political freedom. In 1941 Hitler said that his party was at the start 90% left wing people (he used those words exactly), he said he was a "fanatical socialist", the Nazi manifesto was a far left manifesto, and they did the same things as other far left regimes. Even today the CCP runs concentration camps in Xinjiang. There's unlimited primary historical evidence that the supposedly "far right" Nazis were actually what they always claimed to be i.e. far left. I've provided much more evidence in this essay along with rebuttals of common leftist objections:
In reality every dangerous regime of the 20th century was either left wing, or a short lived military dictatorship that occurred because Marxist revolutionaries were assassinating the conservative generals. Every single one.
This misreading of history lets leftists set up mechanisms that claim to be
ideologically neutral, capture them and then abuse them to persecute any normal, healthy people who try to resist what they are doing. The exact same thing happens in the USA! It's just that the mechanisms are in the private/NGO sector instead of in government. As existing without trade is impossible, this is no less effective than government action.
you’re such a retard. if you enfranchise immigrants they’re gonna vote conservative. try ever speaking to an immigrant, ever. the people enterprising enough to move country for work are not leftists
Muslims voted >80% for Labour in 2019. The only reason it fell in 2024 is because a lot of them switched to voting purely on Gaza. Neither is remotely "conservative" and it's not gonna be hard working legal Reform supporting Poles they enfranchise. They're heading home because Poland is now getting richer than Britain is, without the Islamic extremism.
We were talking about immigrants and now you’re onto Muslims, not the same thing in the slightest. Figure out what your point actually is then get back to me. If you think a bill enfranchising immigrants on the basis of religion would ever see the light of the day then you’re a moron. And as a Pole we’re heading back in part because the government and main parties are obsessed with making life harder for us. Farage wants to scrap ILR and make us pay for fucking visas, do you really think Poles support that?
> If you think a bill enfranchising immigrants on the basis of religion would ever see the light of the day then you’re a moron
I recall a time not so long ago when people like you would have said exactly that about:
- The government cancelling elections for millions of people.
- Judges having a formalized policy of giving non-whites more lenient sentences
- Public sector organizations advertising jobs for non-whites only
- Allowing anyone physically present in the UK to vote without ID checks (which is in Labour's manifesto)
- British police arresting people for being "openly Jewish"
and I could give a thousand other examples of things that have happened that would have just 10 years ago sounded implausibly extreme and insane.
But hey, you realize Labour don't actually have to enfranchise based on religion. They can simply allow in as many asylum seekers as needed and then house them in whichever constituencies are marginal, then give them the vote on the understanding that the other party will deport them. This lets them add as many votes to whichever races they need to win, in an entirely controlled manner. Combined with defining their oppositions policies as "hate speech" they have the tools to keep power forever, and given unresponsive they are to their catastrophic opinion polling, that's clearly their plan.
Yeah except you’re speaking to me and not “people like me”, I know it’s easier to go for your readymade lines rather than actually engaging with anything I say but it’s not exactly gonna bring anyone round
I think culturally the uk still believes in proper free speech of the “I don’t agree with what he says but I’ll defend to the death his right to say it” type.
But the new constraints on this (even if it’s 5yrs old now) haven’t really broken through into the mainstream - it’s still a very online concern imo.
Doesn’t help that there’s not a left-free speech party atm. All three are restrictive.
And on the right Reform looks to me more likely to just change the targets than commit to a principle.
Oof, that was a tough read. I couldn't stomach all of it, but I thank you for documenting it, and fighting so vigorously. Our course indeed seems perilous.
I am *Eternally* grateful you are here to document and report this stuff, Greg.
The apathy and ignorance of my fellow countrymen (friends and family alike) around these issues and many violations, and their dire consequences, is depressing to say the least. But you always reinvigorate and re-enthuse me to speak out and fight against this stuff.
Thanks for your work on this, Greg. I hadn't realized just how far down the path of censorship the UK has gone.
You put it well: "Here’s the thing: censors always think their motives are pure. From inquisitors to commissars to modern “hate speech” units, they all believe they’re preventing some existential harm." That's what can be so hard for people to understand, particularly on campus. If someone "means well," then surely what they are proposing must be okay. But we have seen how quickly those good intentions can turn into rigid orthodoxy.
I grew up in the 1960s. I grew up with people proclaiming their right to live how they want, take any drugs they want, marry anyone they want, and by all means, to say anything they want.
Now, it is largely these people, these progressives, who insist on censorship. Progressivism is a sinking ship, and progressives are doing anything they can think of to maintain power over the rest of us. This newly minted free speech issue has never been about fairness or protection of minorities. It's about power and control.
Think about why there is a first amendment. It is not there to protect accepted speech. Accepted speech needs no protection.. It is there to protect 'unacceptable' speech. I've been watching both parties make damned fools of themselves for decades. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they aren't. They must be stopped, before they can stop us.
Greg, Whether you realize it or not, you make a watertight case against Democratic leadership, especially at the national level. Is there even a single national Democratic figure who stands up for free speech? Loudly and unambiguously? Bill Maher, perhaps fits this description, but isn't an elected official. I'll never forget Tim Walz's strong assertion that "The First Amendment doesn't protect hate speech and misinformation!" This buffoon was pretty close to being elected VP. We already saw in Biden's administration massive censorship on the covid narrative and many other controversial issues, pervasively exerted by pressure on internet platforms and the MSM.
Today's excellent essay and FIRE's crucial work on the poisonous anti-free speech atmosphere in the overwhelmingly Democratic culture of higher education is proof positive that pseudo-liberals are the principle enemy of free speech.
I acknowledge that some on the right wing have a tendency to oppose true free speech, but at a much, much lower degree than the left.
For disclosure: I voted for Hillary and Biden, but probably will never vote D again.
The President of the United States justified the murder of Renee Good because, as he said, she was disrespectful to the agent who shot her. Trump is a Republican. So Republicans advocate for shooting people for being disrespectful but the Democrats are worse because they say you shouldn't be racist and homophobic...
More proof that free speech has absolutely nothing to offer the left. We need to start acting accordingly and never let people like you and Lukianoff, who ignored Trump's statement so he could post this anti-leftist screed, demand we abide by norms and constitutional protections ever again. I can't wait for a right winger to be disrespectful during a leftist administration
The comment you're replying to is off-base, but so is your own. Lukianoff has plenty of established history pushing back against "the left" as well as "the right". There's nothing morally superior about either end of the political spectrum, they both have ample elements of authoritarianism and censorship, and acknowledging that is vitally important for everyone who opposes those.
In a week in which a right wing government murdered a woman engaged in 1A protected activity, deemed her a terrorist, and then precluded all possibilities of even investigating the shooter Lukianoff decided to write an anti=leftist screed. Show me your priorities and I'll show you your politics. And I won't even mention the daily attacks and arrests on those filming and documenting ICE/DHS. FIRE and Lukianoff don't mention them either
Since you're apparently keeping a list, what things have those two said that *are* against the current administration's actions? I can think of a few just from memory. You're right to push back against the partisanship of the first comment, but you're letting your own partisanship blind you to other counterfactuals. Partisanship is the real enemy that keeps us divided and prevents us from solving real problems. There's more than enough partisanship coming from the top-down, and you're right to point that out, but real change happens from the bottom-up -- it happens with us.
Is that a joke? Lukianoff's whole schtick is to pretend to be some enlightened centrist and its only a coincidence that his conclusions always just happen to hew towards the right's position. Its called Trojan horse politics. If he owned his partisanship instead of being disingenuous about it he'd never hear from me
Your shtick is simple; if it's something the right supports, it's wrong, and your reactionary response is to embrace the opposite. You haven't put forth any countering argument to Lukianoff's central thesis, you're just bothered by partisanship?
She was not engaged in 1A protected activity. You do not have the right to obstruct lawful immigration enforcement. The training material promoted by anti-ICE activists clearly exhibits unlawful action.
Lukianoff claims he's not a MAGA conservative but his blog post is full of MAGA conservatives calling a woman a domestic terrorist and celebrating her murder. The right wing is extremely violent, they have total impunity to be violent and they celebrate that violence. The left needs to act accordingly
To be precise, the ICE agent shot her because she was in the process of hitting him with her car. Trump and Vance have been very clear on this point.
I just don't get it. There has never been a time in American history when it was safe to floor the gas pedal, tires peeling out and everything, with a member of law enforcement standing directly in front of your vehicle. Even if you think the ICE agent was wrong and he shouldn't have fired shots we're still talking about extremely dangerous operation of a vehicle and split-second life-or-death decisions by law enforcement, not speech. So it really has no bearing on this article.
President Trump said she deserved to be killed because she was disrespectful to the agent. He said so on Air Force One. You can support Trump, you can support the murder of Renee Good but you are not entitled to your own alternative MAGA facts
You sound delusionally dangerous to other people and I advise you to seek psychiatric help _immediately_.
What Trump said is that she was shot in self-defense, which is correct. He also said - NOT as a justification for her being killed, but to explain how she ended up attempting to drive over a cop - that she was a "professional agitator", "harassing", "highly disrespectful" and probably being paid.
All those statements are either reasonable inferences or true statements of fact. At no point did he say or even imply what you're claiming here, that everyone who disrespects the police should be shot. He does not say that. That cannot be read into his words by any reasonable person. If you think he did, you are brainwashed and need to seek help because you are working backwards from what you want to believe and have lost your grip on reality.
To repeat, because you need it: it can be simultaneously true that she WAS a terrible person, ALSO that this is not a sufficient reason to be shot AND ALSO that she was shot for another reason, like trying to drive over armed police. Do you understand how multiple statements can be true at one time?
Leftists have always been tyrannical and censorious, while claiming virtue on their march to Utopia, which is the liquidation of their theoretical enemies, making the rest slaves and taking their property. We who wish to stay free have always been their theoretical enemy in a myriad of ways, having to endure their vacuous claims of racism, fascism and every-ism.
It never stops with them because they are incapable of perceiving individuals, or reality, both of which they loathe. But in order to survive, as all creatures must, they use theories to give them the justification, so they think, to accomplish their awful objectives upon the innocent. That is why they oppress them, maim them and kill them, at every chance they get; and by doing so, they obtain for themselves the productive assets of others, which they promptly waste, because they haven't the competence. But they don't care.
That is why this type of human being, of which there is a minority, but claim to always be in the majority, are vocal and active and relentless -- it is the only way for turn to thrive. That is why they are always censorious of others and why organizations like FIRE are essential.
You don't know much about the Trump Administration and the suppression of left wing speech do you? Like Lukianoff you must not have heard yet about Renee Good. Google that name and tell me that its the left's fault
Outstanding analysis! It's long but I couldn't just skim much less stop reading it. Free speech is so critical to a free society. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes that the First Amendment is violated by both governmental suppression of speech and government compulsion of it. See Janus v. AFSCME S. Ct. 1918).
The last part where you answered the fears of hate speech laws supporters was very interesting. How to achieve a fair, well-functioning civic society. I would love to read more on that. I understand free speech supporters - but I also understand some of hate speech laws-proponents' fears. So it's interesting to hear about alternatives to hate speech laws and why we need these alternatives. It's always thought-provoking to read you. The type of liberalism you propose always makes me think, I like it. I do hope that liberalism and other political movements and philosophies will grow, develop in time, to be able to solve our current political problems and speak to people. There definitely is too much complacency among political elites right now, that is halting the growth of their ideologies. But I also see smaller NGOs working on such development of ideologies, what is a good sign.
Most of the fear that creates support for hate speech laws is artificial. Leftist historians rewrite history and then point to it as justification. When examined carefully though, it becomes clear that hate speech laws wouldn't have helped.
For example, the Nazis never got enough votes to genuinely win power democratically, and their support fell in the last election held before they took over. Political speech was working: Germans were offered appalling political choices in those days (the strongest alternatives were open communists loyal to Moscow), but nonetheless they were turning against Hitler. He saw that and used his street armies to take complete control, then imposed massive levels of censorship against his opponents. He understood that free speech was bad for his party, and censorship was good.
But modern historical narratives are largely produced by academics, who all far left and engage in state subsidized market dumping. They rewrite this history to claim that censorship would have prevented WW2. There is no evidence for this but they repeat it so often that people come to accept it.
The comments to your opinion piece in the Washington Post should scare every sane, freedom loving American. I couldn't believe how many were dismissive about what is happening in Europe. Even more egregious were how many embrace curtailing speech because they believe a 'nicer' society is a more advanced and better society.
You just commented to me to justify the murder of a woman in the streets of Minneapolis. This is just further proof that free speech has nothing to offer the left
Lets just be clear here that you justify the murder of those you disagree with. You think Trump and ICE should have a free hand to stamp out the rights of the people you hate. Typical Lukianoff fan really
Well written, Greg. We battle these same issues in Canada, and our elites are following (and sometimes leading) down the same path as the UK and Australia. Our national identity has historically been oppositional to the US, despite our shared border and (at least until recently) close ties. Canadians see themselves as far too genteel for that "rugged individualism" that Americans wear with pride, and we tell ourselves that limited free speech is still free speech. I said "elites" rather than "politicians" above, because this permeates through our professional managerial class and institutions -- it's not just the police knocking at the door. It's often professional regulators, school boards, university administrators and the like who ensure that our speech is restrained and its limits are robust, not the other way around. As a lawyer, I have defended numerous professionals who have gone through hell with their regulator because they challenged gender ideology or Covid restrictions when they were supposed to toe the line. To ensure (ideally, subject to resources) that every David can have a fighting chance against these various Goliaths, I have helped to start (and now lead) the new Free Speech Union of Canada (www.fsucanada.ca). I follow your excellent work with interest, and appreciate your leadership on this issue of civilizational importance.
Over 20 years ago, I was visiting Montréal with my daughter and watching the news. I wasn't paying attention until my ears picked up on, "It is unclear if he will face charges for his comments." It was an immediate prompt to thank God for free speech in America, and educate my child that other countries do not have the same rights as we do.
Great piece, Greg. I've been following the stories in Europe very closely, so nothing here is news for me, but it's wonderful to have it all in one place *and* wrapped up in principled defence of free speech (rather than specific partisan objections to specific cases).
However, "censors always think their motives are pure" does not quite ring true to me. It's a defensible position, but there are many cases of state censorship where the censorship was motivated in defence of the regime - case in point, the Ugandan government turning off the internet during the current election season (which hit the news this week). The same doubtless applies in many other countries where state censorship is the norm.
I don't think it's correct to suggest that Museveni in Uganda or Kim in North Korea have 'pure motives'. Rather, they wield justifications to defend their own power. They may believe that their being in power is 'the right thing', but I would baulk at suggesting this is anything like a 'pure motive'.
Thanks Greg. How do we stop it here?! Feels like I just sit and watch these things happen and don’t know how to stop it. Most Americans have no clue this stuff is happening in UK/Europe. And with the climate of censorship among the citizens of America and some of its institutions - there are people pushing for it to go to the next step here too.
It really is maddening to have so many people assume they are right and being blinded to the consequences of that moral reasoning/ ego. I’ve been reading a lot of books about communist china- and that’s how it started there too… they had good reasons to want a better life… but they put blinders on when millions died beside them as they continued to walk the ideological line in the name of doing good
How does the fact that, in terms of trust in government and institutions, the United States regularly polls similar or lower than places like the UK and Germany fit with your conclusion (that banned speech causes an epistemic crisis and lack of belief in the state)? As for not trusting ones fellow man and the troubles of virtue signalling, Americans seem as concerned about this, if not more so, than their European counterparts.
It's important to stand up for free speech, but I don't think the current American situation makes a convincing case that its free speech model is a recipe for higher public trust and social stability. There are other reasons to argue for it, but those aren't some of them.
I can't thank you enough for all your work and writings about free speech and the rule of law, but I just need it to be said that it cannot be understated how bad the situation is right now in the UK. As an Englishman, I've watched my country decay over the past ten years, and I've never been so terrified in my life. What we need is our brothers across the pond, now more than ever.
Do not abandon us just because of our despotic leaders. It was only a few years ago when the Joe Biden administration was doing very much similar things. I see many Americans speaking of Britain as if Biden's curbs against free speech didn't happen. (Disinformation Governance Board, Covid censorship)
Starmer is destroying our once great nation faster than I ever thought possible. We cannot survive until 2029, which is the next general election. I'm speaking here with genuine fear that if the United States doesn't intervene, they will not have any of Britain left to rejuvenate when Farage wins. If that means a US warship sailing up the Thames (to be parked outside Parliament, so be it), I am that serious. My country is dying.
But, for now, until it does fall, I can at least read your work (via VPN) as sometimes even Substack is blocked and unable to be accessed. Often coincidentally, topics that the government wants controlled, fancy that. Many an article on immigration I can’t access without workarounds.
So until I can no longer read your work, I thank you for it
Seconded. I grew up in Britain. Its modern form, the "yookay", is something unrecognizable to me. Given recent events I fear even Farage/Reform will do nothing now, assuming it's even possible to elect them by 2029 at all. Given where the UK is going it wouldn't be a surprise if the entire political platform of the most popular party might just be openly illegal to support by the next time there's a vote. Or they enfranchise millions of immigrants to buy the vote.
But I must say, it is deserved. Even now, even here, _even Greg Lukianoff_ is making some of the same mistakes my parent's generation made, the mistakes that led to this outcome. If Americans don't learn the right lessons from Europe he is absolutely correct that the same things could happen there too. Indeed, it already is.
1. Don't over-focus on the law! European speech laws haven't actually changed much over time, just the way they are implemented in practice. America doesn't have formalized hate speech laws due to the 1A, but it does have a large and rapidly growing problem with organized Nazi-style street armies. Antifa and the NGO network are, today, imposing hate speech laws on Americans via extra-governmental mechanisms. The 1A is a useful finger in the dam but until the core problem is recognized they will continue to find clever legal workarounds, like electing prosecutors who allow private "police forces" to operate with impunity, or capturing social networks and newspapers.
2. Stop apologizing on behalf of people being persecuted. Don't describe Jamie Michael as "emotional", Darren Bradie as "heavy-handed", put "traditionalist" in scare quotes or say that "almost nobody likes" the WBC. Defenders of free speech always do this and it's fatal. The censors don't use a normal moral code, but when people talk like this it concedes the moral point in the eyes of waverers who do. And it imputes a state of mind onto people, typically without evidence. Was Jamie Michael actually emotional or was he giving a rational assessment of the situation? You could easily argue the latter. Free speech defenders always describe the people they're defending as irrational or defective in some way: it attacks the victims, emboldens the censors and sows doubt in the minds of the apolitical masses.
In fairness to Greg, in most of his case descriptions he does avoid this error and describes what happened without passing judgement on the speakers.
3. It's critical that we stop misreading European history. That is the key mistake made in Britain, the one that enabled this dystopian outcome. Again, to be fair, Greg starts by identifying wokeness as the problem and says that Germany learned the wrong lessons from history. But I'm not sure he's taken that to the logical conclusion.
In Europe the case for free speech was systematically weakened by the cultural assumption that "far right" = Nazis, and therefore left and right can be equally dangerous. If you believe that then it follows logically that the primarily political danger is "extremism", because good and moral people exist in the "center". The problem is that there is no actual line, the "center" is a mirage created by media coverage and that assumption allowed an entire censorship apparatus to be smuggled past the European conservative parties to become a bipartisan consensus encoded into law because who could be against censoring Nazis?
If you look at all the speech prosecutions happening, they are almost always against either conservatives, or random people who get angry at leftist client groups when they commit crimes. But the laws don't explicitly ban the right or right wing parties by name. Instead they are all phrased as banning "extremism" of various kinds. The left then uses a bogus reading of 20th century history to define anyone who opposes their agenda as driven by hate.
To fix this everyone who cares about freedom must systematically push back on two ideas:
1. That hate is morally wrong (hate is an evolved reaction because sometimes it's necessary)
2. That far left and far right are the same.
There has never been a society that fell apart because it was too pro-capitalism, pro-free speech or pro-political freedom. In 1941 Hitler said that his party was at the start 90% left wing people (he used those words exactly), he said he was a "fanatical socialist", the Nazi manifesto was a far left manifesto, and they did the same things as other far left regimes. Even today the CCP runs concentration camps in Xinjiang. There's unlimited primary historical evidence that the supposedly "far right" Nazis were actually what they always claimed to be i.e. far left. I've provided much more evidence in this essay along with rebuttals of common leftist objections:
https://penbroke.substack.com/p/the-nazis-were-a-far-left-party
In reality every dangerous regime of the 20th century was either left wing, or a short lived military dictatorship that occurred because Marxist revolutionaries were assassinating the conservative generals. Every single one.
This misreading of history lets leftists set up mechanisms that claim to be
ideologically neutral, capture them and then abuse them to persecute any normal, healthy people who try to resist what they are doing. The exact same thing happens in the USA! It's just that the mechanisms are in the private/NGO sector instead of in government. As existing without trade is impossible, this is no less effective than government action.
you’re such a retard. if you enfranchise immigrants they’re gonna vote conservative. try ever speaking to an immigrant, ever. the people enterprising enough to move country for work are not leftists
Muslims voted >80% for Labour in 2019. The only reason it fell in 2024 is because a lot of them switched to voting purely on Gaza. Neither is remotely "conservative" and it's not gonna be hard working legal Reform supporting Poles they enfranchise. They're heading home because Poland is now getting richer than Britain is, without the Islamic extremism.
We were talking about immigrants and now you’re onto Muslims, not the same thing in the slightest. Figure out what your point actually is then get back to me. If you think a bill enfranchising immigrants on the basis of religion would ever see the light of the day then you’re a moron. And as a Pole we’re heading back in part because the government and main parties are obsessed with making life harder for us. Farage wants to scrap ILR and make us pay for fucking visas, do you really think Poles support that?
> If you think a bill enfranchising immigrants on the basis of religion would ever see the light of the day then you’re a moron
I recall a time not so long ago when people like you would have said exactly that about:
- The government cancelling elections for millions of people.
- Judges having a formalized policy of giving non-whites more lenient sentences
- Public sector organizations advertising jobs for non-whites only
- Allowing anyone physically present in the UK to vote without ID checks (which is in Labour's manifesto)
- British police arresting people for being "openly Jewish"
and I could give a thousand other examples of things that have happened that would have just 10 years ago sounded implausibly extreme and insane.
But hey, you realize Labour don't actually have to enfranchise based on religion. They can simply allow in as many asylum seekers as needed and then house them in whichever constituencies are marginal, then give them the vote on the understanding that the other party will deport them. This lets them add as many votes to whichever races they need to win, in an entirely controlled manner. Combined with defining their oppositions policies as "hate speech" they have the tools to keep power forever, and given unresponsive they are to their catastrophic opinion polling, that's clearly their plan.
Yeah except you’re speaking to me and not “people like me”, I know it’s easier to go for your readymade lines rather than actually engaging with anything I say but it’s not exactly gonna bring anyone round
I think culturally the uk still believes in proper free speech of the “I don’t agree with what he says but I’ll defend to the death his right to say it” type.
But the new constraints on this (even if it’s 5yrs old now) haven’t really broken through into the mainstream - it’s still a very online concern imo.
Doesn’t help that there’s not a left-free speech party atm. All three are restrictive.
And on the right Reform looks to me more likely to just change the targets than commit to a principle.
Oof, that was a tough read. I couldn't stomach all of it, but I thank you for documenting it, and fighting so vigorously. Our course indeed seems perilous.
Thank the lord for Greg Lukianoff!
I am *Eternally* grateful you are here to document and report this stuff, Greg.
The apathy and ignorance of my fellow countrymen (friends and family alike) around these issues and many violations, and their dire consequences, is depressing to say the least. But you always reinvigorate and re-enthuse me to speak out and fight against this stuff.
Tackling the apathy is the first hurdle.
Thank you.
Julian from the UK.
Thanks for your work on this, Greg. I hadn't realized just how far down the path of censorship the UK has gone.
You put it well: "Here’s the thing: censors always think their motives are pure. From inquisitors to commissars to modern “hate speech” units, they all believe they’re preventing some existential harm." That's what can be so hard for people to understand, particularly on campus. If someone "means well," then surely what they are proposing must be okay. But we have seen how quickly those good intentions can turn into rigid orthodoxy.
I grew up in the 1960s. I grew up with people proclaiming their right to live how they want, take any drugs they want, marry anyone they want, and by all means, to say anything they want.
Now, it is largely these people, these progressives, who insist on censorship. Progressivism is a sinking ship, and progressives are doing anything they can think of to maintain power over the rest of us. This newly minted free speech issue has never been about fairness or protection of minorities. It's about power and control.
Think about why there is a first amendment. It is not there to protect accepted speech. Accepted speech needs no protection.. It is there to protect 'unacceptable' speech. I've been watching both parties make damned fools of themselves for decades. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they aren't. They must be stopped, before they can stop us.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!
Please continue this fight for many years to come. I will be donating to FIRE.
Thanks Greg! Great piece!
Greg, Whether you realize it or not, you make a watertight case against Democratic leadership, especially at the national level. Is there even a single national Democratic figure who stands up for free speech? Loudly and unambiguously? Bill Maher, perhaps fits this description, but isn't an elected official. I'll never forget Tim Walz's strong assertion that "The First Amendment doesn't protect hate speech and misinformation!" This buffoon was pretty close to being elected VP. We already saw in Biden's administration massive censorship on the covid narrative and many other controversial issues, pervasively exerted by pressure on internet platforms and the MSM.
Today's excellent essay and FIRE's crucial work on the poisonous anti-free speech atmosphere in the overwhelmingly Democratic culture of higher education is proof positive that pseudo-liberals are the principle enemy of free speech.
I acknowledge that some on the right wing have a tendency to oppose true free speech, but at a much, much lower degree than the left.
For disclosure: I voted for Hillary and Biden, but probably will never vote D again.
The President of the United States justified the murder of Renee Good because, as he said, she was disrespectful to the agent who shot her. Trump is a Republican. So Republicans advocate for shooting people for being disrespectful but the Democrats are worse because they say you shouldn't be racist and homophobic...
More proof that free speech has absolutely nothing to offer the left. We need to start acting accordingly and never let people like you and Lukianoff, who ignored Trump's statement so he could post this anti-leftist screed, demand we abide by norms and constitutional protections ever again. I can't wait for a right winger to be disrespectful during a leftist administration
The comment you're replying to is off-base, but so is your own. Lukianoff has plenty of established history pushing back against "the left" as well as "the right". There's nothing morally superior about either end of the political spectrum, they both have ample elements of authoritarianism and censorship, and acknowledging that is vitally important for everyone who opposes those.
In a week in which a right wing government murdered a woman engaged in 1A protected activity, deemed her a terrorist, and then precluded all possibilities of even investigating the shooter Lukianoff decided to write an anti=leftist screed. Show me your priorities and I'll show you your politics. And I won't even mention the daily attacks and arrests on those filming and documenting ICE/DHS. FIRE and Lukianoff don't mention them either
Since you're apparently keeping a list, what things have those two said that *are* against the current administration's actions? I can think of a few just from memory. You're right to push back against the partisanship of the first comment, but you're letting your own partisanship blind you to other counterfactuals. Partisanship is the real enemy that keeps us divided and prevents us from solving real problems. There's more than enough partisanship coming from the top-down, and you're right to point that out, but real change happens from the bottom-up -- it happens with us.
Is that a joke? Lukianoff's whole schtick is to pretend to be some enlightened centrist and its only a coincidence that his conclusions always just happen to hew towards the right's position. Its called Trojan horse politics. If he owned his partisanship instead of being disingenuous about it he'd never hear from me
Your shtick is simple; if it's something the right supports, it's wrong, and your reactionary response is to embrace the opposite. You haven't put forth any countering argument to Lukianoff's central thesis, you're just bothered by partisanship?
I disagree with your observations and I find your demeanor and rhetoric to be unhelpful and extreme.
She was not engaged in 1A protected activity. You do not have the right to obstruct lawful immigration enforcement. The training material promoted by anti-ICE activists clearly exhibits unlawful action.
You can excuse political violence all you like. Just don't be surprised when it comes back to haunt you. Live by the sword, die by the sword
Oh, please. The Left has always excused political violence as long as it has supported its causes.
No. Obstructing officers and using your car as a weapon (intentional or not) is not "1A protected activity".
Lukianoff claims he's not a MAGA conservative but his blog post is full of MAGA conservatives calling a woman a domestic terrorist and celebrating her murder. The right wing is extremely violent, they have total impunity to be violent and they celebrate that violence. The left needs to act accordingly
The right isn't being violent rn. The left is. You've got it backwards.
To be precise, the ICE agent shot her because she was in the process of hitting him with her car. Trump and Vance have been very clear on this point.
I just don't get it. There has never been a time in American history when it was safe to floor the gas pedal, tires peeling out and everything, with a member of law enforcement standing directly in front of your vehicle. Even if you think the ICE agent was wrong and he shouldn't have fired shots we're still talking about extremely dangerous operation of a vehicle and split-second life-or-death decisions by law enforcement, not speech. So it really has no bearing on this article.
Thank you for weighing in, Stephen Miller. Scratch a civil libertarian and fascist bleeds
You're welcome. Don't forget your meds.
> Republicans advocate for shooting people for being disrespectful
No they don't, and this level of disconnection from reality is extraordinarily dangerous.
President Trump said she deserved to be killed because she was disrespectful to the agent. He said so on Air Force One. You can support Trump, you can support the murder of Renee Good but you are not entitled to your own alternative MAGA facts
I'd ask you to stop deliberately misinterpreting what other people say, but you obviously never will.
Its a matter of public record. Trump said it. But there is no reasoning with MAGA I suppose
You sound delusionally dangerous to other people and I advise you to seek psychiatric help _immediately_.
What Trump said is that she was shot in self-defense, which is correct. He also said - NOT as a justification for her being killed, but to explain how she ended up attempting to drive over a cop - that she was a "professional agitator", "harassing", "highly disrespectful" and probably being paid.
All those statements are either reasonable inferences or true statements of fact. At no point did he say or even imply what you're claiming here, that everyone who disrespects the police should be shot. He does not say that. That cannot be read into his words by any reasonable person. If you think he did, you are brainwashed and need to seek help because you are working backwards from what you want to believe and have lost your grip on reality.
To repeat, because you need it: it can be simultaneously true that she WAS a terrible person, ALSO that this is not a sufficient reason to be shot AND ALSO that she was shot for another reason, like trying to drive over armed police. Do you understand how multiple statements can be true at one time?
Think again because if I had the power I would shut your trap.
Leftists have always been tyrannical and censorious, while claiming virtue on their march to Utopia, which is the liquidation of their theoretical enemies, making the rest slaves and taking their property. We who wish to stay free have always been their theoretical enemy in a myriad of ways, having to endure their vacuous claims of racism, fascism and every-ism.
It never stops with them because they are incapable of perceiving individuals, or reality, both of which they loathe. But in order to survive, as all creatures must, they use theories to give them the justification, so they think, to accomplish their awful objectives upon the innocent. That is why they oppress them, maim them and kill them, at every chance they get; and by doing so, they obtain for themselves the productive assets of others, which they promptly waste, because they haven't the competence. But they don't care.
That is why this type of human being, of which there is a minority, but claim to always be in the majority, are vocal and active and relentless -- it is the only way for turn to thrive. That is why they are always censorious of others and why organizations like FIRE are essential.
You don't know much about the Trump Administration and the suppression of left wing speech do you? Like Lukianoff you must not have heard yet about Renee Good. Google that name and tell me that its the left's fault
Nice to meet you, too! Why don't you provide detail about both of your claims. Go ahead, "google" it! 😄
Outstanding analysis! It's long but I couldn't just skim much less stop reading it. Free speech is so critical to a free society. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes that the First Amendment is violated by both governmental suppression of speech and government compulsion of it. See Janus v. AFSCME S. Ct. 1918).
The last part where you answered the fears of hate speech laws supporters was very interesting. How to achieve a fair, well-functioning civic society. I would love to read more on that. I understand free speech supporters - but I also understand some of hate speech laws-proponents' fears. So it's interesting to hear about alternatives to hate speech laws and why we need these alternatives. It's always thought-provoking to read you. The type of liberalism you propose always makes me think, I like it. I do hope that liberalism and other political movements and philosophies will grow, develop in time, to be able to solve our current political problems and speak to people. There definitely is too much complacency among political elites right now, that is halting the growth of their ideologies. But I also see smaller NGOs working on such development of ideologies, what is a good sign.
Most of the fear that creates support for hate speech laws is artificial. Leftist historians rewrite history and then point to it as justification. When examined carefully though, it becomes clear that hate speech laws wouldn't have helped.
For example, the Nazis never got enough votes to genuinely win power democratically, and their support fell in the last election held before they took over. Political speech was working: Germans were offered appalling political choices in those days (the strongest alternatives were open communists loyal to Moscow), but nonetheless they were turning against Hitler. He saw that and used his street armies to take complete control, then imposed massive levels of censorship against his opponents. He understood that free speech was bad for his party, and censorship was good.
But modern historical narratives are largely produced by academics, who all far left and engage in state subsidized market dumping. They rewrite this history to claim that censorship would have prevented WW2. There is no evidence for this but they repeat it so often that people come to accept it.
Thank you for elaborating on the topic! That was interesting to read.
Yeah…that is what we need…more NGOs…blank government checks going to unelected advocacy groups..,sheesh
The comments to your opinion piece in the Washington Post should scare every sane, freedom loving American. I couldn't believe how many were dismissive about what is happening in Europe. Even more egregious were how many embrace curtailing speech because they believe a 'nicer' society is a more advanced and better society.
You just commented to me to justify the murder of a woman in the streets of Minneapolis. This is just further proof that free speech has nothing to offer the left
She wasn't murdered, she wasn't engaged in protected free speech, and her actions were a threat to the life of a federal agent.
Lets just be clear here that you justify the murder of those you disagree with. You think Trump and ICE should have a free hand to stamp out the rights of the people you hate. Typical Lukianoff fan really
Well written, Greg. We battle these same issues in Canada, and our elites are following (and sometimes leading) down the same path as the UK and Australia. Our national identity has historically been oppositional to the US, despite our shared border and (at least until recently) close ties. Canadians see themselves as far too genteel for that "rugged individualism" that Americans wear with pride, and we tell ourselves that limited free speech is still free speech. I said "elites" rather than "politicians" above, because this permeates through our professional managerial class and institutions -- it's not just the police knocking at the door. It's often professional regulators, school boards, university administrators and the like who ensure that our speech is restrained and its limits are robust, not the other way around. As a lawyer, I have defended numerous professionals who have gone through hell with their regulator because they challenged gender ideology or Covid restrictions when they were supposed to toe the line. To ensure (ideally, subject to resources) that every David can have a fighting chance against these various Goliaths, I have helped to start (and now lead) the new Free Speech Union of Canada (www.fsucanada.ca). I follow your excellent work with interest, and appreciate your leadership on this issue of civilizational importance.
Over 20 years ago, I was visiting Montréal with my daughter and watching the news. I wasn't paying attention until my ears picked up on, "It is unclear if he will face charges for his comments." It was an immediate prompt to thank God for free speech in America, and educate my child that other countries do not have the same rights as we do.
Great piece, Greg. I've been following the stories in Europe very closely, so nothing here is news for me, but it's wonderful to have it all in one place *and* wrapped up in principled defence of free speech (rather than specific partisan objections to specific cases).
However, "censors always think their motives are pure" does not quite ring true to me. It's a defensible position, but there are many cases of state censorship where the censorship was motivated in defence of the regime - case in point, the Ugandan government turning off the internet during the current election season (which hit the news this week). The same doubtless applies in many other countries where state censorship is the norm.
I don't think it's correct to suggest that Museveni in Uganda or Kim in North Korea have 'pure motives'. Rather, they wield justifications to defend their own power. They may believe that their being in power is 'the right thing', but I would baulk at suggesting this is anything like a 'pure motive'.
Keep up the great work!
Chris.
Thanks Greg. How do we stop it here?! Feels like I just sit and watch these things happen and don’t know how to stop it. Most Americans have no clue this stuff is happening in UK/Europe. And with the climate of censorship among the citizens of America and some of its institutions - there are people pushing for it to go to the next step here too.
It really is maddening to have so many people assume they are right and being blinded to the consequences of that moral reasoning/ ego. I’ve been reading a lot of books about communist china- and that’s how it started there too… they had good reasons to want a better life… but they put blinders on when millions died beside them as they continued to walk the ideological line in the name of doing good
How does the fact that, in terms of trust in government and institutions, the United States regularly polls similar or lower than places like the UK and Germany fit with your conclusion (that banned speech causes an epistemic crisis and lack of belief in the state)? As for not trusting ones fellow man and the troubles of virtue signalling, Americans seem as concerned about this, if not more so, than their European counterparts.
It's important to stand up for free speech, but I don't think the current American situation makes a convincing case that its free speech model is a recipe for higher public trust and social stability. There are other reasons to argue for it, but those aren't some of them.