Word Wars: The (British) Empire Strikes Back!
Bringing you the latest free speech news (8/11/24)
Story of the week
As Elon Musk clashes with Starmer on X: Could Twitter be banned in the UK? (Independent) by Albert Toth
While it would be an unprecedented step in the West for the UK to ban Twitter, it has been in other places across the world. It is currently blocked in China, Russia, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Iran, and Pakistan.
Of these, only in Pakistan has the service been blocked since Musk took over in 2022. This came shortly before the country’s election in February 2024, in a move widely criticised by democracy campaigners.
Closer to the UK, the site has run into trouble with French authorities more than once. This first happened in 2013, when Twitter bosses were ordered by a judge to reveal the identity of a user who had been posting anti-semitic tweets, threatening the company with hefty fines for not doing so.
This week in FIRE’s blog
UK government issues warning: ‘Think before you post’ by
DOJ report: Government communications with social media companies can threaten First Amendment rights by Carrie Robison
No, JD Vance didn’t fuck a couch. But saying he did is free speech. Here’s why by Daniel Burnett
Walz was referencing a now-deleted X post that has morphed from fringe joke into mainstream political consciousness.
X user @rickrudescalves posted on July 15: “can’t say for sure but he might be the first vp pick to have admitted in a ny times bestseller to fucking an Inside-out latex glove shoved between two couch cushions (vance, hillbilly elegy, pp. 179-181).”
I read “Hillbilly Elegy.” I definitely would’ve remembered that.
New alumni group brings free speech advocacy to UT Austin by William Harris
Supreme Court’s NetChoice decision bolsters FIRE’s legal challenge to New York’s Online Hate Speech Law by Daniel Ortner & Jay Diaz
This week in ERI
International free speech stories of the week
Danish far-right extremist charged over Quran burnings (Politico) by Ketrin Jochecová
Thai court bans a popular political entity for proposing to amend lèse-majesté law (NPR) by Michael Sullivan
Erhu player jailed for over 2 weeks for performing banned protest song ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ (SCMP) by Brian Wong
German court convicts activist for leading ‘from the river to the sea’ chant (The Guardian) by Deborah Cole
London Calling: Ronnie’s First Amendment Rundown
Bit of a light week as slower summer grinds into even sleepier August, but here’s a fun one out of the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed denial of qualified immunity to a police officer due to questions of material fact, in a case involving the arrest of Hannibal Buress in Miami during the December 2017 Art Basel festival. (Pardon the dash of local color – I grew up there!) Here’s some free advice for our friends in law enforcement: when a nationally known entertainer you’re arresting with your body-cam running tells bystanders you’re just “salty” because the comedian “roasted his ass,” don’t say “Yeah … I am” in agreement – you’ll only create a textbook fact question whether you acted in bad faith, maliciously, or wantonly by making the arrest without probable cause, or unconstitutionally did so in retaliation for speech. (Also, nice to see the Eleventh Circuit citing for the relevant qualified immunity standard the first FIRE case I got to work on – which now-FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere led to a $900,000 settlement.)
Substack of the month
Andrew Doyle raised the alarm for free speech in the UK in an excellent Substack post this week:
In situations of this kind, it is always best to consider how short-term solutions can jeopardise our long-term goals. Virtually all of us are disturbed when we read social media posts that display animosity towards minority ethnic groups, but empowering the state to set the limits of permissible thought and speech is an even greater danger. We are right to vehemently criticise the man who posted the phrase “Filthy bastards” on Facebook along with emojis of a gun and an ethnic minority person, but we are also right to express concern that he has been jailed for 12 weeks. Defending free speech means defending the rights of those we find most abhorrent. There are larger principles at stake. Once a precedent has been set that enables the government to control the speech of its citizens, the pathway for future tyranny has been cleared.
Ironically (if that’s the right word) one thing that our early tussle with the folks of the now UK gave us was this 👇. Too bad we can’t return the favor.
“Congress (substitute Parliament) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“Think before you post” is both sage advice and a terrifying warning. Everyone should follow suit, but no one should be frightened that a post, written in poor taste, could result in dire consequences.