Who are the Americans (Part 2)

(This is Part 2 of the “Who Are the Americans” series. Click Here for Part 1)

In recent months, the Israeli conflict in Gaza ignited a global firestorm of protests. Around the world, the streets echoed with dissent, but not without consequences. In the UK, the crackdown was swift: 29 individuals cuffed in a single demonstration, their crime? Offensive signs. Technology played its part too – a man, lost in the crowd, spewed anti-Semitic remarks. Authorities used Facial Recognition technology, combing through social media, marked him for arrest.

Across the Channel, France took a hard line. The government, citing fears of escalating internal tensions, flat-out banned all pro-Palestinian demonstrations. It was a blanket move, a preemptive strike to douse potential flames of conflict within its own borders.

As an American I find any restrictions on individual speech baffling. Being arrested for a sign? Being arrested for words? That’s totalitarian to me. That’s oppression. But for the entire world, that is normal. To them, American style free speech is far outside the norm.

Freedom of speech is a miracle. No other country has it. No other country in history has had it. But we, somehow, have it here in America. This American embrace of free speech isn't a mere legal formality; it's etched into the national psyche. It remains a raw, pulsating force in American life. It’s a real American cultural trait that is bottom-up and not top down.

In the U.S., the First Amendment fiercely guards even the most shocking speech. Imagine someone publicly calling for the genocide of a race (white, black, asian, etc). In America, it's protected speech. This isn't just theoretical; it's a real aspect of American life where advocating for shocking ideas is allowed, as long as it doesn't cross into directly targeting an individual with death threats.

Contrast this with Europe, where words can land you in legal trouble. Post a controversial opinion, write an incendiary essay, and you could end up in jail. For an American, used to the broad freedoms of the First Amendment, this European approach seems almost surreal. But this is the reality outside the U.S., a stark difference in how free speech is treated. Europeans reason that anti-speech laws are necessary to prevent the spread of harmful ideologies and protect public order and the rights of minority groups. Maintaining public order is a higher priority than individual expression.

This is nothing new. In the past you could be sentenced to death for insulting the king. Today, every country in the world has certain laws restricting speech:

1. Turkey

   • Law: Turkish Penal Code Article 299

   • Effect: Criminalizes insulting the President.

2. France

   • Law: Gayssot Act

   • Effect: Makes it an offense to question the existence of the categories of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945.

3. Germany

   • Law: Strafgesetzbuch Section 86a

   • Effect: Bans the use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations.

4. United Kingdom

   • Law: Communications Act 2003, Section 127

   • Effect: Criminalizes sending a message that is "grossly offensive" or of an "indecent, obscene or menacing character" over public electronic communications network.

5. Spain

   • Law: Gag Law (Citizen Security Law)

   • Effect: Imposes restrictions on protests, social media activism, and photographing police.

New Anti-Speech Laws

Anti-speech laws are picking up speed, snowballing across Europe. Just look at the last month alone – a flurry of new legislation. It is in response to Europe becoming a more diverse society. Remember, the highest value is public order in Europe.

• After a series of Quran burnings in Scandinavia caused uproar in Muslim communities, Denmark on Thursday banned the “improper treating” of religious texts in public. Sweden is debating copying the same legislation.

• After a migrant stabbed children in Ireland, riots broke out in Dublin. In response, the Irish government is debating passing a new hate speech law.

• In September, the UK enacted the Online Safety Bill, a landmark move in Western democracy to regulate online speech. This comprehensive law targets terrorist propaganda, online fraud, and child safety.

Repressing Free Speech Does Not Work

The issue with free speech is that Information wants to be free. Suppressing information backfires. Attempt to silence the truth, and it doesn't just fade away; it becomes more coveted, more sought after. In the scientific realm, the dynamics of information flow echo principles observed in natural systems, underscoring the futility of attempts to suppress it. Like particles diffusing from an area of high concentration to low concentration, information instinctively moves towards areas of lesser information density. When authorities clamp down on information, they create a high-pressure zone. But just as in physics, where particles naturally move to balance concentration levels, information finds alternative pathways to spread, seeping into the public domain.

In essence, the scientific perspective on information suppression reveals a fundamental truth: information, like energy in a closed system, cannot be destroyed but only changed in form. Attempts to suppress it only transform its pathways, often leading to unintended and counterproductive outcomes.

In This Newsletter

1) The Newest Challenge to American Free Speech is Anti-Semitism. As efforts intensify to protect Jewish communities from hate and discrimination, there's a looming risk that these necessary safeguards might inadvertently impinge on the sanctity of free speech.

2) Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance: if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

Anti-Semitism and Freedom of Speech

Subscribe to Premium to read the rest.