The Arrest That Demonstrates Europe's Free-Speech Problem(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Arrest That Demonstrates Europe's Free-Speech Problem
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/graham-linehan-arrest-europe-free-speech/684081/
20 comments
> as long as your grass is not too tall or your house has approved color by HOA apparatchiks.
Freedom of speech, and overall first amendment, is about freedom from government restrictions. Doesn't apply to private organizations modulo some cases like civil rights.
> Or as long as you are not burning a US flag in USA, which will land you in prison.
Facts speak otherwise - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
> And I dare you use words "Mexican Gulf", then your glorious leader will personally ban you from entering White House.
Glorious leader can ban you from entering White House for whatever reason he deems fit. It is his residence and his office. Nothing to do with free speech. I can organize a protest outside White House and he can't do anything as long as it's a peaceful protest (again, right granted by 1A).
Please research your facts next time.
Freedom of speech, and overall first amendment, is about freedom from government restrictions. Doesn't apply to private organizations modulo some cases like civil rights.
> Or as long as you are not burning a US flag in USA, which will land you in prison.
Facts speak otherwise - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
> And I dare you use words "Mexican Gulf", then your glorious leader will personally ban you from entering White House.
Glorious leader can ban you from entering White House for whatever reason he deems fit. It is his residence and his office. Nothing to do with free speech. I can organize a protest outside White House and he can't do anything as long as it's a peaceful protest (again, right granted by 1A).
Please research your facts next time.
> Facts speak otherwise
Facts has changed in last few days.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/pros...
AP has been barred by the government for using wrong words
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78je27x2v9o
"District Judge Trevor McFadden on Tuesday said the administration's restriction on AP journalists was "contrary to the First Amendment", which guarantees freedom of speech."
Please research your "facts" next time.
Facts has changed in last few days.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/pros...
AP has been barred by the government for using wrong words
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78je27x2v9o
"District Judge Trevor McFadden on Tuesday said the administration's restriction on AP journalists was "contrary to the First Amendment", which guarantees freedom of speech."
Please research your "facts" next time.
The facts are that Trump, POTUS or not, can write such a thing but still has to travel a long road to make it happen.
* https://www.npr.org/2025/08/27/nx-s1-5518151/flag-burning-ex...
* https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/the-supreme-court-and-fla...
* https://www.npr.org/2025/08/27/nx-s1-5518151/flag-burning-ex...
* https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/the-supreme-court-and-fla...
He is also not allowed to impose tariffs as he wishes, but look what is happening. So whatever law experts thinks, does not matter. Glorious leader wills it.
> but look what is happening
As of now, a federal court has ruled 7-4 against it. Proves the GP point
As of now, a federal court has ruled 7-4 against it. Proves the GP point
Whataboutism
Don’t forget NDAs. Enforcement of them through the courts seems like a clear free speech issue but no one ever mentions it.
The whole US law system is abomination against justice and free speech. No money = you lose by default. If you are poor you are always wrong and should be quiet.
https://archive.is/x3s67
What he posted probably isn't a credible threat that should result in arrest, but he's been a serial pest and fearmonger for YEARS, so I do not shed a single tear.
What he posted probably isn't a credible threat that should result in arrest, but he's been a serial pest and fearmonger for YEARS, so I do not shed a single tear.
While I agree that in Europe speech is overly policed, the inability of the US legal system to deal with decentralized leaderless terrorist movements clearly demonstrates the failure of the American conception of free speech.
tbf every democratic country seems to be unable to deal with decentralized leaderless terrorist movements
Mm; but do also ask yourself if the "seems" matches the reality, given how many of the organisations who tell us about the world have incentives to show us the failures and not the base rate.
American jurisprudence has the best standard for incitement in the world, the Brandenburg standard: imminent lawless action. "Imminent" is vital, and unique to America; the government is barred from constructing hypothetical situations around acts of speech to prosecute them, as is easy to do with quite a lot of speech.
And we only reached it in the 1960s! Freeing speech is always an active fight.
And we only reached it in the 1960s! Freeing speech is always an active fight.
American media thinks it's "absurd" and "totalitarian" to arrest someone that is advocating for punching certain people in the balls simply for being in a location?
Sincere question for the Americans here, because these journalists are far too alien in their mindset for me: if someone was tweeting an equivalent statement about journalists, something along the lines of "anyone who identifies themselves as a journalist in a Republican space is automatically committing an act of violence, if you find one you should call the police and if that doesn't work, you should kick them in the balls", would these media still support the right to say that?
The only "absurd" part of this situation is that many of the people he's advocating real violence against literally don't have the body part he's advocating punching.
Sincere question for the Americans here, because these journalists are far too alien in their mindset for me: if someone was tweeting an equivalent statement about journalists, something along the lines of "anyone who identifies themselves as a journalist in a Republican space is automatically committing an act of violence, if you find one you should call the police and if that doesn't work, you should kick them in the balls", would these media still support the right to say that?
The only "absurd" part of this situation is that many of the people he's advocating real violence against literally don't have the body part he's advocating punching.
> American media thinks it's
Ill framed.
> simply for being in a location
Again ill framed.
> would these media still support the right
Difficult to reply to this in light of actual cases, some even recent in terms of hours, mentioning which would be potentially inflammatory here (I don't shy away from "we need to know this", but there has to be an "intellectual curiosity" context).
> The only "absurd" part of this situation
You are both diminishing the specifics and their context: for example the quality of the written law, that Andrew Doyle¹ in a parallel article calls «hopelessly subjective notion» (and «The Communications Act further prohibits words that cause “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”»), with the burden practical and theoretical, possible source of arbitrary judgement, put on the system («Freedom of Information requests by The Times revealed that over 12,000 people are arrested each year for offensive comments posted online». Just preceeded by «We have seen journalists visited by police for wrongthink; citizens imprisoned for posting memes; prosecutions for controversial Halloween costumes; teenagers convicted and jailed for offensive jokes»).
¹ https://unherd.com/2025/09/the-shameful-arrest-of-graham-lin...
Ill framed.
> simply for being in a location
Again ill framed.
> would these media still support the right
Difficult to reply to this in light of actual cases, some even recent in terms of hours, mentioning which would be potentially inflammatory here (I don't shy away from "we need to know this", but there has to be an "intellectual curiosity" context).
> The only "absurd" part of this situation
You are both diminishing the specifics and their context: for example the quality of the written law, that Andrew Doyle¹ in a parallel article calls «hopelessly subjective notion» (and «The Communications Act further prohibits words that cause “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”»), with the burden practical and theoretical, possible source of arbitrary judgement, put on the system («Freedom of Information requests by The Times revealed that over 12,000 people are arrested each year for offensive comments posted online». Just preceeded by «We have seen journalists visited by police for wrongthink; citizens imprisoned for posting memes; prosecutions for controversial Halloween costumes; teenagers convicted and jailed for offensive jokes»).
¹ https://unherd.com/2025/09/the-shameful-arrest-of-graham-lin...
seems pretty telling that the article is all about Britain and the UK, but the author calls it a "European" problem. While afaik european countries do not have "free speech" in the american sense they do each have differing levels of tolerance, criminalization, and enforcement.
I think the social side is even more important than the legal aspects. Orwell wrote his 1984 about England, after the social repression he experienced. And I would say the same or stronger repression and conformism exists in north america, despite the law.
What I've seen in europe is that day-to-day freedom of expression is far and away greater than anywhere in Canada or the US i've been. Including the UK sphere. So I think it's a serious error to conflate the law itself with the "tyranny of the majority", and to conflate one country or region with "europe".
At least in Germany there is definitely a „free speech problem“. There are several crimes such as „Volksverhetzung“ (agitation of the people) that do serve a legitimate purpose but which are very vaguely defined. Also, trying to ban a party like the AfD, which is the second largest in Germany, for things that are not illegal to say (I‘m not judging their politics here, I‘m just saying the assessment has been leaked and there are no illegal things in there) doesn’t exactly scream free speech
The weird thing about the whole AfD issue is that the other parties don’t realise that censoring and excluding AfD will likely make it stronger. Strange they didn’t consider that outcome.
Update: Nigel Farage exploits the situation and gives strong speech in the USA.
# Watch: Nigel Farage warns Congress about UK speech laws
https://thespectator.com/topic/watch-nigel-farage-warns-cong...
All of this was expectable.
--
And other accusations of totalitarian climate in articles just spawned:
# Father Ted and Havel’s Greengrocer
https://thespectator.com/topic/father-ted-havel-greengrocer-...
# Watch: Nigel Farage warns Congress about UK speech laws
https://thespectator.com/topic/watch-nigel-farage-warns-cong...
All of this was expectable.
--
And other accusations of totalitarian climate in articles just spawned:
# Father Ted and Havel’s Greengrocer
https://thespectator.com/topic/father-ted-havel-greengrocer-...
Or as long as you are not burning a US flag in USA, which will land you in prison.
And I dare you use words "Mexican Gulf", then your glorious leader will personally ban you from entering White House.