
Freedom of speech is in retreat - cronjobber
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21699906-freedom-speech-retreat-muzzle-grows-tighter
======
sevenless
Some other legal restrictions on communication that aren't normally included
in the "free speech" debate:

* Distributing pirated media/breaking copyright or trademarks

* Slander and libel laws

* HIPAA and medical information privacy laws

* Sharing information for insider trading

* Market manipulation by sharing false or misleading information

* Breaching attorney-client privilege

* Laws governing how jurors are allowed to communicate

* FCC and obscenity laws in US media

* Distribution of illegal porn (for various definitions of illegal)

* Holocaust denial laws in Canada and Europe

* US anti-boycott provisions that ban "furnishing information" about doing business with certain countries

* Military and government classified information (thanks rmc!)

There are many others. The point is we're always a bit selective about what
counts as free speech, and there are lots of exceptions, some very well
motivated.

These articles about "free speech is in danger" seem to be unnecessarily
abstract: if you want to discuss the problems with Islam or the merits of
social justice or whatever, don't argue about the way you're having the
debate, just have the debate. Because our society doesn't really view free
speech as a consistent principle anyway.

~~~
jasode
The "free speech" concept in its most noble and pure form is about
_government_ censorship.[1] It's not about about commercial censorship (e.g.
Facebook) or social censorship (e.g. your Flying Spaghetti Monster offends my
sacred Zeus.)

Protection from _government censorship_ means an American can criticize
President Obama as "a stupid incompetent Chief Executive" without fear of
black helicopters surrounding the protester's home. The military operatives
won't come to arrest him and keep him silent. This type of "free speech" does
not exist in North Korea.

I concede that the label "free speech" has been diluted to mean, "I get to say
whatever I want without any economic ramifications or social disapproval."
Unfortunately, the non-government censoring is what the vast majority of free
speech articles are about. Well, the real world will never let you have that
type of "free speech". If it bothers people that Facebook / tv networks /
college campuses / etc won't allow certain types of speech, they can start
another website/college that allows it. However, they shouldn't be surprised
if sponsors that help fund the "oppressive" businesses and institutions don't
also spend money on the alternative "free speech" platform.

In other words, the non-government "free speech" has a _cost_ and sometimes,
society doesn't want to _pay_ for it. That's the underlying issue that's never
highlighted.

[1]The first sentence from wikipedia also explains "free speech" in terms of
_government_ censorship:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech)

~~~
mindslight
> _Protection from government censorship means an American can criticize
> President Obama as "a stupid incompetent Chief Executive" without fear of
> black helicopters surrounding the protester's home_

This does not follow. Your narrow definition does nothing to stop a private
organization, with its own motive for supporting the president, from deploying
some black helicopters.

This is not a nit - _any_ government is isomorphic to a perfect "Libertopia"
where a single corporation owns everything. In other words, if you don't like
a country's rules, then just leave their premises!

So in order to mean anything at all, the concept of Freedom of Speech (and
really, any societal ideals) _must_ mean something more general. We cannot
simply create a basic foundation of rules, and then let emergent structure
usurp any qualitative guarantees we had desired!

~~~
sanderjd
It seems to me that there are two separate legal structures that protect me
from your hypothetical: 1. The government can't send black helicopters because
of freedom of speech and 2. A private organization can't deploy black
helicopters to take me into custody for _any_ purpose (that's kidnapping).
This is why it's important to hold government to a higher standard: they can
legally do far more things than private organizations.

~~~
mindslight
First, OP said nothing about kidnapping - there's a lot of _intimidation_ that
can be done that isn't explicitly illegal. Even more that won't be prosecuted
when say the "private organization" and "government" enjoy a cozy
relationship.

But that scenario is based around "independent" reprisals. The real threat we
are facing today is directly connected consequences...

> _[government] can legally do far more things than private organizations_

This completely misses my original point - both government and private
organizations can do things that effectively punish. For example, a mall can
kick you out and banish you for wearing an offensive T-shirt. This is not a
problem when malls are but a small part of society, but form a restriction
equivalent to government if one's entire society is made up of malls.

~~~
stillsut
The confusion around this issue is generated by the rise of protected classes
and the selective application of discrimination suits against institutions.

Title IX is a good example of a law which can be expanded to limit the freedom
of speech and freedom of assembly by _coercion_. This has come about because
federal funding is an indispensable portion of the modern research
university's budget. As such, no 1 person, no 1 group can be allowed to
threaten the University's compliance with the law. Therefore, the law enables
the government to coerce the institution into severing its private contract
with the offensive party - student or faculty. In effect, a government agency
is able to punish political speech by proxy.

As 25% of the GDP, and probably upwards of 90% of the spending in many
industries (e.g. defense contracting), the governments spending power has
given it unforseen power to demand a trade of speech for access to economic
opportunities. We need a law similar to "too big to fail" in sectors where the
government has monopoly-like powers.

------
return0
I don't know, islamic terror in particular seems to stand out from the rest. I
mean, china, or the mexican drug lords are directly defending their interests.
Islamic terror is not, it's revenge against a nebulous 'enemy' that they are
being forced to tolerate (terrorists are not defending the honor of the
peaceful muslims (who wouldnt even read charlie hebdo); instead they are
trying to radicalize them).

> he could not live “in any country where free speech is allowed”

There is something to be said about incompatibility of certain cultures here.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Is it not defending interest?

Most Islamic terrorism in our age can be traced to the hyper-conservative
madrasahs all over the world sponsored by (Sunni) Saudi Arabia, which seeks to
dominate Islamic discourse and blunt the influence of (Shia) Iran.

Also worth noting that the vast majority of global Islamic terrorists (as in
not secretarian violence like was seen in Iraq, but rather acts of terrorism
in predominantly non-Muslim areas) are Sunni.

Yes, there may be compatibility, but there is also a great degree of
deliberate cultural programming that we often do not notice or even consider.

~~~
jessaustin
As usual, religion is a smokescreen. The most salient motivation for Saudi and
other quasi-state support of "radical" Islam is to focus the populace's
dissatisfaction outward toward the West instead of inward toward the horrific
authoritarian regimes that rule these areas.

~~~
acqq
> As usual, religion is a smokescreen.

Why do you deny sincere religiosity and direct reading of the texts as the
motivation for the acts of religious people? Through the ages the humanity has
done a lot of harm to "others" based on much less than what's in the holy
texts of "the religion that can't be named." But that particular religion has
spread especially based on the idea of fighting the war for religion and
benefit of the fighters (both in this world and as the shortcut to heaven),
all in the "holy" texts.

For Christianity's witch hunting, only one verse in Bible was enough (Exodus
22:18). Luckily, there was at least:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar)

Edit: return0, your "only very few lines have being pursued" signals to me
that you don't know the content of the "holy" texts being discussed (that is,
of the religion that can't be named). The visual presentation of the extent of
hate directed to unbelievers is stunning -- almost every chapter remains
heavily marked once we attempt doing this. And the ideas and demands are
often, almost hypnotically, repeated. It's easy to prove it, there are enough
translations even on-line.

~~~
soundwave106
In Islam, there are "sword verses" and "peace verses". Christianity likewise
has verses that are pretty violent (particularly in the Old Testament), and
passages that promote peace and tolerance.

I do feel that comparing which text is more violent by nature is kind of
pointless. Is Sura 9 any "better or worse" than Deuteronomy 20? I don't know,
they both seem pretty vanquish-all-your-enemies to me.

So what you focus on is "interpretations". And so many times, the
"interpretations" have a political bent. That Islam is tied to so much
radicalism and terrorism is troubling. But a _lot_ of the root source of this
does seem to be the petro-economy, particularly Saudi Arabia. Example: Would
Islamic terrorism be so big had Saudi Arabia not pushed Wahhabism so hard,
tying it to politics (and thus dominating more mystical forms of Islam like
say the Sufis)? Would we have a Taliban had the Wahhabist Saudis not fought
against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan (thus radicalizing the Deobandis)?

The problem with calling out entire religions is that you often sweep up
people who have much different interpretations. A Western equivalent (not in
terms of impact perhaps but in ideas) would be to say that Christianity itself
is anti-gay. Some Christian churches _are_ anti-gay, and there are a couple
passages in the Bible that are anti-homosexual, but there are also Christians
that dismiss these verses. Judaism mostly downplays violent passages ala
Deuteronomy 20, and likewise, Islam could downplay their violent side if they
wanted to (some sects do in fact). Most religious holy books are very multi-
faceted.

The fact that a side of Islam doesn't has a lot to do, in my opinion, with the
politics and military ties of certain kleptocrat petro-economies (Saudi Arabia
is a big one) or other external events (the American invasion of Iraq is
another as had that not happened, there probably would be no ISIS).

~~~
bpodgursky
Islam, fundamentally, has no new testament equivalent. Christians can draw a
line between old and new rules without theological issues.

Jews interpret the old testament as laws for Jews, by Jews. There is no
prerogative to convert.

Islam has neither of those. It is a violent old testament with a legal code
inscribed focused on converting or otherwise making lives miserable for other
people of the book (not to mention what they consider pagans).

~~~
golergka
Judaism also has Talmud and a long tradition of interpretations of the Torah.

------
zaroth
Why is Economist pushing the narrative that Innocence of Muslims had anything
to do with the embassy attack and murder of the US Ambassador in Libya when
that cover story was completely debunked?

~~~
dragonwriter
It wasn't debunked. While, unlike the attacks at US embassies in Egypt, Yemen,
Indonesia, and other US diplomatic and cultural facilities in the same week
(and protests without attacks at many more), there were no protests at the
Embassy in Libya (and some early reports had tied the attacks to nonexistent
protests about the film), numerous eyewitnesses did report that the attackers
claimed to be motivated by the film, and while the later claim of
responsibility from al-Qaeda claimed a different retaliatory motivation, it's
also al-Qaeda (al-Qaeda central, not regional affiliates, in both cases) that
was behind the hijacking of previously planned protests over a different issue
in Egypt to focus on the film that culminated in the attack on the US embassy
in Egypt.

The only thing that was debunked were the early reports of protests in
Benghazi, that the film played a role in motivating the attacks was never
debunked.

~~~
jessaustin
This seems pretty tenuous, but still it raises questions. The video is still
on Youtube. Why were all the "protests" over within a month? Why don't they
continue to this day?

(I have other questions, but they veer even further into the realm of
politics, so I'll keep those off HN.)

~~~
maze-le
> Why were all the "protests" over within a month? Why don't they continue to
> this day?

I think the attention span for those things is rather limited. You can't cry
"Outrage!!1!" every day over the same thing again and again and still mobilize
people for your cause. This seems to be a rather common phenomenon regardless
of the group or cause you support.

Also, to organize such a protest, you need people with time and resources to
reach out. I assume, that at some point, these people deicide, that it makes
more sense to steer resources into other projects.

~~~
mikeash
It happens all the time. There's some big event, it gets a lot of attention,
the event never goes anywhere but people lose interest and move on. MH370 was
never found but the coverage faded away. The Bring Back Our Girls campaign
pretty much died out even though no girls were brought back. Everybody was
outraged when Russia annexed Crimea, but nobody cares now.

~~~
DanBC
...and also some campaigns continue but media loses interest in covering them.

Bring back our girls have frequent demonstrations and are still campaigning,
but are seldom heard.

------
BadassFractal
Fascinating and terrifying at the same time. Glad to see the article mention
the more civilized cases of free speech suppression such as the Yale one, in
addition to the really gruesome and macabre ones across the world. We should
prevent a death by a thousand cuts if possible AND obviously do something
about the brutality in other parts of the world.

~~~
cm3
From what I've seen in the videos of students complaining about missing safe
spaces, I wouldn't call it civilized. For Ivy League students, I found the
discourse rather uneducated, one-sided, and free of tangible arguments. That
said, what wouldn't bother me seems to be a huge discomfort for the
complaining students, and they surely had a different upbringing than me for
them to feel that way. I mean, I grew up in Western Europe and am likely
unaware of some of the finer details in their cultural background.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
They're also kids. Kids make mistakes. Kids get drunk and think posting
selfies is the best thing to do at that moment.

Kids grow up. They change. They look back and cringe. They think more for
themselves than their standing in social circles.

~~~
rimantas
They are adults.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
I don't know about you but when I turned 18 I didn't immediately set up a
budget, open a retirement account, and sign up for a subscription to The
Economist.

Actually I kinda did but that's besides the point. Not everybody grows up at
the same rate.

------
jbronn
There's a glaring omission in the Economist's articles on free speech: the
effort to criminalize BDS activism. [1]

[1] [https://theintercept.com/2016/02/16/greatest-threat-to-
free-...](https://theintercept.com/2016/02/16/greatest-threat-to-free-speech-
in-the-west-criminalizing-activism-against-israeli-occupation/)

~~~
kelukelugames
The most vocal BDS and anti-BDS people are both Jewish. At this point, I'm
afraid to even ask what is going on.

~~~
some-guy
My fiancé is Jewish and pro-BDS. Maybe I live in the leftist-Jewish bubble,
but there is quite a bit of political divide in the Jewish community right now
over Israel. Criticism of Israel for a long time in the Jewish community, and
still to this day, is considered blasphemy. Questioning the idea of a Jewish
state vs. a secular one is even worse.

I'm agnostic but grew up Christian, but it's fascinating to me to see it all
unfold...I have American friends who have joined the IDF growing up who were
super pro-Israel so it's interesting to see this rift appearing.

~~~
kelukelugames
I don't get it. I'm an immigrant and feel happy to have left the baggage
behind.

There is J street and Jewish Voice for Peace, but I don't know how popular
they are.

------
yk
Disturbing thought, I wonder if free speech is only politically feasible under
the assumption of limited distribution. If we look at free speech two decades
ago, the two ways of enjoying free speech were, you could convince an editor,
or you could copy a few hundred leaflets and distribute them by hand. The
first case limits the distribution to people who buy the newspaper (or who buy
from that publisher, there's a reason that explicitly Anarchist bookshops are
a thing) and the second limits both the numbers and the geographic
distribution.

Today anybody can, at least in principle, overcome these limitations just by
getting a youtube account, with the effect that for all X, group X is
constantly confronted with vile hatred. The effect is, everybody is pissed
off, while only groups which are explicitly pro freedom of speech tell
themselves that they have to live with the trolls.

The idea is, that as long as freedom of speech was limited by the
practicalities of distribution to a, for most people, tolerable level,
everybody was happy to endorse free speech. Nowadays it is no longer
constrained by distribution and people start to revisit their assumptions
about free speech.

~~~
zanny
It is only sad that people refuse to revisit their assumptions about whatever
X is where contradictory voices about X would drive them to think the solution
is to cause violence.

~~~
NathanKP
Absolutely. If you are truly confident in your position, and know it is
correct then a dissenting voice shouldn't bother you. Instead you should just
feel sorry for them.

It's the people who can't handle that a dissenting voice is causing cognitive
dissonance that feel like violence is the solution.

------
Tepix
Relevant link:

Andrew Cuomo and Other Democrats Launch Severe Attack on Free Speech to
Protect Israel

[https://theintercept.com/2016/06/06/andrew-cuomo-and-
other-d...](https://theintercept.com/2016/06/06/andrew-cuomo-and-other-
democrats-launch-severe-attack-on-free-speech-to-protect-israel/)

~~~
Cyph0n
Yep, the response to the BDS movement is the definition of double-standards.
It's also proof that Israel loves to pull the anti-Semite card whenever it
feels like it.

------
rmc
It's interesting that many who advocate a "free speech über alles" approach
have a curious exemption for property rights. They claim the right of
Facebook/Twitter/reddit/etc. as privacy companies to control their property
(i.e. their websites) apparently trump right to free speech. An earlier free
speech article also from the Economist, which is linked from the sidebar[1],
claims that private companies should be exempted from free speech rules, and
should be allowed to publish, or not publish, anything they want.

Should Facebook's property rights overrule my free speech rights?

[1] [http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-
sp...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-
growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack)

~~~
jamestnz
>It's interesting that many who advocate a "free speech über alles" approach
have a curious exemption for property rights

You find this to be a curious exemption? I think the term "freedom of speech"
generally means the freedom to let your ideas be known without fearing
_official_ (i.e. government) reprisal or suppression.

I don't think "freedom of speech" has ever been generally understood to mean
that companies/venues/clubs/etc cannot regulate communication according to
their own rules, or have an editorial policy where they choose what gets
published and what doesn't.

The right of Facebook to set their own rules on their "property" (websites)
absolutely trumps your desire to force them to air your views, both morally
and legally. This has no effect on your freedom of speech (as that term is
traditionally applied) -- because Facebook has no monopoly on speech venues.

>Should Facebook's property rights overrule my free speech rights?

Yes, because "declining to provide you with a free unlimited platform for
speech" is not the same thing as "denying freedom of speech".

I don't think this is a particularly controversial view.

~~~
rmc
And yet, this article often refers to Google possibly taking down search
results.

The article also talks about individual people committing murder, something
that's already a crime, rarely about state actions. If a lone murderer &
criminal counts as a "threat to free speech", why not talk about who owns the
space?

~~~
Dylan16807
Google is supposed to accurately represent the internet. And sometimes
monopolies lose rights that other companies have. Facebook you could perhaps
argue. Twitter and reddit are not that big.

When murders are part of a political campaign, they stop being 'lone'.

------
maxerickson
Measuring progress is hard.

100 years ago, a person in the wrong place in the United States who happened
to say something someone else didn't like might end up getting murdered by a
mob.

I guess that is getting to be a long time ago, but history should not be
viewed with a tight lens.

------
droopyEyelids
US attacks on whistleblowers are not mentioned. US religious ’fatwahs’ against
abortion doctors aren’t mentioned, but much is made of Muslim misbehavior.

Kind of a bad article. It also doesn’t mention anything about UK slander laws.

~~~
rmc
Quite often this "free speech" argument is just a way to promote hatred and
intolerance of Muslims.

------
l3m0ndr0p
What we will see more and more in America is the privatization of all "public"
utilities and services (schools->charter, Libraries-->?). This will enable and
allow these non-public corporations to enact and enforce censorship. Since the
"free" speech applies mostly to our Government interactions, it won't apply to
"private" corporate institutions. They will be outside of the constitution of
the US.

America must wake up to what is happening. It's not too late.

We Americans must always be able to speak our minds no matter how offensive,
true or false. But we must also never harm ourselves or each other. This
should also apply to Government and Corporations. We must always hold those in
"power" accountable for their actions public or private.

Peace

------
usrusr
This "right not to be offended" a part of the article is talking about is such
a Trojan horse. Groups are not claiming a right not to be offended, they are
claiming the right to feel "mortally" offended, giving them leverage to pursue
goals often not that much related to the original act of offending speech.

Since it is the offended who get to define what offends them, the term "right,
not to be offended" falls quite short of the actual problem. Everybody already
is perfectly free to not feel offended by anything. This right is a given,
everywhere. So the only thing remaining to claim is the right to declare stuff
as offending at will and force those decisions on others.

------
good_sir_ant
It's really hard to say how our world will look in the coming decades...

On one hand, we have all this explosively liberating technology, cheap and
powerful, that is changing the way we communicate and share information. On
the other hand, you see the 'natural' result of all this power moving towards
the individual: states and governments gripping tighter than ever to control
it and maintain their elevated status.

It serves to illustrate how asinine our arguments over 'appropriate' speech
are. The result of any kind of forced censorship is the same no matter what
the content of the speech is : less freedom.

~~~
erikb
Is it really so hard? The technology we have mostly helps people to free
themselves from non-US, non-western-European "oppressing" governments (so
basically all their enemies get trouble with their population, and the
population becomes more open to our culture and more dependent on our
technology).

But inside our borders we become more and more dependent on the technology,
have less and less insight into what is happening in this technology. Also
increasing the power of forementioned US and western European governments.

The only thing maybe becoming a problem is the eastern hemisphere with China,
Russia, S.Korea, Japan and Taiwan (if they decide to work together, but happy
for us they are pretty much split in the middle).

------
Jerry2
Canada has blasphemy laws [1]? I knew they had "hate speech" laws which
basically meant that they could prosecute you for saying anything that some
might find offensive but I had no idea about blasphemy.

Scary.

[1] [http://cdn.static-
economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...](http://cdn.static-
economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-
edition/20160604_IRM900.png)

------
known
"If you don't read a newspaper you are uninformed. If you do read a newspaper,
you are misinformed." \--Mark Twain

------
sergiotapia
I wonder how many people died when Kevin Smith's Dogma came out.

~~~
xexers
NSFW:

[http://www.theonion.com/article/no-one-murdered-because-
of-t...](http://www.theonion.com/article/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-
image-29553)

------
retube
The problem with the free speech debate is everyone has a different definition
or understanding of what free speech is.

Free speech should be considered the right to publically criticise and call to
account governments, police, judiciary and other state institutions.

It should not mean the right to say absolutely anything to anybody. Having
laws on racism and hate speech (for example) provide well-meaning guidance on
acceptable behaviour within civilised society and help reduce discrimination,
bias etc.

But like all rights "free speech" confers privilege and responsibility on the
holder: just because you have a right to doesn't mean you should (e.g the
video referenced at the beginning of the article).

~~~
talmand
The problem as I see it; define "hate speech".

~~~
retube
Sure but the definition of anything is subject to
interpretation/context/intent etc. If you dealt only in absolutes it would be
impossible to have any laws at all. Even defining something like "murder" has
plenty of room for grey areas. But still I hope we agree that having a "no
murder" law is probably desirable in society.

~~~
talmand
Ok, no definition then. That's fine.

The point I'm making is that once you've opened the door to banning speech on
completely subjective topics that a subset of the group gets to decide, then
things will go bad.

But murder is a hugely different subject than something so abstract as "hate
speech". I can define murder, I ask one to define hate speech. There is
definite evidence of harm when it comes to murder, a person has been deprived
of life by another. I fail to see how "hate speech" itself deprives anyone of
anything nor causes real harm. Of course, incitement to violence due to speech
is a potential problem, but that's already covered by existing laws.

~~~
retube
Dude - abuse based on ethnicity, religion, disability etc can have a
devastating impact on people, particularly the young. It can lead to social
division, discrimination & violence. So absolutely it can a negative impact,
not just on one persons' mental state, but wider society. It might not be as
bad as murder, but still have horrendous consequences.

You say you can define "murder" \- but that's my whole point: I can also
define, and enshrine in law, something called "hate speech". Both definitions
will be subject to interpretation, intent, mitigating circumstances etc, and
it will be for the court and jury to thrash out whether an incident should be
classed as "murder" or "hate speech". Of course some incidences may be clear
cut. Lots won't be.

~~~
talmand
Ok, then I'll ask again, please define "hate speech".

To add to this based on your response, please define "hate speech" in the same
easily understood definition of "murder".

I'm not saying that hate speech does not have a negative impact on people, of
course it does. It's why people discuss trying to outlaw it in the first
place. I'm simply saying that it's such a subjective topic that there is no
way to accurately to define it, therefore the attempt to solve the problem
will only make the problem worse. Never mind the fact that people with
nefarious intentions will seize on the highly subjective language of the law
to make use of it for themselves.

------
jswny
In my opinion, free speech only applies to the state as the state is not a
product you can decide not to use such as Facebook and Twitter (from which you
do not need free speech protection), that is the fundamental difference.

People should face no punishment other than the potential scorn of the public
for their words. Say whatever you want, but be prepared to take disapproval
for it.

Edit: I don't know how to explain what I said earlier but apparently I didn't
get my point across so I'm going to remove it.

------
MicroBerto
American free speech as we know it is effectively dead with the replacement of
just a couple of Supreme Court Justices.

We are that close to it being gone. 2016 is the most important year in the
history of this country, I am thoroughly convinced of that.

~~~
tuna-piano
Yes, not during the 1812 war when the White House was invaded. Not during the
1860s when our country was at war with itself. Not during the 1940s when we
were in a depression and a giant war.

Every year and every election always seems more historically significant than
it is - because you're living it now.

~~~
MicroBerto
We survived those - changed, but in tact. The very basis of the Constitution
could very well not survive this one.

------
ck2
Several people are currently in jail without trial for making non-specific
verbal or written threats against schools in the USA.

One could play devil's-advocate and argue that is free-speech since the threat
is non-specific and no actual action was taken.

Using that same logic however, insulting a religion specifically to
demonstrate/cause violent reaction should trigger a per-emptive jail term
without trial in the USA?

But now you've got me defending an abrahamic religion, I feel like I need to
take a shower to get clean.

~~~
theandrewbailey
> Using that same logic however, insulting a religion specifically to
> demonstrate/cause violent reaction should trigger a per-emptive jail term
> without trial in the USA?

Constitution says no, but if they call you a terrorist, the government could
put your ass in Gitmo and you'd never be heard from again.

~~~
ck2
I think we need a better reference these days because no-one has been added to
gitmo in eight years and certainly not any US citizen (that we know of, who
knows for sure?)

However I don't think there are even examples of terrorists without trials in
supermax? Again that we know of, because we tend to not find out these things
until someone gives up their own freedom to leak out what is really going on
years later.

I do know there are people in jail, not prison, without trial for threatening
schools. That's as close as we get to prison-for-speech?

~~~
leesalminen
What about Homan Square in Chicago where the local police set up and utilized
a "secret" detention center where people were held, without charges or access
to an attorney?

[http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-
polic...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-
detain-americans-black-site)

------
andrewclunn
Are we AGAIN promoting that BS lie that this film was responsible for the
attacks on the embassy in Libya? That's a lie that just won't die.

------
kingkawn
It is comforting to believe in increasing speech suppression when I can't
think of meaningful things to say.

------
basicplus2
ALL religions are cults

~~~
dang
Please don't post religious flamewar comments to HN.

~~~
basicplus2
sorry if it offends, but this is the cause of these issues shown in the post.
perhaps I should explain that i believe cults (religions being cults accepted
by a large enough group of people) are the primary mechanism that is used by
people in authority to divide and conquer, and control by fear.

Further more if people really want to solve these issues , a major effort
should be put towards showing people what all cults really are and rid the
world of them.

~~~
dang
It's not that it "offends", it's that religious flamewars are a proven way to
destroy the quality of discourse we strive for here. We ban accounts that
won't stop doing it, so please stop doing it.

------
H0n3sty
The behavior pattern described is basically the collision of honour culture
(belief in retribution) and victimhood culture (easily taking offense).

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272408166_Microaggr...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272408166_Microaggression_and_Moral_Cultures)

------
erikb
How did such an anti-freespeech, "islam=murder" promoting article made it to
the front page? And is the economist always so traditional, right wingy?

I have to say I'm a little shocked of what I'm reading here.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Trouble with the Economist, they don't credit anything they write there. No
idea who is speaking; not even the Editors get credit. I dismiss them
outright, and refuse to read a word.

~~~
orthoganol
Seems obvious that they want to avoid personal repercussions. They very
frankly embarrass other countries (deservedly), and they don't want to lose
their ability to get a visa or even endanger their own safety.

