Britain has no equivalent to the First Amendment, but the current draconian speech laws are so outrageous that even traditional liberties are vanishing. British police are arresting people for offensive online speech at record numbers while the right to protest has been severely curtailed.
In Germany, the situation is just as bad, if not worse. Long before recent efforts to stifle pro-Palestinian voices, the country’s laws on freedom of expression stood on tenuous grounds. As the late German jurist Weinfried Brugger noted nearly a quarter of a century ago in a study comparing German and American law on hate speech, if a protester was to shout on the steps of the US Capitol “our President is a pig” and even held painted pictures of the president as a pig “engaged in sexual conduct with another pig in a judge’s robe;” or that “all our soldiers are murders;” or that “the Holocaust never happened,” none of these allegations would lead to criminal prosecution as the First Amendment would protect them. However, criminal law would apply to all of the above messages if the protester made the speech on the steps of the German Bundestag. As further elucidated by Brugger, freedom of speech in Germany is not a “preferred right” and does not deserve “absolute protection.”
For the duration of Trump 2.0, we must be prepared for a barrage of further anti-democratic actions taking aim at any individual, group, or organization whose ideas, beliefs, and actions threaten the ego of the “beloved leader” or simply irritate his idiotic whims
In this sense, conservatives in the US, like Vice President JD Vance, are not totally wrong when they criticize Europe over free speech, even though they are complete hypocrites. Indeed, the problem with Vance and the rest of the MAGA Republicans who are seemingly disturbed by the backsliding of free expression in Europe is that they are not interested in free speech as such; they are interested in controlling it. They only want to protect speech that is aligned with their own ideological beliefs and values. Thus, in his speech to the Munich Security Conference in February, where he scolded Europeans for their failings on free speech, Vance not only spread a lie when he claimed that the Scottish government had sent letters to citizens instructing them that “even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law” but kept silent about UK government anti-protest legislation, which, as British academic Eric Heinze astutely noted, targets exactly the kind or protests that Trump fears.
Trump returned to the White House with a promise to protect free speech from government censorship. Indeed, just a few hours after his second inauguration, Trump signed Executive Order 14149, titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” But Trump is a master of doublespeak. His administration has, in turn, carried out a wide-ranging crackdown on universities, student protesters, journalists, lawyers, and the press. The wannabe dictator has accused the press on multiple occasions of being “the enemy of the American people” and has filed personal lawsuits against several news organizations. Under his administration, we are also witnessing the intrusion of the military into civilian life. This type of government action is tantamount to dictatorship, as it constitutes an all-out assault on democracy and the rule of law.
The Trump administration is abusing federal power to silence dissenting voices in a manner that has not been seen since the McCarthy era. Democrats and Republicans alike played the Red Card back in the 1940s and throughout the 1950s in order to silence critics and quash dissent. Trump is doing the same thing by trying to create a climate of fear and suspicion across the country with the boogeyman of the so-called “far left,” especially in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s killing.
To be sure, there should be no illusions about the evolution of free speech in the United States. The current situation is by no means unique, and the First Amendment has never been as sacred as people seem to think. Despite its exalted status, the First Amendment has been “a dead letter for much of American history” and did not come to life until the early 20th century. And when it did, freedom of expression suffered some major blows, thanks to World War I, which created a wave of jingoism, and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which gave rise in turn to an anti-communist alarm known as the Red Scare. In Debs v United States, the Supreme Court upheld Deb’s conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917. Eugene Debs, a leading member of the Socialist Party of America, was convicted for his outspoken opposition to US involvement in World War I and sentenced to ten years in federal prison.
Throughout the 1940s and the 1950s, the First Amendment was censored in the shadows as the suppression of political and social views became a widespread occurrence, spearheaded by a second Red Scare and the rise of McCarthyism. The Smith Act, which was passed by Congress and signed by President Roosevelt on June 28, 1940, was used to monitor immigrants and prosecute members of the Communist Party. In 1951, in a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court delivered a massive blow to the First Amendment by upholding the constitutionality of the Smith Act in Dennis v United States. In 1947, the Truman administration initiated a loyalty program aimed at rooting out “subversives” and getting rid of homosexuals. Such programs were also established for employment in the private sector as well.
It was only in the 1960s, thanks to growing opposition to the Vietnam War and government attempts to curb protests, that the First Amendment entered mass public consciousness in the United States. When a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, was suspended for wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War and in support of a Christmas truce, the students’ parents challenged the suspensions as a violation of free speech. In a landmark victory for student rights and the First Amendment, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v Des Moines (1969) that schools are not “enclaves of totalitarianism” and that “neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate.” The Pentagon Papers case defended further the right of free speech, although subsequent US administrations, from Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama to Donald Trump, indicted scores of people “for leaking secrets to the press,” as Lincoln Caplan has underscored in an essay for the Harvard Law Bulletin.
The democratic left has stood up for free speech rights throughout its history. It should remain steadfast in its commitment to freedom of expression and fully and unconditionally reject “cancel culture.”
We are not exactly sure who made the remark that “while history doesn’t repeat itself, it often rhymes,” but it surely applies to the free speech case in the United States. We are now in the midst of a new McCarthy era, and possibly worse. In forcing a comedian and television host like Jimmy Kimmel off the airwaves (Disney reinstated his show after five days of suspension), Trump and his goon FCC Chairman Brendan Carr are following in the footsteps of Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels who, in 1939, as the New York Times reported, banned five German entertainers because they “made witticisms about the Nazi regime.”
Thus, for the duration of Trump 2.0, we must be prepared for a barrage of further anti-democratic actions taking aim at any individual, group, or organization whose ideas, beliefs, and actions threaten the ego of the “beloved leader” or simply irritate his idiotic whims. The so-called "radical left" will surely be the main target. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing, Trump described the left-wing activist group Antifa a “sick, dangerous, radical left disaster” and signed an executive order designating it a “domestic terrorist organization.”
Antifa (shorthand for “antifascist”) exists around the world but is not a unified organization and has no leader. As such, it is not clear how the US government plans to prosecute Antifa activists. Either way, this is yet another orchestrated attack on political dissent and freedom of speech by the emerging dictatorial regime in Washington, D.C., under the reign of Donald J. Trump.
The democratic left has stood up for free speech rights throughout its history. It should remain steadfast in its commitment to freedom of expression and fully and unconditionally reject “cancel culture.” Censorship of speech is the first step toward political repression, which is precisely why Trump and his goons are now threatening to punish anyone who speaks ill of their newfound martyr, Charlie Kirk.
