Greenwald writes: "This arrest has predictably produced the odd spectacle of
those who just months ago were parading around as free speech crusaders now
cheering the arrest of someone for ideas he expressed in a lecture."
David Cameron at Charlie Hebdo march in Paris. (photo: Steve Parsons/PA
Wire/AP)
A Quiz for the West's Great Free Speech Advocates and Supporters of Anjem
Choudary's Arrest
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
07 August 15
As we all know ever since the inspiring parade in Paris following the
Charlie Hebdo attack, "free speech" is a cherished and sacred right in the
west even for the most provocative and controversial views (of course, if
"free speech" does not allow expression of the most provocative and
controversial views, then, by definition, it does not exist). But yesterday
in the UK, the British-born Muslim extremist Anjem Choudary, who has a long
history of spouting noxious views, was arrested on charges of "inviting
support" for ISIS based on statements he made in "individual lectures which
were subsequently published online."
This arrest has predictably produced the odd spectacle of those who just
months ago were parading around as free speech crusaders now cheering the
arrest of someone for ideas he expressed in a lecture. That simply shows
what was obvious all along: that for many participants, the Charlie Hebdo
"free speech" orgies were all about celebrating and demanding protection for
ideas that they like (ones that castigate Islam and anger Muslims), not
actual principles of free speech (having the Paris march led by scores of
world leaders who frequently imprison those with unpopular views was the
perfect symbol).
Indeed, many of the west's most vocal self-proclaimed free speech champions
are perfectly happy to see ideas criminalized as long as the ideas are the
ones they hate, expressed by those they regard as adversaries (beyond
Choudary, just look at all the prosecutions for free speech they tolerate
from their own governments when directed at the marginalized and disliked).
Worse, they love to invent terminology to justify why their side's views are
totally appropriate and legal, but the other side's views are criminal and
beyond what "free speech" includes.
The principal justification I saw yesterday from those defending Choudary's
arrest was that "advocacy of violence" or "incitement to violence" is
something different than speech, and can thus be legitimately punished,
including with prison. With this standard in mind, I offer a few examples of
statements and would like to know whether it should be legal to express them
or whether one should be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for doing so:
(1) Saddam Hussein is a major threat and has WMD, and we should use all our
might to invade Iraq, bomb the country, take it over, and kill him and his
supporters!
(2) Obama is absolutely right to use drones even though he's killing
innocent people. In fact, we should use more drones to kill more people.
Even if it means having civilians and children die, the need to wipe out The
Terrorists requires we use more violence now, no matter how many innocent
Muslims will die from it!
(3) Whenever Hamas shoots a rocket at Israel, Israel should retaliate with
full, unbridled force against Gaza, even if it means killing large numbers
of women and children. Nobody in Gaza is truly innocent - after all, they
elected Hamas - and so they deserve what they get.
(4) If Iran doesn't immediately give up its nuclear program, we should nuke
them - blow them back to the Stone Age!
(5) Set to a musical score: we should bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran.
(6) Muslims have been engaged in violence against the west for too long.
It's long past time we took the fight to them and did violence back to them.
(7) The west has spent decades bombing, occupying, and otherwise interfering
in Muslim countries. Western governments have killed countless innocent men,
women and children. They've used violence indiscriminately, without regard
to whether it kills innocents. They seem unwilling to stop unless forced to.
It's thus not only justified but mandatory for Muslims to use violence back
against the west. If it kills civilians, so be it: civilians elected the
governments doing the violence.
(8) ISIS has valid grievances against the west, and I understand the reasons
someone would want to join them. I agree with many of those reasons. Only
ISIS has been successful in stopping western aggression.
These are all very easy examples for me. Despite the fact that they all
advocate, justify and on some level "incite" violence, and despite the fact
that almost all of these ideas have led to actual violence and the killing
of innocents, they are all political opinions that nobody should be
sanctioned or punished by the state for expressing, and if anyone is
punished for them, it means, by definition, that they live in a society
without "free speech."
That's because I agree with what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 45 years ago
in Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case overturned the conviction of a KKK member
for giving a speech that threatened political officials (including the U.S.
President) with violence. The Court invalidated as unconstitutional the Ohio
law that made it a crime to "advocate . . . the duty, necessity, or
propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as
a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform."
The Brandenburg Court's key reasoning: "the constitutional guarantees of
free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe
advocacy of the use of force." Only incitement of imminent violence - e.g.,
leading a mob holding torches outside of someone's house and directing them
to burn it down - can be punished; advocacy of violence by itself cannot be
(my most comprehensive argument against criminalizing ideas on the ground
that they are "hateful" or "violent" is here).
But if you don't agree with that well-established principle of American law,
and instead believe that it is legitimate to punish people for advocating or
"inciting" violence, then it's critical to specify what you mean. More to
the point, it's crucial that these high-minded standards not be exploited to
render permissible advocacy of ideas that you like while outlawing and
criminalizing ideas that you hate - or, worse, to legalize advocacy of
violence by one's own side while criminalizing advocacy of violence by the
other side. That desire - to imprison people for expressing views one
dislikes - is the defining attribute of a petty tyrant, and is the precise
opposite of "free speech."
With that in mind: which of the above examples should be considered
criminal, if any, and why? And if the answer is "none," then why would
anyone applaud or justify the arrest of someone for "inviting support" for a
group? None of this is abstract: numerous western nations are increasingly
punishing speech from Muslims, and Muslim citizens of western nations
frequently express fear of even discussing political views for fear of
having those opinions used to turn them into criminals or "terrorists."
Update: I'll add one more example, from the 1980s and 1990s when the African
National Congress was designated a "terrorist" group:
(9) Apartheid is such a profound moral evil that the African National
Congress is justified in engaging in violence against the apartheid state,
and I urge all of you to support the ANC and Nelson Mandela in every way you
can.
Could someone expressing that view be legitimately imprisoned for doing so
consistent with "free speech"?
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
David Cameron at Charlie Hebdo march in Paris. (photo: Steve Parsons/PA
Wire/AP)
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/06/quiz-wests-great-free-speech-a
dvocates/https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/06/quiz-wests-great-free
-speech-advocates/
A Quiz for the West's Great Free Speech Advocates and Supporters of Anjem
Choudary's Arrest
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
07 August 15
s we all know ever since the inspiring parade in Paris following the
Charlie Hebdo attack, "free speech" is a cherished and sacred right in the
west even for the most provocative and controversial views (of course, if
"free speech" does not allow expression of the most provocative and
controversial views, then, by definition, it does not exist). But yesterday
in the UK, the British-born Muslim extremist Anjem Choudary, who has a long
history of spouting noxious views, was arrested on charges of "inviting
support" for ISIS based on statements he made in "individual lectures which
were subsequently published online."
This arrest has predictably produced the odd spectacle of those who just
months ago were parading around as free speech crusaders now cheering the
arrest of someone for ideas he expressed in a lecture. That simply shows
what was obvious all along: that for many participants, the Charlie Hebdo
"free speech" orgies were all about celebrating and demanding protection for
ideas that they like (ones that castigate Islam and anger Muslims), not
actual principles of free speech (having the Paris march led by scores of
world leaders who frequently imprison those with unpopular views was the
perfect symbol).
Indeed, many of the west's most vocal self-proclaimed free speech champions
are perfectly happy to see ideas criminalized as long as the ideas are the
ones they hate, expressed by those they regard as adversaries (beyond
Choudary, just look at all the prosecutions for free speech they tolerate
from their own governments when directed at the marginalized and disliked).
Worse, they love to invent terminology to justify why their side's views are
totally appropriate and legal, but the other side's views are criminal and
beyond what "free speech" includes.
The principal justification I saw yesterday from those defending Choudary's
arrest was that "advocacy of violence" or "incitement to violence" is
something different than speech, and can thus be legitimately punished,
including with prison. With this standard in mind, I offer a few examples of
statements and would like to know whether it should be legal to express them
or whether one should be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for doing so:
(1) Saddam Hussein is a major threat and has WMD, and we should use all our
might to invade Iraq, bomb the country, take it over, and kill him and his
supporters!
(2) Obama is absolutely right to use drones even though he's killing
innocent people. In fact, we should use more drones to kill more people.
Even if it means having civilians and children die, the need to wipe out The
Terrorists requires we use more violence now, no matter how many innocent
Muslims will die from it!
(3) Whenever Hamas shoots a rocket at Israel, Israel should retaliate with
full, unbridled force against Gaza, even if it means killing large numbers
of women and children. Nobody in Gaza is truly innocent - after all, they
elected Hamas - and so they deserve what they get.
(4) If Iran doesn't immediately give up its nuclear program, we should nuke
them - blow them back to the Stone Age!
(5) Set to a musical score: we should bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran.
(6) Muslims have been engaged in violence against the west for too long.
It's long past time we took the fight to them and did violence back to them.
(7) The west has spent decades bombing, occupying, and otherwise interfering
in Muslim countries. Western governments have killed countless innocent men,
women and children. They've used violence indiscriminately, without regard
to whether it kills innocents. They seem unwilling to stop unless forced to.
It's thus not only justified but mandatory for Muslims to use violence back
against the west. If it kills civilians, so be it: civilians elected the
governments doing the violence.
(8) ISIS has valid grievances against the west, and I understand the reasons
someone would want to join them. I agree with many of those reasons. Only
ISIS has been successful in stopping western aggression.
These are all very easy examples for me. Despite the fact that they all
advocate, justify and on some level "incite" violence, and despite the fact
that almost all of these ideas have led to actual violence and the killing
of innocents, they are all political opinions that nobody should be
sanctioned or punished by the state for expressing, and if anyone is
punished for them, it means, by definition, that they live in a society
without "free speech."
That's because I agree with what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 45 years ago
in Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case overturned the conviction of a KKK member
for giving a speech that threatened political officials (including the U.S.
President) with violence. The Court invalidated as unconstitutional the Ohio
law that made it a crime to "advocate . . . the duty, necessity, or
propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as
a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform."
The Brandenburg Court's key reasoning: "the constitutional guarantees of
free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe
advocacy of the use of force." Only incitement of imminent violence - e.g.,
leading a mob holding torches outside of someone's house and directing them
to burn it down - can be punished; advocacy of violence by itself cannot be
(my most comprehensive argument against criminalizing ideas on the ground
that they are "hateful" or "violent" is here).
But if you don't agree with that well-established principle of American law,
and instead believe that it is legitimate to punish people for advocating or
"inciting" violence, then it's critical to specify what you mean. More to
the point, it's crucial that these high-minded standards not be exploited to
render permissible advocacy of ideas that you like while outlawing and
criminalizing ideas that you hate - or, worse, to legalize advocacy of
violence by one's own side while criminalizing advocacy of violence by the
other side. That desire - to imprison people for expressing views one
dislikes - is the defining attribute of a petty tyrant, and is the precise
opposite of "free speech."
With that in mind: which of the above examples should be considered
criminal, if any, and why? And if the answer is "none," then why would
anyone applaud or justify the arrest of someone for "inviting support" for a
group? None of this is abstract: numerous western nations are increasingly
punishing speech from Muslims, and Muslim citizens of western nations
frequently express fear of even discussing political views for fear of
having those opinions used to turn them into criminals or "terrorists."
Update: I'll add one more example, from the 1980s and 1990s when the African
National Congress was designated a "terrorist" group:
(9) Apartheid is such a profound moral evil that the African National
Congress is justified in engaging in violence against the apartheid state,
and I urge all of you to support the ANC and Nelson Mandela in every way you
can.
Could someone expressing that view be legitimately imprisoned for doing so
consistent with "free speech"?
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
