Skip to main content

America's freedom of speech is in danger

A tweet published by Trump himself on his social media platform makes it sound like the US president is at least considering stopping funding for education institutions that allow "illegal protests".


The definition of  "illegal protest" isn't clear at all. Presumably Trump is referring to the recent protests in support of Ukraine, or the ones against Israel, or the ones against him. But the definition doesn't matter as much as the intention behind this tweet: Trump is trying to intimidate schools and universities across the country into silencing dissent. Is this what America looks like now? A country where freedom of speech isn't enshrined, but openly threatened?

I am not saying that I agree with the protests. After all, I don't even know exactly what protests he is talking about. But that is besides the point: we should all, at all times, defend everyone's freedom of speech. It doesn't matter that we agree or disagree with them: for a democratic system to function correctly, freedom of speech must be protected. Disagreements are an inevitable part of any healthy democracy, and threatening to withdraw funding from universities where students protest looks like an attempt to clamp down on dissent. It is not a good look for the "leader of the free world" to take this stance on the opposition.

The tweet comes after last week's decision by the White House to take control of the process that decides which news outlets have access to the Oval Office: instead of being decided by an independent association (founded in 1914), news outlets would be selected by the White House itself. This too looks like an attack on freedom of the press: "write nice things about me, or you might not have access to the White House", in other words.

It was also just last week that JD Vance warned UK prime minister Keir Starmer in the Oval Office of "infringements on free speech [in the UK]" - a bit thick coming from a guy whose president was once banned from Twitter and had to flee to a platform he called "Truth" to tweet all of his nonsense. Nevertheless, Vance has a valid point: freedom of speech in the UK has indeed been tested in recent years, with police visiting journalists' homes to 'warn' them about their tweets, and more recently with the decision to force Apple to give the UK government access to users' encrypted data.
It is good to keep friends accountable, and we appreciate Vance's concern for the UK's freedom of speech. But if I were him, I'd probably rather focus on the much bigger, much closer threat sitting in the White House.
Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

The UK needs more, not less, austerity

  First of all let me say that this is a hill I’m willing to die on. In fact, when I hit “publish” and Starmer’s thought police inevitably come knocking on my door, I will proudly tell them that I regret none of what I’m about to write. My goal with this article is to divide my readers into two groups: the ones who love austerity (most of you will fall into this category by the time I’m done brainwashing you) and the ones who never have, and never will, understand the intricacies of primary school maths. Let’s start with a definition: what is austerity? Austerity is a broad term used to refer to policies that reduce the deficit/debt of a country, either via spending cuts, increased taxation, or both. The objective is to drive the deficit (and ultimately the debt) down, something that can hardly be argued is a bad thing to do, especially in countries that face the challenges of a rapidly ageing population. Quick note for everyone: the deficit is the difference between what the state...
Read more

Introduction

Each one of us has a set of guiding principles that shape our thought. These may be principles we have blindly inherited from our family, surroundings, or cultural exposure, or they may be ideas we have spent countless hours actively thinking about and debating, maybe even changing our mind a few times along the way before ultimately settling on a set of core principles we felt comfortable with. Regardless of where your principles come from, or how you came to holding them dear, I believe that the vast majority of us have at least some of these in common, and that it is very rare for someone to have a completely unoverlapping set of core beliefs with the rest of the population. Extremes do exist, of course, but I (maybe naively) believe that most people are good-natured, and that at least on the theoretical plane common ground can be found with almost anyone. Before we get to my core beliefs, I should say three things. The first is that core principles can translate differently into ac...
Read more

Italy’s love for the big state is a cultural remnant of fascism

 Today we are going to make Italians mad. And no, we will not be breaking spaghetti – something that my Italian family has been doing for generations, no, centuries, before TikTok videos started circulating claiming that Italians don’t break spaghetti. We do, in fact, break our spaghetti, just like any sane person with a functioning brain would do when the spaghetti clearly doesn't fit into the pot. I actually used to sometimes not break my spaghetti, but now I always do so out of spite: it gives me both physical and emotional pleasure to know that the Italian gods are frowning upon my heartless breaking of spaghetti. As much as I would love to talk about how only people living in a hopeless country could get brutally angry about other people’s freedom to break spaghetti, and how this relates to Italy still being a fundamentally fascist-loving country at heart, the topic I suggest for today is the following: the link between Italians loving the big state and Italy having experienc...
Read more