Yves here. This post by Richard Murphy gives an update on how quickly the censorship project is advancing in the UK. The US analogue is trying to finesse the free speech/First Amendment impediment by depicting disfavored speech as terrorist supporting or discriminatory. So far, the dodgy bill equating criticism of Israel’s genocide as anti-semitism has not yet gotten past the House, but I would not bet against it becoming law. It is hard to see how it would survive a First Amendment challenge.
ICYMI: Congress passed a GOP bill conflating criticisms of Israel’s government with antisemitism when enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
An assault on free speech to punish political protest & pro-Palestinian voices. Criticizing governments committing genocide is good actually. https://t.co/VFxeTzJlOi
— Justice Democrats (@justicedems) May 2, 2024
In addition, the point may be the chilling effect…even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly nixed laws and private agreements that have that effect. This extract from FIRE, shows how often the Supreme Court has cleared its throat on this issue:
The “chilling effect” refers to a phenomenon where individuals or groups refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation. Chilling effects generally occur when a law is either too broad or too vague. Individuals steer far clear from the reaches of the law for fear of retaliation, prosecution, or punitive governmental action.
Chilling Effect in the Courts
Justice Felix Frankfurter referred to the chilling effect in his concurring opinion in Wieman v. Updegraff (1952), a case involving a loyalty oath imposed on teachers. In that opinion, Justice Frankfurter declared:
[The loyalty oath] has an unmistakable tendency to chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice; it makes for caution and timidity in their associations by potential teachers.
Vague laws produce chilling effects because individuals do not know exactly when their expressive conduct or speech crosses the line and violates such rules. The Supreme Court explained this when examining the constitutionality of two provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that criminalized the online transmission of “patently offensive” and “indecent” communications. However, the law failed to define either term, thus creating a chilling effect.
Writing for the Court in Reno v. ACLU (1997), Justice John Paul Stevens explained:
The vagueness of the CDA is a matter of special concern for two reasons. First, the CDA is a content based regulation of speech. The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech.
Vague laws are not the only ones that can cause chilling effects. Overbroad laws and laws that impose a prior restraint on expression also can chill expression. Justice William Brennan referred to this in his dissenting opinion in Walker v. City of Birmingham (1967) when he wrote of “our overriding duty to insulate all individuals from the chilling effect upon exercise of First Amendment freedoms generated by vagueness, overbreadth and unbridled discretion to limit their exercise.”
Laws that chill free expression do not provide the appropriate level of breathing space for First Amendment freedoms. The Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) created a new rule for allegedly defamatory statements about public officials—the actual malice rule—in order to combat the chilling effects that many state libel laws had on free expression.
Now to the main event.
By Richard Murphy, part-time Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School, director of the Corporate Accountability Network, member of Finance for the Future LLP, and director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Fund the Future.
I posted this YouTube video this morning. In it I argue that the government is cracking down on those they call extremists, who seem to me and, I suspect, most people, to be those holding exceedingly normal opinions. Woe beside nature lovers, democrats and those concerned about poverty, let alone anyone not a neoliberal. So, is Rishi Sunak the extremist in reality, because I certainly don’t feel that I am?
The transcript is:
Rishi Sunak is trying to redefine extremism in the UK, and that’s extremely dangerous.
It’s particularly dangerous in the context of a new report that has been produced by someone called Lord Walney, who used to be the Labour MP John Woodcock, but frankly he was one of those who pioneered the move of Labour towards the right wing, and he’s now well and truly on the right of the Conservative Party as far as I can work out.
And what it seems that Rishi Sunak plus Lord Walney are trying to do together is to redefine those who are considered enemies of the state. They are the people who, according to Lord Walney, might lose the right to protest because they’re trying to undermine democracy.
But let’s just look at the list that Rishi Sunak used of those who he thinks are extremists.
They’re leftists. In other words, anyone who doesn’t agree with him.
Environmentalists. That’s vast numbers of people in the UK, who are members of things like the National Trust.
Pacifists. I’m a Quaker, so unsurprisingly, I fall into that category.
Migrants.
Peaceful protesters. Peaceful protesters, I stress.
Democrats.
People who believe in the rule of law. That’s very threatening.
The supporters of human rights, even though, of course, we, the UK, were one of the founding signatories to the UN Declaration of Human Rights and created the European Court of Human Rights.
And, let’s be clear about this – nationalists, whether they be Scottish, Welsh, or Irish,
All are extremists.
So, look, this is pretty significant for some people. I notice that I happen to tick all those boxes to some degree or other. But am I an extremist? Well, of course I’m not. Not in any shape or form.
I believe all people are born equal.
Discrimination is abhorrent in all its forms.
We all have equal rights to partake in society and ask as a result that society should have a bias towards the poor, the disadvantaged and the oppressed. I
believe we should all have a say in the societies of which we are a part. That, after all, is what being a democrat means.
And I think that no state has the right to demand the subjugation of another to its will, which is why I support many nationalist causes.
So, am I an extremist for subscribing to all those beliefs, or am I simply someone who holding beliefs that are pretty close to the teaching of, well, the Christian church and pretty much every other faith, as well as all the major western and other wisdom traditions, let alone virtually all moral philosophy?
So, the question is, is Sunak right? Or is he peddling a corrupt form of politics designed to
- favour the rich,
- deny opportunity to those who are disadvantaged,
- encourage inequality,
- promote intolerance and discrimination,
- undermine democracy, and
- oppress Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, let alone any other country in the world that he cares to take offence about.
My answer is he’s promoting toxicity to deny people like me our freedom to express our opinions as we wish.
Now, that’s an action that, to me, that is quite clearly contrary to the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
And in an era of growing political tension, he must know that this could lead to abuse. And I mean, both obvious online and verbal abuse, but even physical abuse as tensions rise.
So, what is he up to? Is this fascism? Because that’s what it feels like by denying the right of everyone who opposes him to believe anything and be labelled as anything but an extremist.
And there’s another question that follows on from that, which is why isn’t Labour roundly condemning this?
I genuinely don’t know the answers to these questions, but what I do know is that they need to be asked, and I do know that human rights have to be stood up for, because they’ve been hard won. And they could be easily lost. And the cost to us all as a consequence of that will be enormous.