essay about the free of speech

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

Advertisement

Georgia Judge Rejects Effort to Dismiss Trump Case on Free Speech Grounds

The defense had argued that some of the charges were based on statements Donald Trump and his co-defendants made in 2020 that were constitutionally protected.

• Share full article

By Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim

• April 4, 2024

A judge in Atlanta on Thursday rejected an effort by former President Donald J. Trump and his co-defendants to have the Georgia criminal case against them dismissed on grounds that it was based on comments that were protected by the First Amendment.

The case charges Mr. Trump and 14 of his supporters with taking part in a conspiracy to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia. Defense lawyers had argued that some of the charges were based on statements the co-defendants had made in a political context, which they said was constitutionally protected speech.

“Take out the political speech, no charges,” Steven H. Sadow, Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer in Georgia, said at a hearing late last month.

But the ruling on Thursday from Judge Scott McAfee, of Fulton County Superior Court, noted that “free speech — including political speech — is not without restriction.”

“Even core political speech addressing matters of public concern is not impenetrable from prosecution if allegedly used to further criminal activity,” Judge McAfee wrote.

He noted, however, that the bar for certain legal challenges was higher in the pretrial phase. The judge wrote that he was not “foreclosing the ability to raise” a First Amendment challenge later in the case.

Mr. Sadow said in a statement that Mr. Trump and his co-defendants “will continue to evaluate their options regarding the First Amendment challenges.”

In a second ruling on Thursday, Judge McAfee rejected an attempt by David Shafer, a defendant who is the former head of the Georgia Republican Party, to strip language from the indictment referring to “duly elected and qualified presidential electors” and “false Electoral College votes.”

Mr. Shafer served as a fake elector for Mr. Trump in 2020, as part of a broader scheme to create slates of pro-Trump electors in swing states that were won by President Biden. And he played a major role in the former president’s effort to overturn the election results in Georgia. Judge McAfee ruled that “the challenged language is not prejudicial,” and that there was “no legal basis” to strike it.

The argument that the First Amendment should shield Mr. Trump from being prosecuted for efforts to overturn the 2020 election has previously been rejected by a U.S. District Court judge, Tanya Chutkan, in a separate federal prosecution unfolding in Washington, D.C.

The Georgia case is one of four criminal cases that Mr. Trump is facing. A trial date of April 15 has been set for a New York State case in which the former president is accused of covering up a sex scandal as he was running for president in 2016.

Mr. Trump seems unlikely to go to trial in Georgia before the November presidential election. For much of this year, the case took a detour as defendants sought the disqualification of Fani T. Willis, the district attorney leading it. They said that Ms. Willis had created a conflict of interest by engaging in a romantic relationship with Nathan J. Wade, a lawyer she had hired to manage the prosecution of Mr. Trump.

Last month, Judge McAfee ruled that an “actual” conflict of interest did not exist, but that “the appearance of impropriety” remained. To solve the problem, the judge gave Ms. Willis a choice: either Mr. Wade could step away from the case, or she and her entire office could do so. Mr. Wade resigned a few hours later.

Mr. Trump and other defendants in the case are seeking to appeal the judge’s decision.

Richard Fausset , based in Atlanta, writes about the American South, focusing on politics, culture, race, poverty and criminal justice. More about Richard Fausset

Danny Hakim is an investigative reporter. He has been a European economics correspondent and bureau chief in Albany and Detroit. He was also a lead reporter on the team awarded the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News. More about Danny Hakim

Our Coverage of the Trump Case in Georgia

Former president donald trump and 18 others face a sprawling series of charges for their roles in attempting to interfere in the state’s 2020 presidential election..

Fani Willis: Trump’s lawyers had argued that the Fulton County district attorney should be removed  from the case because of her relationship with Nathan Wade, a colleague and former romantic partner . A judge later ruled that Willis could continue leading the prosecution , but only if Wade withdrew from the case. Wade subsequently resigned .

Other Threats to Prosecution:  A special committee of the Georgia State Senate is also looking into accusations of misconduct by Willis , making it clear that the effort to disqualify her from the prosecution is not the only threat to her case .

RICO Charges:  At the heart of the indictment in Georgia  are racketeering charges under the state Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act . Here’s why such charges  could prove to be a powerful tool for the prosecution .

Who Else Was Indicted?:   Rudy   Giuliani , who led legal efforts in several states to keep the former president in power, and Mark Meadows , the former W hite House chief of staff, were among the 18 Trump allies  charged in the case.

Plea Deals: Sidney K. Powell , Kenneth Chesebro  and Jenna Ellis  — three lawyers indicted with Trump in the case — pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors   against the former president.

Donald Trump says he would go to jail for free speech rights but stops short of gag order

Trump is under a limited gag order in the so-called new york hush money criminal case that prevents him from speaking out about certain people involved in the case,.

Donald Trump said Saturday he would "gladly" go to jail in defense of his free-speech rights – but appeared to stop well short of crossing the red line set by a New York judge.

Trump is under a limited gag order in the so-called New York hush money criminal case that prevents him from speaking out about people involved in the case, including witnesses, jurors and prosecutors, other than the judge.

The missives were harsh and personal — toward presiding Judge Juan Merchan, Judge Arthur Engoron of the civil fraud case against Trump and his business, as well as federal Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over a civil defamation case against Trump — but did not attack witnesses or other court staff.

"If this Partisan Hack wants to put me in the “clink” for speaking the open and obvious TRUTH, I will gladly become a Modern Day Nelson Mandela — It will be my GREAT HONOR," Trump wrote in the post.

Biden-Harris 2024 Director of Black Media Jasmine Harris ripped Trump's comparison to the legendary South African human rights leader on Saturday afternoon..

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

“Imagine being so self-centered that you compare yourself to Jesus Christ and Nelson Mandela all within the span of little more than a week: that’s Donald Trump for you,” Harris said in a statement.

Trump's comments come before fundraiser

The posts preceded, by a few hours, a Saturday night fundraiser in which the Trump campaign expected to pocket close to $50 million from a gathering in Palm Beach at the house of hedge fund guru John Paulson.

The former president has long trailed President Joe Biden in fundraising as both men seek another term in the White House.

According to an invitation obtained by USA TODAY, the attendees include a super-wealthy cadre such as Palm Beach County sugar mogul Jose “Pepe” Fanjul as well as Palm Beach resident and former Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross.

The price of admission on the invitation is $250,000 with a maximum contribution of $814,600, which the Washington Post has reported lands a seat at Trump's table.

Biden-Harris 2024 reports first-quarter money haul

On Saturday, President Joe Biden's campaign said it raised more than $187 million in the first quarter of 2024, including more than $90 million last month alone.

"This historic fundraising operation continues to break monthly grassroots fundraising records through the first three months of 2024 — an indication of enthusiasm, strength, and Team Biden-Harris’ historic resources heading into the general election," campaign officials said in a statement. "This first quarter raise is nearly double the unprecedented 2023 fourth-quarter haul of $97 million."

It added: "While Trump cozies up to billionaires tonight to raise his money, Team Biden-Harris’ first-quarter haul was driven by the strength of our grassroots support, which continues to grow month over month."

Antonio Fins is a politics and business editor at  The Palm Beach Post , part of the USA TODAY Florida Network. You can reach him at  [email protected] .  Help support our journalism. Subscribe today .

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

What a surprise! Free speech absolutist Elon Musk doesn’t really love free speech

The X owner is paying legal bills of people ‘unfairly treated’ over their posts while weaponizing the law to shut down his critics

Elon Musk is unravelling

Let’s check in on the platform formerly known as Twitter shall we? Let’s have a gander at how it’s doing since Elon Musk , the world’s cleverest man, decided to set its extremely valuable brand equity on fire and rename it “X”.

Huh, what do you know, it looks like it’s doing X-tremely poorly. Usage in the US has dropped by more than a fifth since Musk took the platform over in late 2022, a recent analysis found . This week Musk, who once named himself “Chief Twit”, also chaotically reversed his policy of making people pay for “verified status” and started forcing blue ticks on the site’s most-followed accounts – to the dismay of many users.

X might not be at the top of its game right now but, to be fair, Musk has plenty of other companies. So how’s Tesla doing? Not so great either, apparently. Inventory is piling up and the company is resorting to big discounts in order to shift cars . Meanwhile the Biden administration recently criticized SpaceX (another Musk company) for how heavily its operations are subsidized by the public.

While some of his biggest businesses are plagued with problems, Musk’s attention seems to be elsewhere. Half the time he seems to be tweeting about how he’ll never go to therapy or dramatically unfollowing his ex on X. The rest of the time the billionaire appears to be consumed by his favourite hobby : funding ridiculous lawsuits .

Last year Musk, who likes to refer to himself as a “free speech absolutist”, grandly announced that he would help pay the legal bills for people who felt they were “unfairly treated” for posting on Twitter. Musk was inundated with people asking for help and, last week, X officially announced that it was funding a lawsuit filed by Chloe Happe against her former employer Block – the financial technology company set up by Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter. While it’s not clear why Block terminated Happe, the lawsuit alleges it was because of her behaviour on Twitter.

“Block fired Chloe because of the political opinions she expressed on X,” the official X News account tweeted . “Chloe had two pseudonymous accounts on X, @bronzeageshawty and the now-deprecated @samsarashawty … because some of the opinions she expressed in her X accounts did not conform to the prevailing political orthodoxy, Block fired her, in violation of the law.” So what were those brave views that X is defending? Well, there are two key tweets (both of which Happe subsequently deleted) that are at the center of the lawsuit. One, described in the court filing as the “Restroom Post” said: “Looking fear in the eyes today as I’m using the ADA gender neutral restroom in the office and a retarded tranny in a wheelchair knocks on the door.”

The other tweet is described as the “Refugee Post”. In this one, posted soon after 7 October 2023, Happe pretended to be a “citizen” of Kurdistan (which is a region, not a country) and joked about refugees from Gaza coming to the area. Happe regularly uses this particular pseudonymous account to pretend to be a woman in Kurdistan with a sheep-herding husband and tweet “witticisms” like : “beautiful big tittie kurdish women just don’t fall out of the sky you know.”

Regardless of what you think about Happe’s comments, this seems like a bizarre case to throw your weight behind. I mean, let’s be very clear here: one of the richest and most influential men in the world has decided to invest his considerable resources in fighting for a woman’s right to say “tranny” and “retarded” online.

A cynic might say the motivation behind this lawsuit is not so much free speech as it is childish trolling. Musk, after all, has routinely demonstrated that he has the maturity of a 12-year-old. This is a man, let us not forget, who whited out the “w” on the Twitter office sign because he thought it would be funny for people to work at “ titter ”.

Despite the fact that he styles himself as a free speech warrior, Musk has also made it very clear that he’s not keen on certain forms of free speech. He will defend someone’s right to use transphobic and ableist language online to the very end but God forbid anyone should exercise their freedom of speech to say anything bad about him! The thin-skinned billionaire has forced employees to sign restrictive non-disparagement agreements and Twitter has been accused of suspending the accounts of journalists who have covered the platform . There are also claims that the platform has censored Palestinian public figures and suspended accounts which have been critical of Israel’s war on Gaza.

Musk has also weaponized the law to try to shut down his critics. Last month, for example, a judge dismissed a case X had filed against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a non-profit that has published reports detailing a rise in hate speech and racist content on X since the Musk takeover.

“Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation …” wrote Charles Breyer, the US district judge, in the ruling. “Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose … This case is about punishing the defendants … X Corp has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp – and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”

Musk actively trying to suppress criticism while posturing as a free speech warrior? Gosh, it’s almost like the man is a raging hypocrite.

Why do a disproportionate number of women play bass guitar?

Once upon time the guitar was seen as a “ women’s instrument ”. Why? Because women could keep their bodies in “feminine” poses while playing it and because, in Europe during the late 1700s to the mid-1800s, it was generally perceived as a “lesser” instrument. Now the bass guitar is considered more of a “woman’s” instrument. Ashwanta Jackson takes a look at gender and music in JSTOR.

after newsletter promotion

You can’t even escape sexual harassment in Antarctica

A significant number of women working in Antarctica have experienced sexual harassment and assault for years now. A congressional investigation is finally under way .

Teachers’ union leader calls for inquiry into misogyny among young men in UK

“It’s very fair to say that there’s a real problem with sexism and misogyny within schools,” the leader of the UK’s largest education union said . “It’s not just influencers such as Andrew Tate , but aggressive hardcore pornography which is really easily accessible to young people. This stuff is having a real impact, particularly on young boys and young men and their views of women and relationships.”

Florida supreme court clears way for both abortion ballot measure and six-week ban

If that headline sounds confusing it’s because the situation in Florida right now is very confusing . Florida was one of the last states in the south-east where abortions were still somewhat accessible; now, however, a six-week ban is imminent. The good news, however, is that Florida residents will get the chance to vote on a ballot measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.

Welcome to ‘Man Camp’: an evangelical men’s retreat in the Ohio River valley

“The weekend culminated with baptisms in an uninviting cow pond,” writes Jason Rogers in a piece ruminating about masculinity and spirituality.

The week in pawtriarchy

It’s a tail of two cities. Nearly nine months ago a terrier mix called Mishka went missing in California. Now he’s been discovered nearly 2,000 miles away in Michigan. How did he get there? “That’s a story only Mishka knows,” the vet who examined the dog said .

• The Week in Patriarchy
• Freedom of speech

Most viewed

Recommended

Breaking news, j.k. rowling, transgenderism, hate speech and a dark day for scottish enlightenment.

• View Author Archive
• Get author RSS feed

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

Most countries celebrate their most successful authors.

My country is especially blessed with one treasured around the world — the brain responsible for the wizarding world of Harry Potter.  

Yet our 21st-century Queen of Scots could face prison very soon .  

Our “hate speech” ban came into force Monday, creating a new offense of “stirring up hatred” against protected categories — including based on transgender identity and sexual orientation. 

Of course, nobody likes to be hated.

But the law is vague and far-reaching, without clear parameters around what the state decides could be “hateful” language.

Could it be illegal to state facts about women’s biological reality?

Could it be a crime to defend marriage between a man and a woman?

Depending on the context, nobody knows. 

The legislation was proposed in 2020, and I responded with my first-ever comment piece .

I warned J.K. Rowling could face jail for tweeting her beliefs under the future law — one of the Western world’s most severe crackdowns on speech, making it dangerous even to discuss biological reality with your kids at the dinner table.

“Free” speech could suddenly cost seven years behind bars.

Humza Yousaf — then justice minister and author of the censorial bill — disagreed.

In an interview the following month, he stated emphatically that Rowling would not be punished for her public “gender critical” tweets.   

The bill passed.

Police Scotland had to implore the government to delay enacting the law.

It faced an overwhelming rise in “hate” reports, with many from the “He said, she said” of the Twittersphere.

The forces needed time for “training, guidance and communications planning,” it said.  

We waited. For three years. 

That’s right — authorities had more than 1,000 days to address the real concerns raised when the bill went through Parliament.

Why was there so little clarity on which words or opinions met the threshold of “stirring up hate”?

Why is “transgender identity” a protected category but “female” isn’t? 

Would using the “wrong” pronoun count as being “hateful”?

Get opinions and commentary from our columnists

Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter!

Thanks for signing up!

Please provide a valid email address.

By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .

Never miss a story.

Would they really allow kids to report their parents for what they said in their own homes? 

Yet here we are. The act came into force Monday — and it’s no April Fools’ joke.

We’re none the wiser as to how we can hold robust conversations about important social matters without risking a stretch in jail.

The best advice Police Scotland has given us is to beware the “Hate Monster” — an infantile campaign singling out white young working-class men as villains, warning them not to get angry and “before they know it” commit a hate crime. 

Police will investigate every hate crime reported, we’re told — the same month it announced it will no longer prosecute 24,000 minor offenses.

Scotland will surely be the first country where offending someone’s feelings could come at higher risk of punishment than stealing their possessions.

The state is coming after people who say things it doesn’t like.

And that early reassurance from Humza Yousaf that Rowling would not be punished for her gender-critical beliefs? 

Highly questionable.

Twitter is awash with activists declaring themselves ready to report her belief in biological reality to the authorities.

The great Scottish witch hunt is a tale as old as time.

It was historically easier to silence problematic women if they were called “witches.”

Today, they’re “hate monsters” who need to be locked up if they hold beliefs not mob-approved.  

Indeed, it’s clear Yousaf hadn’t looked at the consequences of similar hate-speech laws across the world before making his claim.

In Finland, a parliamentarian and grandmother underwent criminal trial for a Bible verse tweet that questioned her church’s sponsorship of a pride event. Her case sits at the Supreme Court.

In Mexico, two politicians from differing parties have been convicted of “gender based political violence” and placed on an offenders’ register, simply for upholding their beliefs about gender and pronouns on Twitter.

There’s nothing to stop our hate-crime law from doing the same thing. 

It might be April 1, but J.K. Rowling doesn’t suffer fools gladly.

She’s challenged Police Scotland to come and arrest her for essentially declaring a woman is an adult human female and calling out those who pretend otherwise.

She could be at risk — yet she’s shown stamina in upholding her convictions.

Will citizens with less money or influence be able to withstand the pressure?

Or will they stay quiet for fear of trouble?  

It’s a dark day for the land once famous for freedom, culture, comedy and the great Scottish enlightenment. 

Time will tell how quickly we descend into a “monster hunt.”

Lois McLatchie Miller is a Scottish free-speech advocate with Alliance Defending Freedom UK.

Share this article:

Society Commentary

THUMB ON THE SCALE: AP Style Guide Tries to Exclude Climate Wrongthink From Journalism

  Politics News

Will More ‘Zuckerbuck’ Bans Keep Elections Honest? Here’s What’s Happening in These Areas

Society News

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-Porn Star Finds Faith, Says Her ‘Life Will Never Be the Same’

Politics News

FBI Silence on Probe of Pro-Abortion Firebombing Angers Pregnancy Help Center

  Society News

Ohio Police Arrest Illegal Immigrant, Discover He Was Deported 7 Times, Charge Him With Murder

  Security News

Judge Hands DeSantis Legal Win in Lawsuit Over Flying Illegal Aliens to Martha’s Vineyard

  Security Commentary

What I Saw on My Latest Visit to the Border: The BorderLine

  Security Analysis

‘All for Nothing,’ Retired Border Patrol Agent Says of His 31 Years of Service

   Security Analysis

‘Targeting, Surveilling, and Manipulating Americans’: Time for Senate to Pass TikTok Bill, Congresswoman Says

What the Conservative Defense Budget Would Prioritize

  Economy Commentary

Americans Face Higher Costs Under EPA’s Electric Truck Mandate

   Security News

How CDC Handled Congress’ Probe of China-Tied Lab in California

  Health Care Commentary

The Doctor Will See You … Eventually: Confronting Dire Diagnosis of America’s Physician Shortages

  Law News

How Biden Stacks Up to Trump on Confirmed Judges

  Society Commentary

Joe Biden’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Transgender Easter Fiasco

Judge Denies Trump’s Bid to Toss Georgia Charges Based on First Amendment

EXCLUSIVE: Left-Wing Group Pushed a Policy That Could Shape 2024 Election Outcome—Using Your Tax Dollars

New Mexico Accused of Hiding More Election Records

EXCLUSIVE: City Manager Association Censured a Man for Refusing to Enforce a Nonexistent Vaccine Mandate. Now, He’s Suing.

SMOKING GUN: Biden DOJ Took Advice From Group Demonizing Concerned Parents, Docs Show

EXCLUSIVE: House Subcommittee Chairmen Pressure DC Mayor, Police to Preserve Aborted Baby Remains

   Politics News

EXCLUSIVE: Here’s the Book the White House Suggested Amazon Should Ban

International   Commentary

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES?: Public Opinion Shifts on Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Hamas Wars

South Africa’s Dangerous Battle Against Israel 

Why Do Only a Third of Americans Now Support Israel’s Right to Defend Itself?

Gaza: Truths Behind All the Lies

  Politics Analysis

Understanding the Founding Fathers’ ‘Mental Maps’

Economy    Commentary

Yikes! Perilous Economy for First-Time Homebuyers

Energy   Analysis

Fact-Checking Wind and Solar Claims: Climate Expert Makes Case for ‘Realism’

Hungary’s wariness of forced speech reflects post-communist ideals.

John Wesley Reid / @johnwesleyreid / April 04, 2024

Even liberals in Hungary agree the government shouldn’t force anyone to express himself in a way that violates his conscience. It reminds them of communism. Pictured: Lawyer and Hungarian government insider Peter Magyar, center, wades into the crowd during an opposition rally March 15 marking the anniversary of the 1848 revolution in Budapest, Hungary. (Photo: Janos Kummer/Getty Images)

Get your FREE digital copy of The Heritage Foundation’s Founders’ Almanac.

The premium that Hungarians place on free speech reflects an American posture of centuries past.

It was the abolition of censorship that Hungarians demanded first during the famous 1848 revolution against the Habsburgs, and it was free speech that they demanded when the 1956 revolution broke out.

Indeed, America, whose inaugural constitutional amendment enshrines the right to free speech, in large part has adopted a totalitarian mindset against which it once revolted.

Not to generalize, since millions of Americans still value free speech in broad terms. Thankfully, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court agrees, too, given the justices’ 2023 ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis .

But although this Supreme Court precedent will exist for decades, its existence is a race against the morally declining court of public opinion—the very citizenry that elects the U.S. president who constructs the Supreme Court.

To summarize, in 303 Creative the high court ruled that forcing artists (including bakers, photographers, and florists) to custom-design expressive products that violate their consciences is a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

And while the Left decried the ruling as “bigoted,” it ultimately protected liberals and conservatives alike.  

I moved to Hungary’s capital, Budapest, as a senior research fellow shortly after covering the 303 Creative case. I hadn’t been in Hungary for a week before asking an attorney how the nation’s courts likely would have ruled on a similar case where artists were sued for declining services that violated their consciences. His answer was as simple as it was telling.

“I don’t know. We don’t sue for stuff like that here.”

“Good for you, Hungary,” I thought to myself.

To be clear, although Hungary is a largely conservative country, Budapest, like any metropolis, is quite cosmopolitan. Yet even Hungarian liberals I’ve conversed with agree that the government shouldn’t force someone to express himself in a way that violates his conscience. For most people here, that brings back the worst memories of the communist era.

For Hungarians, it is not the government’s role to determine what people should say or not say. It is not the government’s job to force habits or lifestyles onto their citizenry, as was argued by National Assembly member Balazs Orban in his book “The Hungarian Way of Strategy.”

The ongoing dialogue led many a Hungarian colleague of mine to ask: Why wouldn’t the American customers just find a different artist?

And: Why are they specifically targeting artists who they know won’t provide the service?

Their curiosity rightly suggests a harassing agenda by the customers. Case in point: Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker and “cake artist” at the center of the case known as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado , was sued for refusing to custom-design a cake celebrating a same-sex couple’s marriage in 2012.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ favor. But since then, he’s been sued twice for the same type of refusal—both times by the same customer.

This is clearly harassment.

When I explained this to my Hungarian friends, some of whom call themselves liberal, they were somewhat surprised that Americans (those from the land of the free) would act this way—and furthermore, that the courts would entertain these elementary affairs so often.

This makes me ask, why? Why are Hungarians—conservatives and liberals alike—such ardent supporters of free speech?

Hungarians’ appreciation for freedom stems from their understanding of oppression. As a reminder, Hungary’s release from Soviet communism is still recent. Indeed, most people reading this article were alive when Hungary’s democracy was commissioned in 1989.

The people of Hungary know communism—not simply from history books, but from life itself. The youngest of Hungarians have first-tier sources of communist history from their parents, and their grandparents can tell them of Hungary’s attempt to overthrow Soviet oppression in 1956.

Hungarians know that communism doesn’t work. Hungarians know that communism doesn’t simply limit a people, but it oppresses them—sometimes violently. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, several unarmed Hungarians were shot and killed in Kossuth Square, outside the National Assembly building that houses the nation’s parliament.

Hungarians know too well that freedom, without free speech, is a mask for tyranny. Indeed, without freedom of speech, one cannot live freely—if live at all.

America once had this understanding of liberty, too, which is why the only intended bias of the First Amendment was a partiality toward freedom.

Ideological bias against free speech is not only inconsistent with but contrary to freedom. To quote Kristen Waggoner, the lawyer who defended 303 Creative before the Supreme Court and also is president and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom: “If we desire freedom for ourselves, we must defend it for others.”

America, despite being a global superpower, is still in its historic infancy.

Not 250 years old, and yet how quickly a country birthed in blood-bought freedom went from “there can be no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech” (Benjamin Franklin) to “you must express yourself in a way that violates your conscience or else lose your livelihood” (the modern American Left).

Arguably, America’s Founders revolted against lesser tyranny. 

The courts of Hungary have yet to decide whether artists may be forced to go against their consciences. Perhaps such a case will never reach Hungary’s high courts.

That’s not apathy on the part of Hungary’s courts, but rather integrity on the part of its people. 

Join the millions of people who benefit from The Daily Signal’s fair, accurate, trustworthy reporting with direct access to:

• Intelligence from inside Washington
• Deep policy understanding from over 100 experts

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.

Just the News in your Inbox

Elon musk says brazil appeared to violate law through 'aggressive censorship'.

"This aggressive censorship appears to violate the law & will of the people of Brazil," Musk said.

Published: April 7, 2024 1:39pm

Elon Musk said that Brazil appears to be illegally censoring people online after a new "Twitter Files" dump showed that a Brazilian Supreme Federal Court justice appears to be punishing people for posting their opinions online.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes is cracking down on speech by throwing people in jail over their online posts, reporter Michael Shellenberger said on X, formerly Twitter, last week.

"This aggressive censorship appears to violate the law & will of the people of Brazil," Musk responded Saturday to Shellenberger in a post on X.

New records show that de Moraes and his court also "illegally demanded that Twitter reveal personal details about Twitter users who used hashtags he did not like," "demanded access to Twitter’s internal data, in violation of Twitter policy," and "sought to censor, unilaterally, Twitter posts by sitting members of Brazil’s Congress," per Shellenberger.

The justice also "sought to weaponize Twitter’s content moderation policies" against supporters of Jair Bolsonaro, who was president of Brazil at the time, Shellenberger also said.

Bolsonaro was indicted last month for alleged vaccine record fraud.

The "Twitter files" is a series released by multiple journalists about Twitter's alleged censorship before Musk took over the platform.

Follow Madeleine Hubbard on X or Instagram .

The Facts Inside Our Reporter's Notebook

• Michael Shellenberger said

Related Articles

Free speech.

Only two genders? Jesus is only savior? School district won't tell court they're protected speech

Campus speech policies simultaneously getting better and worse: report

Cuomo vs. Cuomo: NRA speech case divides regulators for father-and-son New York governors

Top stories.

NYPD cop’s murder mirrors larger national pattern: Repeat offenders committing violent crimes

• Shrinking accountability? Biden makes it harder to fire federal employees

Join AMAC & Fight For Conservative American Values.

• Prominent epidemiologist says data proves COVID lockdowns failed, and hurt population

Inflation, COVID-era spending policies result in teacher layoffs nationwide

Just the news spotlight, just news, no noise, courts & law.

Illegal alien who had previously been deported at least 8 times, charged with murder in Ohio

From the states.

• Chicago mayor faces increasing criticism as migrant spending approaches $300 million

Trump campaign expected to raise $43 million at fundraising event in Florida

Number of 'million-dollar cities' rising as home prices continue to climb

Conservative group releases ad blasting Montana Democratic senator's immigration record

• You Vote: Do you approve of repealing the 16th Amendment?
• Earliest COVID-19 vaccine recipients wrote in tens of thousands of injuries left off CDC surveys

Warren urges Congress to block sale of fighter jets to Israel

Latin america.

Mexico severs diplomatic ties with Ecuador after police storm embassy to arrest former VP