The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Europe Really Is Jailing People for Online Speech," by Prof. Yascha Mounk
From the introduction to his April 24 post, which is much worth reading in its entirety:
Imagine this scenario.
The interior minister of a country that considers itself a democracy reports scores of citizens to the police for making critical statements about her while she is in office. Many of them are given hefty monetary fines or even prison sentences.
In protest, a journalist publishes a satirical meme. It features a real photograph of the interior minister holding a sign that is digitally altered so that, apocryphally, it reads: "I hate freedom of speech."
As if to prove the point, the interior minister reports the journalist to the police. He is duly prosecuted and, after a brief trial, given a seven-month suspended prison sentence.
Would you say that this nation has a problem with free speech?
If you do, then you should be very concerned about what has happened in Europe over the last few years. For, as you may have suspected, this scenario is not fictional; rather, it depicts the true facts of a recent German court case—one that is far less of an outlier than most otherwise well-informed observers recognize….
Mounk goes on to offer many examples and analysis, and closes with:
Yes, some extremists invoke the cause of free speech for their own sinister agenda. And yes, J. D. Vance's stark criticisms of European restrictions on free speech reeked of hypocrisy in light of the Trump administration's own attempts to chill the speech of its critics. But the fact that some of the people who point to a problem aren't trustworthy doesn't miraculously mean that the problem isn't real—and anybody who insists on blindly taking the opposite stance of people like Vance on any issue in the world effectively outsources to him the decision of what they themselves believe.
Europe's far-reaching restrictions on free speech have already resulted in many serious miscarriages of justice. They now have a significant "chilling effect" on the ability to engage in robust political speech, which must include the freedom to express unpopular opinions and to satirize—whether in good taste or bad—the most powerful people in society. Far from helping European countries contain the extremists now knocking on the doors of power, that chilling of speech has likely turned them into martyrs and grown their public support.
Europe has a serious free speech problem. Instead of taking ever more measures to punish their citizens for what they say, it's time for countries from Germany to Britain to abolish the deeply illiberal legislation they have, with little attention from the press or the public, introduced over the course of the last decades. To live up to the most basic values of the democracies that are now under threat, the continent needs to reverse course—and restore true freedom of speech.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Imagine if AfD gets in power!
Don't Worry, the academics Will cook up some way to put these countries where people are being jailed and prosecuted at the top of democracy and freedom rankings.
But, but, but, but…. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to foreigners. At least according to MAGA. So what’s the problem?
Obviously, this does imply that Britons, for instance, have no protection on that score from the US government, while in America. But it's not the US government oppressing them in America, now, is it? It's their own governments oppressing them at home.
Huh? Not sure what your point is.
Yes, I expect so.
Are you stupid, or do you just play a stupid person on TV?
At worst, what is happening in the United States, to foreigners right now, is not imprisonment for objectionable speech. It's removal of the privilege to remain in the United States. Deportation.
Unlike in Europe, where CITIZENS are threatened with fines and/or imprisonment.
I have no particular objection to European countries applying the same standard to visiting Americans, making continuation of their visas conditional on not being what the government of the day might consider rabble rousing.
NB: J.D. Vance as vice president has diplomatic immunity, but I guess could always be denied entry, if Europeans wanted to provoke an international incident.
I 100% doubt you mean that. You would not be cool with Americans getting deported for a satirical photo of politicians holding signs saying I hate free speech.
As you indirectly note, The Land of the Free is trying to ship Fulbright Scholars to torture pens in El Salvador.
So I'm not entirely sure why Eugene is getting all hot and bothered about Europe - the US is demonstrably more than capable of shitting in its own bed.
(Yeah, I know he's making a quarter-hearted defense of Juicy Divan's festering mouth and keeping his appointment dreams alive.)
"it's time for countries from Germany to Britain to abolish the deeply illiberal legislation they have"
Spoiler: They're not going to, because they have gradually drifted into genuinely being deeply illiberal. And in the most ironic sort of way: They've convinced themselves that their own populaces are deeply illiberal, and can't be trusted with freedom of speech!
Just so, which is wht Prof Mounk is leading himself astray here :
They now have a significant "chilling effect" on the ability to engage in robust political speech, which must include the freedom to express unpopular opinions
What the Euro swamp dwellers object to is the expression of popular opinions. Unpopular opinions do not present the same threat.
The people subject to this have the right to overthrow the government over it.
If they can - - - - - - -
This article serves as a great reason to uphold freedom of speech here in the US.
Vague standards and harsh punishments for saying something that those in positions of power don't like is antithetical to the idea of freedom.
Europe has no tradition of free speech and as far as I know never really has. It's occasionally switched which speech is being suppressed. But the idea that you can say what you like without governmental consequences is largely an American phenomenon.
And while I disagree with the European approach to speech as much as anyone else here, Europeans seem sufficiently content with it to not elect a government that would change it. Most Europeans have democratic elections; most of them more democratic than ours in fact. If there were any real support for free speech there, this would already have been changed.
So the problem is not with the governments. The problem is with the Europeans themselves. Democracy ultimately belongs to the people, and the people are ultimately responsible for what they do with it.
Europe has no tradition of free speech and as far as I know never really has.
Oh sweetie, where do you think the US got the idea from?
I give up; where do you think the US got the idea from?
This has been your daily reminder that Martinned doesn't actually know anything, but nevertheless possesses a smug certainty that because they have the correct (leftist) opinions, all their assumptions about how the world works must also be correct.
"Oh sweetie," Sexist pig !
We got free speech not from any government, but from our own practice. It's an inherent right of every person in the world to use and exercise. Europe still lags behind.
Muffet, it came from British enlightenment thinkers (Milton, Mill, Locke etc.) but not from the British polity. To this day, speech is circumscribed in England and Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada. That probably derives from their history of monarchical government.
While it's true that Europe hasn't really had the deep sort of freedom of speech that has characterized America at times, this is a different sort of speech restriction than you'd normally see in a European democracy.
Normal European censorship would be censorship of outlier views. You're today seeing more and more European censorship of mainstream views on topics like immigration.
That's the sort of thing undemocratic regimes normally engage in, not democratic regimes. It's characteristic of a regime ruled by people who are unrepresentative of its own population, where the rulers feel the need to keep the ruled down.
It a product of Western political elites growing disconnnected from their own societies, so that even if the rulers were born in the countries they rule, culturally they're an occupying force.
The fact remains that the Europeans can change it any time they like by electing a government committed to free speech. Some European countries have in fact elected anti-immigrant governments, so how much of a reach would it be to elect a government that allows anti-immigrant speech?
The whole idea of free speech is that it is not subject to the vicissitudes of elections.
https://www.steynonline.com/15295/england-police-state
This is why we have a Second Amendment.
I agree with you that free speech should be beyond the reach of electoral majorities, but that wasn't my point. My point is that ultimately the problem lies with the Europeans themselves rather than their governments because it is the Europeans themselves who are sufficiently content to not do anything about it. Just one election and it would be fixed if the will to do it were there.
And the Second Amendment is a double edged sword because the team that wins is the one with the most firepower. Maybe that would be the good guys; maybe not and we could end up worse.
And the POINT of censoring political speech isn't just to keep the guy in office from being annoyed. It's to prevent the opposition from campaigning on the topics being censored, ideally to prevent the population itself from realizing that the government is unrepresentative.
In the enforced silence, each person thinks they're the one out of touch with popular opinion, because only expressions the government agrees with can safely be expressed, so that's all they hear. And so they never realize that the majority of their fellow citizens feel the same!
It's preference falsification 101, the very reason all dictators censor the opposition.
"The fact remains that the Europeans can change it any time they like by electing a government committed to free speech."
And the whole goddamn point of punishing somebody to criticizing a politician for being against free speech is to keep that from happening. Because you can hardly run on freedom speech if you can't say the other guy is against it!
The fact remains that the elite have been doing everything they can to prevent electing different politicians.
* Romanian election canceled.
* Hungary hasn't been treated well.
* France sentenced the primary opposition candidate to jail and made her ineligible for being a candidate.
* Germany has declared the primary opposition party a national security threat and seems on the verge of banning them.
* Something fishy happened in Poland, but I don't know the details.
* Austria had a minister who took such umbrage at being called anti-free speech that she sued people to stop calling her anti-free speech.
I am sure there are other instances that most non-Europeans don't hear about.
"different politicians"
Vlaams Blok was banned in the Netherlands for "racist" speech in its party platform.
It a product of Western political elites growing disconnnected from their own societies, so that even if the rulers were born in the countries they rule, culturally they're an occupying force.
Bellmore — Care to apply that notion to America's founding generations? Maybe show your historical work?
Europe is traditionally monarchial - read some history of the place, it's been chaotic, dictatorial, and deadly for over 2000 years. Breeding royalty creates those results when petty fiefdoms prevail over time - something like today's US political situation.
Europe is without a foundational basis for change into a freedom of expression unhindered by the petty political rulers - rulers elected, that is. Their history does not allow common sense to prevail, which is why some came here instead.
Truth is a disease over there; warfare their tonic.
Most people, in most places, aren't greatly interested in using the full measure of free speech they have. Either their views on topics that might interest the speech police are too conventional to put them at risk, or they have no views on such subjects at all.
It's telling that the "both-sides-ism" from the right referenced by the quoted author consists of Trump PERSONALLY suing people, and the government investigating news orgs for possible violations of FEC rules and the like. Compared to Gestapo-like tactics committed by European governments against private citizens for merely mocking a politician.
They are not the same.
Yes, Trump's lawsuits are a threat to free speech. But where were you when Dick Durbin routinely threatened the FCC licenses of people running political ads. Where were you now when it comes to Mark Steyn?
This post seems to misrepresent the situation just like some people in recent open threads did. Criminal libel is a thing, both in the US and in Europe.
(And don't even get me started about that headline. It's much easier to get a long prison sentence for speech in the US than in Europe.)
Perhaps you should read this summary:
https://reason.com/2025/05/12/german-censorship-highlights-europes-eroding-free-speech-protections/
You are pretty poorly informed for a Europhile.
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2025/05/12/chicago-homeowner-has-a-unique-response-after-finding-squatters-in-his-house-n3802686
A propos of an earlier thread.
https://www.steynonline.com/15295/england-police-state
This, guys, is why we have a Second Amendment.
No, it isn't. The idea that "Second Amendment remedies" to an abusive government is ridiculous if you're starting with a nation that has free elections.
So many non-violent options have to completely fail before guns would be either useful or justified.
So when is a government oppressive enough that a citizen that is abused gets to defend himself? Do you have the right to expect a citizen, born free, to stand down in the face of abuse? Would it have been ridiculous if Rosa Parks had enforced her right to sit in her seat with a gun?
So when is a government oppressive enough that a citizen that is abused gets to defend himself?
When citizens can't change their government by voting their abusers out of office.
Do you have the right to expect a citizen, born free, to stand down in the face of abuse?
I have the right to expect that citizens that feel abused won't turn to violence as the first option when that violence could harm innocent people caught in the way and when it unjustly takes away my right to choose my government. Someone that wants to use violence to toss out an elected government had better be right to do that. And no one should be so confident that they are in the right in using deadly force for any reason that they haven't exhausted non-lethal options before turning to a gun.
Would it have been ridiculous if Rosa Parks had enforced her right to sit in her seat with a gun?
Uh, yes? Because as stupid, racist, and demeaning as being forced to sit in the back of the bus was, it was a not a threat to her life.
And, as it turned out, peaceful protest was more effective for the Civil Rights movement than any armed resistance would have been.
It isn't that people should have to endure abuse from even a government that has solid majority support because fighting back would be worse. I would never say that. There would always be some kind of tipping point or line that gets crossed where peaceful protest and trying to enact change through the electoral process isn't likely enough to work and the abuse is bad enough. When that happens, that is when there would be a serious debate between the people among the abused and their allies that want to continue the struggle peacefully and those that want to resist with force. My point is that the abuse and oppression needs to be really intolerable and it needs to be really unlikely that any progress to relieve those problems can be made peacefully before one turns to violence.
It is people that turn too quickly to violence to solve their political differences that end up becoming the oppressors that they claimed to be fighting.
Unleash Trump Patel and Bondi. Tariffs, bans, deportation.that is all they understand
There's no definitive origin of the saying that, "The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe," which is a shame because it's an astute observation. The American left consists primarily of declaring everything racist or fascist, a strategy they've taken up to cartoonish levels lately. Meanwhile, it's Europe that has the actual problem.
An obscure First Amendment scholar tracked it down in 2006:
"He sounded like Jean-François Revel, a French socialist writer who talks about one of the great unexplained phenomena of modern astronomy: namely, that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."
https://www.volokh.com/posts/1139878045.shtml
Yes, I think Europe could and should do better.
I do not think the way to get that to happen is to yell at them, call them tyrannies (or fascist), or say they've been taken over by Muslims.
But here we are. We can't lead by example. We won't engage positively.
So we just kinda carp about it.
We do lead by example. The left says all kinds of nasty things about Trump, and they aren't put in jail.
Now, if that were true because Trump and his allies had never even threatened to use political power for any kind of 'retribution' against them or other political enemies, then you might have a point.
Weak sauce. Did he campaign like Tish James? Nope. He's right that we need to make the 'rats pay for what they've done though.
I guess you don't remember the "Lock her up!" chants, either.
Trump never went after Hillary. And come on, everyone knows that the FBI/DOJ really went easy on her--by all rights, she should have been prosecuted. What she did was horrendous. I was in the Navy, and I handled a fair amount of classified material and was responsible for its destruction. It was a slap in the face that she wasn't prosecuted.
This is far different from James' made up crap. I did syndicated credit facilities. The AA would often negotiate the "credit" a borrower would get for a piece of RE. We don't prosecute people who trade in their cars for more than the KBB. Same concept.
You guys put Navarro in chains when Holder skated. You can all go to hell as far as I am concerned.
We don't prosecute people who trade in their cars for more than the KBB.
What about someone that lied about the condition of their car in order to get a better trade offer?
Or, more to the point, how about someone that lied about their income or assets when applying for a home mortgage? Do you really think that an ordinary person accused of that kind of fraud would be so unlikely to be prosecuted, given the same kind of evidence?
I'd like to see actual, verifiable data on just how unusual the Trump prosecution was. I'm not interested in the assertions of Trump supporters that it was unusual.
I honestly see nothing wrong with calling them out on their bad behavior. We didn't help fight WW2 for them to turn around and start instituting some of the same policies we spiled precious blood and treasure to drive back. If anything we haven't publicly and loudly shamed them enough.
We can do more than that, social media is a trade issue too, we should vigorously defend Facebook, Twitter and other SM companies when they are over regulated and fined for not policing speech.
We didn't help fight WW2
This is not helpful either if you want to actually encourage change.
It is good if you just want to buff up America's nationalist myths, though.
This is exactly the sort of thing that can happen when you disarm your population.
Countries that do this are not our allies.
The current US administration is attempting to align power centers to do exactly this.
And yes, J. D. Vance's stark criticisms of European restrictions on free speech reeked of hypocrisy in light of the Trump administration's own attempts to chill the speech of its critics.
What do you mean? You're saying that the wrong acts and hypocrisy of my side isn't more than cancelled out by the worse behavior of the other side! That's ridiculous! If my side is -2 and the other side is -4, then that means that we are actually right by +2!
There's a huge difference. First of all, one can be a free speech zealot, but also feel that execrable turds like Mahmoud Khalil need to be on the next plane. Second, Trump is going after big players--just like you guys did when you had power. He's not weaponizing the Justice Department to grind some abortion protester into the ground for protecting his son from some lunatic. He's not having his FBI pull guns on innocent Gibson Guitar employees. You guys said nothing. Now Trump is making some of these bad actors pay. Waaaahhhh waaahhh.
First of all, one can be a free speech zealot, but also feel that execrable turds like Mahmoud Khalil need to be on the next plane.
I don't know. What has he done that warrants deportation that isn't protected speech? I've never seen that the federal government has alleged anything that is a crime in court. If it is just that you think that he is an "execrable turd" because of things he has said that you don't like, then it is completely incompatible with strong support for the 1st Amendment to want him deported, let alone for someone that is a "free speech zealot".
I don't particularly like him, but I also don't know that much about what he has said. And that is because what he has said is irrelevant to me about whether he should be allowed to remain in the country.
Society has to have the right to dictate the terms upon which people join the society, and one can believe in that and still be a 1A zealot. And society's right that doesn't depend on him being convicted of a crime. He represented CUAD in "negotiations" with Columbia, which is little more than extortion. CUAD interfered with the rights of Columbia students to enjoy campus life. Also, he omitted material info from his student visa application.
No I don't think that he can/should be criminally punished for pure speech, but it seems silly to say that because he got a student visa that somehow the US is stuck with him.
...that because he got a student visa...
He is a permanent resident, married to a U.S. citizen. Get your facts right and then we can talk more.
Europe is still part of the old world - the place where time moves slowly concerning political advancement. Past thinkers were discounted, during the innumerable petty wars, for good reason - it might make change possible away from bloodshed. So, they ended internal strife, but then imported aliens to stir the pot again.
This kind of chauvinistic nationalism makes it look like any objections are in bad faith - more about American than about Europe.
I don't think Prof. Volokh is in bad faith, but a ton of people on here sure are.
"We left this England place 'cause it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool new rules ourselves, pronto, well, we'll be bogus too."