Freedom of speech is under <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/censorship" target="_blank" rel="noopener">attack</a>, not just in authoritarian regimes like Russia, North Korea, or Venezuela, but also in Western nations that once championed it. I know because I’ve lived through it before.
I was born and raised in Venezuela, where opposing the socialist regime came at a high cost. From a young age, I spoke out against tyranny. In a country that does not tolerate dissent, that meant facing real consequences. I was expelled from my university simply for questioning communist propaganda in class. Soon after, I was accused of being a “terrorist” for my political beliefs.
Now, living in the United States, I cherish the ability to speak freely. But that appreciation comes with deep concern. I am now witnessing Western nations — once bastions of liberty — embrace restrictions on speech under the guise of fighting hate and misinformation. What’s even more alarming is that many young people in my own generation champion this threat to free speech.
<h3>Thought Police In Action</h3>
In February, CBS <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-online-hate-speech-prosecution-60-minutes/">aired</a> an interview with German officials who openly admitted that the German government is using its power to criminalize &#8220;hate or toxic speech.&#8221; When journalist Sharyn Alfonsi asked whether publishing an insult or a lie was a crime, the German prosecutors <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cbs-claims-free-speech-caused-the-holocaust" target="_blank" rel="noopener">answered</a> without hesitation, &#8220;Yes.&#8221; In Germany, law enforcement raids homes, fines citizens, and even imprisons those whose speech is deemed offensive, controversial, or false.
Sadly, Germany is not the only country to adopt this Orwellian totalitarianism. In the United Kingdom, a nation with a rich history of constitutionalism, common law, and freedom, people are now being <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cev9nxnygzpo">investigated</a> for tweets, and others are being fined or imprisoned for posting memes. Nations that should represent the best of civility and debate are sailing the seas of totalitarianism, where the state dictates what can and cannot be said.
Many Americans might dismiss this as a European problem, convinced such extreme measures could never take hold in the U.S. Nevertheless, the same mindset is creeping into American universities, where ideological obedience is enforced at the expense of free and open debate.
<h3>American Students Are Turning Against Free Speech</h3>
A <a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/college.pulse/viz/2024CollegeFreeSpeechRankings/2024CollegeFreeSpeechRankings?publish=yes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (<a href="https://www.thefire.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FIRE</a>) revealed that most students would reject speakers with different views on some of the most important issues in our society. For instance, only 29% of students would allow a speaker who believes that transgender people have a mental disorder to speak on campus, and just 43% would accept an advocate for the abolition of abortion. In addition, only 37% of students believe it is never acceptable to stop a speaker, and 27% believe that violence may rarely, sometimes, or always be an acceptable response to prevent a talk on campus.
These statistics are shocking. A significant number of young people believe conservatives do not have the right to speak on campus — and some would even be willing to use force to prevent them from speaking. This mindset is a stark departure from the principles upheld by America&#8217;s Founding Fathers, who believed strongly in protecting free speech for even the most controversial opinions.
<h3>Why Free Speech Matters</h3>
The purpose of free speech is not to protect speech that pleases politicians, the government, or the majority. Free speech exists precisely to protect those who say controversial things or want to challenge power. As Thomas Jefferson <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/jefferson-s-preference-for-newspapers-without-government-over-government-without-newspapers-1787">pointed out</a> in 1787: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
The danger of adopting the term “hate speech” is that it is completely subjective and can be used as a political weapon. Who defines what is hateful? The answer is clear: those in power. In Venezuela, the Maduro regime branded my views as hate speech — and I’m sure some American progressives would agree. This is exactly why the right to determine what is true or false, right or wrong, must belong to individuals, not politicians.
We often claim that politicians are corrupt liars who only care about their own self-interest. So, why would we give these people the power to decide what we can say? If we truly value free speech, we must resist censorship in all its forms — no matter who enforces it or what justification they use.
* * *
Franklin Camargo is a Venezuelan-born political activist who fled his homeland due to political persecution. Now a proud advocate for liberty, capitalism, and free speech, Franklin is a political science graduate from Liberty University, a former Univision host, co-author of After Socialism, Freedom, and a <a href="https://www.prageru.com/video/franklin-camargo-i-fled-venezuela-to-fight-for-america">PragerU personality.</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

Sunset behind the illuminated Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor

I Fled Censorship In Venezuela. I Now See It Spreading In The West.

Censorship

Communism

Free Speech

Immigration

Marxism

Opinion

Propaganda

Socialism

Venezuela

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a free speech challenge to university &#8220;bias response teams&#8221; that conservatives argue silence their viewpoints on campus.
Two of the nine justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, indicated they would have granted a hearing on the free speech lawsuit brought by the Indiana University students, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/colleges-free-speech-supreme-court-879a12f6e7aaf9d678009e56a8ab6ed0">reported</a> The Associated Press.
“I would grant the petition. It raises an important question affecting universities nationwide; Speech First estimates that over 450 universities have similar bias-reporting schemes.” Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. Justice Alito agreed with Thomas, arguing that the case should be on the court’s docket.
The Indiana University students, represented by the free speech advocacy group Speech First, argue that the bias-response team targets right-leaning political speech by enabling anonymous reports of what are deemed “offensive” remarks.
Speech First specifically points to threats of discipline against conservatives who held contrary viewpoints on “gender identity, immigration, affirmative action, and the Israel-Palestine conflict,” suing Indiana University for forcing students to self-censor out of fear of retribution by these bias response teams.
University administrators maintain that the program is meant to provide education and support, not punishment.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas continues: &#8220;Given the number of schools with bias response teams, this Court eventually will need to resolve the split over a student&#8217;s right to challenge such programs.&#8221;
&#8220;I have serious concerns that bias response policies, such as Virginia Tech’s, objectively chill students’ speech,&#8221; Thomas further <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/thomas-alito-dissent-as-scotus-refuses-to-review-free-speech-concerns-over-university-bias-response-teams/">expressed</a>, per Courthouse News.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to grant a hearing does not imply agreement or disagreement with the lower courts, only indicating that fewer than four justices were interested in taking up the case for whatever reason, as the Court declined to provide an explanation for declining Speech First’s case on Monday.
Although the Court’s action leaves Indiana University’s program intact, the public statements from two justices suggest the matter of bias-response teams could reappear on the Court’s docket in a future case, given the right circumstances.

Justice Thomas Attends Forum On His 30 Year Supreme Court Legacy

Justices Thomas And Alito Dissent As SCOTUS Passes On Campus Free Speech Case

American Universities

Clarence Thomas

Courts

SCOTUS

U.S.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to restrictions that had been placed on pro-life speech and protest activity within 100 feet of an abortion-providing facility. 
The case arose after the pro-life group Coalition Life challenged a Carbondale, Illinois, <a href="https://go.boarddocs.com/il/coc/Board.nsf/files/D73HT549FC54/$file/2023-03%20Ordinance%20Amending%20Title%20Fourteen%2C%20Chapter%20Four%2C%20Section%20Two%20of%20the%20Carbondale%20Revised%20Code%20as%20it%20Relates%20to%20Disorderly%20Conduct.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ordinance</a> that restricted pro-life sidewalk counseling within 100 feet of an abortion facility. The policy, which was first implemented in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, was repealed by the city as Coalition Life prepared its appeal to the Supreme Court. 
Both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said that they would have heard the challenge. 
In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-57_21p3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dissent</a>, Thomas wrote that he would have ruled to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado, which upheld a Colorado law that required a pro-life protester or counselor to obtain consent to approach within eight feet of a person in a 100-foot radius around an abortion facility. 
“Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “I would have taken this opportunity to explicitly overrule Hill.”
Thomas wrote that the majority in Hill minimized the restrictions it placed on free speech and said the majority erroneously decided that buffer zone laws were content-neutral. 
“Hill’s abortion exceptionalism turned the First Amendment upside down,” Thomas wrote, saying that “constitutional rights hang in the balance” while the Supreme Court doesn’t reevaluate the Hill decision. 
<a href="https://coalitionlife.com/?_sm_nck=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Coalition Life</a>, which trains sidewalk counselors to urge women not to get abortions and provide them information about other options, was represented by lawyers with the Thomas More Society and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. 
Peter Breen, the head of litigation for the Thomas More Society, said that the only reason Carbondale repealed its ordinance was to escape Supreme Court scrutiny. 
“On the eve of our petition deadline, Carbondale quietly repealed its bubble zone ordinance in a shadowy, four-minute, weekend meeting, knowing full well their bubble zone would fail constitutional scrutiny if it came before the Supreme Court,” Breen <a href="https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/news/after-last-minute-gamesmanship-city-avoids-supreme-court-scrutiny-for-silencing-pro-life-advocates">said</a>. “While our clients are now able to sidewalk counsel freely in Carbondale, the city flagrantly violated their Free Speech rights for eighteen months, without penalty.”
Coalition Life Executive Director Brian Westbrook said that his group would continue its work despite the court&#8217;s decision. 
“Our appeal may have been denied but across this nation, at hundreds of abortion facilities, a different sort of tragic ‘denial’ continues,” he said. “Cities and states across America are denying sidewalk counselors and law-abiding citizens their rights to inform women about their options&#8230; Women are being denied true choice as they are bullied into the only option that is offered by the abortion advocates.”

Washington-DC-March-for-Life-2025

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Law Restricting Pro-Life Speech Outside Abortion Facilities

Abortion

First Amendment

Illinois

Pro-Life Movement

Supreme Court

Since Churchill’s time, America and Britain have spoken of their “special relationship” – even if the affection has been somewhat unilateral in recent years, as the US has recognised the UK’s increasing irrelevance on the world stage as it descends into economic decay, social disintegration, and democratic suppression.
You might think this an exaggeration – and I do not intend to imply that dissenting British voices receive the same treatment they might receive in China or Cuba. But that is not the right question. The question is whether dissenting voices in Britain are free.
We have all seen the evidence that they are not. The first act of Bridget Philipson, Keir Starmer’s Education Secretary, was to <a href="https://freespeechunion.org/phillipson-tried-to-pull-plug-on-new-free-speech-law-days-after-election/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">try and revoke</a> the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, even after it was passed by Parliament. That this is not merely a position, but even the top priority, of our new government is chilling. This, despite the fact that <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/uk-students-feel-censored-on-campus-poll-finds" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nearly half</a> of UK students are scared to express their views.
Whether people are <a href="https://www.gbnews.com/news/christian-lecturer-sacked-from-methodist-college" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fired from their jobs</a>, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-64786856" target="_blank" rel="noopener">referred to terrorist watchlists</a>, secretly put on registers for “non-crime hate incidents” (<a href="https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/children-as-young-as-nine-investigated-by-police-for-hate-incidents/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">even as children</a>), or even <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/article/police-criticised-over-arrest-for-gay-swastika-post-0dj6j0007">arrested</a>, freedom of speech is increasingly a luxury commodity in Britain – and saying what you think is increasingly seen as criminal. “Hate speech” is increasingly seen as a legitimate constraint – with <a href="https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/bible-hate-speech-survey-rewrite" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1 in 4 young people</a> open to banning the Bible itself if they believed it included “hate speech”.
Yet free speech is not the only casualty of recent years. Multiple people have been <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/cases/isabel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arrested or charged</a> merely for praying silently in their heads in the vicinity of an abortion clinic (which, in one case, was not even open), with an army veteran <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/guilty-army-vet-convicted-for-praying-silently-near-abortion-facility" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recently convicted</a> for silently praying for his unborn son. Thoughtcrime is no longer Orwellian fiction.
When asked if the UK should be included among other human rights abusing regimes, however, congressmen in the US ordinarily reply that “we are allies, we can’t do that”. The UK is enough of a friend to the US that it escapes any significant accountability.
But true friends do not let each other make serious mistakes without challenge: that is politeness, not friendship. So the question is: can the UK be enough of a friend to receive accountability?
We all know what tough love means: that if you really seek the best for someone, you confront them with reality, whose content or consequences may be acutely painful – but ultimately needed for our flourishing. And the reality in this case is clear: the British people desperately need a restoration of their civil liberties before we are too far down the slippery slope. If the US really cares for our country and its citizens, you must speak – and act – in favor of our freedom, whoever you offend in the process. Vance’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCOsgfINdKg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">speech in Munich</a> was a fantastic start – but now action is needed.
There are many ways to achieve this, but here is one idea: the freedom tariff. The UK is desperate for a trade deal with the US after Brexit. Trade is one of the few areas where nations can be genuinely held accountable beyond stern letters or phone calls – which are routinely ignored. Freedom tariffs would provide genuine leverage over the UK with a simple addition: include a clause stipulating that insofar as the UK restricts the most basic freedoms – speech, assembly, conscience, religion, and thought – it will pay for those restrictions with tariffs.
This is hardly coercive: why should America give us free trade when we won’t give our own people free speech? We either believe in freedom or we don’t. If we don’t, we can hardly expect its benefits from others. The deal is up to us to take or not.
America imposing “freedom” on other countries has understandably come under fire in recent decades. But rather than intervening militarily in intractable Middle Eastern political disputes, tariffs are entirely non-violent. And here’s the extra good news: this tough love need not be painful at all. All the UK would have to do is stop firing, blacklisting, and arresting people for thinking and saying the wrong things. Give free speech, get free trade. It is really that simple.
Of course, this problem is not unique to the UK. In France, a TV channel was <a href="https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/french-tv-channel-fined-for-calling-abortion-the-worlds-leading-cause-of-death" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fined 100,000 euro</a> for stating that abortion is the leading cause of death worldwide, while in Finland, a sitting parliamentarian has been on <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/campaign/free-speech-on-trial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criminal trial</a> under the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity sections of their penal code – launched by the attorney general – for years, simply for tweeting a Bible verse (a bishop has faced similar persecution).
The European Union’s deleterious approach to open discourse on social media has been widely publicized by Vance and Musk, among others. Perhaps freedom tariffs are benefits that can be extended beyond the Special Relationship.
* * *
Calum Miller is a research fellow at University of Oxford and a registered medical doctor.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP

President Trump Should Impose ‘Freedom Tariffs’ On Europe

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

England

Europe

Great Britain

President Trump

Social Media Censorship

United Kingdom

Vice President JD Vance doubled down on the tone of his Munich speech while at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday, saying that while he believed many European nations to be friends, that friendship was dependent on &#8220;shared values.&#8221;
Vance got mixed reviews from world leaders when he challenged European leaders to abandon recent efforts to suppress the political expressions of their own people, saying in part, &#8220;If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you.&#8221;
After CPAC attendees gave Vance a loud — if a week late — standing ovation for his Munich remarks, he took a similar tone when talking about the United States&#8217; relationship with European nations moving forward.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/VP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VP</a> Vance: &quot;The strength of those alliances with Europe depend on whether we take our societies in the right direction. That friendship is based on shared values. You do not have shared values if you&#39;re jailing people for saying we should close down our borders.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/ADCA8lWKKc">pic.twitter.com/ADCA8lWKKc</a>
&mdash; TheBlaze (@theblaze) <a href="https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1892602977044627725?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Moderator Mercedes Schlapp asked Vance to elaborate on the relationship between Europe and the United States, and he laid it out in blunt fashion.
&#8220;Obviously we&#8217;re going to continue to have important alliances with Europe, but I really do think the strength of those alliances is going to depend on whether we take our societies in the right direction.&#8221;
Vance went on to say that American troops stationed in Germany helped to keep that nation safe on the taxpayers&#8217; dime, adding, &#8220;Do you think that the American taxpayer is going to stand for that if you get thrown in jail in Germany for posting a mean tweet? Of course, they&#8217;re not!&#8221;
<a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/subscribe" data-sk="tooltip_parent">PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40</a>
&#8220;So the point that I tried to make to our European friends — and I think that they&#8217;re our friends, I believe that, I know President Trump does — is that friendship is based on shared values,&#8221; Vance continued. &#8220;You do not have shared values if you&#8217;re jailing people for saying we should close down our border. You don&#8217;t have shared values if you cancel elections because you don&#8217;t like the result, and that happened in Romania. You don&#8217;t have — you do not have shared values if you&#8217;re so afraid of your own people that you silence them and shut them up.&#8221;
&#8220;So let&#8217;s have shared values,&#8221; he concluded. &#8220;Let&#8217;s defend democracy, let&#8217;s have free expression, not just in the United States but all over the Western world. That is the path to strong alliances in Europe.&#8221;
Shortly after Vance&#8217;s speech last week, CBS News ran a &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; broadcast that highlighted Germany&#8217;s efforts to curtail &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/guest-on-60-minutes-claims-german-citizens-have-free-speech-but-there-are-limits" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hate speech</a>&#8221; on the internet — and network anchor Margaret Brennan accused Vance directly of irritating American allies, claiming that &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cbs-claims-free-speech-caused-the-holocaust" target="_blank" rel="noopener">free speech was weaponized</a>&#8221; to cause the Holocaust.

Key Speakers At Day One Of The Conservative Political Action Conference

Vance Doubles Down On Munich Speech: ‘Friendship Is Based On Shared Values’

Vance Doubles Down On Munich Speech: 'Friendship Is Based On Shared Values'

Germany

Global Politics

JD Vance

Politics

Vice President JD Vance got a standing ovation at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday for a speech he actually gave a week earlier in Munich, Germany, about the importance of pushing back against government censorship.
Moderator Mercedes Schlapp, the former White House Director of Strategic Communications, mentioned the speech, prompting applause from the audience. &#8220;I think they really liked it,&#8221; she said.
&#8220;I&#8217;m glad you guys liked it, not everybody liked it,&#8221; Vance said, referencing the outcry from liberals in the United States and abroad who had accused him of driving a wedge between the United States and its allies. &#8220;You guys liked it, not everybody liked it.&#8221;
What followed then was a standing ovation:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
JD Vance gets a standing ovation at CPAC for his epic Munich speech last week. <a href="https://t.co/T36nFp9P9s">pic.twitter.com/T36nFp9P9s</a>
&mdash; Libby Emmons (@libbyemmons) <a href="https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1892601576633897287?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As the audience members got to their feet, Vance smiled and thanked them, adding, &#8220;I&#8217;ll take a standing ovation for a speech I already gave. It&#8217;s like two for the price of one.&#8221;
&#8220;Here&#8217;s your speech, just say it again,&#8221; Schlapp joked.
Vance&#8217;s speech warned Europeans of a threat within their own borders — one posed by the very governments they represented.
<a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/subscribe" data-sk="tooltip_parent">PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40</a>
&#8220;If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you,&#8221; he told European leaders while citing examples of efforts to suppress the political expressions of their own people.
Referencing the European nations that had been on the winning side during the Cold War, Vance added, &#8220;Consider the side in that fight that censored dissidents, that closed churches, that canceled elections. Were they the good guys? Certainly not. And thank God, they lost the Cold War. They lost because they neither valued nor respected all of the extraordinary blessings of liberty.&#8221;
&#8220;What no democracy — American, German, or European — will survive, is telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief, are invalid and unworthy of even being considered. Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There’s no room for firewalls,&#8221; he concluded.

61st Munich Security Conference

Vance Gets Standing Ovation For Speech He Gave Last Week: ‘Two For The Price Of One!’

Vance Gets Standing Ovation For Speech He Gave Last Week: 'Two For The Price Of One!'

CPAC

General

Munich

Vice President JD Vance let former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan have it in a brief spat on X over The Associated Press being barred from the White House after refusing to update the style guide to reflect the newly renamed Gulf of America.
The conversation began with a piece from Axios White House reporter Marc Caputo, who argued, &#8220;President Trump’s decision to limit AP reporters&#8217; access is as much fight over the Gulf of America as it is a protest of what White House advisers say is years of liberal word choices that AP’s influential stylebook has spread across mainstream media.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
President Trump’s decision to limit AP reporters&#39; access is as much fight over the Gulf of America as it is a protest of what White House advisers say is years of liberal word choices that AP’s influential stylebook has spread across mainstream media<a href="https://t.co/H7hJrsY44r">https://t.co/H7hJrsY44r</a>
&mdash; Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1891464554120454264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Hasan quickly hopped on the legacy media bandwagon, asserting that the Trump administration&#8217;s decision to bar The AP from the White House was a violation of the outlet&#8217;s right to free speech.
The ousted MSNBC host also attempted to tie in current events and take a swing at the vice president in the process.
<a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/subscribe" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-7935">PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40</a>
&#8220;Hey, @JDVance, I know you’re busy lecturing the Europeans on free speech, but have you seen this?&#8221; Hasan asked.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Yes dummy. I think there’s a difference between not giving a reporter a seat in the WH press briefing room and jailing people for dissenting views. The latter is a threat to free speech, the former is not. Hope that helps!
&mdash; JD Vance (@JDVance) <a href="https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/1891553587970380152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Yes dummy. I think there’s a difference between not giving a reporter a seat in the WH press briefing room and jailing people for dissenting views,&#8221; Vance replied. &#8220;The latter is a threat to free speech, the former is not. Hope that helps!&#8221;
During his recent speech in Munich, Vance warned European leaders about the dangers of suppressing free speech and censoring their own citizens — a move that prompted backlash from American media.
CBS News host Margaret Brennan responded to Vance&#8217;s remarks by claiming on Sunday&#8217;s &#8220;Face the Nation&#8221; broadcast that &#8220;free speech was weaponized&#8221; to cause the Holocaust. Just hours later, the network aired an episode of &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; that cast a positive light on German authorities&#8217; efforts to crack down on free speech, particularly online.
Vance responded to Brennan&#8217;s comments with <a href="https://x.com/JDVance/status/1891219511942029677" target="_blank" rel="noopener">disbelief</a>, and pushed back on the claims made during the &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; broadcast — namely that in Germany, it is now illegal to post insults or to repost lies.
&#8220;Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships. This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy,&#8221; he said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships. 
This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy. <a href="https://t.co/WZSifyDWMr">https://t.co/WZSifyDWMr</a>
&mdash; JD Vance (@JDVance) <a href="https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/1891467842106630244?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Vance Torches ‘Dummy’ Mehdi Hasan In Spat Over Free Speech And The Associated Press

Associated Press

Donald Trump

Gulf of America

Media

Vice President JD Vance blasted a trio of German prosecutors who said during an interview with &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; that insults — both in person and online — are <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/guest-on-60-minutes-claims-german-citizens-have-free-speech-but-there-are-limits" target="_blank" rel="noopener">illegal</a> in their country.
The &#8220;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">60 Minutes</a>&#8221; segment that aired on Sunday reported on Germany&#8217;s enforcement of its &#8220;hate speech&#8221; law, which has been around since 2017, and showed police raiding German citizens&#8217; homes and confiscating electronics over social media posts. During the interview, all three German state prosecutors told host Sharyn Alfonsi that insulting someone in public and online is criminal. Those who break the law are usually punished with a stiff fine, but repeat offenders could be thrown in jail.
&#8220;The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet,&#8221; said state prosecutor Dr. Matthäus Fink, adding, &#8220;Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face to face, you insult me, I insult you, okay. Finish. But if you&#8217;re in the internet, if I insult you or a politician &#8230;&#8221;
&#8220;It sticks around forever,&#8221; Alfonsi said to Fink&#8217;s agreement.
State prosecutor Svenja Meininghaus added that reposting a lie — which could include gossip or fake quotes — is also a criminal action in Germany &#8220;because the reader can&#8217;t distinguish whether you just invented this or just reposted it.&#8221;
Along with fining offenders of the hate speech law, judges sometimes confiscate their phones.
&#8220;How do they react when you take their phones from them?&#8221; Alfonsi asked.
<a href="http://dailywire.com/subscribe">PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40</a>
&#8220;They are shocked,&#8221; replied Frank-Michael Laue as the prosecutors laughed.
Vance, who spoke in Munich last week and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-people-have-a-voice-vance-warns-europe-about-censorship-the-threat-from-within" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> Europe against censorship, blasted the &#8220;Orwellian&#8221; German hate speech law on Monday.
&#8220;Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships,&#8221; the vice president posted on X. &#8220;This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships. 
This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy. <a href="https://t.co/WZSifyDWMr">https://t.co/WZSifyDWMr</a>
&mdash; JD Vance (@JDVance) <a href="https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/1891467842106630244?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
During his Friday speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vance ripped European countries that have cracked down on free speech.
“I believe deeply that there is no security if you’re afraid of the voices, the opinions, and the conscience that guide your very own people,” Vance said. “Europe faces many challenges, but the crisis this continent faces right now, the crisis, I believe we all face together, is one of our own making. If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people who elected me and elected President Trump.”

German Prosecutors Tell ’60 Minutes’ That An Insult Is A Crime. JD Vance Blasts ‘Orwellian’ Law.

60 Minutes

Hate Speech

World

CBS News host Margaret Brennan faced intense backlash on Sunday after she claimed during an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio that &#8220;free speech was weaponized&#8221; to cause the Holocaust.
Brennan made the comment during an interview on &#8220;Face the Nation&#8221; while talking about Vice President JD Vance&#8217;s speech to European leaders last week in which he called them out for abandoning values like free speech.
“He was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide,” Brennan said while talking about Vance&#8217;s speech in Munich, Germany.
Brennan was met with instant pushback online over her claim, including from top elected leaders.
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) posted on X: &#8220;Free speech caused the Holocaust is an insanely stupid take.&#8221;
<a href="http://dailywire.com/subscribe">PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40</a>
&#8220;I&#8217;m glad Margaret Brennan blamed free speech for the rise of the Nazis,&#8221; said columnist John Podhoretz. &#8220;It&#8217;s always a virtue when a person in a position of authority and influence who was elevated beyond her station reveals her ineptitude and folly&#8211;so that the world can see her clearly henceforth.&#8221;
&#8220;This bonkers,&#8221; said Red State writer Bonchie. &#8220;Like pull her off the air bonkers.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
This is the first time I’ve heard the theory that the Holocaust wasn’t conducted with gas chambers but with free speech zones. <a href="https://t.co/mpWm6UH2F4">pic.twitter.com/mpWm6UH2F4</a>
— Michael Brendan Dougherty (@michaelbd) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/1891206009508536367?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2025</a></blockquote>
Radio host Erick Erickson posted on X: &#8220;Can we just talk about how a prominent American news anchor actually believes Nazi Germany had free speech and that supposed free speech is to blame for the Holocaust? That&#8217;s both deeply arrogant and deeply ignorant.&#8221;
Columnist Karol Markowicz posted on X: &#8220;It’s wild that this is how far the left has fallen. Free speech caused the Holocaust, you guys.&#8221;
&#8220;This is absolute lunacy from Margaret Brennan,&#8221; wrote journalist Andrew Kerr.
&#8220;I legitimately don&#8217;t know how ignorant you have to be to claim the holocaust happened as a result of free speech,&#8221; said Meghan McCain. &#8220;This woman doesn&#8217;t deserve to host this show and Republicans should stop rewarding this s*** by going on it.&#8221;

Face The Nation

Margaret Brennan Slammed Over Claim That ‘Free Speech Was Weaponized’ To Cause The Holocaust

CBS News

Holocaust

Margaret Brennan

A guest on CBS News&#8217; &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; attempted to claim on Sunday&#8217;s broadcast that despite reports of pre-dawn raids and the confiscation of electronics, German citizens really do enjoy free speech — until they say something that law enforcement interprets as &#8220;hate speech.&#8221;
Dr. Matthäus Fink sat down with host Sharyn Alfonsi to discuss the topic, and he explained how the recent raids had played out.
&#8220;What&#8217;s the typical reaction when the police show up at somebody&#8217;s door and they say, &#8216;Hey, we believe you wrote this on the internet&#8217;?&#8221; Alfonsi asked.
Fink said that the initial reaction was typically disbelief — mainly because they believed they were entitled to freedom of speech: &#8220;They say — in Germany we say, &#8216;Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen.&#8217; So we are here with crimes of talking, posting on internet, and the people are surprised that this is really illegal to post these kind of words.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
In Germany, posting hate speech online is illegal. The law is enforced with pre-dawn police raids. <a href="https://t.co/DNAJyNxILt">https://t.co/DNAJyNxILt</a> <a href="https://t.co/OHvWTVaRjQ">pic.twitter.com/OHvWTVaRjQ</a>
&mdash; 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) <a href="https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1891282394440732787?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;They don&#8217;t think it was illegal. And they say, &#8216;No, that&#8217;s my free speech.&#8217; And we say, &#8216;No, you have free speech as well, but it is also has its limits,'&#8221; Fink continued.
Fink also revealed during the interview that in addition to posting swastika images or any other Nazi symbols — and even denying the Holocaust – it was also illegal to insult another person in public.
&#8220;And it&#8217;s a crime to insult them online as well?&#8221; Alfonsi asked.
&#8220;The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet,&#8221; Fink replied, explaining, &#8220;Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face to face, you insult me, I insult you, okay. Finish. But if you&#8217;re in the internet, if I insult you or a politician &#8230;&#8221;
The interview comes just days after Vice President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-people-have-a-voice-vance-warns-europe-about-censorship-the-threat-from-within" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JD Vance</a> spoke in Munich about the dangers posed by European nations like Germany when they policed the free speech of and even outright censored their people.
&#8220;Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There’s no room for firewalls,&#8221; Vance said. &#8220;You either uphold the principal or you don’t.&#8221;
It also comes just a few hours after &#8220;Face the Nation&#8221; host claimed — during an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio — that the Holocaust had been caused by the fact that &#8220;free speech was weaponized.&#8221;
Rubio quickly shut Brennan down, explaining that censorship had been one of the hallmarks of the Nazi regime.

GERMANY-AUSTRIA-POLITICS-MIGRATION-BORDER-POLICE

Guest On ’60 Minutes’ Claims German Citizens Have Free Speech — ‘But There Are Limits’

Guest On '60 Minutes' Claims German Citizens Have Free Speech — 'But There Are Limits'

CBS News host Margaret Brennan claimed during an interview over the weekend that the Holocaust was caused because free speech was &#8220;weaponized.&#8221;
The left-wing host made the highly controversial remarks during an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio while talking about Vice President JD Vance&#8217;s speech in Europe last week where he criticized the continent&#8217;s leaders for abandoning certain values, like free speech.
&#8220;What did all of this accomplish, other than irritating our allies?&#8221; Brennan asked.
&#8220;Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion?&#8221; Rubio responded. &#8220;We are, after all, democracies. The Munich – Munich Security Conference is largely a conference of democracies, in which one of the things that we cherish and value is the ability to speak freely and provide your opinions.&#8221;
Rubio said that a lot of things that Vance said &#8220;needed to be said&#8221; and that it was perplexing that anyone &#8220;would be upset about it.&#8221;
&#8220;People are allowed – you know, you don&#8217;t have to agree on someone&#8217;s speech,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I happen to agree with a lot of what he said, but you don&#8217;t have to agree with someone&#8217;s speech to at least appreciate the fact they have a right to say it and that you should listen to it and see whether those criticisms are valid.&#8221;
Brennan responded: &#8220;Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.&#8221;
&#8220;And he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups,&#8221; she claimed. &#8220;The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that, that the censorship was specifically about the right.&#8221;
Rubio fired back: &#8220;Well, I have to disagree with you. I have to disagree with you.&#8221;
&#8220;Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide,&#8221; he noted. &#8220;The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they – they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews.&#8221;
&#8220;There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany. They were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that&#8217;s not an accurate reflection of history.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
This is the first time I’ve heard the theory that the Holocaust wasn’t conducted with gas chambers but with free speech zones. <a href="https://t.co/mpWm6UH2F4">pic.twitter.com/mpWm6UH2F4</a>
— Michael Brendan Dougherty (@michaelbd) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/1891206009508536367?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2025</a></blockquote>

Margaret Brennan Claims ‘Free Speech Was Weaponized’ To Cause The Holocaust

Marco Rubio

Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo knows the real danger of online censorship.
The husband and father of five <a href="https://morningstarnews.org/2025/02/two-christians-in-egypt-released-after-three-years-in-jail/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">walked out</a> of an Egyptian jail recently after three years of detention. The reason for his punishment? Authorities had taken a dislike to his participation in a private Facebook group.
Abdo was a Christian convert from Islam, and liked to discuss theology with other likeminded friends online. Expressing his faith online cost him his freedom – and placed him in immensely difficult conditions, as he battled failing health from a Cairo cell.
The comparison to America’s recent “vibe shift” toward freedom could not be starker. Zuckerberg’s apparent “U-Turn” on free speech last month brought much jubilation to conservative commentators, who had voiced concern for years about the censorship of lawful content on Meta. “It’s time to get back to our roots on free expression,” said the social media mogul, after scrapping his notorious “third party fact checking program” in favor of a “community notes” approach to verifying information, modeled after Elon Musk’s X.
Zuckerberg’s fresh perspective is a clear leap forward in the march against censorship. But as the experience of Abdo in Egypt warns, it isn’t only social media companies who can pose a threat to our right to speak. As free as social media platforms ought to be, governments can nevertheless seize power to shut down speech they don’t like, wherever it may appear.
Few are shocked to learn of unjust crackdowns against “blasphemy” in the Muslim world, in which Abdulbaqi is based. But the problem of state censorship is thriving in the West too. Last week, it was reported that British deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is set to create a “council on Islamophobia” amidst turmoil on the streets of England – a move which could severely limit free speech and criticism of religious views. The announcement came days after a man was arrested in Manchester for <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/greater-manchester-islamic-manchester-arena-greater-manchester-police-twitter-b2691184.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">burning</a> a Koran, and later publicly named by police, despite the risk of threats posed to his life. Recently, in another incident, a Bristol preacher was similarly <a href="https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-tier-policing-christian-pastor-arrested-bristol-preaching-islam-adf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arrested</a> for daring to compare Islam and Christianity in public, in answer to a question. And in Wakefield, Police recorded a “hate incident” against a 14-year-old autistic boy who <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11821157/14-year-old-autistic-boys-naive-prank-scuffed-copy-Koran.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scuffed</a> a Koran at school. Following death threats, the child was forced into hiding, but police refused to prosecute his tormentors for fear of “escalating” the situation. Instead, his white British mother donned a hijab and begged for forgiveness at the local mosque. 
Granted, most leaders in the West do not voice support for outright blasphemy laws of the kind we see across the Middle East and North Africa. But many instead welcome these undemocratic initiatives via more cleverly disguised “hate speech laws.”
Examples abound.
Take Finland. A member of parliament, Päivi Räsänen, will soon be heading to <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/paivi" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criminal trial</a> at the Supreme Court because of a Bible-verse tweet she posted in 2019. Her tweet questioned her church’s sponsorship of a “pride” event – making her a heretic of the state religion of “woke”. It wasn’t a social media platform that censored her Christian view – but the state authorities.
Meanwhile in Mexico, a court <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/gabriel-quadri-mexico" target="_blank" rel="noopener">convicted</a> a politician and former presidential candidate, Gabriel Quadri, of “gender based political violence” &#8211; all because he spoke out on “X” about trans-identifying males taking spaces in Congress designated for females. As part of his punishment, he was made to attend a re-education course, and forced to tweet an apology for his words every day, twice a day, for fifteen days.
And in Australia, a <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/billboard-chris-australia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal showdown</a> in March will see “X” and internet sensation “Billboard Chris” take on the Australian “e-Safety Commissioner,” who censored a tweet upholding the truth on protecting kids from harmful gender ideology.
Freedom of expression is a universal human right. But commitments to free speech from “X” and Meta are only as good as the countries in which they operate – as Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo knows only too well.
Yet while we celebrate his release from an Egyptian prison this week, the West can hardly lecture Egypt on ending archaic blasphemy laws when we’re intent on introducing our own.
* * *
Paul Coleman is the executive director of ADF International and author of “Censored: How European Hate Speech Laws are Threatening Freedom of Speech.”
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Fingers tapping smartphone screen

The Gatekeepers Of Digital Discourse: Governments And The Future Of Online Speech

Christians

Facebook

Muslims

Social Media Bias