Two Wildly Different Versions of Free Speech: One Sensible, One… Suicidal

When we observe two of the world’s foremost modern democracies, the United States and Germany, we see two opposed approaches to ‘free speech.’ One is almost suicidal, while the other is sensible and practical. But… which is which?

Last Sunday (2/16) CBS’ famed documentary show ‘60 Minutes’ aired a segment on Germany’s no-nonsense approach to ‘free speech.’ It detailed the various ways Germany limits hate speech, slander, and incitement, as well as how Germany enforces these limits — especially on the Internet. The filmmakers interviewed several top officials or prosecutors in Germany’s justice system, who all rejected the super-lenient U.S. approach to free speech and stressed the importance of strict limits on that freedom.

They strongly affirmed the basic principle of ‘free speech’ but insisted that the dire sociopolitical effects of too-lenient free speech require both limits and potent enforcement. Legal actions can include confiscation of smartphones, tablets, and computers; hefty fines; and possible jail time for repeat offenders. They affirmed the fairness and importance of their system and firmly rejected the idea that they were ‘censoring’ speech or turning tyrannical.

The outcry in the U.S. was immediate and furious. Here are some samples:

Fox ‘News’ predictably painted it as evil oppression via the headline “German prosecutors tell ’60 Minutes’ it’s a crime to insult people online as government raids offenders’ homes.”
Newsweek’s headline proclaimed “Americans Shockedby ’60 Minutes’ Report on German Speech Policing.” This is an excellent and fair article.
comfeatured this headline:”60 Minutes” Interviews German Prosecutors on Speech Laws: Insulting Someone Online Could Result In A Higher Fine Than In-Person.” The article then includes a partial transcript of the interview.

Plus, in a related article, the Associated Press reported on Vice-president Vance’s intense criticisms of German and European ‘firewalls’ and speech ‘censorship.’

What are the conflicts surrounding free speech really about?

If there’s one thing everyone agrees on, it’s that ‘free speech’ is a major hot-button issue. But that’s where the agreement ends. Some nations or societies enact severe censorship and punishments for transgressing speech laws. Others like the U.S. have very lax free speech protocols, few limits, and much public and institutional support for unfettered free speech.

But in this case, both Germany and the U.S. claim to honor the ideal of ‘free speech.’ Both also claim that their approach is the best and healthiest for society. So who — if anyone — is correct?

Here’s my take on it. On a spectrum of free speech rights, the U.S. is at the ‘extreme openness’ end of the spectrum. Germany is less extreme and focuses on ‘free speech within limits.’ The U.S. makes it very difficult to limit free speech or prosecute hate speech and offenders. Germany actively defends most free speech and also provides pathways to limit hate speech and protect society.

If we strip the ‘free speech’ issue down to its basic elements, it is fundamentally about individual rights vs. the rights or needs of society. In most pre-modern societies there was no ‘free speech.’ Public speech and behavior were strictly limited and enforced by the reigning ‘powers that be.’ Obviously, those societies presented major obstacles and hindrances to individual expression and public openness.

Then came the French and American revolutions. Monarchy and aristocratic rule were banished and democratic rule — including free speech protections — was ushered in. In the U.S. especially, the pendulum swung to the opposite end of the spectrum and individual free speech rights were granted almost total sway — while society’s need to defend and protect itself was shoved into the background.

This brings us to the present controversy and the pressing question: Which version of ‘free speech’ is correct, or most balanced? Libertarians and zealous free speech advocates seem to abhor any limits whatsoever on speech. But, the truth is that every society that’s ever existed has/had some limits in place. The only real question is how extensive the limits should be.

The heavy price of unlimited free speech

To figure out the most appropriate limits to impose, I think it’s vital to get a historical perspective. What does history tell us about having or not having limits on free speech?

One crucial factor that is often left out of today’s free speech debate is the fact that Germany, unlike the U.S., has experienced full domination by the far right and the Nazis. The Germans have lived under tyrannical, fascist rule. They know quite well how dangerous right-wing incitement and messaging can be. And that’s exactly why they are so concerned about policing hate speech, slander, and incitement in public and especially online — since the Internet has become a hotbed of far-right incitement and recruiting.

The U.S., on the other hand, has never experienced the full devastation and humiliation of a complete fascist or far-right takeover (though one may be occurring as I write). The U.S. is thus quite naive when it comes to fully ‘getting’ these issues. It’s been easy for the U.S., so far, to sneeringly dismiss other nations’ efforts to combat far-right incitement or violence. We smugly claim the moral high ground with our commitment to almost total free speech.

However, this attitude is looking increasingly arrogant and just plain wrong. The U.S. has been under severe and prolonged attack from within. The rapid rise of the far right here is fully dependent on — you guessed it — our lax and almost non-existent limits on ‘free speech.’

In the U.S., any hateful, racist jerk can say and do pretty much whatever he/she wants. The far right can get away with its constant undermining and seditious incitement. Our legal and justice systems are set up to protect and defend even the most vicious online ideologues and influencers, as long as they don’t directly tell people to attack, murder, or bomb others.

And increasingly, the U.S. is paying the price — a heavy, heavy price — for this excessive ‘freedom.’ What about the right of our society to defend itself? What about more peaceful and cooperative citizens’ right to a stable and more just society?

What about the rights and needs of immigrants and marginalized minorities — and even women in general — who are seeing their freedoms eroded or even denied by the far right? What about the needs of the quiet majority, who want to live their lives in relative peace and don’t need (or want) to scream their rage, hate, and racism from the rooftops and all over the Internet?

The collapse of the U.S. is accelerating

When we look dispassionately at the last decade in the U.S. — coinciding with the rise of Donald Trump and MAGA — it’s clear that widespread acceptance of open hate speech and endless far-right rants on the Internet is raising havoc with U.S. society and our entire system.

It’s been a gradual, insidious process. Now, the process is very far advanced. And, the U.S. is teetering on the brink of authoritarian control and a presidency-in-name-only dictatorship.

The truth is, no one loves the idea of limiting or controlling peoples’ speech (except dictators and the far right, perhaps). However, wise citizens and humans recognize that some limits are very necessary, as are strict consequences and punishment for severe transgressions.

Yet, that’s not where we are in the U.S. If anything, the GOP and Trump are doubling down on free speech ‘absolutism.’ This isn’t surprising, since our too-lax free speech laws and norms allowed them to get where they are today and amass vast power and deadly influence. They and the far right have benefited greatly from our leniency, and now the U.S. system — both our government and overall society — is starting to crumble and collapse.

The U.S. experiment with unfettered free speech is FAILING

Sadly, much of this collapse can be directly traced to successful far-right incitement, media control, and online recruitment. It’s been a gradual but accelerating process of far-right ‘radicalization.’ And now, the U.S. is suffering the dire and intensifying consequences.

If we’re honest with ourselves, we must admit that the U.S. experiment with almost total free speech is failing badly. It’s failing mainly because malicious bad actors who seek to undermine our society and seize control are manipulating us and our system. They are taking full, despicable advantage of our free speech values, norms, and laws.

I think the answer to the question posed at the start of this article — Which approach to free speech is truly better? — is staring us in the face. Germany’s approach preserves most of what we call ‘free speech,’ but it also works to preserve and protect its society and citizens. The U.S. approach, however, does the opposite. It unfairly protects the bad actors, loudmouths, and unscrupulous, vicious ideologues… while stripping protection from our society and our citizens.

Therefore, I assert that the U.S. approach to free speech is leading unerringly to the collapse of the U.S. I’ve concluded that America’s excessive and too-lenient free speech is suicidal . It’s leading directly to the collapse and ‘death’ of the U.S.

Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free

Germany’s ‘free speech with strong limits’ approach is far, far better. It is both sensible and practical, rather than suicidal. Sorry, free speech purists — but you’re simply wrong about this issue.

“This America” — an op-ed publication

Tags are included just for the first month of publication to help promote the new pub. , Richard Lowenthal, and Charles Bastille have agreed to be editors for this publication. Our founding members are: Nick Rogers, , Fay Wylde, Kelly Carmichael, Robert G. Longpré [he / him], Coach Robin 🫠, Jeff Eagle, John Egelkrout, John P. Weiss, Bill Abbate, Brian Lageose, Jay Squires, Samantha Bryant, Carol Lennox. LPC, M.Ed., Ray Wirth, Katharine Valentino, Patricia Jeanne, Mary Acton.