Free Speech Takes a Hit in Europe

For all our problems in this country when it comes to human and civil rights, the First Amendment's protection for freedom of speech remains pretty robust. Certainly, it's worth pondering what kinds of shenanigans are possible when those protections are absent. Two recent cases from generally liberal European countries provide some cautionary tales.

First, authorities in Holland have taken to prosecuting cartoonists (via DFtCW):

The Dutch Public Prosecutor's Office has announced that the cartoonist who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot was arrested for publishing 'insulting cartoons'.

The cartoonist will not reveal his real name out of fear that Islamic extremists will seek revenge for the cartoons, many of which make fun of the Muslim religion.

It is extremely unusual for a Dutch artist to be arrested for his works. Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin says he does not believe the case has anything to do with suppressing free expression.

I'm not sure what is more distressing - that someone was arrested (and detained more than a day before being questioned) for drawing "insulting cartoons" or that the "justice" minister doesn't think it has anything to do with freedom of expression.

Second (via Volokh), a British teenager was cited by London police for carrying a sign calling Scientology a "cult" during a demonstration in front of a Scientology building:

The incident happened during a protest against the Church of Scientology on May 10. Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who were outside the church's £23m headquarters near St Paul's cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was "abusive and insulting".

* * *

The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a 'cult' which was 'corrupt, sinister and dangerous'.

After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign.

A common link between the two incidents is the state stepping in to prevent someone from "insulting" a religious group. The Founders, via the First Amendment, correctly figured that the government should stay as far out of the hurt feelings business as possible. Robust public debate - complete with insults, ridicule, satire, etc. - is critical to smooth operation of the marketplace of ideas. Once the state can lock you up or take away your message because it's "insulting," you're well on the way to surrendering your right to insult or be critical of the state, as well. And nothing good comes from that.