Comment of the Moment: Freedom of Speech & Thrasher's Wheat

Freedom (1989) by Neil Young -
"The rock and roll coda of the Cold War"

Our Comment of the Moment involves Neil Young's announcement that his Love Earth Tour of Europe will kickoff with a free benefit concert in Ukraine, "Freedom of Speech" and Thrasher's Wheat's comments policy.

As background, some rather heated discussions here on Thrasher's Wheat lately regarding Neil Young's free benefit concert in Ukraine and his wife Daryl Hannah declaring "SLAVA UKRAINE" while presenting an Oscar at the Academy Awards Ceremony on March 2, 2025.

While comments here ranged from "Go Neil!" to "Stupid idea", the battle raged on an open page.

On to our Comment of the Moment on Neil Young's Love Earth Tour of Europe Kickoff in UKRAINE + Freedom of Speech by Dionys (and our response below):

All comparisons are limping somehow, but still I won’t give up on this: „free speech“ may be paramount on this blog and it’s a worthy thing to defend it, like pacifism by the way.

However, there are many situations where “free speech” is not helpful, but harming other people, mostly people who for reasons of self-defense demand unlimited speech to be limited. To demand that victims have just to make use of their right to “free speech” when “free speech” is used as a weapon against them, is blue-eyed and cynical at worst.

(With regards to this also read beyond the famous first paragraphs of Kant’s Essay on “What is Enlightenment?”)

Nobody in a fully seated theatre just can yell out “Fire!” and claiming afterwards to just have exercised his or her right to “free speech”. You do not want to have emergengy room staff discuss your treatment by exchanging various opinions about how to react to the emergency. Ergo: Under existential threats “free speech” is not helpful.

It is agreed, a democracy is based on the free exchange of information and opinion. That’s the position of the 18th century (Kant, French and American Revolutions). The 18th century could neither foresee the modern mass society and their mass media nor the highly accelerating digital technology of the recent decades. It’s questionable to insist on absolute 18th century principles if the framework under which these principles have been developed doesn’t exist anymore and a new framework ist needed. Traffic rules for horse drawn wagons being applied to todays traffic, you get the picture. As the examples above show, also in former times “free speech” never was unlimited, not even in the US. So while the American constitution and its amendmends served their purpose very well for two and a half centuries, it’s about time to rethink a few givens that are not givens any more.

The current behaviour of American corporate media is one issue. Unlike in the past they do not play their paramount role: living, exercising and defending “free speech” (Just look up the pages on NYA relating to that).

Secondly, the undermining of the checks and balance system, the pride of true American patriots, has been so effective that none of the three main institutions remains undamaged, and in the case of the executive and the legislative branch at present they even became dysfunctional.

The other issue comes into focus if you are not sitting behind your (American) garden fence. Recently the vice-president of the not so United States in a statement regarding his reading of “free speech” in Germany met with the representatives of the ultra-right party “Alternative für Deutschland” (AfD) and snubbing all other political parties. He and also the current South African executive governor of the US claimed that there is no real “free speech” in Germany, basically touting lines of the AfD. Needless to say that the AfD follows an agenda which would curtail any “free speech” in Germany. (We have been there before, thanks a lot.) Thanks by the way to wise Americans after 1945 who helped design our constitution, we have been fine with laws who forbid hate speech, racist speech and Nazi language in public. These under our jurisdiction are not covered by “free speech” but fall under instigation of “racial hatred”, a federal crime for which you might get canned or heavily fined for example.

It is obvious that American digital moguls dislike regulation of their activities: with the German and EU majority and their digital legislation projects something like “X” will have to spend a lot of money sanitizing their digital outhouse and will be challenged on many of their deliberately spread falsehoods serving their political and economical agenda. Something that apparently is totally in order under American protection of so-called free speech. No thanks, again. Which brings us to the key problem. In an unique alliance between the current protection racket that figures as the US government’s top level and the magnificent seven digital giants time and again you could see and not just from the outside that their “free speech” ist not yours, Snow White, because you don’t have the money nor the bandwidth to create separate “realities”. So Beanstalk-Jack, if you want to discuss with a cannibal whether he’ll have you for breakfast or maybe not, good luck to you (and your hyper morals).

A special interest place like this blog dedicated to Neil Young, an artist who by his art stringently has sided with what we on both sides of the Atlantic used to call a set of common western values, will have to deal with the fact, that those falsely claiming adherence to these values in order to establish a social-darwinist, authoritarian society are misusing free speech and need to be reigned in. The other options are playing the martyr or being overlooked because of irrelevance.

If George Washington and all those other founding fathers would have been fundamentalists, there never would have been a United States. Luckily these guys were up to their time. So to translate the quote into the 21st century: If we let the freedom of speech be used by the dumb they may silence us, to have us led like sheep to the slaughter.
Just a reminder: a constitution written in stone can’t breathe and it’s not for the living.

A sincere appreciation here Dionys for the time and effort on a subject and human right of utmost importance to all humans on EARTH: The right to free speech.

We could riff on this subject for weeks ...  and we have in the past (see here, here & here.)  We'll also note that the TW comments policy is clearly defined on each comment post prior to composition and publish.  This current TW comments policy has been in place for well over a decade after years of refinement.

So, to our friend we've never seen -- Dionys, a longtime TW reader, supporter and valued commenter, a few thoughts on why Freedom of Speech is paramount here at TW. While we would prefer to focus on the coming re-launch of TW, this allows us the opportunity to try out a few upcoming features.  Bear with us we work out the bugs.

Dionys, you have argued that while free speech is a valuable principle, it is not absolute and can be harmful in certain contexts. 

While the risk of unrestricted free speech being weaponized against vulnerable groups is real in the Digital Age, the need for regulation is a more dangerous threat. And no, an unchanging constitution, doesn't stifle progress because of its steadfastness to core values. 

A number of counter arguments to consider: The examples of yelling "Fire!" in a theater or emergency room debates are strawmen—free speech has never been absolute. Legal systems, including the U.S. (e.g., Schenck v. United States, 1919), already recognize limits where speech incites imminent harm or violence. The issue isn’t free speech itself but enforcement of existing boundaries, not the creation of new, vague restrictions.

18th-Century Principles Remain Relevant: The core idea of free speech—empowering individuals to challenge power and exchange ideas—transcends its historical origins. Modern mass media and digital technology amplify its reach, not its obsolescence. Adapting traffic rules doesn’t mean abandoning the road; it means refining how we navigate it. Similarly, free speech can evolve without being discarded.

Media and Governance Failures Aren’t Free Speech’s Fault: Corporate media bias and governmental dysfunction reflect failures of execution, not the principle of free expression. Blaming free speech for these issues is like blaming a hammer for a poorly built house—it's the wielders, not the tool. Strengthening accountability (e.g., antitrust laws, transparency) addresses these without curtailing rights.

Risk of Authoritarian Overreach: Dionys warns of free speech enabling authoritarians, yet history shows censorship often empowers them more. Who decides what’s “misused”? Germany’s hate speech laws work because of its context and democratic guardrails; elsewhere, similar rules have silenced dissent (e.g., Turkey, China). Restricting speech to stop “dumb” misuse risks handing authoritarians a playbook.

Free speech remains a cornerstone of human progress and dignity. 

It’s the mechanism by which marginalized voices—once slaves, women, workers—toppled oppressive systems, not just in the 18th century but today (e.g., #MeToo, BLM). Digital platforms, for all their flaws, have democratized expression, giving individuals unprecedented power to challenge narratives—like this very blog honoring Neil Young’s defiance through art.

 
It fosters resilience: societies that grapple with uncomfortable ideas (even falsehoods) develop stronger intellectual immune systems than those shielded by censors. The U.S. Constitution’s adaptability—amended 27 times—proves it can breathe, balancing freedom with responsibility. 

Free speech isn’t a relic; it’s a living tool, imperfect but essential, ensuring that neither the powerful nor the “dumb” can monopolize truth. 

To abandon it risks not just irrelevance, but surrender to the very forces feared.

More on Love Earth Tour of Europe Kickoff in UKRAINE.

"SLAVA UKRAINE"Daryl Hannah - Academy Awards Ceremony, March 2, 2025image via Neil Young Archives(see Daryl Hannah declaring "SLAVA UKRAINE" while presenting an Oscar )
 (Click photo to enlarge) 

---

---