Comment of the Moment: Freedom of Speech & Thrasher's Wheat
"The rock and roll coda of the Cold War"
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.
(Click photo to enlarge)
Labels: #WT1sWBW4, concert, freedom, love, neil young, schedule, tickets, tour, war
by thrasher@PermaLink: 3/09/2025 10:51:00 AM
13 comments
>> Pre-Order on Amazon.com << 
Human Highway
Concert Review of the Moment
This Land is My Land
FREEDOM In A New Year
*Thanks Neil!*
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.thrasherswheat.org/gifs/free-speech.gif)
The Unbearable Lightness of Being Neil Young
Pardon My Heart
"We're The Ones 
Thanks for Supporting Thrasher's Wheat!
This blog 
(... he didn't kill himself either...)
#AaronDidntKillHimself
Neil Young's Moon Songs
Civic Duty Is Not Terrorism
Orwell (and Grandpa) Was Right
What's So Funny About 
13 Comments:
The unresolved problem is the processual quality. You rightly pointed out the German context with regards to limiting free speech. I mentioned that the US context is changing. The comparison to Turkey or China does not work, because these countries never had a democracy. Atatürk's regime mainly was a military dictatorship or heaviliy dependent on a benign military caste, that had taken over from the beaten Osman Empire. China, well, with the exception of Taiwan and Hongkong, they had an authoritarian regime since time immemorial.
In my eyes the issue is not the static picture of a dictatorship without free speech, but the question how liberal, open societies slide into totalitarian systems. Again: the liberal constitution including free unlimited speech of the Weimar Republic enabled the Nazis to take over by vote, they did not seize power. And another analogy: gun control in between the World Wars had been fairly lenient in Germany. And all of a sudden they had all the arms. Time and again I heard Americans say that the first thing a totalitarian regime would do is to disarm the public and that's why it is necessary to keep up the Second Amendment. There have been incidents in the US in recent years that demonstrated a large potential of (armed) people being prepared to overthrow a duly elected government. You remember these people in funny dresses having a party at the Capitol exercising their right to free speech as they define it. These people are now running the government, declaring the Gulf of Mexico to be theirs, they talk about seizing the Panama Canal, they are openly threatening to take Greenland (and falsely claiming that a majority of Greenlanders would consent) and turning the tables on Ukraine by lying all over the place just because under the freedom of speech they can make the American majority believe almost anything they want. That's not surprising because the circumstances have changed: a large number of Americans did not grow up within the tradition of their constitutional founding fathers. The number of people that were raised on constitutional patriotism is shrinking. Those others vote their bank account (see RC). Everything is fine with them as long the American Dream appears to be within reach ("It's the economy, stupid").
The bottom line is, that there is no textbook wisdom that provides for that future. And there is no (yellow brick) road.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I just wanted to state: q.e.d. but now the comment has been retracted.
Thanks Thrasher for your defence of free speech. An excellent realignment of the debate. Lefties like Dionys always come with a long condescending reading list, ‘these people havent read Kant’ and then start to qualify that freedom doesnt actually mean freedom after all. The second prong of a two prong approach, first ad hominem attacks, as the poster named Jesus immediately received in the Ukraine thread, and secondly the long borish comments which attempt to set the Politburos official position and diminish anyone with opposing views. Meanwhile big actual change has come, we have passed the fork in the road and folk like Dionys can pontificate as much as they like, but the next decade at least belongs to people with radically opposite views. Meanwhile, such borish analysis invoking Kant and George Washington can be done in a moment, and better, by AI
There is a difference between free speech, and hate speech. And that line was crossed by president Trump a long time ago. He has normalized hate speech. Social media has become a safe haven for hate speech, because people feel safe at home on their phones or computers. They tend to express their hate towards others because they aren’t face to face, so no consequences…. Except there are consequences.
These social media platforms illustrate just how much hate there is out there, and it is something that needs to be addressed. It’s not that social media has caused this issue, it’s that it aluminates the fact that a large percentage of people are filled with hate.
The problem isn’t free speech, or hate speech. This is just a symptom of a much larger issue. Why are so many people so angry? And why do they hate?
We aren’t born with hatred, it’s learned, or taught. This is the core issue. We are a hateful species, and this is what needs to be addressed.
Peace 🙏
David Rart, there is a great advantage to being educated. I am sorry but people who are educated in various traditions, in this case philosophy and rights theory, know more about the issues in question. If you read it carefully Dionys has several actual arguments that you never address. (Kant is one of the philosophers who gave us the groundwork for rights theory.) As people try to explain these ideas to others who are uneducated on the topics, they might sound condescending. Too bad, tough luck. Open your mind, open your eyes, and read something. United States culture has been turned over to the uneducated who do not comprehend. For example, the idiots who think our "founding fathers" were evangelical Christians, ha ha ha. Moving forward absent of the basic ideas that allowed for the very possibility of democracy as a system is impossible. We are seeing the ideas being ruined and distorted. This is precisely why the Bro-Culture hates educated persons and expertise. Without knowledge you blindly lurch forward and are open to the influence of foolish and arrogant people like Elon Musk. Goodbye and Good luck.
@Dionys & Abner : Thank you both for your knowledge, and understanding on this subject. We need more people like you to help those who are struggling with their history, and the ramifications of what is happening to this country right now.
Knowledge is power.
Peace 🙏
As Dionys says, QED. More condescension and an another attempt to diminish. I have an advanced education, Trump has, Elon Musk certainly does too. What you cant cope with is this education coming to different conclusions about the world. If you are so focused in dividing the world into the educated and uneducated where does Neil Young, who notably dropped out of high school in Winnipeg fit in? Maybe being uneducated is why he has such crazy ideas?
Knowledge speaks, wisdom listens.
Jimi Hendrix
Yes, Trump has an advanced education! It is obvious in his respect for the classics.
Just found this comment by Robert Reich (robertreich.substack.com/p/the-trump-regime-will-arrest-some). I do not support Khalil's and his supporters' position regarding the Near East conflict, but their right to express their opinion. Khalil is a green card holder and married to an American.
"Khalil was one of the leaders of last year’s peaceful pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump conceded Khalil was snatched up and sent off because of his politics. “This is the first arrest of many to come,” wrote Trump. “We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it.”
Where, may I ask, are the “First Amendment absolutists” such as Trump First Buddy Elon Trump when it comes to protecting speech that the Trump regime finds objectionable?
Where are all the Republicans who for years have accused liberals of “cancelling” their views?
Where are the conservatives who have claimed for even longer they only want to conserve traditional American values?
Nearly 13 million people in the United States hold green cards. Tens of thousands more are here temporarily as foreign students and professors. Apparently all are now in danger of being arrested if they speak their minds.
If this assault on civil liberties stands, Trump could just as well arrest and expel permanent residents who voice support for, say, transgender people or DEI or “woke” or Ukraine, or anything else the regime finds “anti-American” and offensive.
If it stands, what’s to stop the Trump regime from arresting American citizens who support any cause the regime doesn’t like — such as, say, replacing Republicans in Congress in 2026 and putting a Democrat in the White House in 2028?"
Undoubtedly, all these "First Amendment absolutists" on the center and left side of the poltical spectrum will come swiftly to Khalil's defense now.
The incident apparently is an example that "freedom of speech" exercised by those who define it, is a totally different thing when used by those who do not have the digital and real firepower to define it.
@Dionys : Thanks for bringing this up, as I have been following this story closely. This isn’t the first instance of where this country is heading. But it is clearly a violation of our Constitution, as well as an attack on free speech.
This young man is now being detained outside of his home state, and his pregnant wife is not allowed to even visit him. Having a green card apparently doesn’t protect him from being arrested for speaking out against our governments participation in the killing of innocent people.
Trump has pushed beyond the boundaries of our constitution, and is now attacking citizens who have the right to peacefully protest. It’s only a matter of time before he releases the national guard against peaceful protesters.
He wanted to do it during his first term, but was convinced not to by his military advisors. Those people are no longer there to rein him in.
The consequences of this are dire, and apparently are becoming increasingly likely. Those people supporting him in the house and senate must do their jobs and defend the constitution. They took an oath, but they are either just as corrupt, or they are being threatened with physical violence. Regardless of which one is true, history will remember their betrayal.
Peace 🙏
Thanks @Dionys & @Dan here.
A couple of points.
Suggesting deploying National Guard on a college campus to suppress a protest sends chills, undoutably. Afterall, what could possibly go wrong? See Kent State, Ohio , May 4, 1970.
Also, a clarification.
Regarding "supporting free speech as paramount." We make an important distinction. Mainly, we write here on TW regarding our role on the matter as Admin of a Neil Young blog. The distinction being that we are not referring to the U.S. Gov't making policy. So unless we clarify specifically, we're referring to our role only.
Post a Comment
<< Home