15 ms·

Some other legal restrictions on communication that aren't normally included in the "free speech" debate: * Distributing pirated media/breaking copyright or tr

Some other legal restrictions on communication that aren't normally included in the "free speech" debate: * Distributing pirated media/breaking copyright or trademarks * Slander and libel laws * HIPAA and medical information privacy laws * Sharing information for insider trading * Market manipulation by sharing false or misleading information * Breaching attorney-client privilege * Laws governing how jurors are allowed to communicate * FCC and obscenity laws in US media * Distribution of illegal porn (for various definitions of illegal) * Holocaust denial laws in Canada and Europe * US anti-boycott provisions that ban "furnishing information" about doing business with certain countries * Military and government classified information (thanks rmc!) There are many others. The point is we're always a bit selective about what counts as free speech, and there are lots of exceptions, some very well motivated. These articles about "free speech is in danger" seem to be unnecessarily abstract: if you want to discuss the problems with Islam or the merits of social justice or whatever, don't argue about the way you're having the debate, just have the debate. Because our society doesn't really view free speech as a consistent principle anyway.

good_sir_ant 10y ago
Very good point, and many don't realize the restrictions we already face, even in the United States.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
simonh 10y ago
Most of those involve people entering into contracts or making agreements not to share information (pirating, medical information, insider trading, market manipulation, attorney-client privilege, jurors, probably anti-boycott?). Slander/Libel, obscenity and holocaust denial are the only ones on that list that I think are truly problematic. I don't think holocaust denial should be a crime. Yes it's despicable, but I'd rather put it in the same category and hollow earthers and UFO spotters. We can't legislate people out of their own stupidity. It's not going to stop people holding such views or circulating them among themselves anyway, so it's utterly pointless. For me Porn is easy too. If it only involves consenting adults, it's fine. If it doesn't then other crimes have been committed and distributing it is de facto complicity by association in those crimes. That only leaves slander and libel. These are civil, not criminal matters and should be prosecuted as private matters based on the harm done to the individuals so slandered or libeled I'd add incitement to commit crimes as an issue. But that falls under complicity or conspiracy to commit a crime. If the speech in question doesn't cross that line, then it should be free. Anything left?
- sievebrain 10y ago
  The anti-boycott law is absolutely a political restriction on freedom of speech: it prevents companies from answering questions about whether they source or interact with Israel and exists specifically to try and stop citizens mounting grassroots campaigns against Israeli actions. It's specifically intended to crush organised resistance to a foreign (!) government, which is the point of censorship.
  - simonh 10y ago
    +1 I think you make a reasonable argument. I'm not entirely sure that companies should enjoy the same protections as individuals. Being an employee places you under contractual obligations that may restrict your freedom of speech, which can be resonable as I discussed previously. I'm open to being persuaded on this specific issue.
- rmc 10y ago
  EU data protection law doesn't require contracts.
  - simonh 10y ago
    I think it's reasonable to place legal obligation on people and organisations that collect data on others. The data isn't their speech even if they own it, in the same way that I can own a book but the author has the copyright because it's in some sense their speech and not mine even though it's in my posession. Data protection laws are an enforced default contract in the same way as copyright. I think it's reasonable to assign rights to individuals over data about them, or pass laws obout how that data should be managed.
- LamaOfRuin 10y ago
  Defamation laws can be criminal.
  - simonh 10y ago
    I don't think they should be though. Restrictions on free speech should be narrowly restricted to the enforcement of other laws, as in the example I gave of it being reasonable for it to be illegal to incite crimes. I think defamation should be a civil matter.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
"Free speech" is not "free beer." Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater has been widely accepted as harmful speech and as such is not free. As an American, I have the right to bear arms (ok the constitution actually says not to infringe on "a well-regulated militia" but bear with me), but not the right to spray automatic gunfire wherever I please. I disagree with your assertion that "our society doesn't view free speech as a consistent principle." Of course we do. Free expression is a staple of Western civilization, and shows us how far we have come from mandated religion and the sanctity of the nobility. However, free expression can be damaging in certain circumstances. It is a testament to the strength of our civilization and our values that we find ways to mitigate the harm from certain kinds of expression, rather than scrapping the 1st Amendment altogether. It lasted over 200 years, why not 200 more?
- sevenless 10y ago
  It's ironic when people use this quote to justify banning "harmful speech", not knowing it was an excuse for jailing peaceful protesters under the police-state 1918 Sedition Act. 'Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater' is a phrase from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft was not protected free speech under the First Amendment. Holmes Jr's opinion was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - makomk 10y ago
    And of course, it was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in order to protect the Ku Klux Klan and their ability to burn crosses, a symbol they used to threaten blacks who stepped out of line with lynching. Anyone who claims that freedom of speech somehow protected the powerless in the US is full of shit.
  - leesalminen 10y ago
rmc 10y ago
Don't forget "talking to the press about illegal government survellance programmes". Edward Snowden knows all about illegal US speech.
- jonwachob91 10y ago
  So why aren't the journalist who wrote about the surveillance programs being arrested? Maybe because the government understands that that is their right / free speech. Snowden is not the same as the journalist. He took that contractor position knowing that he couldn't talk about what he saw. He signed a NDA saying he understood his position would expose him to classified material AND he understands that talking about such information with uncleared[1] people is illegal. If you are interested to read the exact NDA he signed you are freely able to, https://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf https://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf, is the approved NDA for all agencies that administer security clearances[2]. Snowden does know all about illegal speech, because he did break his NDA and he knew ahead of time what the consequences were going to be. Journalist were not bound by such a NDA with the US Government, so they can go and write about whatever they want to without fear of being arrested. [1] Just because you have the appropriate level of security clearance doesn't mean you get to see any classified materials. You must also have a "Need to Know". [2] You will sign one of these MULTIPLE times throughout your career. You sit in a room while the security manager reads it to you, after every paragraph you are asked if you have any questions and if you understand what that section means. Edited for format.
burkaman 10y ago
No right is unlimited. It's not difficult to come up with a consistent definition of free speech that disallows all or most of your examples. At least in the US, I think free speech is the right that's treated most consistently and broadly. "Free speech" isn't meaningless just because it doesn't fit the meaning you've outlined here.
jasode 10y ago
The "free speech" concept in its most noble and pure form is about government censorship.[1] It's not about about commercial censorship (e.g. Facebook) or social censorship (e.g. your Flying Spaghetti Monster offends my sacred Zeus.) Protection from government censorship means an American can criticize President Obama as "a stupid incompetent Chief Executive" without fear of black helicopters surrounding the protester's home. The military operatives won't come to arrest him and keep him silent. This type of "free speech" does not exist in North Korea. I concede that the label "free speech" has been diluted to mean, "I get to say whatever I want without any economic ramifications or social disapproval." Unfortunately, the non-government censoring is what the vast majority of free speech articles are about. Well, the real world will never let you have that type of "free speech". If it bothers people that Facebook / tv networks / college campuses / etc won't allow certain types of speech, they can start another website/college that allows it. However, they shouldn't be surprised if sponsors that help fund the "oppressive" businesses and institutions don't also spend money on the alternative "free speech" platform. In other words, the non-government "free speech" has a cost and sometimes, society doesn't want to pay for it. That's the underlying issue that's never highlighted. [1]The first sentence from wikipedia also explains "free speech" in terms of government censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
- coldpie 10y ago
  Very well put. Any article that conflates the term "free speech" with using some private organization's resources against their terms is garbage, this one included.
  - izacus 10y ago
    That's a funny thing to hear here on HN, considering that most of opression in socialist regimes of our former countries here have been by private organizations (which caved due to pressure from government on them). If people are afraid of freely discussing political ideas, there's no free speech. It doesn't matter if that's because they're afraid of being jailed (government pressure) or they're afraid of losing jobs, scholarships, career advancement, or other personal issues (as was in former socialists states in EU).
DannyB2 10y ago
Don't forget about 'the right to have the truth be forgotten', or did you forget?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
maldusiecle 10y ago
Absolutely. It feels especially jarring to hear this from a paper based in the UK, with its notoriously muzzling libel laws. Then again, libel laws tend to defend the rich and powerful, who are much more a part of the Economist's readership than the typically poor immigrant Muslim communities who are endangered by hate speech calls for violence.
__john 10y ago
Another one, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#The_Schenck_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...).
zmb_ 10y ago
I would argue that the consistent principle is to protect the right to freely express ideas, arguments and points of view, no matter how stupid or poorly supported they may be. _That_ is what should be protected; not the literal interpretation of "anything that comes out of a mouth". Most of the things you list are not about expressing ideas or making arguments, they're mostly about breaking contracts. Those that are not, e.g., holocaust denial, are precisely the contentious and dangerous ones.
tmptmp 10y ago
Add to that list "criticizing Islam, Muhammad and quran." It seems it is okay in USA to make fun of Jesus/Christianity, Moses/Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism but if one makes fun of Islam, Muhammad or quran all of a sudden it becomes hate-speech, Islamophobia and even racial attack. The liberal and leftists have double standards here.
0xADADA 10y ago
Don't forget NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements).
trizzashamafoo 10y ago
From the article: > Shut up or I’ll kill you >The third recent change is that, whereas the threats to free speech used to come almost entirely from governments, now non-state actors are nearly as intimidating This pretty much completely circumvents your point
abandonliberty 10y ago
>* Holocaust denial laws in Canada and Europe Canada does not have holocaust denial laws. It has hate speech laws. Conveniently holocaust denial writers struggle to keep their antisemitism out of the writing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
aporetics 10y ago
> The point is we're always a bit selective about what counts as free speech that a principle should be applied differently in different situations is the very the definition of wisdom reaching back to dawn of philosophy, (which by no coincidence was also the dawn of democracy) > [article] seem[s] to be unnecessarily abstract if wrapping up discrete facets of discourse into a concrete, higher order order concept of discourse, and then reasoning about how discourse regarding discourse is affected in different ways is too difficult to bear, there's always a doctrine out there looking for adherents > just have the debate we are; we are discussing how (1) anti speech doctrines have motivated violence, and (2) how doctrinally motivated violence has affected free speech; free speech, moreover, as (i) a crucial element of social justice, and (ii) a reflexively open principle, or constitution, which founds modern society don't reduce thinking about these matters to a referendum > or whatever no, finish your thought. maybe: "or whatever people pretend to care about" and you clearly can't be bothered by > [we don't] really view free speech as a consistent principle anyway the fact that we have upheld the term "free speech" despite its many forms is our collective recognition of the usefulness of the idea, the pervasiveness of its application, and our consistent concern over its worth, or fate
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
Notice that your list has categories. Laws regarding fraud and misrepresentation: > * Distributing pirated media/breaking copyright or trademarks > * Slander and libel laws > * Sharing information for insider trading > * Market manipulation by sharing false or misleading information > * Slander and libel laws > * Holocaust denial laws in Canada and Europe The trend here is that the information is provably false or misleading. It isn't slander if it's true. You're allowed to use someone's trademark to refer to their products. You can't claim someone else's copyrighted words as your own but you can convey the same information in your own words and when you have a need to use the author's words there is fair use. Insider trading is fraud via a lie of omission -- publish the information and it isn't insider trading. Professional confidentiality obligations: > * HIPAA and medical information privacy laws > * Breaching attorney-client privilege > * Military and government classified information (thanks rmc!) The defining characteristic is that you signed up for that profession. The Pentagon Papers were classified but The New York Times can still publish them because they never agreed not to. If the client blabs attorney-client privileged information to the other side or the press then they can use it. Obscenity: > * FCC and obscenity laws in US media > * Distribution of illegal porn (for various definitions of illegal) These are, honestly, free speech violations, and often get struck down. But at least they're easy to cordon off. The odd one out is juries, and there is a legitimate argument that we shouldn't do that, but it's also very old and so unlike anything else that it doesn't really generalize to anything. And after you get through the whole list, there is something that still holds in the end: The press (including the people) can write and publish any not-provably-false story. But now people are being threatened by angry mobs for criticizing inhumane religious practices or publishing a contrary opinion about pronoun usage.

good_sir_ant 10y ago

Very good point, and many don't realize the restrictions we already face, even in the United States.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

simonh 10y ago

Most of those involve people entering into contracts or making agreements not to share information (pirating, medical information, insider trading, market manipulation, attorney-client privilege, jurors, probably anti-boycott?). Slander/Libel, obscenity and holocaust denial are the only ones on that list that I think are truly problematic. I don't think holocaust denial should be a crime. Yes it's despicable, but I'd rather put it in the same category and hollow earthers and UFO spotters. We can't legislate people out of their own stupidity. It's not going to stop people holding such views or circulating them among themselves anyway, so it's utterly pointless. For me Porn is easy too. If it only involves consenting adults, it's fine. If it doesn't then other crimes have been committed and distributing it is de facto complicity by association in those crimes. That only leaves slander and libel. These are civil, not criminal matters and should be prosecuted as private matters based on the harm done to the individuals so slandered or libeled I'd add incitement to commit crimes as an issue. But that falls under complicity or conspiracy to commit a crime. If the speech in question doesn't cross that line, then it should be free. Anything left?

sievebrain 10y ago
The anti-boycott law is absolutely a political restriction on freedom of speech: it prevents companies from answering questions about whether they source or interact with Israel and exists specifically to try and stop citizens mounting grassroots campaigns against Israeli actions. It's specifically intended to crush organised resistance to a foreign (!) government, which is the point of censorship.
- simonh 10y ago
  +1 I think you make a reasonable argument. I'm not entirely sure that companies should enjoy the same protections as individuals. Being an employee places you under contractual obligations that may restrict your freedom of speech, which can be resonable as I discussed previously. I'm open to being persuaded on this specific issue.
rmc 10y ago
EU data protection law doesn't require contracts.
- simonh 10y ago
  I think it's reasonable to place legal obligation on people and organisations that collect data on others. The data isn't their speech even if they own it, in the same way that I can own a book but the author has the copyright because it's in some sense their speech and not mine even though it's in my posession. Data protection laws are an enforced default contract in the same way as copyright. I think it's reasonable to assign rights to individuals over data about them, or pass laws obout how that data should be managed.
LamaOfRuin 10y ago
Defamation laws can be criminal.
- simonh 10y ago
  I don't think they should be though. Restrictions on free speech should be narrowly restricted to the enforcement of other laws, as in the example I gave of it being reasonable for it to be illegal to incite crimes. I think defamation should be a civil matter.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

"Free speech" is not "free beer." Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater has been widely accepted as harmful speech and as such is not free. As an American, I have the right to bear arms (ok the constitution actually says not to infringe on "a well-regulated militia" but bear with me), but not the right to spray automatic gunfire wherever I please. I disagree with your assertion that "our society doesn't view free speech as a consistent principle." Of course we do. Free expression is a staple of Western civilization, and shows us how far we have come from mandated religion and the sanctity of the nobility. However, free expression can be damaging in certain circumstances. It is a testament to the strength of our civilization and our values that we find ways to mitigate the harm from certain kinds of expression, rather than scrapping the 1st Amendment altogether. It lasted over 200 years, why not 200 more?

sevenless 10y ago
It's ironic when people use this quote to justify banning "harmful speech", not knowing it was an excuse for jailing peaceful protesters under the police-state 1918 Sedition Act. 'Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater' is a phrase from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft was not protected free speech under the First Amendment. Holmes Jr's opinion was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- makomk 10y ago
  And of course, it was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in order to protect the Ku Klux Klan and their ability to burn crosses, a symbol they used to threaten blacks who stepped out of line with lynching. Anyone who claims that freedom of speech somehow protected the powerless in the US is full of shit.
- leesalminen 10y ago

rmc 10y ago

Don't forget "talking to the press about illegal government survellance programmes". Edward Snowden knows all about illegal US speech.

jonwachob91 10y ago
So why aren't the journalist who wrote about the surveillance programs being arrested? Maybe because the government understands that that is their right / free speech. Snowden is not the same as the journalist. He took that contractor position knowing that he couldn't talk about what he saw. He signed a NDA saying he understood his position would expose him to classified material AND he understands that talking about such information with uncleared[1] people is illegal. If you are interested to read the exact NDA he signed you are freely able to, https://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf https://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf, is the approved NDA for all agencies that administer security clearances[2]. Snowden does know all about illegal speech, because he did break his NDA and he knew ahead of time what the consequences were going to be. Journalist were not bound by such a NDA with the US Government, so they can go and write about whatever they want to without fear of being arrested. [1] Just because you have the appropriate level of security clearance doesn't mean you get to see any classified materials. You must also have a "Need to Know". [2] You will sign one of these MULTIPLE times throughout your career. You sit in a room while the security manager reads it to you, after every paragraph you are asked if you have any questions and if you understand what that section means. Edited for format.

burkaman 10y ago

No right is unlimited. It's not difficult to come up with a consistent definition of free speech that disallows all or most of your examples. At least in the US, I think free speech is the right that's treated most consistently and broadly. "Free speech" isn't meaningless just because it doesn't fit the meaning you've outlined here.

jasode 10y ago

The "free speech" concept in its most noble and pure form is about government censorship.[1] It's not about about commercial censorship (e.g. Facebook) or social censorship (e.g. your Flying Spaghetti Monster offends my sacred Zeus.) Protection from government censorship means an American can criticize President Obama as "a stupid incompetent Chief Executive" without fear of black helicopters surrounding the protester's home. The military operatives won't come to arrest him and keep him silent. This type of "free speech" does not exist in North Korea. I concede that the label "free speech" has been diluted to mean, "I get to say whatever I want without any economic ramifications or social disapproval." Unfortunately, the non-government censoring is what the vast majority of free speech articles are about. Well, the real world will never let you have that type of "free speech". If it bothers people that Facebook / tv networks / college campuses / etc won't allow certain types of speech, they can start another website/college that allows it. However, they shouldn't be surprised if sponsors that help fund the "oppressive" businesses and institutions don't also spend money on the alternative "free speech" platform. In other words, the non-government "free speech" has a cost and sometimes, society doesn't want to pay for it. That's the underlying issue that's never highlighted. [1]The first sentence from wikipedia also explains "free speech" in terms of government censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

coldpie 10y ago
Very well put. Any article that conflates the term "free speech" with using some private organization's resources against their terms is garbage, this one included.
- izacus 10y ago
  That's a funny thing to hear here on HN, considering that most of opression in socialist regimes of our former countries here have been by private organizations (which caved due to pressure from government on them). If people are afraid of freely discussing political ideas, there's no free speech. It doesn't matter if that's because they're afraid of being jailed (government pressure) or they're afraid of losing jobs, scholarships, career advancement, or other personal issues (as was in former socialists states in EU).

DannyB2 10y ago

Don't forget about 'the right to have the truth be forgotten', or did you forget?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

maldusiecle 10y ago

Absolutely. It feels especially jarring to hear this from a paper based in the UK, with its notoriously muzzling libel laws. Then again, libel laws tend to defend the rich and powerful, who are much more a part of the Economist's readership than the typically poor immigrant Muslim communities who are endangered by hate speech calls for violence.

__john 10y ago

Another one, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#The_Schenck_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...).

zmb_ 10y ago

I would argue that the consistent principle is to protect the right to freely express ideas, arguments and points of view, no matter how stupid or poorly supported they may be. _That_ is what should be protected; not the literal interpretation of "anything that comes out of a mouth". Most of the things you list are not about expressing ideas or making arguments, they're mostly about breaking contracts. Those that are not, e.g., holocaust denial, are precisely the contentious and dangerous ones.

tmptmp 10y ago

Add to that list "criticizing Islam, Muhammad and quran." It seems it is okay in USA to make fun of Jesus/Christianity, Moses/Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism but if one makes fun of Islam, Muhammad or quran all of a sudden it becomes hate-speech, Islamophobia and even racial attack. The liberal and leftists have double standards here.

0xADADA 10y ago

Don't forget NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements).

trizzashamafoo 10y ago

From the article: > Shut up or I’ll kill you >The third recent change is that, whereas the threats to free speech used to come almost entirely from governments, now non-state actors are nearly as intimidating This pretty much completely circumvents your point

abandonliberty 10y ago

>* Holocaust denial laws in Canada and Europe Canada does not have holocaust denial laws. It has hate speech laws. Conveniently holocaust denial writers struggle to keep their antisemitism out of the writing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

aporetics 10y ago

> The point is we're always a bit selective about what counts as free speech that a principle should be applied differently in different situations is the very the definition of wisdom reaching back to dawn of philosophy, (which by no coincidence was also the dawn of democracy) > [article] seem[s] to be unnecessarily abstract if wrapping up discrete facets of discourse into a concrete, higher order order concept of discourse, and then reasoning about how discourse regarding discourse is affected in different ways is too difficult to bear, there's always a doctrine out there looking for adherents > just have the debate we are; we are discussing how (1) anti speech doctrines have motivated violence, and (2) how doctrinally motivated violence has affected free speech; free speech, moreover, as (i) a crucial element of social justice, and (ii) a reflexively open principle, or constitution, which founds modern society don't reduce thinking about these matters to a referendum > or whatever no, finish your thought. maybe: "or whatever people pretend to care about" and you clearly can't be bothered by > [we don't] really view free speech as a consistent principle anyway the fact that we have upheld the term "free speech" despite its many forms is our collective recognition of the usefulness of the idea, the pervasiveness of its application, and our consistent concern over its worth, or fate

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

Notice that your list has categories. Laws regarding fraud and misrepresentation: > * Distributing pirated media/breaking copyright or trademarks > * Slander and libel laws > * Sharing information for insider trading > * Market manipulation by sharing false or misleading information > * Slander and libel laws > * Holocaust denial laws in Canada and Europe The trend here is that the information is provably false or misleading. It isn't slander if it's true. You're allowed to use someone's trademark to refer to their products. You can't claim someone else's copyrighted words as your own but you can convey the same information in your own words and when you have a need to use the author's words there is fair use. Insider trading is fraud via a lie of omission -- publish the information and it isn't insider trading. Professional confidentiality obligations: > * HIPAA and medical information privacy laws > * Breaching attorney-client privilege > * Military and government classified information (thanks rmc!) The defining characteristic is that you signed up for that profession. The Pentagon Papers were classified but The New York Times can still publish them because they never agreed not to. If the client blabs attorney-client privileged information to the other side or the press then they can use it. Obscenity: > * FCC and obscenity laws in US media > * Distribution of illegal porn (for various definitions of illegal) These are, honestly, free speech violations, and often get struck down. But at least they're easy to cordon off. The odd one out is juries, and there is a legitimate argument that we shouldn't do that, but it's also very old and so unlike anything else that it doesn't really generalize to anything. And after you get through the whole list, there is something that still holds in the end: The press (including the people) can write and publish any not-provably-false story. But now people are being threatened by angry mobs for criticizing inhumane religious practices or publishing a contrary opinion about pronoun usage.