Dear Weekend Jolter,
"In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat." So lectured Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference a week ago. The thing is — he's right. And rather than refute the allegations the VP used to illustrate his point, European officials have reinforced it in the days since.
As NR's editorial notes, Germany's defense minister responded by saying Vance's remarks were "not acceptable":
This rather made Vance's point. There was the vice president of the United States, arguing that the Europeans had become far too comfortable telling people what they could and could not say, and, instead of developing a counter-theory, the first official to issue a rejoinder told him that he shouldn't have said that.
European leaders' indignant reaction has had a familiar ring of, "It's not happening; also, it's good that it's happening." On one hand, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius did insist in an interview with DW that "everybody in Germany and Europe is allowed to say his opinion wherever and whenever he wants." On the other, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz clarified that "free speech in Europe means that you are not attacking others in ways that are against legislation and laws we have in our country," and that "hate" cannot be part of "public debate." Scholz separately defended the shunning of far-right factions, citing Germany's historical imperative to prevent the return of fascism.
But the country's speech crackdowns are about much more than anti-fascism. A 60 Minutes special on the subject that aired two days later made Vance's central contention all but irrefutable. The introduction begins thus: "Germany is trying to bring some civility to the world wide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine. In an effort, it says, to protect discourse, German authorities have started prosecuting online trolls. And as we saw, it often begins with a pre-dawn wake-up call from the police."
Germans' free speech has "limits," a state prosecutor tells CBS's Sharyn Alfonsi. "Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?" she asks. "Yes" is the response. What about to insult someone online? "Yes." And typing the mean thing on the internet can increase the fine.
What 60 Minutes depicts is an illiberal model that places the value of not being offended miles above the value of free speech. The prosecutor's assertion that Germans’ free speech has limits is, itself, a distortion — misinformation, one might say. In Germany, speech is not free but rigorously policed. Technically speaking, sure, anyone can share an opinion "wherever and whenever he wants" — and run the risk of getting raided.
Brittany Bernstein sums up:
German law goes so far as to prohibit "the spread of malicious gossip, violent threats and fake quotes." Even reposting lies online can be considered a crime punishable by a hefty fine, the revocation of the offender's devices, or even jail time for repeat offenders.
60 Minutes spoke to a unit that successfully prosecuted more than 750 hate speech cases over the last four years.
One infamous case in Germany involved a user who called a local politician the German word for penis. (Who among us . . . )
As Jeff Blehar writes, Europeans do not treasure free speech the way Americans do. In all likelihood, the Germans and others are not going to change just because JD Vance scolded them. But the determined drift into thought-policing should be a cautionary tale for America, especially for officials who seem to resent the values codified in the First Amendment.
Andrew Stuttaford and others here at NR have been documenting the abuses and excesses of European speech codes for years. A few examples:
• Germany agreed to prosecute a comedian for an insulting poem about Turkey's President Erdoğan, before the case was dropped and the related law repealed. German law still prohibits insulting political figures, and some politicians pursue legal action under the provision.
• A number of European countries still have laws on the books protecting heads of state from being insulted.
• Scottish law now threatens seven years' imprisonment for stirring up "hatred." Ireland for months debated its own sweeping hate-speech law before pulling back.
• The EU's Digital Services Act raises all sorts of thorny questions over how far tech companies must go to police speech on their platforms.
Presumably, officials in Europe believe that these measures are for the greater good, and that free speech as a principle must be subordinated to goals such as "civility." They can argue either that Vance is right but their way is better, or that Vance is right and they need to reform their speech laws. In neither case can they say Vance misdescribed their approach.
NR's editorial, with some closing thoughts:
It is, indeed, unfortunate that the nations of Europe have begun to slip into illiberalism, but that it is unfortunate does not mean that it is untrue. JD Vance did not create the problem he was critiquing; he described it.
* * *
Before turning matters over to the links, two other pieces of house business. One, be sure to read up on Jim Geraghty's well-timed reporting from Ukraine. Two, be sure as well to dig into Andy McCarthy's multi-part series on the Trump DOJ's unfortunate embrace of lawfare. More on both below.
And now . . . the links.
NAME. RANK. LINK.
EDITORIALS
On Ukraine, and Trump: Ukraine Is Not the Problem
On the DOJ drama: The Eric Adams Mess
On DOGE: The Truth About DOGE
Standing athwart: There Is No Such National Holiday as Presidents Day
ARTICLES
Andrew McCarthy: Trump DOJ's Eric Adams Dismissal Heading for Constitutional Controversy
Jim Geraghty: The American Betrayal of Ukraine Begins
Jeffrey Blehar: Donald Trump's Dislike for Ukraine Is Deeply Personal
Noah Rothman: Monsters
Philip Klein: It's Time for Israel to Unleash Hell
Philip Klein: Elon Musk Can't Dodge Entitlement Cuts
Tom Cotton: China Has Infiltrated Our Government
Elizabeth Currid-Halkett: Democrats Aren't Just in Disarray. They're in Denial
Kayla Bartsch: Ben Sasse Made Enemies Within the University of Florida Because He Followed State Law
Mark Antonio Wright: Trump's Indefensible Proclamation
Christian Schneider: An Arsonist Posing as a Firefighter
Dan McLaughlin: Ranking the Best Democratic Presidents
Audrey Fahlberg: Some Democrats Look to Weaponize Government Shutdown to Fight DOGE
Rich Lowry: Europe Deserves Its Humiliation
Ryan Mills: Universities Launched DEI Degrees After 2020 Unrest. They Don't Want to Talk About It
Jay Nordlinger: McConnell alone, &c.
CAPITAL MATTERS
Benjamin Zycher, on another side of the tariffs: Trump's Tariffs Would Prime Prices at the Gas Pump
LIGHTS. CAMERA. REVIEW.
Armond White, with a timely review of a papal movie: The Bad Faith of Conclave
Brian Allen immerses us in an exhibition of photo noir: Tale of Two Weegees at the International Center of Photography
FROM THE NEW, APRIL 2025 ISSUE OF NR
Audrey Fahlberg: The Horror of Philadelphia's Tranq Crisis
Charles C. W. Cooke: In the Time of Peak Trump
Noah Rothman: They Think We're Stupid
Jay Nordlinger: Latin America: A Brisk Political Tour
John Bolton: Trump in the World
Christian Schneider: The Electric AI Acid Test
Sally Satel: The Public Health Triumph No One's Talking About
A WINTRY MIX OF EXCERPTS
Jim Geraghty is rolling through Ukraine at a critical juncture, and reports from Kyiv on the maddening approach of the Trump administration to talks with Russia:
There's still time for President Trump to turn it around. But so far in his second term, regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Trump has offered to Vladimir Putin that Ukraine will not retake all its annexed and occupied sovereign territory, that Ukraine will not join NATO, that there will be no U.S. troops on Ukrainian soil after the war, and that the U.S. will lift sanctions on Russia. And Trump might even throw in a withdrawal of the extra 20,000 U.S. troops that Joe Biden sent to NATO's eastern flank after the invasion of Ukraine.
And in exchange, Putin offered . . . well, nothing, really.
Yesterday in Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the U.S. and Russian governments had agreed to four key principles, including an effort to "lay the groundwork for future cooperation on matters of mutual geopolitical interest and historic economic and investment opportunities which will emerge from a successful end to the conflict in Ukraine."
What "mutual geopolitical interest" do we have with the regime that fired a missile into Kyiv's main children's hospital? (The intensive care, surgical, and oncology wards of Ukraine's largest children's hospital were severely damaged, and its toxicology department — where children receive dialysis — was destroyed. Reportedly, 27 civilians, including four children, were killed, and 117, including seven children, were injured.)
Russia has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, and more than 6 million Ukrainian citizens live under the brutal hand of occupying Russian forces, and our government is talking about "historic economic and investment opportunities" with them?
What exactly does Russia have to offer us that we want so badly? Grain? Oil? Natural gas? We already have that stuff; there is more than we need, and plenty is available for export. I thought the Trump plan was to build us into an energy production superpower. Why is the man who presciently warned Germany that it was becoming completely dependent on Russia for its energy now so eager to make it easier for people to buy Russian energy supplies? . . .
Trump's approach in his tirade yesterday was to blame the victim and offer greater and greater concessions to the aggressor.
"Today I heard, 'Oh well, we weren't invited' — well, you've been there for three years! You should have ended it three years — you should have never started it! You could have made a deal," Trump said of the Ukrainians, either oblivious to or in denial of the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way around.
Andy McCarthy's series on the Trump/Bondi DOJ's "weaponization" working group is a must-read. Hear him out:
Under the guise of "Restoring the Integrity and Credibility of the Department of Justice," the AG is implementing the Biden DOJ model of conviction first and trial later — if ever. Standing convicted are Trump's principal prosecutorial nemeses — Biden DOJ special counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James — and therefore guilty by association are any DOJ and FBI personnel who aided and abetted them. In what crimes, we're not told — only that Bondi will be "provid[ing] quarterly reports to the White House regarding the progress of the review."
Oh, is there someone at the White House who wanted the "review" and to be apprised of its "progress"? Who knew! Over the past four years, I vaguely remember President Trump's saying — incessantly, come to think of it — that what made the lawfare against him treasonously corrupt was that President Biden (or whoever was actually in charge) was directing and monitoring it from the White House — a point to which I was sympathetic, even if the treason stuff was over the top.
To be clear (and anyone who has followed my work through the Biden years will not need clarity — see, e.g., here, here, here, and here), I agree that Smith, Bragg, and James were overzealous and corruptly partisan (Fulton County DA Fani Willis, too). The same is true of the Biden Justice Department's upper echelon in much of its decision-making about cases involving the Democrats' political piñatas — in this regard, Bondi includes January 6 defendants, Catholics, parents disturbed about woke indoctrination in the schools, anti-abortion protesters, and whistleblowers who shed light on corrupt Biden-Harris administration practices. Symmetrically — because that is how lawfare necessarily works — the Biden DOJ labored to shield its friends from the punitive wringer they made of the investigative process: It was a good time to be a radical leftist rioter or a Democratic senator whipping up the rowdies on the grounds of the Supreme Court; and if Hunter Biden's lawyers had been swift enough to play ball when prosecutor David Weiss was trying to bury the cases against him, he'd have beaten the rap and wouldn't have needed a paternal pardon.
Nevertheless, it does not follow that, because the previous Justice Department was politicized, all of the people it targeted were pure as the driven snow. . . .
News flash: Pam Bondi now represents the Justice Department — in fact, leads it. It is thus her ethical duty to advance whatever good-faith defense there is of the government's conduct. If she is just going to spout Trump's grievances without putting the Justice Department's response to egregious behavior in context, then she's engaging in partisan law enforcement, exactly the noxious practice she claims to be rooting out.
The new issue of NR is out. Audrey Fahlberg's on-the-ground report about Philadelphia's "tranq" crisis depicts a modern tragedy:
Roz runs the Sunshine House, a drop-in homeless shelter on Kensington Avenue, in the center of Philadelphia's skid row. Her clientele is a miserable lot: unshaven faces, tattered clothing, teardrop tattoos. Most are homeless addicts who come for food and shelter and to use the phone. "Our focus is the messaging center," Roz says, as it allows them to make calls or receive messages from loved ones. . . .
Kensington attracts users from far and wide for its supply of potent illicit drugs. Most here are on "tranq," an animal-grade tranquilizer cocktail that crept its way into the city's fentanyl and heroin supply a few years ago. At first, dealers began selling a mixture of fentanyl and a veterinary tranquilizer called xylazine. But after Governor Josh Shapiro signed legislation in 2024 classifying xylazine as a schedule III drug in Pennsylvania (while maintaining legal access for veterinarians), dealers started mixing fentanyl with a more potent animal sedative, medetomidine. That tranquilizer isn't a controlled substance here yet, though Philadelphia's public health department put out a health advisory acknowledging that it has infiltrated the illegal drug supply. These animal tranquilizers are not opiates, meaning that, even when they are mixed with opioids like fentanyl, two key medicines used to treat opioid overdoses (naloxone, brand name Narcan) and withdrawal (methadone) lose their recuperative benefits.
Word on the street is that dealers make tranq on the cheap. "This is where it starts," a Sunshine House staffer tells me. "It hits Kensington, and then two years later it's in Kansas City, or it's in Dallas." Everyone here expects a new strain to emerge the moment medetomidine is scheduled.
People inject, smoke, and snort this poison day in and day out. They stand for hours on end in a zombified, hunchbacked stupor called the "fentanyl fold."
Roz avoids terms like "zombie," "addict," and "junkie." She calls everyone who walks through these doors her "sunshine." Her colorful clothes and bright red lipstick conceal a personal life marred by violence and loss. In 1994, her ex murdered her then-boyfriend and tried to kill her by throwing her off a bridge. She was 16 years old. In 2001, her identical twin sister was released from a mental facility, bought a gun from a gun store, and committed suicide. In 2012, her brother was murdered during a robbery. His case remains unsolved.
Grief drove Roz to service — first, by helping families of homicide victims, then by feeding people out of her minivan. "Even though I lived here my whole life, I just didn't know about the amount of sex trafficking that was happening. I didn't know the amount of overdoses, the amount of missing people, the search for loved ones." She started an organization called Operation Save Our City to help people suffering from gun violence, homelessness, and addiction.
The Sunshine House looks and feels like a haunted kindergarten class. Bright paint covers the walls. Behind the welcome desk, there's a mural of smiling faces under a banner that reads: "Missing in Kensington." There are rows of chairs where homeless addicts rock back and forth as they wait to use the phone or just get some respite from the cold. . . .
I ask Roz why the place smells like incense. "We have to. Because of the wounds."
The wounds. Because tranq is an animal-grade sedative, it doesn't process naturally through the human body. Instead, it burns through the skin and causes necrosis — rotting of the flesh. A paper cut or stubbed toe can metastasize into a gaping wound that requires serious medical intervention, even amputation. Roz recalls working with one girl who had a festering wound. "One minute she had an arm" — three weeks later, it was gone. Sometimes, the smell of rotting skin is so strong that Roz applies Vicks VapoRub on herself as a kind of shield.
ICYMI, our "Presidents Day" editorial explains why there really isn't, or shouldn't be, any such thing:
Our popular culture and even the law in some states now refer to the holiday as "Presidents Day." That habit started by effectively combining the mid-February birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. It has been corrupted over time into something like a generalized celebration of Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and the other 43 highly varied men who preceded them in holding the nation's highest office.
This is wrong as a matter of law and history: The holiday is still Washington's birthday. It is also a symptom of a veneration of the imperial presidency that is un-republican and would have horrified the Founding Fathers.
Washington well deserves his own holiday, as we argued last year. On the books, he still has it: Americans have celebrated his birthday since 1778, and it has been an official federal holiday since 1879. Congress, in the 1968 Uniform Monday Holiday Act, moved the date from Washington's actual birthday (February 22) to the third Monday in February as a giveaway to federal employee unions and the travel industry, both of whom value three-day weekends more highly than our historical patrimony. . . .
We have strayed from the humble, republican concept of the presidency and its inhabitants. Partly this was necessary and inevitable. Modern presidents can talk directly to the people using technology that didn't exist then; they command a global position that America didn't have before 1945; they don't answer the door or travel alone anymore for security reasons. But they also now dominate public attention and command a vast executive apparatus. The dysfunctions of Congress have ceded much domestic policymaking to the executive. Presidents have lifelong Secret Service protection and keep their title after leaving office. They make a fortune giving speeches just to be heard. Presidential libraries have become multimillion-dollar monuments devoted to reputational defense. We crossed another Rubicon when Biden pardoned his entire family to forestall inquiry into the sources of their fortune.
If the monarchical trappings and powers of the modern presidency are unavoidable, we at least should not encourage them. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has its own holiday. The presidency doesn't and shouldn't. The holiday belongs to Washington.
CODA . . .
. . . chrome.
Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. 🔥 vol. 3, issue 13 | December 6, 2024 Quick Hits All the news you need in...
No comments: