self-censorship

Index on Censorship: Flemming Rose responds to the University of Cape Town

“…I find it disgraceful that the Vice-Chancellor Mr. Max Price puts the blame on me instead of taking responsibility for his decision. He is afraid that some people might react in certain ways to my presence. That’s not my responsibility. If they choose to act in a way that concerns the VC, it’s their decision, not mine. The VC has to hold them responsible for their actions, not me. It’s the heckler’s veto. Mr. Price talks about “the harm that unlimited freedom of expression could cause.” I don’t know any person including myself who is in favor of unlimited free speech, that’s a caricature of free speech activists. What I oppose is the kind of “I am in favor of free speech, but”-position that Mr. Price provides a classic example of. His approach to free speech would make it possible to ban any speech…”
Read more

Politico.eu: Denmark sacrifices free speech in the name of fighting terror

“…In Denmark, as in Europe more generally, there is a serious lack of confidence in the power of free speech to cope with ideological threats to a free and democratic society. According to an opinion poll in Jyllands-Posten, 55 percent of Danes are in favor of criminalizing religious speech that is seen as undermining Danish values.
Denmark’s Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen made it clear that he plans to criminalize speech that goes against Danish law. This latest initiative breaks with 70 years of fighting extreme ideologies without curtailing civil liberties.
There were calls to ban Nazism after World War II, and the Danish government considered censoring a Communist daily paper and limiting the speech of Communists during the Cold War. In both cases, the government backed down and Denmark’s strong democratic institutions and a vibrant civil society prevailed.
Of course, criminalizing religious hate preachers’ anti-democratic speech and denying them access to the country will not turn Denmark into a repressive dictatorship. What it will do, however, is blur one of the crucial distinctions between a liberal democracy and a dictatorship…”
Read more

Ricochet: Setting The New Yorker Straight on Freedom of Speech

“...First of all, in a time when people seem increasingly comfortable with book banning, blasphemy laws, hate speech laws, and amending the Constitution to limit the First Amendment, it’s important to take every opportunity we can to correct common misconceptions and explain some of the basics of the deep and profound philosophy behind free speech and the wisdom inherent in First Amendment law. Second, it’s important to take on the growing tide of critics, including authors and even journalists, who rely on freedom of speech but want to dismiss it as something unsophisticated or even dangerous. Whether from Eric Posner, Gary Trudeau, or Noah Feldman, there is a push to dismiss freedom of speech that seems to lionize the fact that other countries limit it. Every single one of these critics should sit down and read Flemming Rose’s book on international censorship, The Tyranny of Silence, before assuming that “enlightened censorship” is either justified or working out well for anyone.”
Read more

Toronto Sun: The silence is deafening

“...Rose’s book, THE TYRANNY OF SILENCE: HOW ONE CARTOON IGNITED A GLOBAL DEBATE ON THE FUTURE OF FREE SPEECH, chronicles the story behind the publication of the Mohammed cartoons, along with Rose’s attempt to understand the events that followed their publication.
Although the book was published in November, 2014, there has been silence from most Canadian media sources on it.
There have been no references to the book, for example, in the four Toronto daily newspapers until my column, today.
The Economist listed it as one of the best books of 2014.
Yet it has received scant attention internationally...”
Read more

The New York Times: "Sony Caved to Terror. No One Else Should."

“Sony’s decision to pull “The Interview” — an enormous act of self-censorship under threat of violence — somehow comes as no great surprise to me. It is the culmination of an insidious trend of self-censorship in the face of intimidation that has plagued Western culture for more than a decade.”
Read more

The Washington Post: Why I Published Those Cartoons

”By Flemming Rose
Sunday, February 19, 2006

Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.” Read more