Why is Burning Books Defined as Freedom of Speech?

After the American Century

In recent weeks the Koran has been burned several times in Sweden and Denmark, causing outrage in the Moslem world. Crowds have protested, attacked embassies, and denounced the Danish and Swedish governments. In response, Scandinavians point out that their governments have not burned books. Rather, individuals have done so, as is their right, as an expression of free speech.

As a historian, I note that book burning has usually been practiced by dictatorships and intolerant regimes. The Nazis come to mind. I do not recall many examples of books being burned by people who habitually read and write books. I doubt that those who are burning the Koran have read it, and it is also unlikely that those who ban or burn Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses have read that either. 

As a writer, I find book burning an insulting practice. One should debate about a book that causes offense, not destroy it. And in the age of digital communication, multiple copies proliferate, so burning a text is rather pointless as it will hardly be eradicated. 

As a citizen, I dislike book burning because it is almost always a populist stunt designed to short-circuit reasoned discussion. In Denmark, for example, a rather surprising number of people seem convinced that to restrict or ban burning the Koran would be a defeat for free speech and a victory for undemocratic Moslem regimes.

What nonsense. The real discussion ought to be about whether burning books is free speech. I submit that burning any book is the strongest possible manifestation of a refusal to discuss it or acknowledge any value in it. I would like to see a law that severely restricted the public burning of any book, by prohibiting such acts unless permission had been granted after a review of a 500-1,000 word statement that justified the proceeding. That is the length of a typical book review, and such a statement would have to convince a panel appointed by the government that (1) the applicant has read and understood the book, and that (2) there is a convincing argument for the destruction of the text. 

In other words, I would like to insist that there be reading, discussion, and collective decision-making before any book can be burned. This is a serious act, and it should not be a spontaneous one in a moment of anger or a way to make headlines without actually making a convincing argument. As currently practiced, I regard book burning as a form of hate speech, intended to insult and inflame, not to inform or debate

There is one further consideration. The right to free speech is not a right to irresponsible speech, such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Free speech entails responsibility for one's statements, which is why it does not include a right to slander someone or to spread falsehoods that damage another person's reputation.  

For a small, right-wing minority in Sweden or Denmark to burn the Koran in front of a Moslem nation's embassy seems very much like screaming "Fire" in order to create panic, provoke fear, and increase polarization. Why do journalists and politicians keep on saying that this is "free speech"? 

American Democracy could fail by 2025

After the American Century

The year 2026 will be the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. Will the United States celebrate that event as a democracy? Many fear that it will not, notably writers in the Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Economist. A century ago, during World War I, democracy also was under threat, and Joseph Pennell produced the image below, showing an air attack on New York, where the Statue of Liberty's torch has been destroyed. The dangers in 2022 come not from an external enemy, however, but from within.

Joseph Pennell, courtesy of Library of Congress

One year ago, today, a mob attacked the Congress of the United States. They mistakenly believed that the American elections had been rigged against Donald Trump. In fact, he had lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. But Trump encouraged his supporters to attack the legislative branch of government, seeking to seize through violence what he had lost at the polls. Calling themselves patriots, his rabble proved themselves traitors to democracy.

One year later, more than 50 million Republicans still believe the Big Lie that the election was stolen, and many of them think the attack on Congress was justified. The government of the United States is in danger of being transformed into a sham democracy, dominated by a militant minority.

The next three years will be the most difficult test of the US system of government since the Civil War. It is possible that demagogues, led by Donald Trump, will succeed in their quest to dominate all three branches of government. The elections in November, 2022 will be the first test of strength between the two sides. The 2024 presidential election may be a fateful contest that may decide whether democracy will survive in America.

During human history, democracy has not been dominant, but rather has emerged and disappeared many times. The democracies of ancient Athens and Rome each lasted a few hundred years. Some Italian city states during the Renaissance had elements of democracy, as did parts of Switzerland. The British government evolved slowly toward democracy, but even today it retains the House of Lords, which is not democratically elected. The French Revolution created a democracy for about ten years before it was taken over by Napoleon. Many northern European nations developed into constitutional monarchies that became more democratic over time. But the democratic system has not been universal, even in Europe, where it only became the dominant form of government after World War I.

During the last century, maintaining the appearance of democracy has become the international norm. Elections are mostly honest in the EU, but elsewhere dictators hold elections to legitimize their rule. China has sham elections, but it is a one party state. Democracy existed on paper in Russia for a few years in the 1990s but is a sham again, and Hungary is close to losing all but the semblance of democracy as well. Poland is moving in the same direction, as it undermines the independence of its judiciary, concentrating power in the executive.  The United States is in danger of becoming another sham democracy.

Since the American Revolution, the United States has seen itself as the bastion of democracy, and while it has struggled to realize the ideals enshrined in its Declaration of Independence, on the whole it has moved toward equality and full citizenship rights for all. But since 2016, the Republican Party has moved aggressively to curtail the voting rights of many citizens, and it has often claimed that any election lost was rigged against it. (Investigations have found, however, no election fraud.) Voter suppression may not be sufficient, as the Democrats are a larger party, But by redrawing district lines, Republicans seek to ensure they can win a majority of seats in each state legislature, despite having a minority of the voters. 

Through these and many other actions, the Republicans undermine public confidence that democracy is real in the United States, seeking to persuade its voters that they have the right to turn to violence to take back control of the nation. All manner of absurd conspiracy theories have been promoted to convince the public that a left-wing conspiracy now controls the United States and must be opposed by any means necessary, including voter suppressive, intimidation, fake news, personal attacks, and slander. And if all these measures fail, then violence is presented as the "legitimate right" of the supposedly victimized Republicans. Indeed, one poll found that 40% of all Republicans thought violence against their fellow Americans could be justified.

The year 2026 will be the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. Will the United States celebrate that event as a democracy?