This week, the Supreme State Attorney Igor Striz of the Czech Republic announced that the country is moving to criminalize speech supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin or the Russian invasion with sentences of up to three years. It is a curious way to fight tyranny . . . with tyrannical measures against free speech.
According to TN Nova, Czech police were already investigating dozens of cases.
Striz is reportedly relying on sections 365 and 405 of the Czech Criminal Code, which state that whoever publicly approves a crime or publicly praises the perpetrator can be imprisoned for up to a year, and that anyone who “publicly denies, questions, approves or seeks to justify Nazi, communist, or other genocide” can face a jail sentence of up to three years.
The laws would be unconstitutional in the United States. People often dismiss such objections as noting that other countries do not have the same commitment or protections to free speech. That is certainly true but it ignores that many of us believe that free speech is a human right. This is a denial of a right that should be protected in any country with such rights as free exercise.
The police have reportedly tweeted that “we have recorded dozens of internet comments expressing approval for the Russian invasion and the activities of the Russian army. We are closely monitoring the online sphere and apologize for not responding to every sign in the posts.”
If true, it is an affront not only to free speech but the cause of supporting Ukraine. This is not an anti-Putin measure. It is precisely the type of measure used by Putin.
What is so striking is that this is a great example of where good speech will triumph over bad speech. The world is speaking with one voice against the war crimes being committed in Ukraine after this unprovoked and unjustified invasion. Indeed, Putin bizarre propaganda and crackdown on Russian media is only magnifying his lies and abuses. Ironically, there is no need to arrest the minority of voices supporting Putin or his war. Yet, people want the satisfaction of arresting those with opposing views. They are wrong. They degrade themselves, their country, and this cause with such anti-free speech measures.
The entire European community should take whatever steps necessary short of firing shot’s to let the Madman of Moscow know that they are against him.
Here’s something I can’t understand, in the north of Ukraine sits a 40 mile long target rich environment which if prosecuted will hinder the Madman of Moscow. Send drones, whatever aircraft available, artillery and ground insurgents to smash it. The moral is low with the conscripts now, an attack like this would destroy it altogether. Can anyone explain why it’s virtually been untouched for weeks?
What “40 mile long target rich environment” are you talking about, and what does it means to “prosecute” an environment?
Let Ukraine use airbases in Poland and Romania. They can use the cover of these countries on the ground and only be at risk when carrying out their airstrikes over their own airspace.
If NATO is too afraid to do what it was created to do, then why have it?
NATO should have been bombing Russian tanks and APCs days ago.
NATO was negligent.
By being too afraid to bomb the tanks, the tanks were free to shell the power plant.
“But Ukraine isn’t a NATO member!”, blah, blah, blah.
You can still defend yourself from Russia by fighting in another country even if that country is not a NATO member.
American defended itself from German aggression that was certain to come by fighting on French territory.
American defended itself from Japanese aggression that was certain to come by fighting on Philippine territory
This obsession with not wanting to fight in Ukraine is irrational.
Both Germany and Japan declared war on the US in December 1941, so the situation simply isn’t analogous.
Russia has not started a war with any member of NATO, and it’s quite rational for NATO to not start a war with Russia. NATO members are already doing quite a lot to weaken Russia in response to Russia’s unjustified war on Ukraine.
Anonymous says:
“This obsession with not wanting to fight in Ukraine is irrational.”
I agree. It is argued that NATO should not engage Russia in a no-fly zone because any warfare with Russia could initiate WWIII and a possible nuclear exchange. However, if NATO must accept that risk if Russia attacks ANY NATO country, why not take that risk to protect innocent civilians in Ukraine and stop a clear violation of international law?
Despite Putin’s bravado, there is no risk of a nuclear exchange in a war between NATO and Russia in Ukraine. Pushing the button is suicidal for Putin. Putin would push the button only if NATO forces were entering Moscow and Putin’s life was finished in any event. Think of Hitler in the Bunker in late April 1945. He would have pushed the button had he had one. But you don’t push the button unless there are no alternatives.
If NATO is too afraid to do what it was created to do, then why have it?
NATO should have been bombing Russian tanks and APCs days ago.
NATO was negligent.
By being too afraid to bomb the tanks, the tanks were free to shell the power plant.
“But Ukraine isn’t a NATO member”, blah, blah, blah.
You can still defend yourself from Russia by fighting in another country even if that country is not a NATO member.
American defended itself from German aggression that was certain to come by fighting on French territory.
American defended itself from Japanese aggression that was certain to come by fighting on Philippine territory
This obsession with not wanting to fight in Ukraine is irrational.
Environmentalist policies throttled energy production in America and Germany. That, in turn, caused both countries to purchase more oil and gas from Russia — which fattened Putin’s war chest.
Perhaps environmentalists can send Ukrainians a sympathy card: “Sorry for contributing to your miseries. But it’s for a noble cause.”
Was this strict limitation on free speech in the Czech Republic a casualty of the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968? If Ukraine survives the Russian massacre, who could blame them if they outlawed speech that supports similar deadly warmongering in the future? Perhaps I’m wrong but I thought the Black Lives Matter chant calling for killing police (“fry ’em like bacon”) should have crossed our First Amendment line.
There are Putin sympathizers here in this blog who should have the same thing done to them. Helping the enemy should be discouraged in all its forms.
Sprec frei. Or forever hold your piece. And if you hold your piece then aim your pee at Putin.
Did I miss Professor Turley’s prior complaint about the Putin controlled Russian Security Services persecution of any dissent no matter how slight in Russia?
Russians who protest are arrested…and face Treason prosecutions subject to Twenty Year sentences in prison or gulags in Siberia.
Supporting Aggressive War is wrong….and any aid or comfort being given to Putin’s barbarism in Ukraine deserves only condemnation.
Protesters in Russia face Twenty Years in Prison….I would suggest matching that for anyone that sides with Putin.
When the Lefties that clutter this site admit that Putin and his former KGB cronies do not allow free speech in Russia….then perhaps the rest of us might grant a minimum amount of credence to their complaining about the Czechs.
After all….is not Fair is Fair….right?
I’m a lefty. I agree that “Putin and his former KGB cronies do not allow free speech in Russia” and “Putin controlled Russian Security Services persecut[e] … dissent.” It’s an easy thing to say. I agree that Turley could just as easily point this out, but for some reason, he doesn’t. Maybe he thinks it obvious that Russia is a repressive regime run by a dictator who doesn’t support free speech.
Meanwhile the Russian parliament has approved the criminalization of what Russia defines as “fake news”:regarding their war on Ukraine.
Not a surprise as any criticism of “Russia” is pretty much criminalized already if not de jure but de facto.
The professor has been highlighting the increasing restrictions on free speech for years , this blog is pretty much dedicated to informing its readers about this loss in the USA and abroad .
“…this unprovoked and unjustified invasion.”
O’Rly? Says who? There is no evidence that making Ukraine a permanent non-NATO/non-EU nation would have led to war…who kept that off the table? Hmmm…
“…the war crimes being committed in Ukraine…”
O’Rly? Says who? Even the linked article that seemingly is offered as evidence waffles on that point.
If you can’t see that Russia is committing war crimes in their unjustified invasion of Ukraine, then you’re either blind or a troll paid by Russia.
Uh-huh. What war crimes have you seen?
NATO is a fire department where all the fire fighters have pyrophobia.
You misspelled pyromania.
At this rate, Ukraine will look like the surface of the Moon very soon. Are we supposed to sit back and let this happen just because Ukraine is not a NATO member? No one sees anything wrong with this? This is madness.
What does Ukraine need to do to make it stop? What benefit is it to the US for them not to do that?
Did you mean Czech Republic Reportedly Moves To Criminalize Speech in Favor of Putin or the Russian Invasion?
Turley, you badly need a copy editor. Or perhaps just take 1 minute to run your columns through a spelling and grammar check before posting them.
Last month, Biden’s anti-energy policies caused some $450,000,000 to be sent to Putin. (And that’s just for *one* month. The amount is about the same for each of the last 12 months.)
Biden’s “Green New Deal” zealots have Ukrainian blood on their hands.
Yet a Google search on “Biden” “$450,000,000” “Russia” in the last month fails to confirm your claim, and you don’t say where your numbers are coming from.
If, perchance, you’re referring to U.S. imports of crude oil and petroleum products from Russia, then less was imported in 2021 than during most of Trump’s presidency:
https://www.afpm.org/sites/default/files/issue_resources/U.S.%20Imports%20of%20Oil%20%26%20Petroleum%20from%20Russia.pdf
My mistake, I was looking at the wrong graph, 2021 imports from Russia are higher. But it has little to do with “Green New Deal zealots,” and if Sam thinks they have Ukrainian blood on their hands, then so do Trump supporters.
Well at least you admitted your mistake. Why do you come to this site with a chip on your shoulder? You don’t like Turley apparently so you just gotta find something to be disagreeable about. Am I understanding your position? So, if not Turley, then let’s throw Trump under the bus. Yeah right…
I always try to acknowledge my mistakes.
I don’t have a chip on my shoulder.
Something isn’t necessarily wrong just because it is paradoxical.
Predators must cause death to their prey so that they themselves can have life.
This is a paradox, but it is not wrong.
That’s the rut that many liberal thinkers are in: thinking that paradoxes are necessarily wrong in and of themselves, when they are not.
It appears that the USA is an outlier when it comes to the concept of free political speech. I hope we can stay that way
“Striz is reportedly relying on sections 365 and 405 of the Czech Criminal Code, which state that whoever publicly approves a crime or publicly praises the perpetrator can be imprisoned for up to a year, and that anyone who “publicly denies, questions, approves or seeks to justify Nazi, communist, or other genocide” can face a jail sentence of up to three years.
The laws would be unconstitutional in the United States. People often dismiss such objections as noting that other countries do not have the same commitment or protections to free speech. That is certainly true but it ignores that many of us believe that free speech is a human right. This is a denial of a right that should be protected in any country with such rights as free exercise.”
They might well be unconstitutional, but America passes unconstitutional laws all the time, knowing it may take decades to erase them if ever. Two examples are in the area of voting rights and laws passed forbidding the teaching of Critical Race Theory (which o course isn’t being taught below a graduate school level).
https://news.yahoo.com/state-laws-targeting-critical-race-130014998.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall
After WWII when we occupied West Germany we denied German citizens free speech rights. They could not talk in favor of Nazi ideas or even study German history. We couldn’t trust them. They would go back to the liked of Hitler.
Any of you bloggers know this?
Free Speech. It’s important. Here, in Russia, and in Europe.