Following shootings in Paris and Copenhagen in early 2015, the connection between free speech and terrorism is more visible than ever. Responses to these events rightly called for solidarity in the face of terror, and cartoonists depicted pencils as the appropriate alternative to guns, speech as the best alternative to violence, freedom of expression as a necessary alternative to terror. Western governments reiterated their public commitment to freedom of speech. But in reality these same governments have a strong, but relatively underappreciated, hostility to freedom of expression as manifest ... More

Following shootings in Paris and Copenhagen in early 2015, the connection between free speech and terrorism is more visible than ever. Responses to these events rightly called for solidarity in the face of terror, and cartoonists depicted pencils as the appropriate alternative to guns, speech as the best alternative to violence, freedom of expression as a necessary alternative to terror. Western governments reiterated their public commitment to freedom of speech. But in reality these same governments have a strong, but relatively underappreciated, hostility to freedom of expression as manifest in counter-terrorism policy. Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, Western governments have made a distinct and calculated move towards the prevention of terrorist crimes that has reached far into the freedom of speech. Examining the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, this book shows significant changes in the appropriate parameters of freedom of speech in the counter-terrorism context since 9/11, achieved both in policy change and in the justifications for that change. In all three countries much speech has been criminalized in ways that were considered anachronistic, or inappropriate, in comparable policy areas prior to 9/11. We are now living a new normal for freedom of speech, within which restrictions on speech that once would have been considered aberrant, overreaching, and impermissible are now considered ordinary, necessary, and justified as long as they occur in the counter-terrorism context. This change is persistent, and it has far-reaching implications for the future of this foundational freedom.