A Prison for Us.

Welcome, Anticitizen.

How far are we from a time when our very words, even when true, can be used as weapons against us? That time may be looming sooner than you think.

Discover more in today’s letter → 

📖 ESTIMATED READ TIME: 5 minutes 35 seconds

Ancient order.

The year was 1518. In the heart of the city Tenochtitlán, under the shadow of the great Templo Mayor, lived a man named Xihuitl.

A weaver of words and a free-thinker, Xihuitl could often be found in the markets, avenues, and festivals of the great Aztec city, speaking sharp words of dissent against the most powerful man in the empire: the Tlatoani, emperor Moctezuma II.

Xihuitl, with his keen understanding of the empire's pulse, spoke of the Tlatoani's increasing demands for tribute, the warriors' sacrifices for the vanity of their rulers, and the omens that foretold of divine discontent. Like a powerful wave borne from the wind of Quetzalcóatl, his words echoed through the city and stirred the people's hearts.

Citizens of the empire knew the truth of what Xihuitl spoke. They clearly saw how Moctezuma’s lust for expansion had cost them dearly in the form of tax tributes, and how his continuous warfare had shattered the peace they once lived under.

Yet none but Xihuitl dared breathe a word of it in public fora.

To the Aztecs, respect for those in authority and the upholding of social order were paramount. The societal expectation was of utter obedience to the Tlatoani—as a representative of the gods, his word was law. His right to rule divine.

Informed by his spies, Moctezuma was stung by Xihuitl’s dissident words. In a grand council chamber of stone filled with flowing incense smoke, he decreed that whoever would sow discord with his tongue shall be silenced by the blade. His council, bound by tradition and fear, nodded in mute agreement.

Xihuitl was seized in the night by masked eagle warriors, their intentions clear. He was not given a trial in the traditional sense, for his crime was not against the law but against the narrative of divine order. His execution was to be a spectacle, a lesson in obedience.

The following morning, the executioner’s obsidian blade fell, severing Xihuitl’s head and returning his blood to the earth. But not before his final words were received by those who bore witness to his death:

“I die not for my words, but for the truth they carried. Remember, the empire's strength lies not in its rulers, but in its people's hearts.”

Shhhhhh…

On the 21st of March 1933, a law was passed making it a crime to speak out against the policies of a nation’s government and leaders.

The place the law was signed: The Reichstag.

The party it was designed to protect: The Nazis.

Thousands were persecuted under these laws. Like Sophie and Hans Scholl, who were arrested for distributing leaflets that challenged the government's actions. In 1943, they were arrested by the Gestapo and executed.

In the modern West, we’re admittedly not yet at that level of authoritarian control of basic speech or truth. However, we are terrifyingly close.

Take Canada, for example.

In 2013, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the truth can literally be illegal. Stating that “not all truthful statements must be free from restriction” and that “the truth can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech.”

But it’s in the UK where the West is most obviously going bonkers regarding freedom of speech—or the lack thereof.

I wrote only a few weeks ago about the situation in the UK, and how simply retweeting a video of the ongoing riots and protests could land a person in handcuffs.

Yet more has transpired since.

Right now, the UK is releasing up to 5,500 violent offenders from prisons in a bid to combat overcrowding. This would include those convicted of assault, terrorism, robbery, and s*x crimes, providing their initial sentence was not more than four years.

And who are they being replaced with?

Possibly hundreds of protestors and those who spoke out in support of anti-immigration policies on social media. Upwards of 494 have been arrested, many of whom have already been sentenced to two years or more in prison.

The UK is literally trading violent offenders for those who are publicly opposing government policy.

Despite it being true that over half the British population say they’re for stronger immigration controls, the government can—and is—imprisoning people for expressing that view, whether in the form of physical protesting, or simply sharing information on social media.

Because the government says it’s hateful, or “hate speech.”

To me, hate speech is a strange term.

I’m not denying that hateful language can hurt. It obviously can. However, the problem is how easily words can be misinterpreted.

With physical violence, there’s usually very little room for distortion. Someone either struck you or they didn’t. Simple.

Words, however, are completely different. The exact same words spoken or written by one person can (and likely will) be interpreted 1000 different ways by 1000 different people—even in ways the author or speaker didn’t intend.

Literal facts spoken by one person can be received as “hate” by another, and be deemed a crime.

In fact, the London Metropolitan Police specifically states this. In wording taken from their website, it says a hate crime is one that “the victim thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them” and where “evidence of the hate element is not a requirement.”

Even more insane? The supposed victim doesn’t even need to think it was a hate crime. The Met Police says, “It would be enough if another person, a witness or even a police officer thought that the incident was hate related.”

No evidence needed. No accusation from a victim required. The “thought” of an agent of a state is now all that’s needed for a possible arrest.

I say all this to focus on one specific point:

We’re moving into a world where our governments can find us lacking in the name of the law for speaking truths they find to be inconvenient.

I agree that hateful language can hurt others. I agree that hate is a destructive emotion which should not be encouraged. And I believe that we should foster a society where all feel safe living within it.

However, we must accept that some harm—especially that which is unintended—is a side effect of an open society where people can think freely, explore ideas, and speak their minds.

Regulating speech and truth is usually the first step in a nation's demand for utter obedience from its people before it devolves into dictatorship, authoritarianism, or absolute control. This is how Stalin did it. This is how Adolf the Austrian did it. This is how Mao Zedong did it.

Moctezuma II’s authoritarian control of true speech may have happened over five centuries ago. But the three examples I just touched on from the Soviet Union, Germany, and China all took place in living memory. People like my Oma (who just turned 101) lived through these historical events and under some of the tyrants who created them.

We are teetering on the brink of experiencing the very same fate.

If we allow laws like these to propagate, we’re allowing our governments to build a prison for us that encompasses all of society. A prison where one day, without intent, something—anything—you say could be used as a means to persecute or imprison you.

You’ll say it’s truth.

They’ll say it’s hate.

However, only one side gets to win the argument without intent, evidence, or fair due process.

It won’t be the side of the people.

And remember, the side of the people is us.

Written by Leon Hill.
Founder, Anticitizen.

This newsletter is for educational purposes, and is not financial advice. Please do your own research, and consider risks involved with investing or purchasing any asset.