• Tag Archives thought police
  • Spying on the Social Media Posts of Sports Fans and Banning Them From Stadiums for Wrongthink Isn’t Social Progress

    Tears welled in the eyes of Linzi Smith as she explained, her voice shaking, why she can no longer attend Premier League soccer games at the stadium 10 minutes from her home to root for Newcastle United.

    “I struggle to even come near the ground,” Smith told Toby Young of the Free Speech Union in a recent interview. “I get upset when I talk about it. I just don’t understand where it’s come from. I don’t know why someone’s gotten so offended by me just speaking my mind.”

    Smith, a 34-year-old woman from Newcastle and a lifelong soccer fan, said she received an email from team security in November that her membership was suspended pending an investigation for an alleged hate crime. The investigation stemmed from tweets Smith had posted on X that she was told “could be seen as transphobic.”

    Smith, who is gay and helps her mother run a tea shop to pay the bills, assumed the matter would soon be cleared up since she had not engaged in anything she considered “hate speech.”

    She assumed wrongly. For tweets stating that transgender women are not really women, Smith was banned for the remainder of the season and the following two, a decision she described as “devastating.”

    “I avoid the city now, especially if it’s match day,” she told Young. “I won’t even come down here and drink … every time I’m around here now, I’m just sick to my stomach, and I’m afraid of who’s around and who’s watching me.”

    The fear Smith describes is understandable. Her life was upturned by social media comments. She was investigated and summarily found guilty (without being able to defend herself) by a soccer league.

    The idea that the Premier League is monitoring the social media posts of fans in search of “wrongthink” and launching independent investigations is startling, and it led some to brand the league’s intelligence unit “the Stasi spy agency.”

    “As a historian of the Gulag and the Soviet secret police, this is one of the most chilling things I could ever have imagined seeing in the U.K.,” Giles Udny, an English writer, said of Smith’s case. “No exaggeration — it is straight out of the NKVD/KGB/FSB playbook.”

    Just how many fans have been similarly targeted is unclear, though the Free Speech Union told MailOnline it is likely “hundreds of fans, possibly thousands.”

    And though comparisons to the Stasi and NKVD are imperfect — both organizations were formal police units operated by socialist states — there’s no question that the word chilling is appropriate.

    In the United States, free expression is a right codified in the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” But it’s a value that existed well before the legal document was ratified and represents the foundation of a moral and tolerant people.

    “Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression,” Albert Einstein observed in Ideas and Opinions. “In order that every man may present his views without penalty, there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population.”

    The effort to classify political dissent as “hate speech” and punish heretics for their supposed crimes is one of the most pernicious threats at work in the world today. It is a force rooted in dogmatism, not truth, and a thirst for control over others.

    Historically, efforts to control speech have been employed by those with power to cement their own control. Those with power tend to be those in government and those closest to it, and it is they (and their supporters) who get to decide what speech qualifies as “hate” and “misinformation.”

    The view that dangerous, hateful, or fascist speech should be disallowed — No Free Speech for Fascists, the title of a 2021 book declares — is itself a deeply fascistic view. This is evidenced in no small part by the fact that the most notable fascist states of the 20th century despised free expression and free speech, which undermined their stated and actual goals (unity and control, respectively).

    The fact that many governments, including the United States, are now outsourcing their policing of language to private companies and institutions that share their views on what constitutes “hate speech” and “misinformation” is not a sign of progress. It’s but a pivot by authoritarians in their effort to control what is seen as true and false.

    “The really frightening thing about totalitarianism is not that it commits ‘atrocities’ but that it attacks the concept of objective truth,” George Orwell once observed.

    Few could agree with this statement more than Linzi Smith, who is now banned from cheering for Newcastle United at St James’ Park after expressing her opinion that a biological man is not a woman.

    This article first appeared in The Washington Examiner.

    Source: Spying on the Social Media Posts of Sports Fans and Banning Them From Stadiums for Wrongthink Isn’t Social Progress


  • The Origins of the Thought Police—and Why They Scare Us


    There are a lot of unpleasant things in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Spying screens. Torture and propaganda. Victory Gin and Victory Coffee always sounded particularly dreadful. And there is Winston Smith’s varicose ulcer, apparently a symbol of his humanity (or something), which always seems to be “throbbing.” Gross.

    None of this sounds very enjoyable, but it’s not the worst thing in 1984. To me, the most terrifying part was that you couldn’t keep Big Brother out of your head.

    Unlike other 20th-century totalitarians, the authoritarians in 1984 aren’t that interested in controlling behavior or speech. They do, of course, but it’s only as a means to an end. Their real goal is to control the gray matter between the ears.

    “When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will,” O’Brien (the bad guy) tells the protagonist Winston Smith near the end of the book.

    We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.

    Big Brother’s tool for doing this is the Thought Police, aka the ThinkPol, who are assigned to root out and punish unapproved thoughts. We see how this works when Winston’s neighbor Parsons, an obnoxious Party sycophant, is reported to the Thought Police by his own child, who heard him commit a thought crime while talking in his sleep.

    “It was my little daughter,” Parsons tells Winston when asked who it was who denounced him. “She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?”

    Awkward Science Fiction GIF by CBS All Access - Find & Share on GIPHY

    We don’t know a lot about the Thought Police, and some of what we think we know may actually not be true since some of what Winston learns comes from the Inner Party, and they lie.

    What we know is this: The Thought Police are secret police of Oceania—the fictional land of 1984 that probably consists of the UK, the Americas, and parts of Africa—who use surveillance and informants to monitor the thoughts of citizens. The Thought Police also use psychological warfare and false-flag operations to entrap free thinkers or nonconformists.

    Those who stray from Party orthodoxy are punished but not killed. The Thought Police don’t want to kill nonconformists so much as break them. This happens in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love, where prisoners are re-educated through degradation and torture. (Funny sidebar: the name Room 101 apparently was inspired by a conference room at the BBC in which Orwell was forced to endure tediously long meetings.)

    Matthew Broderick Jewish GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

    Orwell didn’t create the Thought Police out of thin air. They were inspired to at least some degree by his experiences in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), a complicated and confusing affair. What you really need to know is that there were no good guys, and it ended with left-leaning anarchists and Republicans in Spain crushed by their Communist overlords, which helped the fascists win.

    Orwell, an idealistic 33-year-old socialist when the conflict started, supported the anarchists and loyalists fighting for the left-leaning Second Spanish Republic, which received most of its support from the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin. (That might sound bad, but keep in mind that the Nazis were on the other side.) Orwell described the atmosphere in Barcelona in December 1936 when everything seemed to be going well for his side.

    The anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing … It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle,

    he wrote in Homage to Catalonia.

    [E]very wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle … every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized.

    That all changed pretty fast. Stalin, a rather paranoid fellow, was bent on making Republican Spain loyal to him. Factions and leaders perceived as loyal to his exiled Communist rival, Leon Trotsky, were liquidated. Loyal Communists found themselves denounced as fascists. Nonconformists and “uncontrollables” were disappeared.

    Orwell never forgot the purges or the steady stream of lies and propaganda churned out from Communist papers during the conflict. (To be fair, their Nationalist opponents also used propaganda and lies.) Stalin’s NKVD was not exactly like the Thought Police—the NKVD showed less patience with its victims—but they certainly helped inspire Orwell’s secret police.

    The Thought Police were not all propaganda and torture, though. They also stem from Orwell’s ideas on truth. During his time in Spain, he saw how power could corrupt truth, and he shared these reflections in his work George Orwell: My Country Right or Left, 1940-1943.

    …I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

    In short, Orwell’s brush with totalitarianism left him worried that “the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.”

    This scared him. A lot. He actually wrote, “This kind of thing is frightening to me.”

    Scared Jonah Hill GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

    Finally, the Thought Police were also inspired by the human struggle for self-honesty and the pressure to conform. “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe,” Rudyard Kipling once observed.

    The struggle to remain true to one’s self was also felt by Orwell, who wrote about “the smelly little orthodoxies” that contend for the human soul. Orwell prided himself with a “power of facing unpleasant facts”—something of a rarity in humans—even though it often hurt him in British society.

    In a sense, 1984 is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.

    It might be tempting to dismiss Orwell’s book as a figment of dystopian literature. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. Modern history shows he was onto something.

    When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police, had a full-time staff of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what’s frightening is that the organization had almost double that in informants, including children. And it wasn’t just children reporting on parents; sometimes it was the other way around.

    Nor did the use of state spies to prosecute thoughtcrimes end with the fall of the Soviet Union. Believe it or not, it’s still happening today. The New York Times recently ran a report featuring one Peng Wei, a 21-year-old Chinese chemistry major. He is one of the thousands of “student information officers” China uses to root out professors who show signs of disloyalty to President Xi Jinping or the Communist Party.

    The First Amendment of the US Constitution, fortunately, largely protects Americans from the creepy authoritarian systems found in 1984, East Germany, and China; but the rise of “cancel culture” shows the pressure to conform to all sorts of orthodoxies (smelly or not) remains strong.

    The new Thought Police may be less sinister than the ThinkPol in 1984, but the next generation will have to decide if seeking conformity of thought or language through public shaming is healthy or suffocating. FEE’s Dan Sanchez recently observed that many people today feel like they’re “walking on eggshells” and live in fear of making a verbal mistake that could draw condemnation.

    Burn GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

    That’s a lot of pressure, especially for people still learning the acceptable boundaries of a new moral code that is constantly evolving. Most people, if the pressure is sufficient, will eventually say “2+2=5” just to escape punishment. That’s exactly what Winston Smith does at the end of 1984, after all. Yet Orwell also leaves readers with a glimmer of hope.

    “Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad,” Orwell wrote. “There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

    In other words, the world may be mad, but that doesn’t mean you have to be.


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, and Fox News. 

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • Government Surveillance and Academic Thought Policing Are Taking Us to 1984

    Government Surveillance and Academic Thought Policing Are Taking Us to 1984

    There are some books you should read only once, and others you should reread occasionally. George Orwell’s 1984 is one you should read repeatedly and deeply. Without it, no education is complete.

    It tells the story of a man, Winston, grappling with ordinary desires for love and privacy – but in a totalitarian socialist world in which every word and even desire is subject to control and punishment by “the Party.”

    1984 teaches timeless truths and shows its characters grappling with questions that do not have easy answers. The dystopia Orwell presents emerged out of the soil of a society in which little by little, inch by inch, thought by thought, and idea by idea, people forsook their liberty, their dignity, and their humanity.

    Parallels between the world of Orwell’s 1984 and our own are increasingly obvious – and troubling.

    Surveillance and Thought Policing

    For one thing, we live in an ever-growing “anti-terror” surveillance state, and one that is encouraged, if not openly embraced, by fearful people who are, if I may be blunt, really bad at math and really lacking in perspective. Every death is a tragedy, but terrorism is far down on any list of mortality risks – and it always has been. And there is little evidence that all the surveillance and security programs added since 9/11 have caught or prevented terrorists in any significant number.

    For another thing, on college campuses across the country, we are seeing disinvitations of controversial speakers, demands for “safe spaces,” and shout-downs of ideas deemed heretical – proof that the open and rigorous exchange of ideas does not come easily and must be defended.

    In their Atlantic cover story, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explain and explore how higher education is fast becoming a place where students expect not to be faced with or to contend with controversial ideas but to be protected from them.

    Commentators such as American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Summers have drawn unflattering comparisons between Orwell’s Junior Anti-Sex League and those controlling campus discussions today. The subtle change from “these ideas are incorrect as matters of logic and evidence” to “it is immoral to even subject these ideas to rigorous inquiry” threatens to subject the liberal arts and sciences to a thought police.

    Obedience Only

    The way the characters in 1984 are “conditioned” once their subversive activities are found out turns this novel from interesting dystopian fiction to an absolutely terrifying classic. Mere obedience is not enough for the Party officials. They can only be satisfied, if that’s the right word, once they completely occupy the thoughts and wants of their subjects.

    An obedient objector is still a potentially dangerous revolutionary. Dissent – anything other than wholehearted, brainwashed obedience – is intolerable. The humanity of Winston is completely abolished, and in a fate worse than death, his resistance is crushed and he comes to love Big Brother.

    On this, the 68th anniversary of 1984’s publication, it is perhaps worthwhile to take a few minutes and consider whether we have unconsciously adopted the three slogans of the Party – War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength. In our unthinking rush for “safety” of all kinds, I’m afraid that in some ways, we have.

    Reprinted from Learn Liberty.


    Art Carden

    Art Carden is an Associate Professor of Economics at Samford University’s Brock School of Business. In addition, he is a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics, a Senior Fellow with the Beacon Center of Tennessee, and a Research Fellow with the Independent Institute. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network. Visit his website.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.