Register and share your invite link to earn from video plays and referrals.

Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers
@UnderSecPD
Official account of @StateDept’s Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy.
546 Following    154.9K Followers
Receiving some media queries about a draft joint statement on free expression which my office circulated in the margins of OECD — so I thought I’d address this directly: When it comes to freedom of speech, there’s a lot of attention paid to viral controversies dividing America and Europe. But face-to-face conversations tell a different story: allied democracies support free expression, disclaim any intent to censor political debate, and emphasize that except for edge cases such as swastikas, their internet regulations aim to protect consumers and kids rather than chill speech. We love hearing this, and wanted to memorialize it. So in the margins of productive OECD talks, we drafted a joint statement with the aim of promoting transparency and driving consensus. The statement is intended as an expression of comity and common values, and also as a source of interpretive guidance for American speech companies complying with overseas laws. A diplomatic statement can’t override laws like the DSA — and this one doesn’t try. But it does provide color regarding countries’ values and concerns. Signatories affirm that they don’t intend to censor, e.g., satire (like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons), statistics about topics like crime or mass migration, or nonviolent dissent against government policy. American companies deserve to know this — so they don’t over-comply by suppressing the exact speech everyone agrees is protected. Stay tuned!
Show more
Important read. Multilateral mechanisms to deal with warlords and atrocities predated the ICC, and will continue to exist. But the United States has raised serious legal and sovereignty objections to the ICC since its formation. Now we’re acting on them.
Show more
0
66
926
179
Forward to community
Policymakers worried about the rise of the so-called “far right” should avoid criminalizing accurate, data-driven political speech about mass migration — as this ruling appears to explicitly contemplate. Doing so means that people willing to be convicted of “racism” get a monopoly on making arguments that strike large segments of the public as important and true.
Show more
A very sad announcement. I have just been convicted a second time for 'hate speech' and it is only due to a technicality that I could not immediately be sent to jail —to the judge's frustration. In an ironic turn of events it's actually thanks to my previous prison sentence (for memes in a private group chat) that I am now still free —in a physical sense, at least. Call me naive but I didn't think they would take it this far, given that this precedent criminalises many of the arguments used by even the most moderate politicians critical of mass migration. In February 2024 I gave a lecture at Catholic University Leuven wherein I linked mass migration to crime and a deterioration of our quality of life. Every single point I made was 100% the truth and based on scientific evidence. Cynically, even the judge that convicted me admits as much by writing in his verdict: “Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on scientific evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the criminal intent. Van Langenhove is not charged with spreading false information. He is charged with presenting facts in a way that incites hatred against persons on the grounds of one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law.” That's a lot of words just to say he wants to send me to prison for speaking the truth. Even the regime media write: "It did not matter to the court that Van Langenhove was quoting scientific sources. The judge argued that Van Langenhove's main message was that a big part of the societal problems like insecurity, housing shortages and lowering educational standards are due to mass migration." You may think the regime media are being sympathetic to me in the first sentence, but in reality they are warning people: even if you speak the truth, if you go against our narrative, we will crush you in every way possible. Both the public prosecutor and the judge did not present a single real argument as to how or against whom I would have incited hatred. So even if I would accept their crazy, dystopic law, I still did not break it. The only argument they present is that I created a "hostile atmosphere of us versus them” in regards to migrants. But even this silly argument (which is not even a punishable offence) is not true. To me, the deadly disease is self-hatred and one of its worst symptoms is replacement migration. My enemy is thus NOT the migrants themselves but those orchestrating the mass migration. Sadly, in Belgium, evidence is not needed and ‘vibes’ are enough to put someone in jail. Given the fact that I have another court case coming up in September and that I have a dozen active criminal investigations for hate speech, time is running out for me. I have already paid more than €420,000 in legal fees and there is no ending in sight. I have been in an intense battle of attrition for eight years and must now regroup to make sure I can still win. If you want to help me, you can do so via the links below. If you can help in other ways, please contact me via DM. If you live in a country that still has free speech, never let them touch it, however noble they make the motives sound, because this is where it leads to.
Show more
0
33
813
140
Forward to community