Western democracies that purport to protect and even celebrate free speech are trampling on it — and their actions are now infecting the United States.

Six Massachusetts middle school students, ages 13 and 14, are facing “hate speech and race-based bullying” charges in connection with statements they made in an online chatroom in February.

Hampden District Attorney Anthony Gulluni announced at a March 14 news briefing that he’ll be pursuing criminal charges against the six juveniles for their alleged roles in the “hateful, racist online chat that included heinous language, threats and a mock slave auction.”

We used to call that being a dumb adolescent, and the “sticks and stones” rule always came into play.

That’s not to condone racist slurs. Although distasteful, criminal charges against 13 and 14-year-olds is a bit much, especially when members of Congress can get away with making them — generally against Jews, Christians and white heterosexual males.

Overreaction, however, is now the norm around the world.

In October, U.K. police arrested pro-lifer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce after she admitted that she may have been silently praying in her head across the street from an abortion mill.

As Fr. Calvin Robinson observed, she was “Clearly not protesting. Clearly not harassing anyone. Clearly causing no harm.”

But Vaughan-Spruce was nonetheless “Arrested for silently praying in her head, again!”

That’s right — again. She was arrested a year earlier for precisely the same “crime” — her silent speech.

Moving north, one week from today — April Fool’s Day — Scotland will implement its new hate speech law, which targets any act that tends to “stir up hatred against a group of persons.”

The protected characteristics include age, disability, religion or perceived religious affiliation, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics.

An actor who merely recites lines he was given and a comedian making jokes aren’t exempt from prosecution, which carries a maximum 7-year prison sentence upon conviction.

The late standup comic Don Rickles wouldn’t have lasted a day. He built his entire career on insulting other people, and audiences loved him for it.

After outlining the law’s provisions, political and social commentator Ian Miles Cheong concluded, “So repeat a joke you heard online, or show someone a spicy meme or commentary of a transgender person or mass migration on your livestream, and you too will be arrested.”

Moving across the pond, Canada is considering a hate speech law that would go after people who may make prohibited communications in the future.

Rebel News publisher Ezra Levant reported, “It gets worse. The bill creates a pre-crime called ‘fear of hate crime’. You can be put under house arrest, with an ankle monitor, forced to give blood samples, banned from talking to any person, etc. if someone ‘fears’ you’ll say something hateful.”

The proposal would also prosecute communications made in the past that were legal at the time you made them.

“The bill would create a new section 13(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act,” Levant reported. “It says you’re liable for anything you’ve ever posted (if you have the power to remove it now).”

Such laws are called ex post facto laws, and the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting them. Not so Canada, apparently.

How many people remember what they wrote on social media 10 years ago?

The proposal has the support of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

So how do democracies like Great Britain, Scotland, and Canada even consider such insane laws against the freedom of speech? They start out small — with baby steps.

It begins with an attorney general who goes after moms speaking out at school board meetings. Then he targets “traditional” Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass, followed by pro-life activists who sing and pray at abortion mills.

Then local district attorneys feel emboldened to prosecute 13-year-old schoolboys.

© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.