ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel and the freedom of expression

Updated on June 8, 2010

 Some years ago, I dicovered an enterprise called Lulu, which proved to be a quite useful way for self-publishing. I went ahead and published some of my books through them. You can find them at

(Not all are in English. Some are in Swedish or Esperanto.)

So far, all well.

About half a year ago, I joined Facebook, and found that Lulu has a page there. I joined it, and could participate the discussion.

Still all well.

But then, some funny things began to happen.

Lulu has expressed some pride in defending the human right to freedom of expression. Unfortunately, Lulu's Facebook administrator(s) seem not to share this orientation, or not to know very well what freedom of expression means.

Last of May, Lulu wrote at its Facebook page:

"Today, may we all take a moment to remember the brave men and women of the U.S. military who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country."

That would have been all right, if Lulu had been working at a US level only, but many of its users live in other countries, and some of those countries are not, and have never been, allies of the USA.

The interests of the USA are not necessarily identical with the interests of mankind, and in an international perspective, the US armed forces are very controversial indeed.

Stating this, on the other hand, should not be very controversial, I think. It is in the very nature of armed forces to be controversial. Those who have been shot at by an army, or bombed by an air force, may not like it.

And it is a historical fact that the US armed forces have shot at people and bombed people. Soldiers and civilians, men, women, and children.

So I wrote a comment saying in essence that all right, do remember your fallen ones if you like, but perhaps we should also remember their victims.

Just that.

Another user - Mia Max - answered:´

"by victims do you mean the family they left behind serving their country or do you take your freedom for granted .In some places on the globe you would be answering to treason charges for the brain fart you just layed.They shall not be taken for granted or forgotten."

Quite a strong reaction to a modest proposal. I like the expression "brain fart", but I fail to see how my recommendation could be seen as treason, even if I were a US citizen, which I am not.

So I answered, shortly:

"I meant the people they killed."

And then I waited for new reactions.

The only reaction was that both my comments were erased, but Mia Max' was not. I had also been excluded from the page, but that was no great problem; I rapidly joined it again and wrote a new comment:

"The last message above is difficult to understand, as it is an answer to another message that has been removed, essentially asking us to remember the fallen on both sides."

Whereupon this comment, too, was promptly erased. I wasn't thrown out of the page this time, but I was blocked from writing any new comments or messages.

That's why I can't publish this article in its most natural place.

But no great harm. That page is not my main channel for saying my opinion.

And my Lulu books seem still to be available.

But I would like very much to know if the Lulu topshots share the opinion of their Facebook administrator(s) to the human right to freedom of expression.

After all, I haven't asked anyone to forget their soldiers, just to show some compassion with the other side as well.

As did Homer in the Iliad, where he shows equal understanding for the pains of both Greeks and Troyans (one reason why I think Homer is superior to Virgil).

I don't think compassion with the enemy is treason. I think it's plain humanity.

Besides, the enemy of the USA is not always the enemy of the world.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Writer David profile image

      Writer David 7 years ago from Mobile, AL

      Ok, my opinion was that you don't know much about war. If that was an insult, my apologies. America has always bailed out Europe when you got yourselves in a jam. I don't expect to see that happen ever again. As for Hiroshima, again, we didn't start it. We don't have a habit of starting wars. But, we do have a habit of ending wars on our terms.

      I agree you should not have been silenced by Hulu. That was uncalled for in my opinion. Everyone has a right to his or her opinion. Just be prepared to defend your opinion. Just know that we greatly honor our dead who died in the name of freedom. I guess that was my main point. Again my apologies if I came across rude.

    • Gunnar Gällmo profile image

      Gunnar Gällmo 7 years ago from Stockholm

      The children burnt to death in Hiroshima were very much defenseless.

      But the starting point of this hub wasn't the warfare of the USA, but my right to discuss it.

      I don't mind your insults. I very much mind being silenced.

    • Writer David profile image

      Writer David 7 years ago from Mobile, AL

      Murder? Apparently, you know little of war. Murder is only legitimately charged if it is an act of shooting someone who is defenseless. I would be interested in any information you have that warrants that charge against U.S. troops in WWI or WWII. Sure, there are isolated incidents. But, full scale murder?

      I wasn't aware we were supporting the genocide of Stalin during and after the war. He received material support to fight Hitler during WWII. One more thing; the next time Europe finds itself embroiled in another world war and desperate for help, leave us out of it next time. We certainly wouldn't want to "complicate" things for you.

    • Gunnar Gällmo profile image

      Gunnar Gällmo 7 years ago from Stockholm

      Murder is normally committed by both sides in a war. That's why I think we should remember the fallen ones on both sides.

      The roles in WWII are complicated by the facts that, after Barbarossa, fighting Hitler meant supporting Stalin, and vice versa.

    • Writer David profile image

      Writer David 7 years ago from Mobile, AL

      I just would like to know two things; is it the U.S. armed forces the only military force to shoot or bomb civilians? how controversial were the U.S. armed forces in WWII when they were liberating Europe from the clutches of a madman named Hitler? I leave you with the following bit of a true quote:

      In 1966 upon being told that President Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. Troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson mentioned to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that he should ask DeGaulle about the Americans buried in France. Dean implied in his answer that that DeGaulle should not really be asked that in the meeting at which point President Johnson then told Secretary of State Dean Rusk:

      "Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!"

      That made it into a Presidential Order so he had to ask President DeGaulle.

      So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldier buried in France from World War I and World War II.

      DeGaulle, embarrassed, got up and left and never answered.

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 7 years ago from SE MA

      I certainly agree.