Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Suspected terrorist attack on a free speech event in Copenhagen leaves one dead

A police officer guarding the free speech event.
A police officer guarding the free speech event.
A police officer guarding the free speech event.
(Lars Ronbog/Getty Images)
Zack Beauchamp
Zack Beauchamp is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy, The Reactionary Spirit, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here.
  1. Saturday morning, at least one unidentified gunman shot up a cafe in Copenhagen that was hosting a event discussing free speech, art, and Islam. The attacker is still at large.
  2. One person attending the speech was killed, and three police guarding it were injured.
  3. The Copenhagen police believe it was a terrorist attack.
  4. Lars Vilks, a Swedish artist and al-Qaeda target, who is famous for drawings of Muhammed as a dog, was at the meeting.

A chilling tweet from someone at the event

This is horrifying news, especially on the heels of the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris. This tweet from Inna Shevchenko, an activist with the feminist group Femen who was speaking at the event, is especially chilling:

Shevchenko’s tweet literalizes the broader threat posed by attacks on people whose only crime is speaking their mind. When terrorists attack people for drawing Muhammed, the intent isn’t just to kill these people: it’s to create a deterrent to anyone who might, in the future, use their speech rights in a way that radical Islamists don’t like. Writer Timothy Garton Ash calls this the “assassin’s veto:” the idea that killers can use fear to put limits on free speech.

Nothing makes that threat feel more real than gunfire literally interrupting an address meant to defend free speech.

Policy
Is Trump’s Justice Department trying to discredit itself?Is Trump’s Justice Department trying to discredit itself?
Policy

The DOJ used to avoid spectacles like the Louise Lucas raid.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
What the Supreme Court still has left to decide this termWhat the Supreme Court still has left to decide this term
Politics

Democracy and Donald Trump dominate the Court’s remaining docket.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The Supreme Court seems a bit nervous about letting the police track you with your phoneThe Supreme Court seems a bit nervous about letting the police track you with your phone
Politics

The justices were concerned that the Trump administration is asking for too much in a major police surveillance case.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track youThe Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track you
Politics

Chatrie v. United States asks what limits the Constitution places on the surveillance state in an age of cellphones.

By Ian Millhiser
Policy
Pam Bondi’s ouster makes Trump’s Justice Department even more dangerousPam Bondi’s ouster makes Trump’s Justice Department even more dangerous
Policy

The best thing about Bondi was her incompetence.

By Ian Millhiser
Culture
Me Too revealed a lot of villains. Why is Epstein the one we still care about?Me Too revealed a lot of villains. Why is Epstein the one we still care about?
Culture

How the Epstein story became an American parable.

By Constance Grady