Attained by millions but denied to millions more, freedom of speech is the precious principle that upholds the right of individuals or communities to voice their opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal sanction. Yet even in supposedly liberal democracies, there are increasing examples of the suppression of legitimate debate, such as Twitter and Facebook removing all mention of the Hunter Biden laptop story. In the covid crisis there was censorship of anti-government vaccination narratives even though several turned out to be true, such as the fact that vaccinated people could still spread infection.
Freedom of speech is recognised by the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In many nations it is enshrined in the constitution, with any unlawful restriction considered a restriction on democracy itself. “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it” is the quotation (attributed to Voltaire) that sums up freedom of speech as a cornerstone of democratic and free societies. But even in democracies, freedom of speech is not an absolute: there are legal boundaries. Hate speech, slander, obscenity, sedition and incitement to violence are examples of the multiple abuses that cannot be legitimised under a claim of freedom of speech. But incidents of these and other hate crimes continue to flourish in the UK and elsewhere. Why? Have human beings become vindictive and prejudiced or is it simply that those who want to spread hate, violence and fear can get away with it more easily now? After all, there’s no need for a face-to-face encounter, poison pen letter or potentially incriminating phone call when the internet is available. Social media, with its instant global reach, gives those with a genuine or imaginary axe to grind easy access to multiple platforms where freedom of speech can take on a completely different and sinister meaning. Anyone with moderate technological skill can disguise their identity and hide their location while maintaining a relentless campaign of torment and terror. Politicians, sports stars, celebrities, neighbours, schoolchildren – anyone can fall victim to vile abuse, literal and online stalking, threats of sexual assault, rape and murder. The hunted and haunted live in fear, always looking over their shoulder, exactly as the perpetuators intend.
Politicians frequently attack their opponents on a personal level: they abuse rather than argue, disparage rather than debate
But can the internet alone be blamed? We live in an increasingly confrontational society where leaders often fail to model an example of good behaviour. Politicians frequently attack their opponents on a personal level: they abuse rather than argue, disparage rather than debate. Some have been exposed as blatant liars. Certain high-profile politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are not above using social media to spread messages that come dangerously close to incitement. And yet they are lauded, supported and encouraged by millions, their popularity often increasing as a result of their inflammatory words.
On the flip side of this battered coin, many people are now afraid of voicing sincerely held opinions on controversial topics for fear of offending the majority by going against the popular view. If one person’s belief is considered unacceptable by others it can lead to being criticised, even “cancelled”, and a tidal wave of online attacks. In these cases, it seems the principle of “freedom of speech” is itself being abused – hijacked as a convenient get-out for bad behaviour and brutal language. Last month the vice-chancellor of Oxford university, Prof Irene Tracey, announced a series of debates in which diverse voices would be invited to “reaffirm the importance of free speech”, upholding the right for everyone to openly express their views and opinions – within the limits of the law.
