We’ve all heard of conspiracy theories like “flat earthers” that are so absurd that they seem hilarious. However, we cannot take all of them lightly. The genocide of European Jews during World War II led to the deaths of approximately six million people, including one million children. These atrocities, which caused immense suffering, continue today to shock and disturb deeply. However, as if the survivors had not suffered enough, denialist movements have appeared around the globe; this unforgivable, offensive and dangerous disrespect is legal in most countries due to the “freedom of expression”. It is in this regard that Salman Rushdie’s quote “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist” can seem problematic.
In his words, Salman Rushdie claims that freedom of expression depends on the right to offend. He, therefore, rejects the idea that we can achieve this freedom by avoiding offence. By this, the author seeks our agreement. He wants to convince us we should be free to offend. In this exploration, I will discuss what the theoretical side effects of freedom of expression are, what the real link between freedom of expression and freedom to offend is, and finally what the middle ground between absolute freedom of expression and excessive provocation and outrage is.
The concept of freedom translates into an absence of constraints, so if we want to achieve freedom of expression, we should be free even to offend. Thus, we should have the right to express ourselves about anything and everything, and to take a stand, no matter how absurd and offensive it may be. Freedom of expression, like all good things, requires sacrifice. It brings with it, in addition to offence, chaotic discussions, the spread of false information, mob behaviour, etc. However, the best way to deal with these side effects is through free discussion itself. Through the mechanism itself, false, absurd, offensive and dangerous ideas will be criticized. It is therefore by pushing the discussion that one can deconstruct these ideas and find an intermediate position. Freedom of speech acts in an eternal renewal; it is thanks to it that opinions threatening freedom of speech and democracy (the latter being strongly linked to freedom of speech) are criticized, disapproved and finally rejected. Russia, a self-proclaimed democracy, whose constitution defends freedom of expression, often applies a law that claims to combat “extremism”. This law is used to censor citizens who present a negative image of the state, such as doctors who complained about their working conditions during the Covid-19 pandemic, or the media who talk about Soviet and Nazi collaboration during World War II. With this type of provision in the law, justified to fight against certain negative aspects of freedom of expression, the Russian government censors its population and ensures that those in power stay in power. It is due to this type of legislative provision that Russia is described as “authoritarian” by the Democracy Index and that Russia is 142th out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index. Therefore, even if freedom of expression does not have only positive effects, limiting it is futile.
Moreover, it is not because an action is legal that it will not have negative consequences. In an increasingly politically correct context, which seeks to make language inclusive and repress marginalization, those who openly transgress these norms when they speak out will be overlooked and criticized. There is a recent phenomenon in the United States called “cancel culture,” where individuals who have blatantly transgressed social norms are boycotted by their social circle. This is a form of societal self-censorship where inappropriate opinions or opinions that are deemed false are discouraged. On the other hand, basic human decency dictates that most of us don’t try to hurt others or destroy the democratic pillars on which our society rests. Thus, our freedom of expression is a negative right: everyone can say what they want, but neither the state nor others are obliged to acknowledge, listen to, or agree with our opinion. Therefore, we have a self-regulation of freedom of expression that allows society to function without major obstacles to this freedom.
However, in major democracies, freedom of expression is not absolute. There are limits to this freedom. The idiom “Freedom ends where the rights of others begin” sums up this concept well. One example is defamation, which is a crime in most democracies. To ensure that one’s rights remain intact, it is illegal to unfairly and falsely criticize others. Many developed democracies also restrict hate speech. This creates a legal basis for condemning dangerous speech that incites discrimination. For, as Guy Bedos put it, “Racism is not an opinion, it is a crime”. The United States is a notorious exception in this area: racist and discriminatory opinions of all kinds are protected by the American Constitution. This has given free rein to neo-Nazi groups such as the National Socialist Movement and misogynist or white supremacist groups. In addition, race relations are marked by strong tensions, as we have seen recently with the Black Lives Matter movement. In Switzerland, there are legal protections against discrimination and hate speech. A recent example is a referendum criminalizing discrimination against the LGBTQ community, in which the Swiss population decreed that homophobic remarks should not be protected by free speech. These laws, when enacted by a government that does not abuse them, do not impede freedom of expression; on the contrary, they help create a less hateful society and offset some of the negative effects of freedom of expression. For example, although some laws in Norway restrict free speech to combat hate, the country still ranks first in the world in press freedom. Finally, to avoid certain social problems, it is necessary to know how to limit freedom of expression, not for political purposes but for the purpose of respecting others.
In conclusion, even if freedom of expression is partially self-regulating, it would be necessary to find a happy medium between absolute freedom and laws that limit it without risking abuse and therefore political censorship. We can only do this through democracy, a pillar of freedom of expression. This middle ground must protect all political views, including those that oppose freedom of expression or its limitations, except discrimination and hate speech such as holocaust denialists. It is through rational discussion that we will readjust this balance little by little and in the best way. To achieve this, it is necessary to have a transparent political system where politicians are accountable. Another essential element is a responsible judiciary that on the one hand ensures that politicians do not use the limits on freedom of expression to justify political censorship, and on the other hand, promotes a harmonious society which respects the rights of all. The advent of new modes of communication creates new problems. Because of social media, we are confronted with the deployment of propaganda “bots”, the worrying proliferation of fake news and other methods that instrumentalize information. We must then ask ourselves how to adjust this balance to take into account these new challenges brought by technological progress.