The British newspaper The Economist, one of the few mainstream publications that still upholds the principles of classical liberalism, published an article in mid-May that you’ll rarely see in mainstream media across Europe today – an article that criticizes the increasingly concerning European practice of restricting freedom of speech.
The article is very interesting and remains relevant even today (no author is signed, so I assume it’s an editorial commentary).
So, The Economist begins the story by referencing the recent visit of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance to Paris and Munich, where he strongly criticized the European Union and its member states for punishing speech. The Economist notes that the Trump/Vance administration is itself known for restricting free speech on American universities and campuses, making Vance appear hypocritical from that perspective. However, just because he is a hypocrite does not mean he’s wrong. Europe does have a free speech problem, and it’s getting worse, The Economist acknowledges.
“The problem is not evenly distributed. So far, the worst offender is Hungary, governed by a pro-Trump administration. Other significant violators include Germany and the United Kingdom. Germany’s ban on Holocaust denial is understandable given its history, but a law that punishes insulting politicians is ridiculous. The powerful exploit it shamelessly. A former deputy chancellor filed hundreds of criminal complaints against citizens, including one who called him an ‘idiot.’
Last month, the editor of a right-wing newspaper received a large fine and a seven-month suspended sentence for sharing a meme with a fake photo showing the interior minister holding a sign reading ‘I hate free speech.’
All European countries guarantee the right to free expression. However, most also attempt to limit the damage they fear such expression might cause. This goes far beyond the kind of speech even classical liberals agree should be prohibited – such as child pornography, leaking national secrets, or inciting physical violence. Often it extends to speech that offends people’s feelings or is, in the opinion of some officials, untrue.
In some European countries, it is a crime to insult certain groups (the king in Spain; various people in Germany). In the UK, it is a crime to be “too offensive” on the internet. Blasphemy laws still exist in more than a dozen European countries. The entire continent criminalizes “hate speech,” which is hard to define but continually expands to cover new groups. In Finland, it is illegal to insult religion, but quoting scripture can also be risky: a member of parliament was prosecuted for posting a Bible verse about homosexuality on social media.
British police are especially zealous. Officers spend thousands of hours scanning for potentially offensive posts and arrest 30 people per day. Among those arrested was a man who posted about immigration on Facebook and a couple who criticized their daughter’s elementary school.
The goal of hate speech laws is to promote social harmony. However, there’s little evidence they work. Suppressing speech under threat of prosecution seems to deepen divisions. Populists thrive on the idea that people can’t say what they truly think – a belief now shared by more than 40% of Britons and Germans. Suspicion that the establishment is silencing certain perspectives only grows when media regulators show political bias. France fined a conservative TV channel €100,000 for calling abortion the leading cause of death in the world – a common belief among pro-lifers, from which the public must apparently be protected. Online safety laws that impose heavy fines on social media companies for tolerating illegal content have pushed platforms to remove much that is merely questionable, enraging those whose posts are suppressed.
Things could get worse. Vaguely worded laws that grant broad discretion to officials and judges are an invitation to abuse. Countries where such abuse isn’t yet common should learn from the British example. The suppression of speech in Britain wasn’t planned from the top – it grew as police discovered they quite liked the powers granted by speech-restriction laws. It’s much easier to catch someone posting on Instagram than a real criminal; the evidence is just a click away.
When the law bans offense, it also creates an incentive for people to claim they are offended – and then use the police to silence critics or settle scores with neighbors. When some groups are protected by hate speech laws and others are not, the latter are incentivized to demand protection as well. Thus, efforts to eliminate offensive words can create a ‘ban because of a ban,’ with more and more areas deemed off-limits. Soon, we reach the point where this hinders public debate. It’s hard to have an open, honest exchange about immigration, for instance, if one side fears that expressing its views will trigger a police visit,” writes The Economist.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right without which all other civil rights and liberties become practically impossible. Therefore, this is an issue we must fight for vigorously. The bureaucracy and political establishment are against us – which means they are against their citizens – and citizens will not allow them to implement such policies if they become aware of them.
Be smart, wise, and spread awareness.
About the Author
