Freedom of Speech in the Digital Age — More Complicated Than You’d Think

Staff writer Jana Bazeed examines contemporary debates over freedom of speech. Is there a case for either censorship or free speech absolutism?

Freedom is speech is one of the core tenets of democracy. It’s a term that we’ve seen pop up repeatedly in headlines throughout 2022, be it debating the ethics of content moderation, the attack on Salman Rushdie or even the infamous Twitter scandals. Despite this being a topic that appears to be constant scrutiny, our definition of it remains woefully unclear — what is ‘free speech’, really?

Freedom of Expression — What it is, and what it’s not

The general idea of freedom of expression seems to be that it is the freedom to ‘say whatever you want’ without fear of repercussion. Despite the popularity of this view, it is a misconception, and a potentially dangerous one at that.

Freedom of expression is protected by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declares that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” But beyond that, there appears to exist no explicit universal definition of what freedom of speech actually entails – much less a handbook on how to protect it.

Free speech is a fundamental human right and its protection is of the upmost importance in today’s world. Free and open debate enables the pursuit of knowledge and truth; exposure to a multitude of perspectives (regardless of how uncomfortable that may be) allows one to develop more informed beliefs and avoid the dangers and stagnation that come with being trapped in echo chambers. Ideas must be allowed to compete for their credibility to be accepted.

Moreover, freedom of speech and expression are core pillars of democracy and self-governance, providing citizens with the means to actively contribute to society and to hold their leaders accountable for their actions. Free speech encourages people to be vocal about issues they deem important, raising marginalised groups’ voices and concerns. On the whole, it is a vital instrument in the preservation of civil liberties and the advancement of society.

It is important to keep in mind that while freedom of expression is a universal right, it is not absolute; limitations must exist to ensure harm is not inflicted on others. This philosophical idea can be traced back to J. S. Mill, who declared that individuals have rights up until the point in which they harm other people. These limitations include national security, public safety, the protection of health, freedom from defamation, and so on. However, sometimes these categories could be broad and difficult to determine; where do we draw the line?

Censorship — Closer to Home Than You Would Expect

This results in a difficult balancing act. Censorship remains as prevalent an issue as ever. From book bans to attacks on journalists’ freedoms and security, the action of suppressing ‘offensive’ material has been around since the earliest days of civilisation. Just this week, King’s College London (KCL) academic Robert Wintemute won a landmark case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over the Lithuanian government’s censorship of a book (‘Gintarin? širdis’) featuring homosexual relationships.

Most people can agree that freedom of speech is important. In fact, most countries’ constitutions acknowledge the right to free expression, yet in practice this right is routinely infringed upon. For instance, China’s constitution grants its citizens freedom of speech and press, but as of 2022, China stands among the worst 10 countries in the world for press freedom according to Reporters Without Borders (RSF). As a result of a vague definition of ‘state secrets‘, China’s regulations allow authorities to crack-down on media they deem ‘harmful’. The result? China is currently home to one of the world’s most restrictive media environments, furthering its isolation from the global community in an age of globalisation.

Censorship is not exclusive to the Orient; according to UN expert, Irene Khan, recent years have seen a worldwide trend in the decline of media freedom and a concerning rise in threats to journalists’ safety. The digital age is a double-edged sword; although the internet has provided unprecedented opportunities for collaboration and ground-breaking reporting, it’s also brought about a rise in the spread of misinformation and targeted online attacks on marginalised groups.

Here in the UK, free speech in higher education has been a hotly debated topic in recent times, with the Office for Students highlighting it a key focus for 2023. Proposed in 2021, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill allegedly aims to protect freedom of speech in universities, following the Government’s view that it is under threat across higher education. This view is supported by the release of the 2022 Academic Freedom Index, which shows that academic freedom in the UK is on the decline. Moreover, recent research from King’s College London (KCL) suggests that while most students feel that their academic freedom and freedom of expression are protected by their universities, the number has been on a slight decline in recent years—as of 2022, 80% of students felt that they felt free to express their views at university, as opposed to 88% just 3 years ago in 2019.

Is Free Speech Absolutism a Fantasy?

On the flip side, a complete abolishment of content moderation also paints a dystopian picture.

First defined by twentieth century philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn, free speech absolutism is the belief that in order for individuals to be truly autonomous, people should be able to express themselves freely without any limitations being placed on speech by governments or the state. However, a significant distinction is that Meiklejohn’s definition only concerned political speech (i.e. speech regarding issues of public concern). This is not universal absolutism.

Today, the term has been misconstrued. The likes of Elon Musk, a self-proclaimed ‘free speech absolutist‘, have attempted to extend this concept far beyond the jurisdictions of political speech. In the infamous case of Twitter, this experiment in the elimination of content moderation has already proved to be disastrous.

Both governments and businesses are duty-bound to uphold human rights. This becomes especially significant in the case of social media platforms like Twitter; in the current digital age, social media has become a powerful tool to spread information and ideas across the globe, and wielded incorrectly, it can be used to incite tangible harm offline. The elimination of content moderation enables the mass dissemination of disinformation and hate speech. ‘Upholding’ one human right at the detriment of others is not only counterproductive, but it is dangerous. A balance must be struck.

The ability to criticise those in power without fear of prosecution is a vital element of democratic society. This is especially the case for journalists and the press, whose primary function is to inform the public. Free political speech ensures that people are able to make more well-informed judgements about policy and the happenings of the world around them, and crucially, to hold those in power accountable. That said, it is important to distinguish between the different forms of speech, particularly those which can be deemed harmful. While diversity of thought and a multiplicity of  perspectives are key to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, lines must be drawn when others’ rights are infringed upon.

One such case is that of hate speech, which is recognised by the Council of Europe as: “all types of expression that incite, promote, spread or justify violence, hatred or discrimination against a person or group of persons, or that denigrates them, by reason of their real or attributed personal characteristics or status such as “race”, colour, language, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.” What starts as hate speech can quickly escalate into violent action, often against marginalised groups. Hate speech has historically been a precursor of discrimination, stigmatisation and even atrocities such as genocide or ethnic cleansing. It has been seen time and time again across history — think of the Holocaust, and more recently, Myanmar’s Rohingya genocide. This brand of inflamatory and dehumanising speech has no place in society.

Content Moderation Laws — a Necessary Evil?

The Online Safety Bill has just had its first reading in the House of Lords on January 18. The bill has garnered critics from all sides, with many expressing concerns of the potential undermining of freedom of expression online. The Bill aims to protect children from harmful online content, through requiring social media platforms to enforce more stringent measures such as more rigid age verification through ID checks, and the introduction of new criminal offences for those who encourage self-harm via social media posts.

While it is generally agreed that the proposed Bill has good intentions, and besides the fears of censorship due to vague definitions of what could be considered ‘harmful’, serious concerns over privacy violations have also been raised. In its current form, arguments have been made that the Bill contains clauses that would effectively deal a deathblow to end-to-end encryption, putting the likes of WhatsApp (which has threatened a UK shutdown), and potentially even Apple at odds with the government. End-to-end encryption is the current gold standard for data protection, and with the Bill making no provisions for it, fears regarding cybersecurity have been amplified. The effects of weakened cybersecurity measures would be the creation of more vulnerabilities for users — the complete opposite of what is intended. Once again, the trade-off between freedom of speech and freedom from harm needs to be considered more carefully,

As with most things, the future of free speech is uncertain. Freedom of expression is a deeply nuanced matter; it can be hard to make value judgements of controversial ideas and to determine the ethicality of content moderation. And as information becomes more and more readily available, lines are becoming more blurred than ever on what constitutes ‘harmful’ media, ‘fake news’ or ‘disinformation’. As students, journalists, and global citizens, it can be hard to stay optimistic about the trajectory of the media landscape. However, one thing is certain: freedom of expression and speech are inalienable human rights, and their protection must be a priority – lest we find ourselves in an Orwellian situation.