Since the golden age of Athenian democracy, freedom of speech has been viewed as a defining feature of open societies, even as it remains under constant attack. The Athenians believed that the proper functioning of government depended on free and honest exchange of ideas, no matter how controversial or unpopular. In ancient Rome, by contrast, only senators enjoyed anything resembling free speech — and even then, as the statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero learned the hard way, speaking out could have deadly consequences.
In the centuries that followed, centralized authorities — from the Vatican to monarchies — persisted in suppressing open debate, with astronomer Galileo Galilei becoming perhaps the most famous victim of official censorship. While the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press marked a historic turning point, fueling the Protestant Reformation and ushering in an era of social and technological change, governments still sought to control printed materials.
In 1644, after the British Parliament passed a pre-publication licensing law, poet John Milton published Areopagitica, his passionate defense of free speech, declaring, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
The US Constitution’s First Amendment, deeply rooted in Enlightenment ideals, is arguably the crowning achievement of free speech advocacy. In the first half of the 20th century, as totalitarian leaders such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin ruthlessly suppressed freedom of expression, then-US president Franklin Roosevelt made it a cornerstone of his vision for a postwar global order. That is why, in his 1941 State of the Union address, Roosevelt placed free speech first among his “four freedoms.”
While free speech has become deeply embedded in Western democracies, it has not flourished everywhere. Autocrats such as Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin, to cite two notable examples, regard freedom of expression as an existential threat to their kleptocratic regimes. The ongoing crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong, where journalists are imprisoned, newspapers are shuttered and journalism itself is treated as seditious, attests to their approach.
From the printing press to the Internet, technological advances have often provided dissidents with tools to bypass government censorship. During her nearly two decades under house arrest, former Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi relied heavily on the BBC World Service to stay informed about global events.
In our hyper-connected world, where mobile phones outnumber people and most of the global population has Internet access, the decline of traditional news outlets has deepened our dependence on social media. As opaque algorithms shape the news we consume and our perception of reality, the corporations and oligarchs controlling these platforms pose a growing threat to free speech. Although they claim to be its ultimate defenders, their business model, by amplifying disinformation and identity-based grievances for profit, renounces the responsibility that sustains it.
At this critical juncture, we must ask: Should tech billionaires and “free speech absolutists” such as business magnate Elon Musk and Telegram CEO Pavel Durov — arrested in Paris on charges that his platform had become a hub for illicit activities such as drug trafficking — be above the laws enacted by democratically elected legislatures? If we embrace the most extreme libertarian view of free speech, do we not risk enabling the dissemination of child pornography and the spread of dangerous falsehoods, such as those that fueled urban riots across the UK last month?
Democratic governments around the world are increasingly seeking fair answers to these critical questions. To curb the spread of hate speech and disinformation, governments must establish clear rules and impose severe penalties on social media platforms that break them. However, knowledge-sharing and cross-border collaboration are also vital to ensuring that tech giants are held accountable and no longer shirk their responsibilities.
Addressing these challenges requires a nuanced approach to free speech, one that recognizes its importance while acknowledging the dangers of unchecked extremism.
As the great 18th century English philosopher Edmund Burke said: “Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed.” Alarmed by the violent excesses of the French Revolution, Burke viewed unchecked freedom as a threat to society. The challenge facing democratic governments today is to apply Burke’s dictum to the digital age, reining in the most harmful aspects of emerging technologies without undermining the fundamental right to free speech.
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is chancellor of the University of Oxford and the author of The Hong Kong Diaries.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
RSS