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
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS