This notion has since been enshrined in national legislation around the globe. After the debacle of World War II, freedom of expression was included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the concept itself goes back much further. In the late 17th century, the English Parliament secured a Bill of Rights that granted “freedom of speech in Parliament,” and in the US, the founding fathers introduced the First Amendment of the US Constitution in 1791, guaranteeing freedom of religion, press and expression.Yet, in the 21st century, freedom of expression appears to be in danger of being eroded everywhere. It is somewhat ironic, given that communication technology allows ideas to spread faster and more easily. But judging from the flurry of court cases that are taking place around the world, the limits of freedom of expression are constantly being tested and challenged, even in the most advanced of democracies.
Here are some recent examples:
In Thailand, a Swiss man faces 75 years in prison for insulting the king by defacing his portraits while drunk. The Thai king is protected by law from criticism;
In Turkey, a court suspended access to the Internet Web site You Tube for a few days because a Greek teenager uploaded a video insulting Atatürk;
Last week, a Swiss court in Lausanne sentenced Doğu Perinçek, the leader of Turkey’s Workers’ Party to a heavy fine for saying that the Armenian genocide was an “imperialist lie” under the terms of a law devised to combat racism;
In Turkey, a court case has been launched against a group of young people who wrote the lyrics of a song criticizing the university entrance exam system;
In France, the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is facing defamation charges for reprinting the Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad that caused protests across the Muslim world;
In 2006, an Austrian court jailed British “historian” David Irving for denying that the Holocaust against the Jews had ever taken place.
At stake here are not the ideas themselves, but the freedom to express them. Clearly, one can only reject the vile position adopted by Irving, yet it is questionable whether jailing him was the best way to protect Austria from a resurgence of anti-Semitism. For the same reason, Germany’s proposal to introduce a Europe-wide ban on Holocaust denial should be approached with caution. And while the Armenian question should be open to free debate, a Swiss court may not be best placed to issue a judgment on a historical matter. Meanwhile, in Turkey, the debate on Article 301 continues.
Should freedom of expression be unlimited? If not, where should it end? Finding the right answers to these questions is one of the most crucial issues facing liberal societies. Democracy cannot survive without the oxygen of free speech, but the fear that is gripping the world threatens to smother it. Napoleon Bonaparte believed that “a people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything.” Perhaps we should all remember that freedom of expression is the best antidote to all forms of radicalism.
