One of simple questions that can easily spark tense debates is, “Is there any limit to freedom of expression or free speech?” This is an intriguing question because freedom itself means the quality or state of being free—unbounded. It implies an unlimited space to perform any particular function which could suggest that there is no limitation to the freedom of expression. And so the question is rather paradoxical, freedom and restriction.  How can we understand this? Luckily, it is not as puzzling as one may think. While the first word, “free” or “freedom”, implies an unrestricted condition, the second word, “speech” or “expression”, implies a presence of a set of boundaries. Therefore, in freedom of expression, it is the “expression” or “speech” that gives boundaries to the word “freedom” or “free”.

But do both concepts have equal weight? Can one put much more emphasis on one of the words and less on the other? This is not a trivial question. Almost all debates on the free speech actually revolve around that question. Putting too much emphasis on freedom could lead to anarchy. Likewise, putting too much emphasis on speech could lead to repression. Although differences in emphasis lead to a significant difference in consequence, how much weight should be put on either one of the words continues to be the subject of debates. Since there is less controversy on the meaning on “freedom”, essentially the debates are mainly focus on “expression”.

Expression, Ideas and Truth

From the moments of their birth to their death, almost all people express themselves.  Newborn babies cry to tell the people around them that they are alive and need some attention. In death, people close their eyes as if saying goodbye to the world and will never see it anymore. Both are forms of human expression.

Expression is our way to connect and share with others. To understand the fundamental meaning of freedom of expression will help us to build a peaceful connection and a meaningful sharing with others. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, expression is (1) an act, process, or instance of representing in a medium; (2) something that symbolizes something else; (3) a mode, means, or use of significant representation or symbolism; and (4) a formulated thought or opinion. Clearly, speech is a subset of expression because expression encompasses various aspects from speech, ideas and action. It can be abstract, such as ideas or art works, but it can also be very concrete such as a baby’s cry.

This very nature of expression makes freedom of expression the utmost need of human beings.  Franklin D. Roosevelt, the former US president during the WW II, for instance once said, “We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.” The foundation of free speech is the right to be different. Like people’s fingerprint or DNA structures, people’s minds are also unique. The ways people think and see the world are not always the same as those of others. Freedom of expression is thus bonded in special and unique ways to the human capacity to think, imagine and create. It is part of the human personality itself, a value intimately intertwined with human autonomy and dignity. It is then the very nature of human beings to have different opinions and thoughts from those of others. And that has to be protected by granting freedom of expression to everyone even to the point where one would defiantly and irreverently speak one’s mind. Freedom of expression is intended not only to promote different ideas, but also to protect the controversial and even outrageous words, with the exception of hateful propagandas.

Freedom of expression is the basic human right.

But the reason for human beings to express things is not for the sake of expression per se. And the need for freedom of expression is not merely for the sake of freedom. As expression also means a formulated thought or opinion, freedom of expression is intimately linked to freedom of thought and to our capacity to reason, wonder, hope and believe, that largely defines our humanity.  Reason, wonder, hope and belief are all tied in one word: Truth. It is the quest for truth that becomes one of the main purposes of human expression. And it is also the search for truth that becomes the underlying reason for the need for freedom of expression.

What is truth and how can we find it? Truth in the post-modern sense is more about consensus than it is absolutes. While the absolute truth is often left as the subject of debates among Theologians, the consensus truth is something about each other, our cultures and our world. It is built and found through the exchange or clash of ideas.  As David Hume (1711-1776) once said, “Truth springs from argument amongst friends,” oftentimes, ideas clash and truths are buried beneath debates. It is by fostering and encouraging this clash that help bring truth to the surface.

But the consensus truth is not the same as what majority says or as what the authority declares to be truth. The classical example is the case of Galileo and Bruno in the sixteenth century who embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors.  In 1530, Copernicus completed and gave to the world his great work De Revolutionibus which asserted that the earth rotated on its axis once daily and traveled around the sun once yearly, a fantastic concept for the times.  As in the word of Galileo, “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them,” finding truth is an arduous process or according to Sigmund Freud, it is a trial and error process. And that trial and error process is in the form of the exchange or clash of ideas. 

That’s why freedom of expression is so essential in finding truths. Freedom of expression will foster the exchange or the clash of ideas without fearing of any open or hidden social conflicts. During the process—the exchange of ideas—people, as Milton Friedman, a noble prize winner in Economics argues will always reject what is false and embrace what is true in time. This is exactly in the spirit of David Hume. What Hume meant with “amongst friends” could also be interpreted as an open and friendly environment. It is also in the spirit of Adam Smith, a modern founder of Economics, who believe in laissez-faire economic theory where over the long run free economic markets are superior to command-and-control economies. The key notion is a perfect competition of ideas. In the word of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. an influential member of the United States Supreme Court for over 30 years, “The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas [and] the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market” (dissent, Abrams v. United States, 1919).

Freedom of expression is a foundation for finding truths.

Restrictions

So, there are at least three reasons for freedom of expression: human right, human’s nature, and the necessary condition for finding truths. The question now is should there be any restrictions on freedom of expression? The answer is yes. Just as freedom is not free, freedom of expression comes with certain boundaries. The first boundary is the rights and the freedom of others. Any right or freedom ends when and where it starts violating the rights and freedoms of others.

This is a universal principle that must be upheld. The article 29(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly of the United Nations resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, for instance states, “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe states, “The exercise of these freedoms [freedom of expression], since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society ... for the protection of rights of others”. And the Organization of American States for instance adopted the American Convention on Human Rights. Article 32 of this Convention states: “The rights of each person are limited by the rights of others...”

The second boundary comes with the notion that “words” can be just as painful, degrading and threatening as “sword”. If we can accept that emotional injuries can be just as painful as physical ones we should limit speech that may hurt people's feelings in ways similar to the way we limit speech that may lead directly to bodily harm.  This boundary is intended to protect people from emotional and physical distress that might be inflicted by freedom of expression. 

While freedom of speech is a right, it comes with a responsibility—the third boundary. That is a responsibility not to use this right against its very purpose, to protect people’s basic rights. Ideally, freedom of speech may not be used to threaten, insult or limit the freedom, dignity and privacy of others. However, reality often reveals different story.  Expressions of racism, xenophobia, intolerance, hateful speech or hateful propaganda are not uncommon.

In such case, the government and society have the right to limit freedom of expression because our failure to address such abuses would suggest that our society condones such ignorant and hateful views. As the lesson from the Rwanda genocide has shown, hateful speech not only can cause emotional pain and suffering in victims, it can provoke a communal violence. Respecting the basic human right—freedom of expression—and banning hateful speech can be sometimes a delicate balance. However, if we are not prepared to make controversial choices to protect our democratic and tolerant society, we might lose them. Restriction of freedom of expression must be enforced in order to protect society from such hateful expression, and legal framework has to be established to enforce the restrictions.

Ultimately, all rest upon the individuals—the human factor. Albert Einstein understood this perfectly when he said, “Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man presents his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.” 

Unless human beings possess unlimited patience and love, there will always be restrictions on hateful expression.  In other words, freedom of expression must come with tolerance and responsibilities.