Freedom of speech
Some of the most interesting debates between Liberals are those, where an order of priority between different rights has to be established. A star example of such a debate is the debate on freedom of speech. The rise of right wing extremism has made this debate, unfortunately, more needed day by day. Some countries have a policy of forbidding for example publications promoting racism or anti-Semitism. In other countries there are no such limitations on freedom of speech.
In this article I will try to give some more abstract views on human rights, and try to demonstrate that the basic human right of freedom of speech has its limits. The article is based on two important assumptions. First of all, I think that any right or freedom ends when and where it starts infringing the rights and freedoms of others. Secondly, I have a definition of "violence" which extends beyond fists, knifes and guns. I am not sure whether the "pen is mightier than the sword" but I am sure that words can be just as hurting, degrading and threatening as physical force.
My basic line of reasoning is that it is not possible to single out one human right and declare it dominant over all others. All the rights of all individuals in a democratic, tolerant society have to be kept in a careful balance.
Human Rights
At a first glance it seems very easy to say that there can be no limitation to basic human rights. But in practice there are limitations, and sometimes for good reasons. The right to free movement is mentioned in for example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But in practice freedom of movement is often limited, for example for reasons of safety or privacy. The same Declaration gives the right to participate in government, directly or in free elections. But also this right is limited, for example for the mentally handicapped or for prisoners.
The Organisation of American States 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..." 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". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains similar texts.
Similarly, all three treaties contains paragraphs forbidding the interference in the private life, family and home of human beings. In fact, one could argue that publications about Bill Clinton having an affair with his secretary or smoking a joint are an infringement of his private life, and have nothing to do with freedom of expression. Unless of course one follows the reasoning of the media, who say that the American voter has a right to know such things because a man who cannot be loyal to his wife can also not be loyal to his country and his people.
The three treaties above, some of the basics of human rights as we define them today, all recognise a limitation to the rights of the individual. Freedom of speech is no exception to this. The rights of each individual are limited by the rights of others. These rights do not merely include freedom of speech, but equally a basic right to dignity, privacy and respect and the basic right not to be subjected to degrading or inhuman treatment.
Human rights serve a purpose. They have to give citizens a shield, a protection, against their government and their fellow men and enable them to life a free life. This leads to the question if the shield may be used to justify attacks against others.
Freedom of Speech
In my opinion, there are limits to freedom of speech just as there are limits to any other basic human right. The first and main one is that of individual responsibility. Individual responsibility, by the way, is also one of the basic principles of Liberalism. Freedom of speech is a right. It is a right given to all citizens of the world, although unfortunately not all of them actually enjoy it, with the purpose of enabling them to speak freely in a free society. But with this right comes a duty: the duty not to use this right against its very purpose. Freedom of speech may not be used to threaten, insult or limit the freedom, dignity and privacy of others. In the ideal situation, everyone would have enough sense of responsibility not to abuse freedom of speech. In practice, this is obviously not the case. Therefore, in my opinion, an ideological and legal framework has to be found to limit freedom of speech. Such a statement, obviously, is treading on thin ice. The risks of limiting free speech are very serious indeed.
Right and Duties
The rights of each individual are limited by the rights of others. That means that a balance has to be sought between freedom of speech and other rights, such as the ones mentioned above. This is a very difficult discussion, and I will admit immediately that every liberal, from the same principles, will reach very different conclusions when making such choices.
For starters, I would say that the right to privacy is not important enough to limit freedom of expression. There should be sufficient possibility to prosecute infringements of privacy for example under laws on slander and to demand compensation. However, arguing, as some people do, that the privacy of politicians and other public figures should be protected is not something I will do. This is a choice, I value free information about politics and political life so much more than the right to privacy of politicians, that I would not choose to protect their privacy.
On the other hand I would choose to forbid expressions that touch on the very roots of a democratic and tolerant society.
Expressions of racism, xenophobia and intolerance should be forbidden. This is obviously a serious limitation to the freedom of expression of certain individuals and their organisations. But, although this is serious, I care more about other rights in this situation. I think that it is degrading and inhuman to confront Jews with texts from Hitler's "Mein Kampf" or to deny the murdering of six million Jews during the second world war. And I am of the opinion that this is the kind of degrading and inhuman treatment that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is referring to in article 5. As I have said before, I think that words can be just as destructive, just as inhuman and degrading, as physical abuse. This is an opinion and not a fact, but sometimes politics is about having opinions and having the courage to make difficult choices.
Equally, I feel that expressions that argue against democracy or want to limit democracy to white, heterosexual males are far beyond my personal limits. And yes, this is again a serious infringements on the rights of some. But I am of the opinion that no one is allowed to use their rights for the destruction of these very same rights or the promotion of such destruction. There are duties, responsibilities, that are in integral part of rights. To be able to claim rights, one has to take responsibility for defending those same rights.
Conclusions
It is extremely difficult to make choices between different rights. Also, as I have written before, I acknowledge that different liberals with the same principles and ideals will make very different choices in this questions.
I support the idea, however, that a basic human right may not be used for the destruction of the rights of others. And this principle is an important one, even though its practical implementation is not always easy. One cannot take a single human right and declare that the most important one. Human rights as defined in for example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN are a delicate system of different rights. A balance between rights and a balance between rights and duties.
In today's world, the ideas as sketched above will mean forbidding for example racist and anti-Semitic expressions. This is a controversy, I know. However, if we are not prepared to make controversial choices to protect our democratic and tolerant societies, we might lose them. A lesson history has taught us at the expense of millions of lives.
Jan Weijers is Executive Director of IFLRY. This article strictly reflects his personal opinions. This article originally appeared in Libel (number 4 of 1993), the magazine of the International Federation of Liberal and Radical Youth (IFLRY).
