Throughout human history, thousands of people have died in the struggle over freedom of expression and where its limits lie. The Greek philosopher Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian Council in 399 BC for denying the state-approved gods and seducing the youth. The Catholic monk Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for his cosmological ideas, which contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church at the time but ultimately proved to be more correct. Iranian blogger Ruhollah Zam was executed in Iran in 2020 on charges including “anti-government propaganda” and “insulting Islam”.
Iranian blogger Ruhollah Zam was executed in Iran in 2020 on charges including ‘anti-government propaganda’ and ‘insulting Islam’.
In authoritarian systems, speaking or writing that criticises the government has always been dangerous, often punishable by imprisonment or even death. But even in the world's democracies, the question of what constitutes freedom of expression and where its limits lie is becoming increasingly contentious. At the Munich Security Conference in February, for example, current US Vice President JD Vance accused European governments and the EU of threatening freedom of expression.
What freedom of expression means and where its limits lie is not just a legal question. It has increasingly become part of a culture war and a debate about political beliefs and moral values.
In the United States, for example, the right to freedom of expression is interpreted broadly and has a particularly high status as the first amendment to the Constitution. The state may only intervene to restrict it in very exceptional cases. Even insults to other people, including politicians, or lies are largely covered by the protection of freedom of expression, as are discriminatory statements or so-called hate speech. This is partly because there is a strong belief in US society that the free market of ideas is best regulated by some kind of invisible hand.
Whether this is actually the case is also doubted in the US itself, where discriminatory statements against groups perceived as weaker (minorities, certain ethnicities, skin colours, people with different gender identities and sexual orientations) are no longer accepted without further ado.
Representatives of more conservative and politically right-wing parties in particular criticise this linguistic sensitisation as part of a “cancel culture” that hinders the free expression of opinion. According to them, even racist, misogynist or homophobic statements are protected by the right to freedom of expression.
During the covid-pandemic, there was a fierce debate in many European countries and also in the USA about how to deal with the issue in the media or on the internet, for example on social media. On the one hand, “covid sceptics” or “deniers”, who believed that the pandemic was a hoax perpetrated by certain interest groups in governments or the pharmaceutical industry, for example, or that its dangers were exaggerated, wanted to spread their views on the subject, while on the other hand, all those who believed that the pandemic was dangerous argued in favour of restricting news or reports that denied or played down covid.
With the goal of not allowing “fake news”, false information, lies or unsubstantiated claims to interfere with the effective fight against the pandemic, the US government also put pressure on major online social media providers to delete certain messages or block certain channels on Twitter, Facebook or YouTube.
[Freedom of expression] has increasingly become part of a culture war and a debate about political beliefs and moral values.
This often involved so-called “conspiracy theorists” or right-wing extremist individuals and groups. One man's conspiracy theory is another man's truth. And so, in this conflict, covid sceptics also invoked the right to freedom of expression, arguing that any restriction on debate was unacceptable. One of the loudest voices in this dispute was, of all people, US President Donald Trump, who is now back in office, as well as his vice-president J.D. Vance and Elon Musk, currently the richest person in the world, who bought the Twitter news platform in 2022.
He also had many accounts reactivated that had previously been suspended for racist, trans-homophobic or violence-glorifying content and conspiracy narratives in order to, as he said, defend freedom of speech.
Does this mean that freedom of expression is paramount for the new US administration? Donald Trump's angry reactions to politicians and journalists who question his statements, his actions against universities, his attempts to crack down on critics of his policies in the administration or in the media and universities, but also the treatment of critics of the current Israeli policy in Gaza in the US, who are quickly accused of anti-Semitism, tend to suggest the opposite. Freedom of expression applies to those who support a particular political orientation. This is also the case in authoritarian states.
But it is not that simple, as the debate over anti-Semitism, “criticism of Israel” and criticism of the Israeli government shows.
Many European countries have a more limited view of what is and what is not covered by freedom of expression. In Germany, freedom of expression is indeed protected by Article 5 of the Basic Law. Particularly after the experience of National Socialism, the protection of freedom of expression should be given high priority in the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, which has been in force since 1949.
However, this freedom of expression is subject to legal restrictions, for example in the case of incitement to hatred, slander, libel or defamation. These are punishable offences. The protection of individuals or groups against discrimination or their personal rights is more firmly anchored in the German legal tradition than in the US. This is also true of other European countries.
This means that discriminatory statements against groups such as refugees, or deliberately negative false reports about them, are not covered by freedom of speech in Germany and can be punishable by law. Spreading lies about individuals can also be punished, especially on the internet. Public figures and politicians in particular enjoy special protection in Germany and can also take action against insults. This has happened frequently in recent years.
For example, a former civil judge was fined for repeatedly calling former Economics Minister Robert Habeck a complete idiot on the internet and writing that the Green politician was as popular as dog faeces. Such statements would be protected by freedom of speech in the US, but not in Germany.
The fact that the interpretation of freedom of expression also depends on cultural and historical circumstances, and not only on whether a country is governed authoritatively or democratically, is illustrated by the intense debate in Germany on the issue of anti-Semitism or National Socialism. In particular, the experience of the persecution and murder of people of the Jewish faith has made antisemitic acts a criminal offence in Germany, as has the display and wearing of symbols that are considered unconstitutional in this country.
Particularly since the start of the war in Gaza following the attack by Hamas terrorists on Israel on 7 October, protests on the streets and debates on the Internet have repeatedly led to people being arrested and punished for making anti-Semitic statements or wearing allegedly anti-Semitic or anti-constitutional symbols such as the “Palestinian scarf”. Where legitimate criticism of the Israeli government's actions in Gaza ends and anti-Semitism begins is a matter of debate and depends on the political views of individuals.
The fact that Germany feels and has a special responsibility towards the State of Israel can be explained by history. But how can a clear distinction be made between legitimate opposition to the war and the atrocities and human rights violations of anti-Semitism and incitement to hatred that take place within it?
Where legitimate criticism of the Israeli government's actions in Gaza ends and anti-Semitism begins is a matter of debate and depends on the political views of individuals.
When can a photomontage of a former German chancellor in a hijab with the caption “Traitor to the People” or drawings of politicians on the gallows be considered incitement to violence or blatant insult, and when is it protected by “freedom of expression”? Should fabricated stories about violent foreigners be reported? These are also questions that can sometimes be answered by the different legal cultures in different countries.
However, both total freedom of expression, where anything can be said and no one, not even a government, can restrict that right, and restricting it, even with the best of intentions to protect certain groups or individuals, have their pitfalls. In many countries, restrictive regulations are the gateway to oppression and authoritarianism – in the name of religion, in the name of national security, in the name of peace.
In Rwanda, where a terrible genocide took place in 1994, killing between 500.000 and one million people (the exact number is disputed in Rwanda), it is officially described as a genocide against the Tutsi ethnic group, although Hutus were also killed between April and July 1994. Today, people no longer speak of Hutu and Tutsi, but only of Rwandans, so as not to jeopardise the stability of the country. Public mention of the different labels can be punished as divisionism. The official aim is not to jeopardise a new national social beginning.
This is understandable, given that the ethnic divide was one of the reasons for the genocide in Rwanda. On the other hand, the authoritarian regime of Rwandan President Paul Kagame is also using the suppression of the debate on ethnic categorisation and the prevention of a future genocide to consolidate its power.
Within Moroccan state circles, the Western Sahara region is recognised as part of Morocco, and this must be reflected on maps. Many Sahrawis from Western Sahara find this offensive, as they continue to insist on independence or at least autonomy. Furthermore, even the United Nations has not recognised Western Sahara as part of Morocco.
So, should the Sahrawis' claims be honoured, and should Western Sahara be marked as a separate territory on maps? Whose sensitivities or territorial claims carry more weight?
When it comes to Christian churches, criticism and even denigration, or hurting the feelings of believers, can be tolerated – at least in many secular societies. In 2012, a German satirical magazine published a cover picture with a caricature of Pope Benedict XVI with a yellow stain on his cassock and the caption, “Hurray, the leak in the Vatican has been found”, referring to the betrayal of secrets in the Vatican. Although many Catholics were offended and the Vatican wanted to sue the magazine, the image was protected by German law on freedom of expression.
Another obscene cover, in a December 2020 issue, consisted of a drawing of then-Pope Francis with a crucifix in his anus. Behind him is Jesus, his privates peeking out from under his robe. The pope says, "Mon Dieu!" (My God), and Jesus replies in a speech bubble, "Are you thinking of him again?" Although the Vatican did not file a lawsuit this time, the U.S. Internet search service Google blocked the cover image in its App Store on the grounds of obscenity.
Cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in a Danish daily were protected there by freedom of expression. They caused uproar and protests in the Islamic world, with many deaths.
What should freedom of expression protect? When should people's feelings be respected, even if they are legally violated in the name of freedom of expression? Where does discrimination against certain groups begin, and how much offensive speech should someone be able to tolerate? When is a restriction on free speech used to limit critical discourse or even to silence unwanted voices? When is it used to advance power politics?
And when are demands for freedom of expression used to strengthen certain political currents, populist or far-left or far-right movements that openly seek to attack a state order? Should lies and fake news be restricted or allowed in the hope that the truth will prevail in the end?
The answers to these questions remain controversial, but only through open discourse can answers be found. And not everything that can be said must be said. Decency and compassion prohibit some statements that might hurt others. In the end, it is also about empathy and trying to respect and understand other people's opinions and feelings. But even then, how can we discuss ideas on political, scientific, or religious topics if we deny one side its statements?
Not everything that can be said must be said. Decency and compassion prohibit some statements that might hurt others.
The struggle for freedom and boundaries of expression continues. But we should be aware that our personal opinions often have no universal claim and are not necessarily shared by our neighbours. The hope is that we can peacefully discuss and respect the different views of our fellow human beings, even if they do not coincide with our own.
Culture has a strategic role to play in the process of European unification. What about cultural relations within Europe? How can cultural policy contribute to a European identity? In the Culture Report Progress Europe, international authors seek answers to these questions. Since 2021, the Culture Report is published exclusively online.
