This has been a controversial topic since Mark Zuckerberg changed the rules of meta moderation, and the recent tensions between Europe and the United States over AI have only added fuel to the fire. I am of course talking about freedom of expression, a subject that can ignite a discussion on social networks or at a bar, with each person judging their approach to be the best and the other’s contrary to freedom.
Surprising then that we talk about freedom, isn’t it?
We may use the same word, but we are not talking about the same thing and we do not look at it through the same lens, so this is an opportunity to clarify a subject that crystallizes on social networks but, in fact, is omnipresent in our respective societies and cultures.
In the hope that this may help the proponents of one or other approach to understand each other if not to adopt a common view and, above all, to put an end to debates that are ultimately pointless if everyone made the effort to understand the other.
In short :
- Free speech reflects two opposing visions: in the United States, it protects against power, in Europe, it is regulated to preserve social cohesion.
- These approaches stem from different histories, between the founding mistrust of the state in the USA and the memory of authoritarian excesses in Europe.
- Numerous examples (Ku Klux Klan, boycotts, censorship) show the limits and contradictions of each system.
- Digital technology exacerbates misunderstandings by bringing incompatible cultural visions face to face in a space without filters or borders.
- The law can censor in Europe, society does it in the United States, but we need to start understanding each other if we want to debate.
Two halls, two atmospheres
And above all, two world views.
In the United States, free speech is sacred and guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which shows its importance. It has its roots in an almost founding mistrust of political, religious or judicial power, but this mistrust did not just appear out of the blue. It is important to remember that the first settlers had fled Europe to escape religiouspersecution, political censorship and authoritarian regimes, and that this profoundly shaped their vision of freedom.
Freedom of speech is therefore protected, even when it shocks, offends or disturbs, with the idea that it is not for the state to decide what one can think or say.
In Europe, and perhaps especially in France, history is marked by traumas that have left their mark: state propaganda, totalitarian excesses, hate speech preceding mass crimes. But unlike those who fled these persecutions and set out to discover the new world, those who remained opted for guaranteed but regulated freedom of expression.
Protection is not only afforded to the right to speak, but also to the right not to be hurt, threatened or discriminated against, with the result that the State plays or is supposed to play the role of filter, or even moral bulwark.
If I wanted to compare it with another subject that is the subject of debate, that of the carrying of arms, some defend the freedom to defend oneself while others aim to prevent attacks.
The same starting point, two different end points, even though the objective is to fight against the same thing.
Free speech in practice
A European tourist visiting the United States for the first time may be surprised or even shocked by certain things, but the same is true for an American discovering Europe.
Some specific examples…
If you are in the USA, the denial of the Holocaust is permitted, even though many people who fled or survived it have found asylum there. It is completely forbidden in France.
As for racism or supremacism, you will see the Ku Klux Klan allowed to demonstrate in the United States, which is unthinkable here.
In the United States, calls for boycotts are allowed, while in theory they are punishable in France even in the absence of hate speech. I say in theory because while an interpretation of an old French law prohibits it, its application by judges was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in 2020. But I don’t hear the defenders of freedom of expression in the French style condemning the call for a boycott of American products today… strange.
Blasphemy is allowed on both sides of the Atlantic (since the French Revolution, the Republic recognizes no crime against a religion). A newspaper like Charlie Hebdo has always been acquitted in relation to its caricatures of Mohammed.
Similarly, the distribution of images of police officers is authorized in both cases. France has, however, attempted to ban it in the name of national security, but this has been overturned by the Constitutional Council.
Depending on your point of view, both positions are equally respectable because they are simply the reflection of opposing world views. Americans fear power, Europeans fear chaos…
But that doesn’t mean that both approaches work perfectly.
France: between protection and suffocation
If you want to set yourself up as a model, you still have to be beyond reproach, and sometimes freedom of expression can be undermined even without harming anyone.
In France, we remember a journalist who was raided for revealing strikes carried out in Egypt with French assistance (After the arrest of Ariane Lavrilleux, journalist for “Disclose”, the embarrassment of the government) or the ban on publishing an investigation without even a contradictory debate taking place (Censorship of “Mediapart” : journalist organizations denounce an attack on the freedom of the press).
We can also talk about the bans on pro-Palestinian demonstrations for “disturbing public order” even without hate speech or observed violence or the removal of online content in the name of the fight against disinformation, again in an arbitrary manner, without transparency or the right to respond.
Even if some refuse to admit it, there is indeed a form of political censorship in France and Europe, which are not models of transparency.
And to this we can add the growing self-censorship in intellectual, media and academic circles because certain subjects become impracticable, not because of legal prohibition, but because of fear of media impact or vox populi.
A divide widened by digital technology
The globalization of the digital world has further reinforced this contrast. On social networks, opinions can circulate without cultural filters or geographical boundaries, but are interpreted through local prisms: what seems banal or legitimate in New York can shock in Paris, and vice versa. The web, far from unifying conceptions of freedom of expression and creating a kind of globalized culture, only increases tensions.
This is not a legal debate but a cultural divide. Where the American defends the right to say anything in the name of freedom, the Frenchman wants to prevent certain words from threatening social cohesion. One sees censorship as a democratic betrayal and the other as an act of responsibility.
This explains why debates on platform moderation, cancel culture, satire or collective memory are so difficult to conduct on an international scale. We think we are discussing the same subject, but we do not share the same cultural foundations.
In the United States, is free speech really free?
But each system can generate its own biases, as we have seen with the case of France.
The American system guarantees almost absolute legal freedom, but in reality, this does not mean that all opinions can be expressed without consequence. Indeed, for the past ten years or so, we have been seeing a rise in self-censorship in academic, media and cultural circles, not under pressure from the State, but from society itself, even if the last presidential elections showed a certain amount of fed-up expression on the subject
In this case, it is no longer the law that punishes, but the vox populi.
I am thinking in particular of “cancel culture”, which is closely linked to wokism but is not limited to it.
Wokism is an ideological stance, originally progressive, based on vigilance against systemic discrimination, social domination, racism, sexism, etc. It is based on a desire to make visible forms of oppression that are often trivialized.
Cancel culture, on the other hand, is a social practice that consists of publicly “canceling” or disqualifying a person or work for comments deemed offensive or contrary to a dominant moral standard. This can take the form of calls for boycotts, exclusions, dismissals or online campaigns.
In other words, if wokeness is a framework for interpreting the world, cancel culture is sometimes its armed wing, but not all forms of cancel culture come from wokeness.
Public figures have been dismissed for making statements considered problematic or offensive, even in nuanced or long-standing contexts. The consequence is widespread self-censorship, not out of fear of the law, but of collective reaction.
In 2020, a survey by a libertarian think tank (always useful to point out) showed that 62% of Americans said they were uncomfortable expressing their opinions, even moderate ones (Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share). And even if the source may suggest that the statement is biased, it also shows that this is a sentiment that is widely shared across the political spectrum.
Even progressives have warned of the paradoxical effects of this climate, with less debate and more conformism. The last elections clearly proved them right, with what may be a return to the fundamentals of American culture.
In a way, one can therefore be legally free, but socially gagged.
Understanding instead of judging
The aim is not to designate a “best” model. Both have their virtues and their excesses, and just as the American approach can sometimes exasperate me, so the approach of some Europeans who look at the USA from afar without knowing the country and with short-sightedness, allowing themselves to judge, systematically makes me bristle. No, Americans are not Europeans living on the other side of the ocean, so if we want others to respect our culture, let’s start by understanding and respecting theirs.
But what is certain is that our frames of reference are partly incompatible. What one considers an affront to dignity is seen by the other as a legitimate opinion. What one perceives as dangerous speech, the other considers to be the very condition of freedom.
As long as each one judges the other with their own frame of reference, dialogue is and will remain impossible.
Bottom line
Whatever your view on the subject, freedom of opinion online and in life deserves vigilance. It is not about defending the dominant ideas but about tolerating what is disturbing without necessarily accepting it but discussing it.
The question should not be “how far can we go?” but rather: “how far are we willing to let others go, even if we disagree?”
But for that to happen, people need to understand and listen to each other.
Visual credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
