Introduction
As Albert Einstein said, “Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man presents his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.” Even though the laws exist to protect human rights, these laws are often violated in the context of authoritarian restrictions and social prejudices. Thus, people should learn to be tolerant of each other and respect the rights of each other. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines tolerance as “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.” However, when society is too tolerant to all utterances, including hate speech and harassment, and those who say such words are not punished, the rights and freedoms of those to whom these words concern are violated. One can see that people should be taught to control themselves and distinguish between free speech and hate speech to prevent intolerance. Thus, it is important to find a golden mean between freedom of expression and tolerance and ensure that human utterances do not violate other people’s rights. Although the laws can protect humans from violating their rights and punish those who violate these rights, only the population’s tolerance will be able to maintain peace and freedom in the world.
The concept of freedom of expression is distinctively new. Freedom Forum Institute defines freedom of expression as “the ability of an individual or group of individuals to express their beliefs, thoughts, ideas, and emotions about different issues free from government censorship.” Since ancient times, people were punished for their words and opinions, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation. For example, early Christian theologists destroyed the writings of their opponents, Byzantine iconoclasts demolished religious symbols they considered impious, and modern Europeans imprisoned, tortured, and killed everyone deemed to be religious dissenters. The first religious toleration case occurred in 1598 when the French monarch Henry IV decided to unify a realm split by religious conflict. However, less than one hundred years after that, this privilege was canceled. At the same time, the English philosopher John Locke offered his theoretical justification of religious tolerance, claiming that neither of the religious groups fully obeyed the laws, so neither of them should be allowed to participate in public life. Since those times, the attitudes toward freedom of expression and tolerance would change significantly.
This essay will critically discuss the concepts of freedom of expression and tolerance. The first part will provide background information on the subject, including the prerequisites for freedom of expression. The literature review section will examine different scholarly articles and other sources of information, focusing on the freedom of speech and opinion and tolerance. In this section, the following themes will be reviewed: public opinion about the freedom of expression, the importance of cultural tolerance, the protection of the human right to freedom, limits and boundaries of free speech, various perspectives on the subject, the freedom of expression in the digital age, and some others. The next section will provide recommendations and suggestions on the problem of free speech and its solution. Finally, the last section will sum everything up and make necessary conclusions.
Background Information
Freedom of expression is an essential constituent of every democratic society. The prerequisites for the freedom of expression in the United States would change after adopting the First Amendment and the Post Office Act of 1792. According to this act, the government had no right to check personal correspondence, claiming that people had the right to private information and communication. At the same time, the laws guaranteed free press only to the central government, and most advertisements and news in media highlighted only political issues. In the nineteenth century, Americans restricted free speech from the governmental perspective and the public view. For instance, if a journalist published some unpopular ideas, they would be oppressed by the majority and, in some cases, even killed. Such cases did not remain unnoticed, and in 1859, the philosopher John Stuart Mill published his book On Liberty, dedicated to the freedom of expression and other important subjects.
In his book, Mill promoted individual freedom and defended free thought over the tyranny of the majority. According to his tolerance theory, if people could freely exchange different thoughts and opinions, there would be more chances to discover the truth. This theory was based on the principles of utilitarianism, meaning that people would be better off if the diversity of thoughts and expressions were allowed than if it were censored. Later on, Lee Bollinger would rephrase Mill’s expression, arguing that people should not tolerate the extremist speech, thus learning to control the “impulse toward intolerance.” Nowadays, the domain of free expression has changed, but its main principles are based on those early conceptions of the meaning of free speech and tolerance.
Literature Review
Public Opinion about the Freedom of Expression
Survey reports demonstrated the real attitude of Americans toward free speech and tolerance. Thus, 71 percent of all Americans believe that “political correctness silences discussions society needs to have,” while 28 percent think that political correctness helps people “avoid offending others.” Reports show that 58 percent of Americans feel that the current political climate does not allow them to discuss things they believe freely and openly. At the same time, 59 percent of Americans are sure that all people have the right to express unpopular and even offensive opinions in public. Nevertheless, 79 percent agree that hate speech against racial and religious groups is morally unacceptable. Such a difference in views makes the topic of freedom of expression and tolerance crucial and relevant today.
The attitudes of people across the globe towards freedom of expression and democracy are similar. Most people believe that their rights are protected in their countries. Thus, 68% of the citizens of countries with advanced economies and 55% of those who live in countries with emerging economies affirm that their countries protect their freedom of expression. Most of these countries are situated in North America and Europe. The situation in Middle-Eastern countries and the Asia-Pacific region is similar. However, in Nigeria, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Italy, and some other countries, only about half of the population say that people can express their opinions freely, and the government will protect them. For example, the Nigerian Broadcasting Commission (NBC) “suspended the broadcast licenses of two subsidiaries of Daar Communications, […], giving broad and vague reasons.” In other cases, the government claimed that social media users threatened the country’s security and peace by posting some information online. In Brazil, people claim that the government is hostile and intolerant to the media. Thus, Brazil’s right-wing regime offered to “censor textbooks to promote conservative values” in educational institutions. More than two hundred attacks on media and press were also reported in Brazil. All these cases explain why the population of some countries does not believe in the freedom of speech in their homelands and feels that their rights are violated.
The following article by Ronaldo Porto Macedo Junior examines the Brazilian interpretation of freedom of speech. The author writes that more and more Brazilians tend to support the European model of free speech. First, Macedo examines some Brazilian cases of the freedom of speech debates and violations. For example, the prohibition of Hitler’s book Mein Kampf (2016) was based on its racist content, contrary to human rights. The author argues that this case is a good example of the “poor analysis of the concept of incitement.” Macedo mentions such cases as the prohibition of biblical billboard quotes during the gay parade (2011), the Marihuana March (2011), Levy Fidelix case (homophobia) (2014), and the Ellwanger case – racism and holocaust denial (2003). The author claims that these cases were supported with ideological biases instead of legal arguments. He suggests that Brazilians should learn from the U.S. experience, where the First Amendment results from practical experience rather than doctrinal reasoning applied to the cases mentioned above.
The Importance of Cultural Tolerance
The article “Increasing American Political Tolerance: A Framework Excluding Hate Speech” by Anna Boch focuses on the historical development of tolerance in the United States. The author examines the changes that occurred in political tolerance and offers a new formulation of this term. Particularly, Boch emphasizes the attitude of Americans toward hate speech. Thus, in European countries, hate speech has been banned since the Holocaust times. In Canada, hate speech is also prohibited under the official policy of multiculturalism. In Europe, speech is considered positive freedom, i.e., “freedom from hate through the government’s involvement in regulating speech,” while in the United States, it is negative freedom or freedom from government censorship. Nowadays, Americans begin to adopt the European perspective on tolerance. Over the past 20 years, the number of tolerant groups in America increased from 29 percent in 1996 to 37 percent in 2018. Tolerance toward the racist and extremist Muslim groups is increasing, while tolerance of hate speech is stagnating.
In his article “Why a Culture of Free Expression Demands Tolerance,” Alec Greven emphasizes the importance of both the laws and a robust culture needed to protect speech and expression. The author writes that even though the First Amendment “prevents censorship from the government,” it does not apply in many private sectors. For example, the law does not forbid employers to fire their employees for their political opinions. Greven believes that if such cases become widespread, political engagement will decrease, and people will begin to self-censor. The problem is that “the threat of social backlash can silence speech just as effectively as any military police force.” The author offers to reconsider the current laws and protect those who want to participate in politics but do not want to be fired or harassed for their political beliefs. Greven argues that people should have the right to criticize each other, but their critique should not offend or ostracize the community members for their views. In democratic societies, opposing views will always exist, but such societies cannot function well without respect for any disagreements and critique.
Protection of the Human Right to Freedom of Expression
In the article “Protecting the Human Right to Freedom of Expression in International Law,” Howie discusses the cases of the violation of the freedom of expression in some civil societies. The author reviews free speech in western democracies, arguing that freedom of expression is under hazard all around the world. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948) protects the freedom of opinion and expression in any place and any time, many governments in western democracies attempt to limit these freedoms and do not allow their citizens to take part in public debates and discussions. For example, in Australia, anti-protest laws were developed to criminalize peaceful protests, even when they occurred for a short time. Moreover, the freedom of the press is also jeopardized in democratic societies. Thus, the Australian Federal Police have admitted “to unlawfully accessing a journalist’s metadata without the relevant warrant.” Similar cases occurred in many European counties, and they dissuaded people from expressing their opinions freely.
Limits and Boundaries of Free Speech
Although most scientists and philosophers agree that all people have the right to freedom of expression, they also admit that this freedom has boundaries and limitations. Thus, J. S. Mill did not deny that some expressions might cause harm and interfere with other people’s thoughts and opinions, neither did he argue that such utterances “ought never to be restricted.” Moreover, the philosopher supposed that harmful expressions had to be restricted in extreme situations. Besides, freedom of expression should be tolerated because there is no certain definition of what is true and what is false. From the perspective of consequentialism, the limitation of the freedom of expression is the exception. According to this view, a person is entitled to be engaged in any activity related to the freedom of expression unless a restriction on this activity is clearly justified.
In the article “Limits of Free Speech,” Parekh (2017) focuses on the reasons why some utterances should be prohibited. The author agrees that free speech is important and should be protected in various spheres of life. For example, in political life, free speech helps people critically examine various ideas, expand their intellectual and moral sympathy, and check on the government effectively. However, sometimes, the freedom of expression may have a harmful effect on other people. Thus, hate speech should be prohibited because it may have long-term consequences, such as widespread hatred, a sense of outrage, and different sorts of violence. Europeans remember the rise of Fascism and Nazism, the determinant of which was hate speech. Therefore, if modern democratic societies want to prevent the rise of racist or other hate movements, hate speech should be discouraged by social and moral pressure and prohibited by law.
Various Perspectives on the Subject
One study showed that economic freedom was positively associated with tolerance. Thus, Berggren and Nilsson (2016) claim that more economic freedom usually denotes more tolerance towards atheists, communists, and homosexuals, but not towards racists. By economic freedom, the authors mean the change in the tax levels, such as a more general and lower taxation and modest regulation. Economic freedom does not increase tolerance towards racists because it is not related to a willingness to let racists teach college students. One can explain such differences in human tolerance in the following way: atheists, communists, and homosexuals usually do not discriminate against other religious, political, or sexual groups. They just propagate their individual rights and freedoms and want to be equally treated in modern society. In contrast, racists demonstrate an abusive and disrespectful attitude towards some ethnic groups and often propagate violence toward these groups. Such an attitude should not be tolerated, and most population understands it.
The problem of free speech and hate speech on college campuses is also crucial today. Many educational establishments ban hate speech on their campuses, and a new debate arises: should Americans value more the freedom of expression or the human right to be free from abusive speech? The survey of students of Susquehanna University showed that those students who support less regulation on speech are more involved in politics, have higher levels of political sophistication, are mostly male, view racism as less of a threat, and have been longer in college. One can see that political affiliation is negatively associated with free speech. Those people who are deeply engaged in politics propagate tolerance to all kinds of utterances, including hate speech and extremist speech. At the same time, students’ perception of racism plays an important role in their attitude towards free speech regulation. If a student perceives racism as a threat to society, they will support the regulation of free speech.
Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age
With the development of modern technologies and the Internet, the freedom of expression has changed significantly. Nowadays, it is more difficult to control human utterances and punish them for hate speech because anything can be posted online and deleted in a few seconds. Two Swedish authors, Carlsson and Weibull (2018), analyze the freedom of expression in the digital media culture and assess citizens’ views on this subject. Thus, the majority of the participants of this study believed that there might be a “reason to impose limits on freedom of expression.” Most people felt that children and youth had to be protected by law from hate speech. Many people considered that the limitations were needed in the interests of national security. Half of the participants agreed that hate speech and harassment should be prohibited in order to protect individuals’ privacy, and almost the same number of people agreed that limitations were needed to combat racism. The only purpose that did not receive support was “defending religious values.” All participants agreed that the freedom of expression should be considered from the perspectives of the law and human tolerance.
Interestingly, modern social media platforms have their internal speech codes that define which kinds of speech are acceptable and which are not. However, these standards differ from the international human rights laws standards and may even violate these standards. Aswad argues that if American online platform preferred not to respect international human rights in the enforcement of its speech code, it would not violate the international or U.S. law, but “it would be acting inconsistently with the global expectations,” which can be seen in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Graciyal and Viswam (2018) support this position, claiming that individuals should be free to express their opinions on social platforms, but they should also regulate their online activities to preserve harmony and order among people and communities. Since it is difficult to control all social networking websites and regulate what users post there, humans should learn to be tolerant of each other and distinguish between free speech and the right to be free from harassment.
Discussion and Recommendations
The topic of freedom of expression is wide, but most debates focus on the permissibility of censorship. Thus, many people argue whether the state should be able to restrict some expressions through the law. However, they do not consider other forms of constraint. Public disapproval may be a strong instrument for regulating free expression. Moral responsibility may also restrict humans from expressing some thoughts that may be harmful to other people. Still, legal protection of the freedom of expression has more power over public protection, and it is a problem for modern society. In the United States, the constitution protects hate speech. Such liberal philosophers as Dworkin, Fried, or Nagel, support this legal protection of hate speech on the ground of the freedom of an individual who may choose to express oneself using hateful words. However, the free speech restriction supporters emphasize the requirements of Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which says that “expressions of hatred likely to stir up violence, hostility, or discrimination must be prohibited by law.” Such discrepancy in views and laws leads to continuing debates for and against the restriction of freedom of expression.
Despite such alterations in opinions, the majority believes that the world needs tolerance. According to Yogeeswaran et al. (2021), tolerance allows people to live in harmony despite many differences. Instead of forbidding people to express their disagreement or hatred, the government should unite people, promoting trust and mutual respect, and cooperation. Thus, tolerance must serve as a barrier to discrimination. People should understand that different beliefs exist, and they should neither agree nor disagree with these beliefs. Instead, they should tolerate the existence of different opinions and accept diversity. However, tolerance will be possible only if moralization is reduced. People should use wise reasoning and dialectical thinking to encourage tolerance instead of moralizing one behavior and judging another one, like smoking or premarital sex.
Therefore, the first recommendation on the problem of the freedom of expression will be the promotion of dialectical thinking among the population. Dialectical thinking can be explained as “expectation of change, tolerance of contradiction, and holism.” Dialectical beliefs prevail in East Asian countries, while North Americans usually use linear thinking. Individuals with dialectical thinking are more likely to consider conflicting situations equally plausible and show ambivalent attitudes than those with linear thinking. Consequently, such individuals are more open to negotiations and opposing views. Suppose Western civilizations begin to encourage people to think dialectically and tolerate diverse views. In that case, freedom of expression will be preserved, while the number of cases of hate speech will be reduced.
Wise reasoning is also important when dealing with disagreement and differences. Yogeeswaran et al. (2021) define wise reasoning as “understanding the intertwined nature of human life, and knowledge about oneself alongside one’s limitations.” In Chinese cultures, wise reasoning is more prevalent than in Western cultures. It may be related to the impact of collectivism on Asians. In Western countries, individualism is promoted, and people focus on individual differences more than in East Asian countries. East Asians, in contrast, tend to give praise to “interpersonal harmony and peaceful resolutions.” The question occurs: how is it possible to foster wise reasoning in people? The answer is as follows: people should think about the future and view the issue as distant observers. Thus, if a person wants to express their negative opinion about another person or a group of people, they should first gather all information about that person and think about their perspectives. If all people think before saying something, tolerance will be possible.
What is more, intellectual humility should also be promoted among the population. According to Leary et al. (2017), intellectual humility is recognizing that one’s belief may be false. This feature is relevant for the questions of facts and personal opinions, like political attitudes, religious beliefs, or cultural values. According to this concept, people should recognize that some scientific facts may be incorrect or someone’s political or religious views may be unfounded. Those with high intellectual humility are more open to other people’s views and beliefs than those with low intellectual humility. Thus, such people are more tolerant of others’ opinions and less likely to engage in hate speech.
People should follow several rules to foster intellectual humility and increase tolerance. Thus, this feature can be taught to high school students during their lessons. For example, teachers may ask students to elaborate when they want to express their political attitudes. Elaboration means an in-depth causal explanation for such complex issues as politics or public policies. Moreover, teachers should talk openly about some controversial concepts and encourage students to discuss and debate. Different examples from history should be used to demonstrate different sides of the issue and show that it can be both accepted and rejected. The more open-minded students are, the more tolerant they will be as adults. Consequently, if people cultivate such qualities as intellectual humility, wise reasoning, and dialectical thinking since childhood, they will become more lenient towards each other in adulthood.
Moreover, political leaders and lawmakers should understand that free speech restrictions and repressive controls are more dangerous than granting freedom of expression. Research showed that the human mind is irrepressible, and if a person strongly believes in something, it will be impossible to make them believe in the opposite. Locke argues that “no one may believe under the prescription of another.” It means that even if the government punishes a person for their beliefs and faiths and confiscates their property, nothing will change in that person’s views. Therefore, there is no reason to torture or punish people for their opinions. Instead, societies should encourage tolerance in more peaceful ways.
Least but not last, promoting a culture of tolerance should be encouraged in every society and should begin in early childhood. The notions of free speech and tolerance are interconnected and interrelated. If people are free to express what they think, they should also be able to control the impulse to punish and judge others for their beliefs and convictions. To foster tolerance and respect in children, adults should make them feel special, loved, and safe. Children should be taught about different cultures, places, values, and beliefs. Adults should shape children’s behavior with the help of encouragement and positive words. The root causes of intolerance are ignorance, biases, and prejudices, so the more children learn about differences, the less they will be afraid of these differences in the future. Thus, if people want to live in a peaceful world, they should cultivate tolerance and respect in their children and promote tolerant behavior among each other. In such societies, every person will be able to express their opinions without fear of being judged or abused, and the laws restricting the freedom of expression will not be needed.
Conclusions
Albert Einstein was right when he said that the laws alone could not secure the freedom of speech. If people do not respect each other and make hate or extremist speeches, the laws will not be able to protect both parties of such dialogs simultaneously. On the one hand, haters may claim that they have the right to express their opinions freely. On the other hand, the other party may argue that they have the right to preserve their safety and the right to freedom and individual beliefs and convictions. The problem is that both sides will be right, and an ethical dilemma will occur. To solve this and other similar dilemmas, the entire world will need to cooperate and promote tolerance among the population.
In many European and North American countries, citizens perceive freedom of expression positively and believe that they can freely express their thoughts. However, in some less developed countries, the freedom of speech and expression is under hazard. In these countries, the promotion of tolerance is extremely important because, if opposite views are not accepted, mass riots and strikes will occur, and societies will be on the verge of collapse. Moreover, examples of such protests can be seen in many countries, including Spain, Nigeria, Brazil, and others. The main reason for such protests is the conflict of rights. As mentioned above, conflict occurs when free speech is exercised without regard for other people’s rights. To address this conflict, the government needs to either change the laws or promote tolerance among the citizens.
Even if the laws are changed, people will have diverse opinions, and they will continue to express them despite any restrictions. Therefore, the best solution to freedom of speech is fostering the spirit of tolerance across the globe. Such qualities as dialectical thinking, wise reasoning, and intellectual humility can help promote tolerance in people. The main reasons for intolerance are the fear of the unknown, personal biases, and cultural misconceptions. If children are taught to accept the differences since childhood, they will become wise and tolerant adults, and the freedom of expression will be preserved. However, if biases and prejudices are eradicated, people will continue to exercise hate speech and humiliate those who differ from themselves.
To sum everything up, consider the following situation. Suppose that a man, Mr. A., posted a story about Mrs. B., who was raped, tortured, and abused emotionally because of her skin color and religion. The man claims that the story is fictitious, but he uses the real name of his colleague, who finds the story offensive and humiliating. Even though the man had no intention to offend his colleague, he violated her right of personality and unintentionally promoted racial and religious abuse on the Internet. In this case, Mr. A.s’ conduct should not be protected by the law as freedom of expression. If the man were tolerant of other people’s feelings, he would be able to express his thoughts in a more neutral way, without violating the rights and freedoms of others. Evidently, the law alone could not secure the freedom of expression and protect individual rights. Only tolerance towards others could change the situation and simultaneously enhance the freedom of expression, harmony, and social order.
Bibliography
Aswad EM, ‘The Future of Freedom of Expression Online’ (2018) 17 Duke Law & Technology Review 26, Web.
Berggren N & Nilsson T, ‘Tolerance in the United States: Does Economic Freedom Transform Racial, Religious, Political and Sexual Attitudes?’ (2016) 45 European Journal of Political Economy 53. Web.
Boch A, ‘Increasing American Political Tolerance: A Framework Excluding Hate Speech’ (2020) 6 Socius 1, 3. Web.
Briggs S, ‘Four Ways to Teach Intellectual Humility to Students’ (2016). Web.
Buarque C, ‘Democracy and Freedom of Expression Are under Threat in Brazil’ (2020). Web.
Carlsson U & Weibull L, Freedom of Expression in the Digital Media Culture (Nordicom 2018).
Cohen-Almagor R ‘J.S. Mill’s Boundaries of Freedom of Expression: A Critique’ (2017) 92 Philosophy 1, 17. Web.
Einstein A, Out of My Later Years: The Scientist, Philosopher, and Man Portrayed Through His Own Words (Wing Books 1993).
Ekins E, ‘The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America’ (CATO Institute 2017). Web.
Ewang A, ‘Nigeria’s Wavering Commitment to Freedom of Expression’ (2019). Web.
Graciyal DG & Viswam D, ‘Freedom of Expression in Social Media: A Political Perspective’ (2018) 3 RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary 110. Web.
Greven A, ‘Why a Culture of Free Expression Demands Tolerance’ (Institute for Free Speech 2020). Web.
Gunatilleke, G ‘Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression’ (2021) 22 Human Rights Review 91, 93. Web.
Hooper M, ‘Freedom of Speech on College Campuses’ (2018) 9 Susquehanna University Political Review 1. Web.
Howie E ‘Protecting the Human Right to Freedom of Expression in International Law’ (2018) 20 International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 12. Web.
John RR, ‘Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age: A Historian’s Perspective’ (2019) 4 Church, Communication and Culture 25. Web.
Leary MR et al., ‘Cognitive and Interpersonal Features of Intellectual Humility’ (2017) 43 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 793. Web.
Li LMW et al., ‘Dialectical Versus Linear Thinking Shapes People’s Anticipation of Climate Change’ (2020) 11 Front. Psychol. 1. Web.
Macedo RPJ, ‘Freedom of Expression: What Lessons Should We Learn from US Experience?’ (2017) 13 Rev. direito 274.
Neto JDPM, ‘Constitutional Neutrality: An Essay on the Essential Meaning of Freedom of Speech’ (2019) 6 Rev. Investig. Cons. 239. Web.
Parekh LB, ‘Limits of Free Speech’ (2017) 45 Philosophia 931, 932. Web.
‘Promoting Tolerance’ (2019). Web.
Riordan PSJ, ‘Freedom of Expression, no Matter What?’ (2016) 105 Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 159. Web.
Santos HC et al., ‘Wisdom in a Complex World: A Situated Account of Wise Reasoning and Its Development’ (2017) 11 Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1. Web.
Schulz D, ‘Tolerance Theory’ (The First Amendment Encyclopedia 2009). Web.
Strauss DA, ‘Why Be Tolerant?’ (1986) 53 The University of Chicago Law Review 1485. Web.
‘Tolerance’. Web.
Wang Z-D et al., ‘The Comparison of the Wisdom View in Chinese and Western Cultures’ (2020) Curr Psychol. Web.
‘What Is Freedom of Expression?’Web.
Wike R, et al., ‘2. Publics Satisfied with Free Speech, Ability to Improve Living Standards; Many Are Critical of Institutions, Politicians’ (2019). web.
Yogeeswaran K et al., ‘The U.S. Needs Tolerance More Than Unity’ (Scientific American 2021). Web.