“What is freedom of speech?” This is certainly the debate which occupies the most media attention, since the trial Charlie Hebdo from 2007 [sur la publication des caricatures du prophète Mahomet] until Mark Zuckerberg’s change of heart. We are right to contrast European and American conceptions. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear: “Congress shall make no law […] to limit freedom of expression, of the press or the right of citizens to assemble.” Even if many limits exist in fact, freedom of expression is total in the United States. And despite the monolithic debates in France, despite the refusal of progressives to concede the slightest fault, it would be wise not to fall into the moral panic that is so easy.
John Stuart Mill had already observed this at the end of the 19th century: “We also need protection against the tyranny of dominant opinions and sentiments; against the tendency of societies to impose rules of conduct by means other than the civil penalties, its ideas and its customs to those who deviate from them.” This insidious censorship that too much of the media organizes, obscuring facts that would not serve their exclusive reading of things, namely: “Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg will promote hatred, racism and fake news and dominate the world .”
How could we, then, allow censorship, on the same social networks, in the middle of a pandemic, systematically and without any explanation, the publications which referred to the origin of Covid as being an involuntary laboratory leak (hypothesis henceforth considered among scientists and reappeared in publications as if by a miracle)? Why not cry out about the (real) danger of sweeping under the carpet of censorship the publications around Hunter Biden’s computer which, if the father president had not pardoned his son, would have been at the center of a trial for corruption? Why refuse to debate these censorships exercised by progressive political and media forces? The most formidable consequence is the paranoia coupled with conspiracy which takes hold among citizens who have become more receptive to the speeches of the populists that this censorship was precisely supposed to combat.
It is easy to censor, but the price to pay is much greater
Whatever the disgusting opinions – which can hurt me deeply, exasperate me, worry me, disgust me – censoring them is more dangerous than responding to them, letting them express themselves is more productive than hiding them. Because by censoring intolerant opinions, we would gradually come to prohibit any expression that goes against the dominant doctrine; because by refusing to listen to opinions as stupid as they are narrow-minded, we would remove a safety valve which would let more physical violence escape if it were contained; because by prohibiting the expression of filthy opinions in the public space, they would withdraw into a closed, hermetic space, feeding themselves to the dregs without the possibility of being contradicted; because by letting private actors, such as social networks, decide the moral relevance of an opinion, we offer considerable power to those who are just as inclined as others to exercise censorship for their own benefit.
It is easier, morally and politically, to censor, but the price to pay is much higher. As we learn Jacob MchangamaDanish jurist, teacher-researcher at Vanderbilt University (United States) and director of the Future of Free Speech think tank: “An overwhelming majority of content deleted on platforms like Facebook and YouTube, in France, Germany or Sweden did not contravene the law in any way. Between 87.5% and 99.7% of the content removed was legal. Platforms have been banning ‘legal but shocking’ content for a long time. The study also found that more than 56% of deleted comments were just general opinions, neither offensive nor hateful. The reason is excessive moderation to avoid legal problems… Hide this opinion, which my sensitivity as a skin-deep democrat would not be able to tolerate… at the risk of letting all the crap suddenly pour out in mass and in reaction.
Abnousse Shalmani, committed against the obsession with identity, is a writer and journalist
.