Is freedom of expression absolute? Should we favor a permissive and broad approach rather than a restrictive one, lest political, legal or financial pressures end up compromising this fundamental value?
It is understandable, in the current context of worrying political correctness, that the reaffirmation of freedom of expression is received as a balm by professors, journalists and artists who have been the subject of threats for having tackled certain subjects. or uttering words deemed offensive. Teachers, journalists and artists must enjoy the greatest possible freedom because they make a profession of seeking the truth, because, like beacons, they enlighten us in the face of the complexity of the world.
At the same time, another current, that of the surge of hatred in social media, can find in this reaffirmation an encouragement to continue its heinous activity. Add to this the disinformation campaigns that are rampant on various platforms and which have disastrous consequences on social life and on public health, in particular.
Is it therefore appropriate, in certain cases, to curb freedom of expression? High level seriousness, hate speech, defamation, violation of dignity are generally recognized limitation criteria. On the other hand, the condemnation of “disgusting” remarks could constitute a dangerous precedent, according to some. It would open the door to a multitude of prosecutions. But should we not create the precedent if we want to demonstrate that the limit exists for exceptional cases? Is it not appropriate to repress verbal assault in the same way as one punishes physical assault (both of which are equally harmful)?
Freedom of expression is a fundamental and precious value in a democracy. However, freedom is earned through responsible, deferential and civil use. To ensure its survival, it is important that freedom coexists with other equally fundamental values in a civilized society: responsibility, decency, respect! These are our ramparts against chaos. The limit, for extreme cases, is therefore essential. The line not to be crossed should be clearly drawn. Because if chaos sets in, by dint of abuses of various kinds, this will justify restrictive measures which could compromise this dear freedom forever.