Le Point: Freedom of Expression: When Censorship Seduces Democracies, to Their Risks and Perils

By Peggy Sastre

The excerpt below is a rough English translation. Read the original in French here. 

Jacob Mchangama, a Danish legal scholar and author of a notable history of freedom of expression from the time of Socrates to the era of social media, is now one of the most insightful analysts of this fundamental right. Also a researcher at Vanderbilt University in the United States and the founder of the think tank Future of Free Speech, he examines its central role in the construction and preservation of democracies. Supported by a wealth of factual data, he demonstrates that freedom of expression is not just an ideal but above all an essential condition for the proper functioning of liberal societies, as the more authorities restrict it, the higher the risks of social chaos. Drawing on historical erudition, which he uses to expose contemporary paradoxes and missteps, Mchangama advocates for renewed boldness in the face of authoritarian temptations and urges the Western world to resist fear.

Le Point: Despite the risks posed by hate speech or disinformation, you are convinced that maximal freedom of expression is essential in a democratic society. Why?

Jacob Mchangama: Democracy and freedom of expression share a symbiotic relationship, tracing back to their common origins in ancient Athens. In contemporary times, we observe that periods of democratic progress—roughly from the 1970s to the early 2000s—have always been accompanied by a dynamic of free expression, which played a driving role. Consider the influence of underground samizdat publications in the Soviet bloc, protests against apartheid in South Africa, or the pro-democracy movement in Taiwan.

Today, by contrast, the global retreat of democracy is accompanied by a significant decline in freedom of expression. Data from the V-DEM project, which measures the state of democracy worldwide, show that in countries shifting toward authoritarianism, freedom of expression is the most affected democratic dimension. Conversely, in the few countries currently advancing toward democracy, the strengthening of freedom of expression is the main driver of this progress. This clearly demonstrates that freedom of expression is THE most fundamental right in a democracy.

But for it to have a real impact, it must ensure the protection of speech rejected by powerful institutions or democratic majorities. It is therefore necessary to protect forms of expression that are controversial and may be labeled as hate speech or disinformation—excluding notable cases such as incitement to violence or other speech that risks causing grave and immediate harm. Equally important is the use of freedom of expression to counteract the most harmful aspects of such speech.

Le Point: What are your concerns regarding the rise of restrictive legislation in democracies such as Germany or France?

Jacob Mchangama: The French approach to freedom of expression has always been marked by a paradox, a fundamental tension enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789. Article 11 proclaims that “every citizen may, therefore, speak, write, and print freely,” while accompanying this with a rather vague exception: “Except for abuses of this freedom in cases determined by law.” This compromise foreshadowed the excesses of the Revolution and its degeneration into the Reign of Terror—with thousands of people executed for political heresy, ostensibly in the name of protecting freedom.

This tension persists under the Fifth Republic, where it is widely believed that preserving freedom sometimes requires restricting freedom of expression. President Macron embodies this duality. On the one hand, he has eloquently defended the right to blasphemy and rejected the “jihadist veto” following the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the assassination of Samuel Paty. On the other hand, no president of the Fifth Republic has banned as many civil society organizations as he has.

These bans, targeting groups from across the political spectrum, including Muslim associations, are based on various grounds, such as criticism of the government or failure to censor “hate speech” on social media. However, this often amounts to punishing political dissent and applying guilt by association. It is a schizophrenic approach, revealing how France has long struggled between defending freedom and controlling dissent.

In Germany, the concept of a “militant democracy” has been embraced, but in my view, the repression of freedom of expression there has blurred the line between liberal and illiberal democracy. Thousands of people have been arrested for messages posted on social media, with some experiencing dawn raids and confiscation of their electronic devices. These interventions often target individuals accused of “insulting” political figures or expressing views deemed hateful, sometimes in the context of peaceful protests in support of the Palestinian cause.

What strikes me about the evolution of the situation in France and Germany is the lack of tangible evidence regarding the effectiveness of this repressive approach. In Germany, despite increasing restrictions on freedom of expression, right-wing extremism continues to gain ground. In France, the numerous lawsuits against Zemmour and Le Pen have done little to curb their popularity.

When a democracy convinces itself that censorship is the only way to combat intolerance, hate, and its enemies, it exposes itself to a major risk: reaching a tipping point where the government itself becomes a threat to the democracy it claims to defend. I fear that we are dangerously approaching this point, both in France and Germany.

Read More