Andras Sajo, judge at the European Court of Human Rights and university professor at CEU’s Department of Legal Studies, discussed the crisis facing freedom of expression and the emerging arguments concerning the need for regulation at a lecture on Feb. 26. The event was part of CEU's Frontiers of Democracy series.
Freedom of expression is widely yet superficially accepted as the top civil liberty, CEU’s President and Rector John Shattuck said in his opening remarks. Although it depends on the context and the viewpoint one brings into it, free speech “is not political football. Free speech belongs to everyone.”
The crisis of free expression is taking place as much in constitutional democracies as in authoritarian regimes, Sajo claimed. “Lawyers, the general public, judges, and children take freedom of expression for granted,” he said, but the internet and social media have given rise to it being challenged.
So why does free speech require special protection? To answer his own question, Sajo presented the consequentialist argument, based on John Stuart Mill’s views on the freedom of expression. Truth has the “oldest pedigree,” and the freedom of expression allows for personal growth. However, this argument collapses as soon as this promised beneficial effect fails to materialize, or not perceived to materialize.
On the other hand, the autonomy-based, non-consequentialist argument for regulating free speech is based on the assumption that humans might be simply inept to communicate in certain matters. Last witnessed over 50 years ago when television was becoming mainstream, the concept that “humans are not good enough” has reappeared, causing a new paternal regulatory regime to emerge.
“The language of the internet is the language of pubs,” Sajo said, and however vulgar or nasty, semi-private online encounters become part of the public domain.
The new paternalistic argument carries a neuroscientific element, claiming that people behave like children on the internet. The argument that the internet brings out anomalies in people, Sajo explained, is based on “hard-wired human fallibility.”
We’re witnessing the cult of personal sensitivity, the expectation of respect in a narcissistic society. In this environment, free speech regulation aims to protect not the speaker but the audience. There is a “risk of a dictatorship of feelings,” Sajo warned, when individuals are invested in presenting themselves vulnerable and offended.
However, “free speech is not about feel-good,” Sajo said. The generation and free flow of ideas do not come with instant rewards. Ideas, and the free expression of thereof need protection. Without the protection of free speech, and of the speaker, people will simply give up on coming up with new ideas.
Do new paternalists have a chance of regulating free speech? Only if society in general, or “user citizens” in particular reject the habituation of censorship, can free speech remain free.





