Since the golden age of Athenian democracy, freedom of speech has been viewed as a defining feature of open societies, even as it remains under constant attack. The Athenians believed that the proper functioning of government depended on free and honest exchange of ideas, no matter how controversial or unpopular. In ancient Rome, by contrast, only senators enjoyed anything resembling free speech — and even then, as the statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero learned the hard way, speaking out could have deadly consequences.
In the centuries that followed, centralized authorities — from the Vatican to monarchies — persisted in suppressing open debate, with astronomer Galileo Galilei becoming perhaps the most famous victim of official censorship. While the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press marked a historic turning point, fueling the Protestant Reformation and ushering in an era of social and technological change, governments still sought to control printed materials.
In 1644, after the British Parliament passed a pre-publication licensing law, poet John Milton published Areopagitica, his passionate defense of free speech, declaring, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
The US Constitution’s First Amendment, deeply rooted in Enlightenment ideals, is arguably the crowning achievement of free speech advocacy. In the first half of the 20th century, as totalitarian leaders such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin ruthlessly suppressed freedom of expression, then-US president Franklin Roosevelt made it a cornerstone of his vision for a postwar global order. That is why, in his 1941 State of the Union address, Roosevelt placed free speech first among his “four freedoms.”
While free speech has become deeply embedded in Western democracies, it has not flourished everywhere. Autocrats such as Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin, to cite two notable examples, regard freedom of expression as an existential threat to their kleptocratic regimes. The ongoing crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong, where journalists are imprisoned, newspapers are shuttered and journalism itself is treated as seditious, attests to their approach.
From the printing press to the Internet, technological advances have often provided dissidents with tools to bypass government censorship. During her nearly two decades under house arrest, former Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi relied heavily on the BBC World Service to stay informed about global events.
In our hyper-connected world, where mobile phones outnumber people and most of the global population has Internet access, the decline of traditional news outlets has deepened our dependence on social media. As opaque algorithms shape the news we consume and our perception of reality, the corporations and oligarchs controlling these platforms pose a growing threat to free speech. Although they claim to be its ultimate defenders, their business model, by amplifying disinformation and identity-based grievances for profit, renounces the responsibility that sustains it.
At this critical juncture, we must ask: Should tech billionaires and “free speech absolutists” such as business magnate Elon Musk and Telegram CEO Pavel Durov — arrested in Paris on charges that his platform had become a hub for illicit activities such as drug trafficking — be above the laws enacted by democratically elected legislatures? If we embrace the most extreme libertarian view of free speech, do we not risk enabling the dissemination of child pornography and the spread of dangerous falsehoods, such as those that fueled urban riots across the UK last month?
Democratic governments around the world are increasingly seeking fair answers to these critical questions. To curb the spread of hate speech and disinformation, governments must establish clear rules and impose severe penalties on social media platforms that break them. However, knowledge-sharing and cross-border collaboration are also vital to ensuring that tech giants are held accountable and no longer shirk their responsibilities.
Addressing these challenges requires a nuanced approach to free speech, one that recognizes its importance while acknowledging the dangers of unchecked extremism.
As the great 18th century English philosopher Edmund Burke said: “Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed.” Alarmed by the violent excesses of the French Revolution, Burke viewed unchecked freedom as a threat to society. The challenge facing democratic governments today is to apply Burke’s dictum to the digital age, reining in the most harmful aspects of emerging technologies without undermining the fundamental right to free speech.
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is chancellor of the University of Oxford and the author of The Hong Kong Diaries.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s