By Mazarine Pingeot
Americans hold on to their “freedom of expression”, an identity marker of their history, which is distinct from French freedom of expression.
Historically, freedom of expression in the United States was coupled with freedom of the press, since it was essentially through the latter that one could express oneself publicly. The First Amendment stipulated as early as 1791:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
We understand that the initial vocation of this defense of freedom of expression was to limit the power of leaders and to protect individuals, as the liberal tradition wants, concerned with individual freedoms against any authoritarian threat coming from the State.
Freedom of expression on social networks
What is it today? Freedom of expression is once again at the center of the game and claimed, not by muzzled citizens, but by the State itself, or rather by the one who is at its head and intends to manage it like a lucrative business: Donald Trump.
Among the most fervent defenders of the First Amendment, the libertarians and the Silicon Valley billionaires who own the new public spaces called social networks, want above all to decide the rules that govern them.
For Mark Zuckerberg, freedom of expression is embodied in the lifting of moderations that AIs were responsible for and the elimination of “fact-checking”, identified as censorship or as a “woke” and right-thinking bias.
At another level, it would therefore be a question of eliminating all verticality to achieve the consummate horizontality of an ideal democracy where the State would no longer intervene at all, except to endorse this decentralization of information and this liberation of speech.
This is the meaning of the words of Vice President J.D. Vance, denouncing the rule of law and European regulations that would oppose freedom of expression at the Munich Security Conference on February 14. According to him, “democracy is based on the sacred principle that the voice of the people counts. There is no place for sanitary cordons. Either you defend this principle or you don’t.”
This speech was praised by Jordan Bardella (“France must follow the example of the USA”), Éric Ciotti (“a speech for history”), and Nicolas Dupont-Aignan. After his speech, J.D. Vance supported Alice Weidel, head of the AFD, a German far-right party that has just obtained more than 20% of the votes in the legislative elections of February 23.
Triumph of public opinion
Let’s put aside the instrumentalization of the principle of freedom of expression in the service of Trumpian propaganda and Gafam, and take seriously the defense of this principle as it is conceived across the Atlantic, that is to say without limits.
We then note a double shift: moral first, since invective, verbal violence, racism, homophobia, would not have to be banned “in the name of freedom”. We can obviously ask ourselves how being homophobic or racist is an expression of freedom of thought, and whether it is not rather a matter of impulse.
If we follow Rousseau in Du contrat social, moral freedom “alone makes man truly master of himself; for the impulse of appetite alone is slavery, and obedience to the law that one has prescribed for oneself is freedom”, we are entitled to consider the expression of hatred and resentment as that of a form of alienation, or even as the very symptom of servitude. But let us move on and bet that in a democracy, any opinion is good to say, although we may find it distressing that it is no longer backed by a minimal form of reflection.
A second shift is just as worrying: it concerns the truth. If we can say anything, that “the Earth is flat” and that “extraterrestrials are going to colonize it”, and if these “opinions” are relayed by communities excited by the originality of the non-“official” thesis, the common reality is in danger.
We have known this since the 20th century, as Hannah Arendt showed, total lies can end up replacing the truth due to a growing indifference to the difference between truth and lies. This process, which began during the two totalitarianisms of the 20th century, continued with the advent of mass democracy, up to Kellyane Conway, Trump’s former communications advisor, who put forward “alternative facts” that were neither true nor false. This process, which began during the two totalitarianisms of the 20th century, continued with the advent of mass democracy, up to Kellyane Conway, Trump’s former communications advisor, who put forward “alternative facts” that were neither true nor false to support her president’s lies during his inauguration in 2017.
It is also useful to make the link between a certain use of freedom of expression and “bullshit,” to use Harry Frankfurt’s expression. Indeed, if freedom of expression was supposed to allow the expression of opinions (including radical ones), it has not – historically – been calibrated to say anything. Saying anything should not be a right or a principle: it is at most a fact. A fact that could remain private, and one could wonder why it deserves to appear in the public square.
The fact remains that “saying anything” can have real effects, or rather the destruction of reality. Thus, the historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet revealed the functioning of negationism in Un Eichmann de papier, asserting that negationism (in this case that of Robert Faurisson denying the existence of the gas chambers) is based on the transformation of the truth of fact into opinion.
This is not without echoes with the consequences of freedom of expression without framework and without limits. Insult is authorized, but, even more, “anything goes,” “alternative fact,” falsehood—everything that tends to blur the lines between truth and opinion.
France and freedom of expression
France has taken this “pathology” of freedom of expression seriously, by regulating it on several occasions, as already provided for in Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: “Every citizen may speak, write, and print freely, subject to being held responsible for the abuse of this freedom in cases determined by law.”
However, the law has evolved: first, the law of 29 July 1881 on freedom of the press imposed a legal framework on all publications, while providing that “printing and bookselling are free”. We must then understand that restrictions are also the conditions of possibility of this freedom, because by protecting respect for the person, minors, or even the invasion of privacy, they give substance to what we mean by freedom.
More recently, the Pleven law of July 1, 1972 sought to combat racism in France, supplemented by the Gayssot law in 1990, which made Holocaust denial a crime. The Taubira law extended the crime to the non-recognition of trafficking and slavery as crimes against humanity in 2001.
Of course, these laws have sparked controversy, particularly from historians who considered that their freedom of research had been undermined and that politics had no place intervening. Debates that therefore pitted those in favor of stricter supervision of freedom of expression, including legal proceedings, against others who rejected it but in the name of research. We are still far from the outcry across the Atlantic.
In the past, the State or the Church censored for reasons of either public security (in other words, to curb political opinions that could shake the foundations of power) or morality. Today, freedom of expression, won through hard struggle against these two bodies, consecrates insults and verbal violence, but also the possibility of claiming the freedom to say anything.
Continuing to speak of freedom of expression to designate post-truth produces an intellectual confusion that is particularly difficult – and yet essential – to untangle.
Translated from the French by Google Translate.
Mazarine Pingeot is a philosophy professor at Sciences Po Bordeaux.
The dude says
I’m all for freedom of speech.
However, as witnessed here on a daily basis, MAGA is just too dull and slow to be allowed to be repeatedly exposed to the disinformation social media campaigns of their MAGA bosses.
This is how Russia became our bestie, Ukraine started this war, the holocaust never happened, ingesting livestock de-wormer cures a deadly virus, and seniors make millionaires into billionaires by sending their SS checks as donations…
MAGA dullards need the fact checkers now more than ever.
I look forward to my point being proven yet again, right here.
Jim says
Freedom of speech shouldn’t be the issue now. What should be of major concern to all of us is how much provable false information is disseminated by free speech. We should all be able to agree that if you say something provably untrue, you should be held accountable for it. If we can’t agree on that, further discussion is pointless.
For instance, Trump has said he never said to “lock Hillary up” despite untold videos of him at his rallies saying exactly that.
And, in real time, Hegseth, Gabbard, Waltz and Trump have said “no secret security information was included in the Signal chat” (on the Houthis raid). Go read the words released and that the administration admits are accurate. It includes time of attack, what weapon systems, etc. How anyone can claim this information isn’t a security concern is beyond me.
There are countless others and you can point out Democrats who have also lied. I’d likely agree with you on most or all of those.
And I think it is a disgrace that the USA Vice President endorsed a German right wing party in their recent elections. In other times, we could all agree that is election interference. The point is that we should be making our decisions based on the truth, on facts, and not the “spin” that people use to justify their lies. I think if more of us looked at facts and truth and made our decisions based on that, we’d be living in a much better place than we are right now.
Gene Perez says
The sole purpose of this article appears to me to be calling President Trump a liar while presenting no proof to support such an allegation. For years I have watched the press call something said by President Trump to be false only later to see the proof that it was always true; he just had more information and less bias about it.
Ask the American people whether we have more trust in what President Trump says or what the media says. Confidence in Trump is at an all time high. Confidence in the media is at an all time low.
Sherry says
Your Morning Thought:
Voltaire’s famous quote, often paraphrased as “Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
BillC says
Trump and his acolyte Musk (or is it the other way around?) have one thing in common- they both have the distorted pathological view that people exist in the service of money, not the other way around.
Sherry says
@gene. . . Here ya go. . . just a tiny sample of trump’s lies:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category&ruling=false&speaker=donald-trump
Please take my previous comment to heart.
BillC says
PS how many more billions of dollars would it take for Trump and Musk to compensate for their inability to connect to people? Maybe life would be better for them on Mars.
Pogo says
@The Dude, Jim, and Sherry
100%
@Mazarine Pingeot
Merci beau coup.
This, in particular, was resonant, “…It is also useful to make the link between a certain use of freedom of expression and “bullshit,” to use Harry Frankfurt’s expression…” and I would elaborate for others:
RIP Professor
https://www.google.com/search?q=Harry+Frankfurt
Sherry says
Simply brilliant POGO! Simply brilliant Harry Frankfurt! Everyone should watch that video!
Deborah Coffey says
@ Gene
It seems a lot of Americans cannot tell good from evil or the truth from a lie. In good time, they WILL know because those of us that can will save this great nation from the evil and the constant stream of lies that are destroying it but only after the effects of that evil and those lies hit home to those “that cannot see.” Prayers for you.
Ed P says
What if the left tried to moderate and decided to agree with the Trump administration on the good points and start actually working for the American citizens?????????
“ We like no taxes on tips and social security, we support President Trump. We think the deportation of illegal criminal aliens is making our cities safer. We support the concept. We know the waste and fraud in government spending is a problem and must be eliminated. We agree that America first is not fundamentally wrong”…..but….
In any negotiations, starting from a position of agreement and common ground is the only way to a resolution.
Why hasn’t the left started this process? The Congress works for all of the citizens and the minority left are not earning their pay checks. They are failing the public by stridently standing on ideological grounds that have been rejected and created some of the problems. The far left radical noise must be ignored and everyone must get back to work for the People.
When the voting wing of the Democrats demand it, the party will do it.
Laurel says
Gene, Gene, Gene…how the hell do you get there?
I’m not even going to try…and Ed P.: Gene and Dennis and others are so far away from the fact that they have no sense that they are being blatantly lied to on a daily basis.
No taxes on tips is not only stupid, it’s destructive. Most tipped persons only claimed the tips on credit card purchases as cash is not documented. In the long run, it cuts their Social Security claim drastically. By making it official, even the documented tips aren’t claimed, undermining Social Security as a whole.
Many do not support President Trump and his mind blowing statements.
Many do not support the deportation of immigrants without the proof of their supposed crimes, many of whom may be legal.
Waste and fraud is not corrected by slashing American workers jobs without knowing who they are, or what they do, or if they are good at their jobs, and done by an un-vetted civilian and his un-vetted minions.
So, as of yet, you have not provided a common ground to start with.
Ed P says
Laurel,
You need to do a bit more research. The proposed “ no tax on tips” would still require social security and Medicare “taxes.” It would be a line item deduction. You saying it’s stupid doesn’t make it unpopular. It also affords tip earners a path not be tax cheats. The bottom half of taxpayers making under $50,399 face an income tax rate of 3.7%. Not going to be budget buster since many tip earners probably are already tax exempt.
80 per cent of American do want illegal criminals deported. You can’t misrepresent that millions of illegals were in fact unvetted and allowed into this country.
Your claim of federal employees jobs being slashed is unfounded. Mass firings is a falsehood. Yes 75,000 federal employees have taken very lucrative buy out packages, and all non reporting employees faced termination. Yes, early on some employees were rehired and mistakes were made. Very true. The federal bureaucracy is over staffed.
Did you watch the DOGE interview with Bret Baier? The interview put a face on the team.
The fact is that the true numbers of the reduction in the work force are not available, maybe by design or by default because it’s government. Over employment is a waste of our tax dollars.reductions are necessary.
Laurel says
Ed P: So, you are saying that tipped employees will claim all their cash, but will not be taxed on it, but will pay into Social Security and Medicare? What? No, they won’t. Please, I was in the restaurant business for 15 years, and I know what people do. Now days, everyone expects tips, which is obnoxious. Tip jars are in every booth at market places, with the merchants and business owners expecting gratuities, and no, they are not claiming any of it, in any way, shape or form. It is naive to think otherwise.
Yes I did see the interview with Bret Baier. As with most Fox Entertainment *interviewers* Baier definitely tilts his questions, although not as drastically as the others (Watters is the dumbest f**ker to come down the pike). Musk lost me when he said that his cuts on Social Security staff will actually distribute more money to recipients. And remember, SS checks have been on time since inception. I have a feeling that there will be a whole lot of data skewing in the future.
To state that there are no Federal firings is flat out false. People are getting fired by Musk and his “bros” which is illegal. Who the f**k are they to do this? Who the f**k are they to be diddling in our private data? People, including veterans, are getting fired, and more firings are expected. Yes there are bailouts, but these bailouts are absurd and I wouldn’t do it! People with good evals are getting terminated for “poor performance.” That means they are jobless, while hunting for a new job, and now have a history of “poor performance.” You can’t get much colder than that. Why should Musk care? There’s plenty of credit to go around from the gullible supporters. Yes, people are being hired back to jobs where their desk and office is now gone. People are told to show up miles away from where they were. I know veterans whose whole department is being closed, so these “buyouts” are forced. It sucks, and they are upset and confused. This is what happens when sociopaths are in charge (not to mention the dumbest damn security department heads possible).
Waste and fraud can be handled, but not with a chain saw. These are anti-social geeks who have no empathy, or caring for people, just data to manipulate. Departments are intentionally reduced to reduce the service of social programs. “Efficiency” on a level of government cannot be done in 120 (or however few) days. You betcha mistakes are made. This *fraud* is not found in National Park Rangers! The IRS hired more people to root out fraud, especially wealthy tax cheaters, so what happens? Doge cuts them. Huh! I wonder why? “Efficiency?”
By the way, don’t even suggest that Musk is working for “free.”
I don’t have the same problem with immigrants that the far right have. I have always said that illegal immigrants are illegal aliens, not the euphemistic term “undocumented workers.” However, I believe in our Statue of Liberty’s words, and I believe in a path to citizenship and legally documenting these folks for working. They are not the demons Trump wants you to believe. Authoritarian dictators need a group to hate, just as Hitler did, and for Trump, it’s brown immigrants. I have worked with Haitians in the past, and Trump’s comments that they are eating the dogs and cats in Springfield is nasty to the point of proving he, and Vance, are without conscience. I cannot support them.
I bleeped out most of my cuss words, but this bullshit is aggravating.