Democracy is one of the oldest forms of government, stretching back to the Ancient Greeks around the sixth century BCE. It is regarded by many as the pinnacle of government, as the majority rule whilst protecting the rights of those not in power, generally the minority. The community elect representatives to lead on their behalf and ensure that they are both protected and permitted to express their opinions. It is this very concept of protection versus expression that creates the tension in a democracy, for opinions can drive actions that harm others.
Whilst the close relationship between democracy and freedom of speech is frequently discussed, the tension protecting each member of the community from harm is often overlooked. At its ideologically purest, democracy assigns each person the right to have a say in who will lead them and the same civil rights regardless of position. It allows people to say what they think without fear of reprisal … unless those opinions have the capacity to incite hatred or are, in and of themselves, hateful.
United States Vice President JD Vance spoke to European leaders at Munich’s Security Conference in February, during which he admonished his counterparts for stifling free speech. In particular, he took aim at the Scottish Safe Access Zones and the European Union’s Digital Services Act. The Safe Access Zones were established to ensure that women seeking an abortion are able to do so without being pressured physically or psychologically harassed. Yet Vance was intent upon presenting people engaged in prayer within those 200 metre exclusion zones as being victimised. The tension in democracy requires that whatever our opinions or beliefs, a woman in Scotland must be afforded the right to attend a designated premises for a termination; the legislation is the protection for those women.
Similarly, the Digital Services Act sets out the requirements for gatekeepers and publishers online to both protect freedom of speech and allow sources to be shutdown if deemed necessary. In particular, it is intended to provide the legal mechanisms by which amplification of unlawful content by very large online platforms and search engines (VLOPSEs) can be managed. Examples could include schemes that may be psychologically harmful, incitement to racial hatred with the potential to lead civil unrest, or targeted advertising to minors based upon online profiling to name a few.
Just two short weeks after his speech in Munich, Vance’s opinion on free speech seems to have changed. Democracy allows everyone to heard before decisions are made, yet both Trump and Vance have talked over and verbally eviscerated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The most recent meeting in the Oval Office led by the American President and his Deputy demonstrated that opinions that fail to align with their own are aggressively and publicly derided. Disabused of any illusions of equality between voices, one can be left in no doubt that Vance – and Trump – does not truly believe in freedom of speech for all , but rather only for those who accept their opinions. That is not freedom of speech or democracy – it is autocracy.
Freedom of speech in the context of democracy comes with responsibility. Responsibility to allow others to be heard, to consider alternative viewpoints, to be open to discussion so as to work through differences of opinion. Not so many years ago, debates were held in schools to teach students to think beyond their own limited viewpoints and to either effectively counter an another’s assertions or reconsider their own. The best diplomats manage to take in opposing opinions so as to better inform their own thoughts, bolster relationships and build genuine trust.
A person who believes that they have carte blanche to say whatever they like is not asserting free speech, but harassing others and from such harassment comes outright bullying, bigotry and hatred. Many of us are the children and grandchildren of victims of bigotry … and those of us who are not and the descendants of bigots. They do extraordinary harm because they are driven by ill intent. Selfish, often extremely ambitious opportunists who care nothing for the people they attack or sell-out, people like Vance care only for themselves and for power. Disagree with him and he will attack you. Expose his lies, he will attack you. Fail to say what he wants, he will attack you.
As with all bigots, there is only one possible response – you cannot back down. To do so is to say you accept what is being said and watch those who are truly marginalised be destroyed and torn apart The past two centuries have seen far too much of that from the slavers who kidnapped people from Africa to the Hungarian genocide at the hands of Ceausescu and more. Maintaining and enforcing the provisions that ensure hatred does not run unchecked, that unfettered power does not absolutely corrupt, that people can express themselves safely without fear of retribution is crucial to upholding democracy. Those who believe otherwise do not believe in democracy, but some other form of government, all variations on a theme of dictatorship. And dictators lack the tolerance to be true leaders.