Freedom of Speech

This work continues the cooperation between two authors who have produced other texts on communication. (Kačerauskas and Mickūnas 2020; Mickūnas and Kačerauskas 2020) The present study supplements and extends the discussions available in the mentioned publications, which focused both on creative aspects of communication and metacommunication at the level of political communication. The latter embraces the issues of Universal Human Rights in democracy with particular attention to one of the most fundamental right, that of Freedom of Speech in all of its forms and its intimate relationship with responsibility.

Apart from the global controversy of autocratic rulers interfering in democratic processes through technical media, and apart from democratic governments using the language of “fake news” and press as “enemy of the people”, the global pandemic introduced an increased reliance on vast networks offering both, information and misinformation from (and to) our respective homes in Palanga, Lithuania, and Ohio in the U.S.A. A plethora of such networks promoted different ideologies, interests, moralities conspiracy “theories” not only spreading confusion, but also mistrust and even hate among nations, ethnic and religious groups and cultural traditions. Meanwhile, the same media allowed us a closer cooperation to engage in discussion of current events and also to consult various historical texts engaged in the issues of freedom, responsibility and the right and duty to speak without hindrances. This led to the fundamental questions of the public’s rights and duties and inevitably to the very structure of a democratic society in which freedom of speech is completely intertwined with the responsibility of citizens to communicate truthfully about any subject matters. Could this form of communication disclose the issues of metacommunication?

The focus of our discussion is free speech and what limits can place it in jeopardy. What follows is an analysis of sources, discussions and limitations of free speech, and the relationship between ideology, freedom of speech in the media, and public issues. Historical texts show that the citizens of all (more or less) democratic societies, assume freedom of speech to be a basic right that can challenge dictatorship, totalitarianism and authoritarianism of any kind. The relationship between free information and the environment of post-truth and post-democracy demands that we understand modern fundamental principles of Western democratic society, which includes a tolerance of others and their right to express various and unique opinions, mutual respect and the right of others to challenge our views. Later, we shall discuss the ontological and metaphysical grounds of such principles, the absence of which can lead to mass confusion arising from diverse views, mutual contestations, and contemporary debates concerning multi-culturalism and multi-discursivity. In the absence of the abovementioned we must contend with the ease with which rhetorical jargon is accepted – from post-truth, through death of the subject, and the explanation of human thought and action by a plethora of “theories.” In the face of such turmoil the role of a journalist is to present publicly declared views of the citizen regarding different and common issues, as well as to raise critical questions.

The discussion will address three domains for social responsibility concerning freedom of speech: practical, ecological and creative. The practical covers the public space in which most social interaction takes place. The ecological landscape is the oikos, our common home that we cannot destroy without destroying ourselves. Creative “speech” is the responsibility of individual’s activity and their understanding of the limits of such speech. Creative freedom of expression makes society vital and alive, and is the source of an individual’s awareness of responsibility for such expression. However, to understand these questions we will introduce others that bring to the fore arguments required to speak meaningfully of responsibility, of truth, of free speech. In many instances, this is beyond any truth or falsehood such as hate speech, speech promoting violence, systems which contain “justification” for violence, and what would be the conditions for either limiting or even denying these forms of speech.

Our remit is wide and considers the question of the right to freedom of speech and the great variety of debates concerning the limits (if any) and the levels of speech, which might not count as free.

Our discussion begins with current debates that contrast views by researchers concerning rights, and even universal rights to freedom of speech as a basic condition for democracy, and slowly move to the principle issues concerning the “essence” of democracy, its current tendencies to autocracy, their possible variations, and also the question of freedom and the way it is denied by its advocates. The issue of freedom has not been discussed by political researchers or even theorists, and hence we are left with unfounded rhetoric which fails to illuminate, but brings confusion, resulting in many claims and many truths. At the same time, it is necessary to delimit “politics” from allowing it the undifferentiated use in dealing with most diverse societies, including dictatorships. Thus, one speaks of Soviet politics, of Nazi politics, of capitalist, autocratic, communist politics, resulting in a post-politics and numerous other post… post and even “post-communication” pronouncements. No doubt, one of the major issues of the universal right to freedom of speech is not accepted by numerous nations, whether it is China, Russia, or the Middle East. Their excuse is borrowed from a modern Western proclamation that there must be “cultural rights” of each nation to live in accordance with its own traditions and norms. In this sense the autocrats and theocrats of different nations claim their cultures are without norms (including human rights) and that such rights would amount to cultural imperialism by the West. Add to this claim the notion that there is a Western demand for tolerance of “the others”, and the autocrats can simply do in their countries whatever they decree. Here, we already have “many truths” leading to the notion that none can be a criterion of others, since all of them are cultural “constructs,” including the “construct” of the universal right to free speech.