Building and Sustaining Freedom of Expression

Abstract

Although countries protect and promote freedom of expression in different ways, free speech can be understood to have two basic aspects in democratic constitutional systems: non-censorship and diversity of voices. This article examines how the approach to free speech in Sweden contains both these aspects. Selected comparisons with the US First Amendment, and German broadcasting law, indicate the value in the Swedish approach but also reveal challenges that it faces if free speech’s dual aspects are not clearly recognised – a danger that some contemporary statements suggests is real. Articulating free speech in terms of both non-censorship and diversity may aid Swedish parliamentary processes to uphold important structural aspects of the freedom, but it would also bring into focus larger questions about the limits of parliamentary processes alone in building a viable system of freedom of expression for the future.

Silenced Voices

“…In this particular situation, two basic aspects of freedom of expression collide: the one that is most often emphasised, the prohibition of censorship, and the less acknowledged aspect, i.e. a diversity of voices (Kenyon et al 2017). The current deficient way of handling sexist and misogynist online abuse leads to indirect censorship in which female voices are silenced (Edström 2016).…”

“…The most prominent and in focus here are the democratic and participation rationale. Other important aspects are knowledge development, truth-seeking and strengthening people's self-development and autonomy (Kenyon et al 2017;Petäjä 2006). Freedom of expression has been important to combat injustice, inequality and marginalisation and is at the core of democracy.…”

“…Different ideas and perspectives are necessary for knowledge and hence democracy, as public debate is closely linked to the political process. 19 Freedom of expression has been crucial in the political process, and of special importance to groups that, historically, have had lesser influence in society, although the interest in a diversity of voices is on behalf of not only those who speak but also the audience and the availability of diverse public speech (Kenyon et al 2017).…”

“…Freedom of expression is a fundamental part of democracy, and states have an obligation to protect and safeguard this fundamental freedom expressed in human rights instruments and constitutions all over the world. As mentioned in the introduction, there are two basic aspects, the 'negative' non-censorship and the 'positive' diversity of voices, at the core of democratic free speech (Kenyon et al 2017). The way the obligation to protect freedom of speech is implemented varies among jurisdictions.…”

Freedom of Opinion and Expression: From the Perspective of Psychosocial Disability and Madness

“…One question that follows is whether an additional consideration supporting the abolition of mental health laws lies in the need to protect the 'negative' aspects of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression (i.e., non-intervention by the State). Given the manner in which the 'lives, experiences and opinions' of people with disability are fundamentally devalued and invalidated (Spivakovsky, forthcoming), the scope of States' 'positive' obligations to establish legal, policy, and administrative machinery to support freedom of opinion and expression (Kenyon et al 2017) is equally relevant.…”