Minorities’ Views on Freedom of Expression: Unrestricted or Protective?

Abstract

While freedom of expression is a key principle of democracy, normative theories do not provide a univocal answer about its potential limits. Two major normative views stand on this respect. The first one advocates for few or no freedom of speech limits, while the contrasting view argues in favor of establishing clear limits as a way to protect some groups or individuals. What makes an individual more prone to embrace an unrestricted (liberal) or a restrained (protective) view remains an unsolved matter. Moreover, existing research predominantly focuses on the general public and majorities, the ones who have to decide whether or not to restrain their speech to protect vulnerable individuals and groups. Instead, minorities’ views on the trade-off between protection and freedom of speech remain unexplored, even if minorities are a frequent target of offensive speech. In this article we test the impact of hate speech on attitudes towards freedom of speech among European Muslims. For this purpose, we exploit an unexpected event occurred during the fieldwork of the European Social Survey. Specifically, we track the effects of the release of the ``Innocence of Muslims'', a short film that denigrates Islamic prophet Muhammad, on Muslims' views on freedom of speech. Our findings reveal a shift towards a more protective stance on freedom of expression among Muslims in response to exposure to abusive speech directed towards their in-group. After being targeted through hate speech Muslims became much more open to establishing clear limits and boundaries on free speech. These results have relevant implications for current debates about the limits of free speech, and call for more attention to the reaction of minority groups that are often targeted through hate speech.