Free Speech in the Western World: Campus Activism, Hypocrisy and Tolerance

In the West, the most important rights are those of the individual. However, in light of recent global developments, the paradoxical nature of Western free speech has been exposed yet again. Western commitment to freedom of expression, an internationally-recognized human right, is embedded deep in its political culture. Nonetheless, for many of us coming from countries with questionable guarantees for freedom of speech, disillusionment upon arriving in the West – the supposed haven of political activism – is not an uncommon experience. Fear of backlash and permanent repercussions caused by  speaking out are likely to silence many of us, even right here in Menton. Outside of our campus, commentators have argued that the Western world is experiencing a creeping phenomenon of censorship that is reminiscent of the McCarthy era during the early Cold War. Yet, this is not to say that the free speech absolutist view espoused by many liberals is morally sound either; free speech has been used as a cloak of justification in many instances to defend offensive and bigoted remarks. As contention and disagreements aggregate in the emotionally and politically charged atmosphere of our time, the importance of noting the thin line between free speech and hate speech is becoming all the more clear. But is silencing university students through fear and intimidation the right way to do so? At what point do we begin condemning free speech?

It appears that the West is not always the safeguard of rights it proclaims itself to be. Freedom of speech breaches in the West take on a different form – they are not expressed in the form of imprisonment and overt government censorship – but have a more clandestine outlook. Recently, Harvard students who published a controversial pro-Palestinian statement following the October 7 attacks have been met with doxxing, in the form of a billboard truck displaying their faces and labeling them as “Harvard’s Leading Antisemites,” online intimidation and publication of their personal information. As a result of the doxxing, a group of CEOs asked for a list of their names to not “inadvertently” hire them, in the words of billionaire Bill Ackman, in the future. Columbia University has also made public its decision to suspend the activities of two of its student associations, Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine, following their violation of “university policies related to holding campus events” by holding unauthorized campus protests. David Polk, a top law firm in the US, has rescinded job offers to three students at Harvard and Columbia for their alleged involvement in the open letters criticizing Israel. At the University of California, Berkeley and other campuses across the U.S., students have begun wearing masks during protests to avoid being identified and harassed. 

However, one does not need to look beyond the Atlantic Ocean to see the extent of this contention. In France, pro-Palestine protests have been banned (not outright but on a case-by-case basis) due to their potential to “generate disturbances to public order,” according to the French Minister of Interior Gerald Darmanin. Closer yet, at Sciences Po Menton, student association Palestine: Understanding the Struggle (formerly Sciences Palestine) has been forced to cease most of its activities following contestations from politicians in the French Riviera. Similarly, a group of Science Pistes from our campus have been subject to harsh words and harassment by political personalities for a video expressing solidarity with the Palestinian cause that was taken out of context on social media. One student has communicated her feelings through the following words: “When joining Sciences Po, I truly thought that I would be able to express my ideas freely. Nevertheless, in light of recent events, I faced pressure from the administration and felt real censorship regarding my pro-Palestinian stance.” 

Without taking a stance on whether these actions are justified or not,  one must acknowledge that such restrictions by parties in the Western world have blurred what is entailed by freedom of expression and opinion. Even before the Israel-Hamas conflict, certain measures that contradict freedom of speech have been setting a gloomy precedent for the future of such rights. In the U.S., the passage of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bills, along with 175 bills in 40 state legislatures that have been introduced over these past two years, promise to dictate and restrict what teachers and students can discuss in schools. This issue is compounded by a number of books being banned in educational institutions; gag laws that target race theory, gender studies and history have also been put into effect. It appears that the public sphere of discussion is today’s target.

In times like these, it is often pertinent to revisit the contributions of philosophers. John Stuart Mill and his harm principle prove to be more relevant than ever when trying to distinguish between the demarcations of hate speech and free speech. His utilitarian argument asserted that freedom should be granted unless or until its actions cause harm to another individual: “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” The distinction between speech that appeals to reason and empathy against speech that vilifies and fuels hateful sentiments is self-evident in most cases. When it is not, measures such as the United Nations Rabat threshold test, are helpful in clarifying the fine line between the two. 

Moreover, in the United Kingdom, Canada and in France, acts are penalized and prohibitions are made to preempt hateful, discriminatory or blasphemous speech. Decisions to restrict pro-Palestinian voices, based on the conviction that it perpetrates antisemitism, can be judged through this lens. Do pro-Palestinian supporters that demand ceasefires for the people of Gaza violate the principles above? With the exception of hate crimes committed from both sides, in most cases, it can be argued otherwise. The undeniable fact is that all populations, including the Jewish, the Palestinian and those who convey support for either, should be protected. Countering hate speech without compromising free speech is possible. Silencing student activists goes against the spirit of free inquiry that is crucial to educational institutions. When the fine line of empathy is transgressed, punishment is justifiable. However, at the same time, support of a cause should not be misconstrued as hate speech. 

The aforementioned cases of online harassment for both Harvard and Sciences Po students unfolding recently evince the need for regulation and limits when it comes to free speech in the digital world. Clearly, there must be limits to free speech, now more than ever. Extremism and populism are gaining momentum and leaving behind sentiments of hate in their tracks. However, the problem lies in the indeterminate selection of what is labeled as impermissible in the West. What is considered ‘outrageous’ and ‘appalling’ appears to be an evolving matter always up-for-debate. Some struggles are accentuated, while others are overlooked. One fellow student argued: “Western free speech is only upheld if the speech doesn’t affect the status quo.” Thus, political motivations and cultural wars that shape rhetoric surrounding free speech must always be scrutinized. We must move beyond binary conceptions and be conscious of the role played by the media, governments and other actors. It is never in our favor to partake in polarizing discourse if the long-term goal we strive for is to create a better society for all of us. 

From anti-apartheid protests to strikes against the Vietnam War and numbers of sit-ins over a range of socio-political issues, university campuses have long been platforms for activist movements. They have impelled momentum, and inspired solidarity for many causes that we now look back on with admiration. They are ideal locations in which the Socratic method of seeking truth can take place. Through constant debate and questioning of conventional mainstream ideas, philosopher Karl Popper argues that students can eliminate errors and falsehoods. Freedoms of expression and opinion are therefore inextricably connected to university life — they advance intellectual pluralism and affirm the significance of democratic processes by enabling students to engage with ideas that they are not fully aware of, or in agreement with. As George Orwell himself highlighted, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” If all ideas outside dominant hegemonic thought were condemned to the margins of public discourse, the course of history would have remained stagnant. Isn’t debate and the divergence of opinion at the very core of progress? 

University campuses, historically famous for their political activism, should continue to nurture a spirit of debate. As institutions of education, it is fundamental that they resist the erosion of free speech and promote student’s intellectual enrichment. The Western world should upgrade its efforts to adhere to their very own ideals of democracy, freedom and open-mindedness that are imbued in its liberal constitutions and institutions. Human rights, respect and humanitarianism should remain as the priority, and expressing solidarity and partaking in intellectual debates should not result in students facing punishment with potentially permanent consequences. As university students, we are capable of discerning where the line of freedom of speech ends and where hate speech begins. We must not cross it. Yet, at the same time, we should not be intimidated and silenced for voicing our opinion. The only way towards depolarization is through constructive dialogue. And as history shows, obstructing the path towards it is invariably more detrimental than restorative.