History of freedom of speech and the press

Author: Georgi Georgiev

History of the development of the right to freedom of expression, the right to free speech and a free press and media. The article is divided into several main sections and follows a chronological order of presentation, namely:

• Definition of Freedom of Speech and Press and Legal Framework
• Freedom of speech and the press in Antiquity
• Copernicus and Galileo vs. the Vatican
• The Star Room
• Milton's Areopagitics: Truth is reached through free expression
• Enlightenment – Freedom of Speech as a Driving Principle
• J. St. Mill: "Do not be afraid of spreading lies"
• State Supreme Court: Expanding standards for free speech
• Totalitarianism: "Truth is the moral enemy"
• Freedom vs. Violence: The Battle Continues

"If freedom means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear." - George Orwell.

Definition of Freedom of Speech and Press and Legal Framework

Freedom of speech is the political right of every person to communicate their ideas and opinions (using their own body and property) to anyone who wishes to hear them. The term "freedom of expression" is used synonymously, but it also includes all acts of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is enshrined in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This article states that “everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference” and that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or in the form of thought, or through any other media of his choice.” Article 19 goes on to state that the exercise of these rights carries with it “special responsibilities and duties” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” where necessary “for respect for the rights or reputations of others” or “for the protection of national security and public order, public health or morals.”

A similar definition is also found in the "European Convention on Human Rights", Articles 9 and 10, the exact quote of which you can read in the appendices to the article.

Freedom of speech and the press in Antiquity

Even within the rather restrictive frameworks defined in the aforementioned charters, conventions and declarations and other documents such as national constitutions, freedom of expression is a very new and very fragile phenomenon in human civilization. Let's go back a little to see when this idea even originated.

Evolutionary scientists identify the ability of humans to speak a complex and rich language as one of the things that most distinguishes us from other animal species. Theories about the origin of language date it back from 100,000 to 1 million years ago. The first written languages that we know of date back only 5-6 thousand years and are associated with the emergence of the earliest human civilizations.

Over time, two conflicting forces emerged: on the one hand, the need to express ideas and opinions in writing, and on the other, the desire to control who, how, and what ideas could be expressed and disseminated. For example, the ancient Greek poet Homer (9th-8th centuries BC) supported freedom of speech, while Solon (630-560 BC), the first great lawgiver of Athens, forbade "speaking things against the living and the dead."

Pericles, the leader of democratic Athens and one of the greatest defenders of human freedom in general, identified freedom of speech as the main difference between the rival city-states of Athens and Sparta. The orator Demosthenes also spoke in a similar vein, noting that in Athens everyone was free to praise the Spartan constitution, while in Sparta the only constitution that could be freely praised was the Spartan one.

Nevertheless, within Athens there was also no unanimity on the matter, as the Athenian Assembly ordered Socrates, one of the greatest philosophers of all time, to drink deadly poison as punishment for teaching about unknown gods and for "corrupting" and "spoiling" the young by encouraging them to question authority.

Copernicus and Galileo vs. the Vatican

Until the Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries in Europe), censorship was the common practice of governments. Autocrats generally forbade any questioning of their right to rule, their policies, or their behavior. In the mid-15th century, Gutenberg's invention of the printing press made it easy to mass-produce books, newspapers, and pamphlets. This further increased the thirst for control on the part of tyrants.

The Vatican, being the center of the Catholic dictatorship of the invisible white-haired old man in the sky, which extended over most of the continent, naturally became the main censor. In 1559, after one of its regular meetings, the church issued a long list of banned books in which the tyrants saw, with reason or not, that there were heretical ideas expounded.

One of the censored books was Nicolaus Copernicus's "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres" (1543). It went beyond what was permitted - i.e., mere hypothetical speculation - and directly challenged the Church's belief in a static Earth. The great scientist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was sentenced to life imprisonment for confirming Copernicus' theories about the rotation of the planets around the Sun.

Galileo's sentence was commuted to house arrest without visitors only after he was forced to kneel before the Pope and renounce his belief in Copernican theory. Galileo's punishment, his forced recantation of his ideas, and the banning of his books had an even greater effect than the banning of "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres" in killing the impetus for scientific inquiry and discovery for over a century.

The Star Room

During the "Reformation" , monarchs who broke away from Vatican control also called for censorship. The struggles for freedom of speech during the Reformation in Britain had a huge influence on the subsequent development of the idea of freedom of expression. Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I, both in conflict with the Vatican, banned books that contained ideas against the new national Church of England and asked the Court of the Star Chamber (a court that assisted the regular English courts) to suppress "libel".

Elizabeth I also directly appointed and supervised officials whose primary function was to censor public speech and speeches. One of Elizabeth's most famous acts of censorship was her order to remove the abdication and murder scene from William Shakespeare's Richard II, as it seemed to draw a comparison between herself and the weak Richard II (and it probably did). During the Stuart dynasty, the Star Chamber was used to suppress political dissent and to control and license printers. Of course, this did not stop illegal pamphlets and newspapers.

After Charles I led an army against Parliament, he dissolved the court of the Star Chamber in 1637. Just a few years later, in 1643, the "License Act" was passed, which introduced strict restrictions on the content of printed materials.

Milton's Areopagitics: Truth is reached through free expression

John Milton (1608-1674), author of Paradise Lost, is comparable only to Shakespeare in literature, but with his Areopagitica (1644), a speech in defense of free speech, he is considered the Shakespeare of journalism. In the above context of state intrigue and civil war, he wrote perhaps the most famous defense of free speech, namely – the political essay “Areopagitica”. His main argument against the adoption of the “License Act” and in defense of the right to a free press is something basic to our understanding of freedom of expression, but for its time it was revolutionary, namely that “truth is most likely to be reached in a free and open environment of exchange”.

The argument was rejected at the time, but the Licensing Act was eventually repealed in 1688, at the start of the revolution that brought Mary II and William III to power, but on the condition that they adhere to the Bill of Rights. Censorship by royal decree continued, but the free granting of printing licenses began the English tradition of a free press.

Despite its complexity, Milton's Areopagitics became a cornerstone of the liberal view of freedom of expression and had a profound influence on that tradition in Britain, the United States, and throughout the British Empire. It remains at the heart of the defense of free speech.

More about freedom of speech during this period in our article " History of Newspapers Around the World ".

Enlightenment – Freedom of Speech as a Driving Principle

Freedom of expression became a central goal of Enlightenment thinkers and also a measure of progress on the path to freedom. Sweden was the first European country to abolish censorship in 1766, followed soon by Denmark and Norway in 1770. Reflecting the egalitarian spirit of its revolution, the French National Assembly included not only the right to free expression but also the right to own a printing press in its 1789 "Declaration of the Rights of Man."

In the American colonies, one of the colonists' chief grievances was censorship by the English king. After the American Revolution, the First Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1771, established one of the strongest standards for guaranteeing free expression of any constitution to that time: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free expression thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people freely to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress or grievance."

J. St. Mill: "Do not be afraid of spreading lies"

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) argued that without human freedom, including freedom of speech and the press, there can be no progress in science, law, or politics. According to Mill, progress requires the free discussion of different opinions. Mill's book On Liberty (1859) became a classic defense of the right to freedom of expression.

According to Mill, truth always triumphs over falsehood, and therefore the freedom to freely express ideas, whether true or false, should not be feared. Truth is not stable or fixed, but evolves over time and the efforts of people. According to Mill, much of what we once thought to be true has turned out to be false, and vice versa. Therefore, opinions should not be limited on the basis of their apparent falsehood. According to Mill, free discussion is necessary to protect ourselves from the "deep sleep of firm opinions." Discussion will provoke a march of truth, and by including false opinions, the truth of true ones will be confirmed even more strongly.

Mill goes further, arguing that an opinion has intrinsic value to the owner of the opinion, so that silencing the expression of that opinion is an injustice to a fundamental human right. For Mill, the only case in which expression can be suppressed is to prevent harm from a clear and imminent threat. Neither economic nor moral consequences, nor the well-being of the listener can justify the suppression of the right to free expression.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

is a quote from Evelyn Hall's biography of Voltaire. This quote is often used to describe the principle of freedom of speech.

State Supreme Court: Expanding standards for free speech

Еволюцията на стандартите за свобода на изразяването в демокрациите до момента клонят към увеличаване на свободата и намаляване на ограниченията върху медиите. В САЩ решенията на Върховният съд отразяват тази тенденция. Традиционно, клеветите и националната сигурност се ползват за оправдания за ограничаване на свободата на словото. Въпреки, че всяка сфера има легитимни искания за ограничаване на словото, с тези ограничения също така много лесно се злоупотребява.

In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision in favor of a Montgomery city commissioner who had sued the newspaper over an advertisement it had published by civil rights leaders. Southern public figures had a tradition of suing Northern newspapers, with success, as a strategy to discourage coverage of civil rights activities. In this case, the Supreme Court held that defamation, especially against a public figure, could be found only if there was evidence of malicious intent, information disproving the truth of the statement, or "criminal recklessness" with respect to the truth.

Until 1969, the Supreme Court generally upheld statutory restrictions on the free press on the grounds of public and national security. In Schenck v. United States (1919), Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote his famous opinion, in which he stated: "The strictest protection of free speech will not prevent a man from shouting 'fire' in a theater and causing a panic where none exists." His opinion established an open-ended standard of "clear and imminent danger" for assessing claims of national and public security. The question, of course, is what constitutes clear and imminent danger. In Schenck, the plaintiff, Charles Schenck, a leader of the Socialist Party of the United States, was convicted of distributing leaflets urging World War I draftees to resist compulsory military service.

In Yates v. United States (1967), the court overturned numerous convictions under the Smith Act, a law that outlawed all revolutionary political movements, on the grounds that a distinction should be made between expressing ideas for the overthrow of the government by revolutionary means and taking actual action in that direction. The case concerned a televised broadcast of a Ku Klux Klan rally that contained explicit threats of violence against Jews and blacks. The Supreme Court held that the standard of "clear and present threat" was quite broad, and that free speech could not be "prohibited, penalized, or abridged" except where the speech was likely to lead to "imminent violation of the law."

In the famous Pentagon case, New York Times Company v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court set an even stricter standard—a serious need for evidence for any government restriction of the First Amendment.

All of these decisions greatly expand media protections, reaffirm the importance of freedom of speech and the press as fundamental elements of free societies, and make clear that restrictions on freedom threaten the country's democratic foundations.

Totalitarianism: "Truth is the moral enemy"

The rise of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century came with the opposite dynamic– the destruction of all forms of freedom. Totalitarian regimes took complete control over the media, turning them into instruments for the implementation of state ideology. They were used as a means of controlling thought and consciousness through propaganda and to intimidate all those who professed deviant or opposing opinions. The implementation of this control was one of the first tasks of any such regime.

In the early days of the Bolshevik Revolution, for example, the Bolsheviks instituted censorship that included the destruction of the printing presses of political opponents and of private ("bourgeois") libraries. Lenin, the Bolshevik leader, set the direction of state propaganda early on with the famous maxim "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth."

Stalin further institutionalized censorship with the establishment of the State Censorship Commission (Glavlit) and the Writers' Union, the only legal union of writers. These actions of Stalin were instrumental in directing every aspect of public expression and establishing socialism as the only permitted ideology. During the Reign of Terror during Stalin's reign (peaking between 1920 and 1940) , thousands of writers, journalists, and artists who refused to conform to the state ideology were thrown into prison camps or outright murdered.

After taking power in Germany, Hitler appointed Joseph Goebbels as director of propaganda. One of Goebbels' first acts was to incite anti-Semitism in the media. He also helped gather support for the Great Book Burning of May 10, 1933 in Berlin, aimed at destroying "un-German" books. The German poet Heinrich Heine wrote in the 19th century: "Where books burn, human bodies will inevitably burn."

Goebbels' concept of the "big lie" defines the essence of totalitarian propaganda:

"Ако кажеш достатъчно голяма лъжа и продължиш да я повтаряш, хората в крайна сметка ще ѝ повярват. Лъжата може да бъде поддържана само за толкова време, за колкото Държавата може да предпази хората от политическите, икономическите и/или военни последствия от лъжата. Ето защо става жизнено важно Държавата да използва всичките си сили за да потиска несъгласните, тъй като истината е моралният враг на лъжата, и така, по продължение, истината става най-големият враг на Държавата."

You can read in detail about freedom of speech in Bulgaria, including during the totalitarian regime, in our article " History of the Press in Bulgaria ".

Freedom vs. Violence: The Battle Continues

According to the 2014 Freedom House report, which examines freedom of speech in 195 countries around the world, only 88 are classified as "free", 59 as "partly free" and a full 48 as not free. In percentage terms, this is 40% free, 25% partly free and a full 35% not free. In addition, the report reports the 8th consecutive year of decline in political and civil freedom around the world.

The greatest threats to freedom of expression remain, as they have throughout history, the state and religion. Being a monopolist in the use of force in a given territory, regardless of the form of government, the state invariably encroaches on fundamental human rights, including freedom of speech. In some countries – more, in others – less. Religion, having as its basis irrational superstitions and relying on the instillation of these superstitions into the heads of defenseless and dependent children, also cannot exist if it does not exercise some kind of censorship (the more irrational, the more...).

Over the years, many journalists, writers and artists have paid with their lives. The 2006 Muhammad cartoons scandal was barely forgotten, followed by the very recent massacres in France, which took place just days before I wrote this article (which would otherwise have been published a few weeks later).

The peaceful way forward is the way of coexistence based on a rational foundation, which cannot exist without freedom of speech. The moment the pens and keyboards are put away, the scimitars and machine guns are brought out. Let us not forget the lessons learned with so much bloodshed...

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then we can be led like sheep, dumb and silent, to the slaughter." George Washington

 

The article was written for Vestnicibg.com by: Georgi Georgiev. The article also contains a translation of parts of the following article, without a specified author.

Link to the original article on Vestnicibg.com

 

Appendix 1
quote from Article 9 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

ARTICLE 9

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 10

Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article does not prohibit States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting and television broadcasting companies and cinematographic production companies.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such procedures, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public security or territorial integrity, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals or the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

European Convention on Human Rights - PDF in Bulgarian