Presence and freedom of expression

Freedom of expression, a democratic pillar, is threatened by shifting censorship depending on those in power, even those who claim to be democrats. To preserve our democracy, let’s create micro-citizen assemblies where all speech is allowed, to foster dialogue and tolerance.

Real or Fake Freedom?

Freedom of expression is a fundamental pillar of the democratic system, established in law by the Press Law of July 29, 1881. Indeed, a society without legally guaranteed freedom of expression would become a Chinese-style society, where self-censorship would be the foundational glue of social order, as exercising one’s freedom would immediately lead to social exclusion. The problem with this type of highly policed society is that it is actually controlled by an autocratic power that can give the appearance of democracy, because censorship is internalized by all citizens. This is what is called a totalitarian society, which is not the same as a dictatorial one. In totalitarianism, the norm of self-censorship is internalized by all citizens through a system of mutual and tacit agreements so that everyone feels “good,” avoiding any disruption of the social order imposed by the ruling power.

Since Donald Trump’s election in the United States on November 5, 2024, and the political shift by major social media owners like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, we have seen how platforms that were once sites of intense and justified censorship—especially during the Covid period—have reversed their value systems. Censorship during Covid was tied to the Biden administration’s positions. At the time, the model of “freedom” was in fact absolute censorship and the discrediting of opponents to health policies through bans—those who were the true defenders of freedom of thought. Under Trump, these censorships were completely lifted, but others emerged on many scientific and societal topics. Ultimately, different values are now being promoted. The Trump administration bans and censors different topics than those censored under the Biden administration. Major social media platforms follow the prevailing dogma of the moment.

In public and professional spaces, similarly, certain words are forbidden. It is important, in light of this shift in the U.S., to recognize that censorship under Donald Trump is simply another form of censorship—different from what existed under Biden. It is false to claim that freedom was respected before and no longer is. It is crucial to remain rational on this subject and realize that it is simply censorship on different topics; it is not more severe, just different. The social risk of not saying the right words—or saying the wrong ones—is no greater under Trump than it was under Biden; only the forbidden words have changed. It would be extremely naive and dangerous to believe that Trump is the first to impose censorship. Censorship was just as strong before, defending other “values,” which were in reality other symbolic, political, and economic interests.

When Elon Musk acquired Twitter two years before Donald Trump’s election, he removed the entire censorship system around criticism of Covid policies and everything else. He lifted all restrictions. What he actually did was restore freedom of expression on that platform. This must be stated clearly. Some claimed he supported sexist far-right positions. No—he reinstated freedom of expression in that private space called Twitter. And in doing so, things that were not allowed before became permitted, including hate speech. That is why some say he promotes hate speech. Let us instead embrace nuance, because oversimplification is always culpable.

Nuance the Hatred

I am referring to the article “The Increasing Criminalization of Hate Speech: A Worrying Trend?” by Justine Vinet, a legal scholar, published in AOC on April 22, 2025:

In response to societal changes and new means of communication, several reforms have expanded the repression of speech abuses. The 1972 Pleven Law marked a turning point by broadening offenses related to defamation, insults, and incitement to hatred based on origin or racial or religious affiliation. The 1990 Gayssot Law, meanwhile, criminalized Holocaust denial, the glorification of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and enslavement. Subsequently, the 2004 law extended repression to sexist and homophobic speech, while the 2017 law included gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability among punishable grounds for discrimination. In 2018, sexist outrage was criminalized, then aggravated in 2023, reflecting a growing determination to combat verbal violence of a sexual or sexist nature. Finally, the 2020 Avia Law sought to strengthen the responsibility of digital platforms by requiring them to remove hateful content within 24 hours, though it was partially struck down by the Constitutional Council due to its excessive restriction on freedom of expression.

These developments reflect a gradual expansion in the definition of hate speech, correlated with the recognition of new categories of discrimination. While freedom of expression was traditionally limited by the principle of non-harm, current restrictions now rely on considerations of equality and personal autonomy. This shift illustrates a transformation in criminal law, which no longer solely protects individuals’ dignity but also their personal characteristics.

What the law does is punish speech that may lead to violent acts. But what about speech that normalizes unjust and discriminatory worldviews, potentially creating an environment conducive to violence? The nuance is impossible to determine, and as Justine Vinet aptly points out in this article, judges find themselves becoming political actors, as they must assess the impact of words.

And yet, the very heart of democracy and freedom of expression lies precisely in the ability to speak—that is, to share ideas that may shock other groups. As Noam Chomsky, quoted by Justine Vinet, said: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” And yet, Chomsky was a strong advocate of Covid policies…

Justine Vinet concludes her article with great insight, arguing that what must be cultivated is education, moderation in the democratic sphere, a culture of dialogue, and regulation of communication platforms. I am less convinced by this last idea.

How to deconstruct self-censorship?

I would like to make philosophical proposals to further advance implementation. Justine Vinet provides a very good analysis of the issues. But how do we inspire and sustain democracy while respecting one another, without self-censorship? This is where we must focus our thinking, starting from the observation that regulating democracy solely through laws has failed. Democracy thrives through the actions of citizens themselves. What sustains democracy is the active presence of citizens as actors in their own political system—capable of hearing discourses that are completely foreign to them, even shocking, but also capable of responding to these discourses with their own ideas, in radical opposition to what others have just said. This is what happens in the National Assembly, the heart of our democratic institution, based on this radical opposition of ideas, all of which have a place to be expressed.

This concept of assemblies, in my opinion, must be cultivated. But to exist, to take place, and to be effective and operational, they must rely on the legitimization of each person’s presence—that is, respect for the cultural rights of each individual, which means respecting the dignity of others, regardless of their discourse. My proposal is that in assembly spaces, all discourses should be allowed, even hate speech, and that nothing should be penalized as long as we know it is a space where people gather and empower themselves to receive everything within that space. Outside these assembly spaces, certain discourses could be judged criminally by law. In a way, this is somewhat what happens on Twitter since its acquisition by Elon Musk. Anything can be said there, including the worst things. It is also the principle of secure messaging platforms, like Signal, which allow freedom of expression, for better or for worse—that is the price of freedom. At the heart of this freedom of expression, there may be things we find terrible and others we find beneficial. Because judgment relates to a normative model—that is, to a law, to the context in which the judgment is made.

Journalists, for example, who communicate from territories where policies are extremely repressive regarding freedom of expression, use anonymization systems to express themselves freely outside that context. But if their ideas were visible within the political context where they are located, they could be legitimately imprisoned in that territory. In my opinion, if we want the democratic system to hold, we absolutely need to establish assemblies where everything can be said and to assume such institutions as they are. This does not mean that anything can be said at any time, because we are in a normative system—which is also necessary for social life to function somewhat smoothly. Cultivating private spaces where people feel authorized to speak their minds unfiltered is absolutely essential.

The catastrophic example of Charlie Hebdo

I will give an example. At the time of the Charlie Hebdo attack in January 2015 (Charlie Hebdo being a newspaper with vitriolic content), schools imposed a minute of silence on children to honor the victims of Charlie Hebdo. Two observations on this:

• Young people who did not observe this minute of silence, who may have believed that death was deserved for these blasphemers, saw their parents summoned to the police station.
• Moreover, if prior to this, in any school, a student had brought and shared the Charlie Hebdo newspaper with others, it is almost certain they would have been expelled from the school, as it is an extremely aggressive publication toward the social order in general, not just the Islamic order.

There lies a great paradox, or rather an unfortunate constant. Charlie Hebdo would have been censored if shared in schools due to its different and aggressive thinking. And at the very moment when the dead of Charlie Hebdo were being honored, differing opinions were also being censored! In reality, this minute of silence, in my view, served no purpose. It only reinforced a dominance of censorship, a false defense of free speech, an absolute hypocrisy in my opinion. At the very least, it revealed the complete absence of democratic debate on this highly important societal issue that had just occurred and which could have sparked tensions. If someone’s thinking is suppressed, they will radicalize, because they do not feel acknowledged in the democratic space. They will define themselves in opposition to this false democratic space, which appears as a hypocritical system that everyone knows is no longer democratic. There are those who self-censor to maintain order and those who are censored and must define themselves against this fake democratic system.

Proposal for a committed philosophy

We must rebuild democracy through assemblies. This is an extremely difficult proposal to implement, one that may frighten teachers, in particular, due to potential backlash from parents, school authorities, etc. But it is at the cost of this democratic risk that we can cultivate the values we defend. Otherwise, it produces hypocrisy that only fuels violent radicalism. Because it becomes a simulacrum of democracy rather than actual democracy. During the Covid period, for instance, we even heard ostensibly democratic individuals claim that an authoritarian system like China’s was likely more effective than a democratic one in managing the Covid crisis. This kind of discourse, truly dangerous for democracy, should be penalized, as others are. But it was not at all—this is the most anti-democratic rhetoric possible, extremely dangerous for democracy, just as dangerous, if not more so, than sexist, homophobic, or revisionist speech. This kind of rhetoric undermines democracy.

What I have just proposed may seem somewhat outside the realm of philosophy. To me, it is at the heart of philosophy. Because philosophy is about granting oneself the right to think and express one’s thoughts. This requires actions, frameworks, social proposals, commitment—meaning risks must be taken. Upholding a democratic political philosophy means creating assembly-based acts where all discourses have a right to exist, without exception, as “safe spaces,” as they say. It is at the cost of these individual risks, it seems to me, that we, as citizens, can rebuild pockets of democratic space that, little by little, will infuse the immense enrichment of diverse viewpoints that make up a society’s vitality and that foster mutual tolerance. Without this individual risk-taking as citizens—listening to the Other—the only thing that will be built is intolerance, on one side as much as the other.