"Freedom of speech is a right that we must cherish and defend"

EESC info: More and more, it would seem that social media are fuelled by violence. This pattern of behaviour can lead to verbal or physical violence against all forms of authority, be it political, law enforcement, institutional or private. It certainly seems that anything goes on social media, and whether the idea you're defending is true or false simply doesn't matter. For instance, someone might feel that their personal grievance is legitimate and go so far as to slap France's head of state.

As president of the ad hoc Group on Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law, given this state of affairs, where do you feel that the line should be drawn as regards fundamental rights and individual freedom, particularly freedom of speech?

Cristian Pîrvulescu: Freedom of speech is pivotal in any democratic society. It is a fundamental right without which democracy cannot operate. The interesting thing is that almost everyone demands this right, even those who are not necessarily interested in defending democracy and human rights for all.

However, the right to freedom of speech is often misunderstood. Many people think that it is an absolute right and use this argument to justify every kind of verbal attack. But verbal attacks can sometimes embolden people to move on to unacceptable physical violence. We have seen this recently with a number of tragic events which have made regulation of social media such a burning issue.

Legally, the state authorities are responsible for deciding how rights are implemented. They can limit freedom of speech, but only in very exceptional and strictly defined circumstances: the measures adopted must be necessary in a democratic society for national security, to prevent crime or to safeguard public health, for instance. Under the rule of law, it is up to the courts to settle disputes and decide where the line should be drawn. The executive, individuals and groups cannot take it upon themselves to deliver justice.

Political leaders have always been tempted to curb freedom of speech in order to prevent people making demands and voicing disagreement. However, the dawn of social media has sent good old-fashioned censorship out the window. We are therefore seeing a shift as the focus moves from freedom of speech to the other side of that coin: the right to information. These days, it is very difficult to distinguish between information based on genuine facts and disinformation spread for definite purposes.

One thing is certain: people defending a truth-based approach, such as investigative journalists and human rights advocates, are on the front line. If certain leaders or groups do not appreciate what these people are doing, it is now easier to tar and feather them online or paint them as enemies of the state or foreign agents in the press and on social media than it is to censor them. One obvious example here is the journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. Dozens of unfounded legal cases – Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, with the apt acronym of SLAPP – were brought against her before she was murdered. They couldn't get her to shut up, so they decided to shut her down for good. The upswell of violence against journalists in Europe makes it even clearer that freedom of speech is a right that we must cherish and defend with all our strength in this new world.