Freedom of Expression and Democracy

Freedom of expression is the essence of democracy. This is because without freedom of expression there is no such thing as a democracy. Too little freedom of expression, you get totalitarianism. However, with too much freedom of expression, you get rid of democracy and you end up with anarchism. How?

First, we must look at the state of nature. The most prominent philosophers on the state of nature are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. For Hobbes, no one is safe because one can be killed for what they have or as a pre-emption for what they do not have. This is because naturally, people chase power and this power comes from having friends, riches, and reputation. Without law and government, people are bound to kill each other in pursuit of power. Locke on the other hand, says all people are naturally equal, no one has a right to subordinate another, and all have a right to property, health, and liberty, and that people will be naturally peaceful and respectful of these rights. While Hobbes advocates for strong government to uphold law and order, Locke says that all people have an equal right to uphold law and order but is usually delegated to the government. While both philosophers disagree on the state of nature, both agree on the need for an overarching authority.

For Hobbes, the state has to be very powerful to prevent people from going into a state of anarchism, which can be defined as a state in which there are no generally accepted rules for resolving differences. This is a state of unlimited Freedom of Expression, where one can express themselves without regard for the rights of another and with the interference of the state as prescribed by Article of 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If one feels threatened they can express that fear in a way that is criminal, violent, and above all in a way that undermines territorial integrity all of which are conditions for limiting the freedom of expression. All this can be avoided by having a strong totalitarian state, which has unlimited power, and what the state says goes even if it infringes on the rights of its citizens as humans.

For Locke, he agrees that a state is needed however, the state cannot be an all-powerful state because all people in a state of nature are equal and no one has a natural right to rule over another. The state will be given a right to rule in the interest of the people, which is basically democracy at its most basic definition. As a result of this delegation, the state is therefore subject to the same rules as people, it cannot act in a way that harms the natural rights of people. It can only act in a manner that is appropriate. The mechanism that facilitates this balance of power between state and people is the limited freedom of expression. The state enacts laws that regulate freedom of expression for the greater good of society, in the freedom cannot be left unregulated because that will lead to anarchy and a Hobbesian state of nature, but at the same time these laws cannot be so stringent that they begin to undermine the natural rights of human beings in a Lockean state of nature.

In conclusion, limited freedom of expression not only protects the state from falling apart it most importantly protects the people from their government because the government cannot act or express itself in a manner that is harmful to the natural rights of people for example people have a right natural right according to Locke to decide who rules them and the state cannot cling on to power by denying people access to information that could help them to decide if the current leader should stay in power or not as was decided in the case of Sunday Times v the United Kingdom (1979). In that case, it was decided that people have a right to be informed about issues happening within their country even if the state may not like it.