All Opinions Are Respectable?
The limits of freedom of expression
“A society that values its own freedom has to be ready to limit the freedom of those who would destroy it.”
— Isaiah Berlin
Today’s society is characterized by its freedom of expression, which in many countries has become a fundamental right. Every day we can take to our social networks, start a debate, or simply say what we think. In fact, this freedom and the means that allow us to do so are the reason why I can be writing this article.
Now, although freedom of expression has been a key tool for advancing as a society, it is also important to reflect on how we have distorted the idea of tolerance. We seem to have come to think that any idea we see or read must be accepted without discussion, because “we must be respectful” and avoid offending someone with a contrary opinion. But do all opinions really deserve our respect? Does freedom of expression have limits?
The Paradox of Tolerance
In 1945, the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper developed “the paradox of tolerance” in his book The open society and its enemies, which tells us that unlimited tolerance can be counterproductive, because by not questioning the ideas of others’ opinions we could be accepting a threat to tolerance itself. In his words:
“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
This approach can help us reconsider the true meaning of being tolerant. If we allow intolerant ideas to be promoted without questioning them, we would be jeopardizing the principles of a tolerant society. Therefore, this paradox shows us that for tolerance to be effective, it must have limits.
When We Cross the Line
Throughout history, we have seen cases in which the misrepresentation of tolerance has allowed extremist ideologies to spread, with devastating consequences for freedom and human rights. A clear example of this was the growth of Nazism in Germany in the years leading up to World War II. People underestimated the hate speech toward certain groups and the government’s anti-Semitic propaganda. In the name of freedom of speech, aggression against minorities was permitted, leading to the Holocaust.
Another example, more current, is the intolerance that is unjustifiably shown through social networks or mass media towards individuals or ideological groups. This is where “the paradox of tolerance” gains importance: allowing malicious comments under the banner of freedom of expression can seriously affect society.
In this sense, we should not confuse tolerance with permissiveness or passivity, for tolerance does not mean accepting any idea to avoid being offensive, but rather it has a critical and active character, necessary to evaluate opinions and what they entail. Applying limits to tolerance should not be seen as an attack on freedom, but as a way to protect it from those who seek to destroy it from within.
Responsibility in Free Speech
The right to free speech is fundamental to any democratic society and must be respected by all. This right allows us to share our ideas, beliefs and thoughts without fear of being reprimanded. However, it is crucial to understand that respecting this right does not imply accepting all opinions without question.
There are various reasons for not accepting all the ideas we hear, including ethical, moral, psychological and scientific reasons. For example, in objective terms, if I assert that 2 + 2 is 5, even if you have to respect my right to express it, you could not accept that assertion because it is incorrect from a scientific point of view. Similarly, some ideas may be objectively false or dangerous, and accepting them without question may have negative consequences.
As the philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote:
“The freedom of expressing an opinion, and of receiving it, is fundamental, but it does not imply that all opinions are equally valid or correct.”
In addition, we must consider the impact of our own words. While we have the right to have an opinion, our opinions must also be responsible and respectful. Freedom of expression should not be a shield to promote ideas that may cause harm or injustice. Responsibility in free expression involves a balance between exercising our right to express ourselves and being mindful of the effect we may have on others and on society at large.
Conclusion
In a society that values its own freedom, it is essential that we are willing to set limits on freedom of expression in order to protect our own freedom. As Isaiah Berlin reminds us, “A society that values its own freedom has to be ready to limit the freedom of those who would destroy it.”
Freedom of expression is a fundamental tool for social progress and the exchange of ideas. However, “the paradox of tolerance, proposed by Karl Popper, invites us to reflect on the limits of this freedom. While we must respect the right of each individual to express his or her opinions, this does not mean that all opinions are equally valid or that we must accept them without question. History has shown that excessive tolerance of extremist ideologies can have devastating consequences for society.
Ultimately, responsibility in free expression is a balance between defending our right to express our opinion and being aware of the weight of our opinion in society. True tolerance is one that protects the principles of a free society while encouraging critical and constructive debate. Only in this way can we ensure that freedom of expression contributes to the common good and not to the destruction of the values that underpin it.
Bibliographic References
Berlin, I. (1958). Two concepts of liberty. Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. R. (1945). The open society and its enemies. Routledge.
Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. Parker & Son.
