Free Speech And Human Dignity
Amid the rapid influx of news from the new U.S. administration, I feel compelled to discuss a topic deeply rooted in both American and European values: free speech. Today, I will focus on why Europeans, particularly Germans, feel a sense of betrayal by their closest ally, the United States, regarding how this fundamental right is currently interpreted and practiced.
Is free speech, in its most radical interpretation of “anything goes, "a virtue?
Wait, what?
To clarify from the outset, I am advocating for freedom of expression and the open exchange of opinions and perspectives in our country. Yet, I wonder if it’s time to consider “the least among us.” What about the beleaguered, the oppressed, and the traumatized individuals we have welcomed to our shores for centuries? Should we expose them to the principles of unrestricted free speech? How is a free speech interpretation like that helpful? Whether free speech should be unrestricted under all circumstances feels contradictory; hear me out and join me in this discussion.
Vice President J.D. Vance attended the Munich Security Conference in Germany last week. In his speech to delegates from around the world, he lectured Germans and Europeans on his interpretation of free speech, which did not go over well.
To understand why his comments were poorly received, it’s essential to explore the unique historical and legal context of Germany.
The Basic Law is Germany’s Constitution. Section I, Article 1, Number 1 states, “Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.”
Article 1, Number 2 states, “The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.”
Article 1 concludes with Number 3, “The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.”
After legally establishing this fact, the law also outlines the people's fundamental rights and all other regulations governed by this law of the land.
This means that everything—every law, regulation, order, and decision—must uphold the inviolability of human dignity. This also extends to fundamental rights, including freedom of opinion and the press. The lesson Germany has learned from its experience with the Holocaust and the Nazi regime is to prioritize one principle above all else.
The way it is articulated establishes a “guardrail” for free speech. Anyone exercising the right to speak freely must not violate someone else’s dignity. Article 2, which outlines personal freedoms, states, “Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law.”
To complete the vision, Article 5, addressing “freedom of expression, arts, and science,” defines in numbers 1 and 2, “(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.”
This means that people have the right to freely express themselves as long as it does not harm others’ dignity, rights, honor, or the special protection of youth granted under this constitution.
That is, in fact, a restriction on free speech. It is a restriction to protect what Germans consider a higher value: human dignity.
Considering these principles, how might such a law influence public discourse and personal freedoms in the U.S.? Would a similar approach work here?
Some laws prohibit hate speech in Germany, particularly those aimed at glorifying, denying, or promoting national socialism (Nazi ideology). The German people established these laws and priorities as a reflection of the lessons learned from the ideologically driven, state-sponsored, organized mass murder of millions and the accompanying aggressive warfare that led to death and destruction on an unprecedented scale.
Given Germany’s history with totalitarian rule, their laws strictly protect human dignity. How important do you think such protections are in our current political climate?
Reflecting on Germany’s approach to protecting human dignity offers us an opportunity to consider which lessons might apply here at home. The challenge lies in balancing robust free speech with the need to protect the dignity of the vulnerable. How will we, as a nation, navigate these complex issues? I invite you to engage in this vital conversation. Let’s explore how our values influence the future of our discourse and democracy.
Do these restrictions on speech to protect dignity resonate with your view of free speech? Why or why not?
