Freedom of speech is obviously essential to any credible electoral process. If politicians are not able, or not allowed, to express themselves freely, or if voters cannot engage in political discussions, how can there be fair elections? In particular, governments should not use their powers to stifle criticism. They should permit a free press and, equally important, should give opposition forces a reasonable chance to express their case on national television.
Yet, there are legitimate limits to freedom of speech. Five reasons to restrict freedom of speech are considered here.
Protecting National Security
Especially in time of war, it is reasonable to restrain politicians from discussing public affairs in a manner likely to betray military secrets to the enemy. Even in peacetime, some matters must remain confidential. Unfortunately, governments will often be tempted to appeal unreasonably to the needs of national security in order to avoid scrutiny and criticism.
Curbing the Freedom to Incite Violence and Hatred
In all societies, especially those fractured by ethnic tensions, unrestricted free speech proves dangerous when anti-democratic, violent elements decide to use their freedom to incite violence and hatred. It is a difficult problem for democracies to decide how far they must tolerate extremist rhetoric, and to what extent they must permit potentially violent public meetings.
An argument for maximum tolerance is that it is all too easy for the government of the day to use the alleged need to maintain law and order to restrict legitimate expressions of dissent. In order to preserve the rights to legitimate dissent, it is also necessary, it may be argued, to permit even those who seem extreme and anti-democratic to express themselves too. But there
are also arguments for restraint.
A classic example of the discussion about restraints of free expression would be the Skokie, Illinois case in the United States about whether Nazi groups should be permitted to express themselves by marching through largely Jewish suburbs. The traditional Protestant marches through predominantly Catholic areas in Northern Ireland have raised similar issues.
Protecting Politicians from Libellous Accusations
It is open to argument whether those who engage in public life, as well as their families, should be protected from untrue accusations by their opponents, or by the press. In the United States, commentators and political opponents are given a great deal of freedom to make comments about those in public life, even if they are blatantly false. In order to obtain protection for libel in the American courts, public figures need to demonstrate not only that statements about them are false, but also that they were made maliciously (something very hard to prove). This freedom to insult, and to make false statements about public figures, stems from the view that politics is a tough business. Consequently, those who choose to participate in public life should expect to open themselves and their families to scrutiny and to attack. In contrast, the libel laws in Britain afford considerably greater protection to political figures.
Protecting Politicians from Invasions of Privacy
Should freedom of the press extend to the right to make comments on the personal lives and sexual habits of politicians and their families? Laws and conventions differ from country to country. In France, the law seeks to protect politicians from intrusions into their private affairs.
The main argument in favour of restricting the rights of the press to report on the private lives of politicians is that public figures should be judged on the basis of their stances on political issues, and on their performances in public office. Whether a president or prime minister is an adulterer or a sexual deviant is irrelevant to his political capacities. His private finances are
equally irrelevant.
The opposite view is that public trust and private morality cannot be separated. A politician who promises to be faithful to a spouse and who then commits adultery displays a lack of trustworthiness about which the voters have a right to be informed. Equally, the private financial affairs of a politician may reflect on his good faith and character.
A compromise view is that the private lives of politicians become relevant only if they have made a point of making a political issue out of matters of morality. For instance, a politician who campaigns against the evils of drug taking is reasonably open to investigation and to ridicule if he is shown to be a drug abuser himself.
Limiting Advantages of Wealthy Candidates and Parties
For a discussion of this question, see Guiding Principles.
Draft Only
