French President Emmanuel Macron recently made headlines by criticizing American free speech. On September 29, he claimed that what some refer to as “free speech” in the U.S. is actually the opposite. It’s a bit ironic to hear Macron lecture on free speech, especially considering his own track record.
France has been tightening its grip on free speech lately, with vague laws that label certain speech as criminal, particularly if it’s seen as “inciting” or “intimidating” based on race or religion. For instance, fashion designer John Galliano faced legal consequences for making antisemitic remarks in a Paris bar back in 2010 and 2011. Similarly, Marine Le Pen’s father was fined for derogatory comments about the Roma community in 2013, and a French teenager faced charges for calling Islam a “religion of hate” in 2020.
It’s perplexing, really. Just recently, Macron lauded Brigitte Bardot, proclaiming her a symbol of freedom, even though she faced repeated legal challenges for voicing her opinions. This brings to mind how French officials responded to the Charlie Hebdo attack. After years of pursuing criminal investigations against the magazine, they suddenly promoted a march supporting free speech following the tragedy, only to later use it as leverage to impose stricter speech regulations.
In my book, I discuss the troubling trajectory of censorship in France and how the drive to suppress dissent has become all-consuming. Macron has notably aligned himself with figures like Thierry Breton, who support the expansion of the contentious Digital Services Act, affecting free speech even beyond France’s borders.
Macron recently articulated that there can be no freedom if one’s own freedom impinges on others. His assertion reflects a troubling trend in France where even mild insults can be prosecuted. France now stands as a front-runner in the decline of free speech, with a wide array of laws aimed at stifling political and religious expression.
This sentiment towards free speech resonates with several leaders within the European Union. I could feel the atmosphere at the World Forum in Berlin, where the slogan pushed for a “New World Order with European Values,” and it was attended by prominent figures from the U.S. who were clearly supportive.
The Digital Services Act categorizes speech deemed as “disinformation” or “incitement” as illegal. Following its passage, European officials celebrated this as a victory for democracy, arguing that illegal actions offline should also be treated the same online. But many of us in the free speech community are far from convinced.
Interestingly, despite his declining popularity in France, Macron continues to receive encouragement from establishment figures and media outlets in the U.S. I was taken aback when he addressed Congress, promoting his anti-free speech agenda, calling for a united battle against “fake news.” He suggested that the distortion of information threatens the very essence of democracy.
This idea—that more speech somehow leads to less freedom—is a confusing notion often propagated by those against free speech. My experience indicates that no censorship system has ever succeeded in quelling an idea permanently. Instead, it seems to empower leaders like Macron to suppress dissent and intimidate those who oppose them.
Ultimately, the best remedy for bad speech is better speech. People are perfectly capable of discerning values and considering opposing viewpoints without government intervention. Free expression has the power to foster truth, gradually diminishing the influence of hate and prejudice when exposed to open debate.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that racism, sexism, or other forms of hate will magically disappear. Neither censorship nor unrestricted speech can ensure everyone behaves better. However, Macron’s rhetoric serves as a familiar yet misleading argument that free speech is detrimental and that government oversight is necessary to protect public discourse.
In a nation that once championed “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” the concept of “liberté” seems to be diminishing. Today, individual rights related to speech and religion are often compromised in the name of “equity” and “fraternity.”
