Threats to freedom of speech and the future of western democracies with Eric Heinze

·42 min·4 clips

Eric Heinze reveals why he can no longer assume liberal democracy is secure when discussing free speech threats today.

The episode features a lecture by Eric Heinze on threats to freedom of speech and the future of Western democracies. Heinze begins by noting that a decade ago, he could assume a secure background of liberal democracy when discussing free speech, but today that assumption is no longer valid. He argues that free speech is the defining feature of liberal democracy, yet the concept of 'liberal democracy' itself is problematic because liberalism and democracy have a fraught historical relationship. Heinze traces this tension back to ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, who warned of too much democracy, and forward to modern figures like Trump and Musk, who represent dangers at opposite poles. He explains that this tension underpins contemporary debates about regulating hate speech. Heinze references international treaties like the 1965 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which have expanded categories of prohibited speech. He distinguishes between individualized expression (like direct harassment) and generalized expression (expounding abhorrent ideas without targeting individuals), identifying the latter as the core controversy. To address when speech can be banned, Heinze outlines three models: the classically liberal model (exemplified by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which requires a risk of imminent lawless action), the communitarian model (seeing speech as akin to conduct and more readily punishable), and the libertarian model (requiring proof of direct harm). He critiques each: the classical liberal model is challenged by the internet's transformation of risk, the communitarian model is excessively proactive and ideological, and the libertarian model is excessively retroactive. Heinze also mentions a fourth, authoritarian model that strategically defines harm to serve power. He then proposes his own democratic approach, shifting focus from abstract speech rights to the core requirements of democratic citizenship, such as minimum protections in criminal procedure and decisive political participation like voting. Heinze argues that speech necessary for this core citizenship should be protected under 'viewpoint absolutism constrained by risk,' meaning no one should be excluded from democratic conversation solely for their worldview. However, he flips the script on online speech regulation, noting that major platforms like those controlled by Elon Musk are already heavily regulated by private entities. Heinze advocates for democratizing that regulation rather than leaving it to powerful individuals, while treating individual citizens' speech as part of their citizenship core. He concludes by contrasting his opposition to hate speech laws targeting individuals with his support for regulating major internet platforms to enhance democratic participation.

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Liberal Halvtime