This debate will be in English

The Czech Republic guarantees freedom of expression but there are a growing number of exceptions in line with trends in a number of European countries: genocide denial or even questioning; ‘hate’ speech directed at nations, races or minority groups; and speech that might impinge on national security, individual rights, public health or morality. And the ‘muzzle’ law of 2009 prohibits the press from reporting on victims or perpetrators involved in criminal acts, unless a judge decides it is in the public interest. In the UK, journalists are arrested in dawn raids by police in the wake of phone-hacking scandals and the Leveson Report and the Labour party demand draconian levels of statutory control of the press. Although the UK guarantees freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention, the list of exceptions is as long as the arm of the law and includes sweeping categories such as insult, abuse, threats and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. There are laws (and prosecutions under them) for racist speech, incitement to hatred, glorifying terrorism and even reading so-called terrorist material like bomb manuals. The UK is infamous for its harsh libel laws and bans on advertising extend to not allowing the display of tobacco for sale. And, in both countries, those are just the legal restrictions on free speech. The informal restrictions including self-censorship and political correctness run even deeper. Are restrictions on free speech a necessary and civilising curb on the abuse of power by vested interests in society such as intolerant majorities or media moguls? Or are they an unacceptable restriction on everyone’s freedom of expression? If there are to be limits then who should decide what they are? Experts or the public? Lawyers or politicians? Minorities or majorities? Freedom of speech: who decides?