Growing up in Denmark, Jacob Mchangama says he took freedom of expression for granted. So he embarked on a journey through history to find out what freedom of speech really means, not as an “empty, abstract principle” but as a practice that matters more than we can. understand it.

His book, “Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media,” is a call to protect this ideal at a time when free speech seems to be under scrutiny from all sides. “I think we need to look back at what happened before and how difficult it was for free speech to become a core value,” he says.

For Mr. Mchangama, what is needed now is a culture of freedom of expression, which means being tolerant – even when it is uncomfortable.

“Not that we should impose tolerance by limiting speech, but we have to accept that in diverse societies people are going to have diverse opinions and that’s not necessarily a threat. In many ways, that’s a bonus. But sometimes people will have varying opinions that you really, really disagree with. It’s the cost of living in a free and equal society, and it’s a cost worth bearing.

From efforts to ban the books to demands for increased surveillance of social media platforms, free speech is under scrutiny. Instead of joining calls to limit speech, Jacob Mchangama, a lawyer and executive director of Danish think tank Justitia, takes the opposite approach. In his book “Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media”, he calls on history’s greatest philosophers and activists – from John Stuart Mill to Ida B. Wells to Mahatma Gandhi – to serve as key witnesses in his defense of free speech today. . He recently spoke with the monitor.

What first ignited your passion for free speech?

I was born in a secular, liberal Denmark where… I took freedom of speech for granted. It was like breathing air. Then the cartoon affair – when a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad – made Denmark the epicenter of a global battle of values ​​over the relationship between freedom of expression and religion, and also forced many people in Denmark to rethink what does freedom of speech mean? Is it just an empty, abstract principle that we can use in a tribalistic way? Or, does it really matter? And that’s why I wanted to look at contemporary times [free speech] issues through the prism of the story, as it gives you a more detached view of the news than if you’re caught up in the Twitter narrative.

What new challenges has social media presented?

We are migrating from the analog city to the digital city. This means that the institutions that we have built, that have sustained us for a long time, are no longer necessarily as relevant and legitimate in our minds as they used to be. We have seen a drop in trust in mainstream media, institutions and politicians. And I think social media has contributed to that. But I think it would be dangerously wrong to say that we must then abolish or roll back free speech.

What lessons can we learn from history about how, and how not to, counter misinformation and hate speech?

First, we should be aware that what is considered misinformation, hate speech, or other types of harmful speech is subject to change. If you lived in the 17th century, you would consider deists or atheists as [advocating] the worst form of misinformation. Many people would think that it is perfectly legitimate to persecute such ideas because no society can bear such attacks being perpetrated against its foundations. Today, we consider these ideas to be fairly uncontroversial. Open democracies have to be very, very careful about limiting free speech. [It can be] intuitively appealing to want to limit free speech because you say, “Well, if free speech facilitates concrete damage against our democracies, against minorities, against our institutions, against truth itself, we should limit it.” Corn [even though] freedom of expression can sometimes facilitate harm, [it] does not necessarily follow that restrictions on freedom of expression are an effective method of countering [them] or that the benefits of limiting certain types of speech will outweigh the harms.

What values ​​help a society prioritize a culture of free speech?

I think we have to go back to what happened before, and how difficult it was for freedom of expression to become a fundamental value. We need a culture of free speech, which ultimately means we need to be tolerant as human beings. Not that we should impose tolerance by limiting speech, but we have to accept that in diverse societies people are going to have diverse opinions and that’s not necessarily a threat. In many ways, that’s a bonus. But sometimes people will have varying opinions that you really, really disagree with. It’s the cost of living in a free and equal society, and it’s a cost worth bearing.