+ Follow
Image by Tumisu from Pixabay 

Many defenses of freedom of speech and its legitimacy, establish it as a crucial component of democratic practices. However, political and philosophical discourse also accepts limits on freedom of speech for many reasons. Times of emergency, are an instance that call into question the inalienable nature of freedom of speech. When the stability and independence of a nation are under threat in times of war, health crises such as pandemics or financial breakdown, freedom of speech and other civil liberties take a back seat. People argue that an emergency is an abnormal political condition in which rules that govern normal times do not apply. Government may curtail speech under these circumstances as some people may use it to prevent a return to the stable status quo in which normal conditions prevail. In this paper, I examine the compatibility of Mill's defense of freedom of speech during emergency conditions. I argue that people need to protect freedom of speech even during emergencies to overcome emergencies efficiently by checking the fallibility of government actions as well as playing a role in rallying support for government when they are correct.

I will begin by characterizing what an emergency is and the presumed reason for suspending freedom of speech during an emergency. I follow this by understanding how free speech becomes a tool to exit an illegally declared democracy, as well as become a means to protect the government against its own fallibility during an emergency. I will then argue that it is important to have free speech even under emergency conditions that are legitimate and when the actions undertaken by the government are the right courses of action. Through the course of the paper, I will argue that in all these scenario’s freedom of speech only aids the process to overcome the crisis that society faces in emergencies, rather than become a hindrance to the return to democracy and stability.

I define an emergency as a time that is unexpected and usually dangerous which the government needs to resolve swiftly. The government uses the need for immediate action as grounds to suspend norms and principles that exist in a country. Freedom of speech becomes secondary as the protection of democracy and stability, which is under threat during an emergency, becomes a priority. The administration suspends freedom of speech to prevent it from hindering the return to stability. Upon achieving stability, people assume that freedom of speech and other civil liberties will be reestablished. However, I argue that freedom of speech may be a hindrance to government and its operations during an emergency but it only aids the return to the democratic process and the stability in the nation.

The existence of freedom of speech in emergency conditions may prevent governments from declaring illegal emergencies in their own self-interest. During an emergency, all the power of the nation is in the hands of the executive which is supposed to ensure the return to normalcy. However, the government has this power based on the assumption that at all times those in power will want to return to previous political conditions. This might not always be the case. Mill argues that although people elect governments, there is a need to create protections against the power that governments exercise over the people as they may abuse this power. An elected government is a majoritarian government and not necessarily self-government. This may lead to some sections of society out of their own self-interest oppressing the minority sections (Mill, 89-91). Similarly, governments in their own self-interest may declare an emergency to exercise unrestrained power. This scenario has occurred multiple times such as Hitler or Indira Gandhi declaring emergencies in their respective countries to access unlimited power. Hitler declared a state of emergency after the Reichstag fire on the basis of the communist threat. Soon after, Hitler suspended civil liberties including free speech eventually leading up to the declaration of his dictatorship. Indira Gandhi also declared a state of national emergency due to the supposed threat of internal disturbances resulting in a period of pseudo dictatorship for 21 months. In this period, she implemented censorship to prevent any objections to the actions of the leader and the government. There was also self-censorship where people didn’t speak their thoughts even in private conversations due to the fear of imprisonment. In these conditions, the lack of access to free speech prevented people from criticizing both the dictators as well as the emergency.

The assumption behind the need for free speech is that it plays a role in preventing abuse of power by the establishment. Declaring an illegitimate emergency is an abuse of power. If the government doesn’t suspend free speech during an emergency it will allow citizens to criticize the government’s actions, the declaration of the emergency, as well as other immoral conducts of the government. Being able to voice out disagreement will create a consensus between the people who are against the emergency. Without freedom of speech, there are no other legal means to rally support for a reinstating of democracy. If freedom of speech existed, even within an emergency, people will speak out collectively to criticize the government. This will prevent power resting completely within the government and force them to justify the reason for declaring an emergency. If the reasons aren’t satisfactory, the pressure of the people’s opinion may force the government to revert back to previous conditions. In this way, the existence of freedom of speech during an emergency prevents the government from seizing power and disbanding democracy illegally.

Now let us examine whether it is essential that there is freedom of speech even during an emergency or emergency conditions that are legitimate. In a health crisis or a pandemic, like a coronavirus pandemic, it is imperative to ensure that people maintain social distancing or stay inside during the lockdown. Although the government may not declare an emergency officially, it still resembles emergency conditions. It’s a dangerous time in which the situation has the tendency to go out of hand swiftly as the virus may spread through contact leading to the death of a large number of people. The pandemic impacts the stable lives that people have been leading until it spread. To curb the spread of the virus and panic, the government needs to take immediate and decisive action. Questioning or criticizing the actions of the government in this scenario may lead to people losing faith in the establishment. The loss of faith can result in people acting against governmental instructions, resulting in the panic that the government was preventing. These conditions may seem to justify the government curbing speech that may criticize any of their action or policy.

I reply that even if the government has a legitimate cause for declaring an emergency, curtailing free speech is more harmful than helpful. I concede that curtailing freedom of speech may ensure that citizens follow the instructions of the government efficiently. However, this operates on the assumption that blind faith in the government is the most efficient way to return to normal conditions. Mill states that whether it is government or individuals, they have a responsibility for forming true opinions. Humans are fallible creatures and any opinion they have can be wrong. Therefore, one must act upon these opinions carefully, and not impose these opinions on others until there is some surety that they are correct. One believes they are right by giving others every opportunity to refute an opinion and if it is uncontested then to assume it is true. Or one can believe they are right by presuming truth and preventing others from refuting they. When silencing discussion there is an implicit assumption that the silencer believes that they are right. However, silencing discourse falls in the second category of opinion formation. Discourse is the tool through which humans can set right any wrong opinions. If there is no access to discourse then humans will continue to operate on the basis of false assumptions which can be fatal in the future. (Mill, 100-103)

Mill’s fallibility argument also applies to governments during emergencies. The way governments deal with an emergency may not be the best or the right course of action. If there is no means to critic a government, the flaws in governmental operations may not emerge resulting in worsening conditions during the emergency. The people would also be under the false assumption that the government is right in its methods to deal with the emergency and that the country is exiting the emergency. This removes the incentive for people and specialists to investigate better methods to deal with the emergency. The coronavirus epidemic also shows the importance for free speech. The government considers any criticism of its methods to deal with the crisis as speech that will incite panic. Although there are no particular legitimate means through which the government gags citizens, anyone whether it is doctors, civil rights activists, etc, who speak out against the government face repercussions. This prevents doctors from extrapolating upon the problems they are facing during the crisis such as lack of equipment or funds. This points to the ineffectiveness of the government. In Kashmir, any criticism of government and inadequate medical infrastructure by public servants such as doctors can lead to imprisonment (Changoiwala). However, while it may portray the government in a negative light, this criticism is a call for help and can incentivize civic consciousness and contribution during the crisis. If the government pretends that it is able to deal with the crisis effectively then there is no incentive for people participation that may aid the return to normal conditions. Secondly, without free speech, if the government is not providing safeguards or welfare measures during the crisis then there is no tool to pressure the establishment to protect the weak in society. If the government is making some mistake in the course of action during the pandemic such as promoting or encouraging the oppression of minorities, for example, the increasing Islamophobia in India, it will only result in increasing political instability. The existence of free speech then becomes an imperative check on the governments' actions during an emergency to prevent it from acting on false assumptions. This check is even more important during an emergency as the consequences of wrong actions during an emergency are greater than the ones in normal times, which may result in the deepening of the crisis. Therefore, the existence of free speech in an emergency is necessary to ensure that the government adopts the most efficient means to deal with the crisis.

So far, we have considered cases in which freedom of speech is necessary during an emergency when the search of power or on the basis of a false belief in their infallibility misguides governments. But what if governments are not wrong. They aren’t declaring emergencies in self-interest and neither is their method of overcoming the crisis misconstrued. Under these circumstances, one might argue that when governments are attempting to extricate the nations from emergency conditions as swiftly as possible, free speech then just becomes a hindrance that slows down the process, as governments will now have to continuously justify their right actions. Mill argues that even when the conclusions drawn are correct, it is important to understand the opposite view to truly understand one’s own argument. If there is no awareness of the counter-argument then a person doesn’t really know why they prefer their own argument over any other. They may have the right conclusion while remaining unaware of how they are right. Not engaging with the opposite view is to miss the opportunity to improve the understanding of one’s own view. Without this understanding, one loses the ability to judge the merit of one’s opinion (Mill, 111-117). Even during an emergency, engaging in the counter-argument only strengthens the justification for the actions that the government undertakes. When there is no access to speech, we have described a state in which people do not disagree with the government’s actions openly. If they doubt the course set out by the government, the government still forces them to follow it, even if this results in half-hearted participation. However, if the actions undertaken by the government are right, then any engagement with the opposite view will only strengthen the grounds for which the government is prescribing a certain course of action to exit the emergency. Investing in this process may even decrease the amount of time that the country spends in an emergency, as the enthusiasm to counter it increases. We can observe this phenomenon when countries fight wars for just causes. If the governments' reason for declaring war is legitimate, then defending those reasons may inspire more people to join in the war effort. Without free speech which criticizes the war effort, the people may not be convinced of the need for a war that results in the loss of multiple lives. While engaging in criticism of the war may be time-consuming during a period in which swift action is necessary, it may increase the conviction with which people fight the war. This will result in overcoming the national security threat faster. The access to free speech during the emergency will only aid the return to stability and democracy by giving an opportunity for the government to increase support for their course of action.

In this paper, I have argued that it is more advantageous to exercise free speech during an emergency as it leads to better ways to combat an emergency than without free speech. What makes emergencies unique is that they are unprecedented events in which the priority becomes the return to normalcy at any cost. People assume free speech is one such cost on the journey to return to normalcy. They argue that free speech comes in the way of government objectives and plans to return to stable conditions during a democracy. While I concede that free speech may hinder the government, it doesn’t necessarily prevent a return to democracy or stability which is the priority. Instead, the presence of free speech aids this return to democracy and stability by correcting the actions of the government as well as improving the nature of government arguments, when they are correct, to increase support for official plans.

.   .   .

Works Cited:

Discus