Scientific initiatives and research programmes

Thomas Hochmann (University Paris Nanterre), Pierre Rainville (University Laval)

Freedom of expression and its conditions, forms and violations are essential subjects for researchers studying democracies and authoritarian regimes in terms of legal and political principles (particularly freedom of thought and the free flow of information) or from a socio-historical standpoint. Study of freedom of expression inevitably brings up questions about its limits and the ways these are legitimised. Freedom of expression is considered as a political and legal issue here because it is both a social norm and an object of law. These two dynamics often come into conflict, particularly on social networks, which means we then need to consider the relationship between the law and other forms of regulation.

Having thus linked freedom of expression to legal systems and forms of government the subject is then studied using approaches based on a specific national or regional context (European, North American) or comparatively. Study of freedom of expression intersects with other issues like discrimination (of individuals and groups), conflicts of memory and finally justice. Freedom of expression is severely limited by authoritarian regimes which do not allow people to express opinions publicly that are contrary to official policy. Democratic countries' legal systems can consider certain uses of freedom of expression to constitute an incitation to commit a crime or offence. Democracies also limit the impact certain comments and images may have on the rights of third parties, particularly individuals (defamation), groups (racism, anti-Semitism, sexism) or official representatives of the State. The issue of regulation - in the case of hate speech or fake news for example - is even more relevant as regards the Internet which is generally not subject to existing legal frameworks. On the Internet, regulation approaches range from the Chinese authorities' censorship and control approach on the one hand and absolute freedom as posited by Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter, on the other. One of the major issues at stake is the hybrid nature of social networks which are controlled by private interests that decide on the algorithms that guide 'conversations' despite being an integral part of public debate.  

Voices are also being raised - particularly those of far right observers - against restrictions that aim to protect vulnerable groups and individuals from the power of speech or image. This is sometimes paradoxically expressed through rhetoric that actually turns freedom of expression against individuals in situations of vulnerability or discrimination.

Finally, states of emergency restrict certain public and individual freedoms, particularly through anti-terrorism measures that in turn affect freedom of expression.

Hanane Karimi (University of Strasbourg), Solange Lefebvre (University of Montréal) 

This research theme concentrates on two areas of complex social, political and legal debate. The first covers democratic societies' relationships with religious beliefs while the second deals with the sensitive nature of controversies concerning the treatment of minorities.

The historically recognised monotheistic religions have always restricted freedom of expression within their societies and publicly combated heresies they defined themselves to impose their own dogmas and worldview. Paradoxically, these religions have always also allowed the development of sometimes critical philosophical thought and exegesis which requires constant intellectual practice. The legal status of these religions can range from state religion through majority religion in a secular regime, minority religion (in a religious or secular state), to a religion or belief that is forbidden a religious or secular state (sects, for example). Depending on this status, the normative framework and ethical standards, religions can be 'protected' from blasphemy and insults to varying degrees. Religions can of course constitute an instrument for the repression of freedoms as in Afghanistan today or as used by the Inquisition in the past) but can also convey messages of tolerance and openness to intercultural dialogue and adjust to democratic rules on freedom of expression. However the terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo journalists and the French teacher Samuel Paty perpetrated by radical Islamists in response to cartoons depicting the Prophet have brought up the issues of the conditions for freedom of expression and criticism and the dangers those who use these freedoms may face in consequence. More generally, this aspect opens up the questions of orthodoxies and heterodoxies and of the way secularised societies think about the relationship with beliefs.

On the other hand, while there is no denying that real issues of equality and inclusion underpin controversies about our regard for diversity, the purpose of freedom of expression is to protect the dissemination of critical ideas including ideas that may shock and disturb people. This means freedom of expression cannot be limited solely on the basis of other people's sensitivities or their right not to be offended. Again, this brings up the question of authority. Who has the authority to say what and who has the authority to limit speech?

Thibaud Boncourt (Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University), Maryse Potvin (UQAM)

Freedom of expression is also directly relevant to the production and dissemination of knowledge. Firstly it seems inherent to the scientific process insofar as it creates the conditions for the multiplication of hypotheses, the emergence of controversies and the accumulation of knowledge. Freedom of expression also plays a role in the dissemination of knowledge within the academic sphere in the framework of educational activities and also in other social contexts. In this way, the concept is linked to academic freedom understood as a right specific to those working in this sphere, enshrined in international law, and guaranteeing academics' freedom in teaching or research and of expression.

In recent times, these freedoms have been questioned by various different processes. In so-called 'illiberal' regimes, entire fields of research (like gender studies) and academic institutions (the Central European University in Budapest, for example) have been the target of bans or drastic restrictions. In more democratic contexts, academics and the knowledge they produce have also come under attack in a variety of ways - cuts to funding, legal procedures (bailiffs, libel suits), smear campaigns, disinformation and so forth. New regulations have also created a stricter framework for researchers' professional practices, for example by controlling their ethical nature and integrity.

These forms of limiting and supervising academic freedom are implemented by a variety of stakeholders and have equally diverse purposes. They may be imposed by academics themselves who develop new practices or structures to control their colleagues' activities and denounce those they consider 'deviant'. They can result from political and politicised stakeholders using various means to limit the development of certain research fields. The media, the courts or citizens at large may also be involved in controversies or highly publicised 'cases'.

These ongoing changes need to be viewed in the context of the concomitant development of other systems of truth-telling. Various groups that may be thought of value (as 'alternative', for example) or alternatively stigmatised (as 'conspiracy theorists', for example) are claiming their right to freedom of expression to put forward other ways of producing knowledge outside the more reputed institutions. The issue of freedom of expression is therefore closely linked to the struggle for the social construction of 'the truth'.

Anna Arzoumanov (Sorbonne University), Mathilde Barraband (Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières)

The freedom of artistic expression is the fruit of a long history of struggle for creative autonomy. Women writers have historically been at the forefront of such struggles. The history of their confrontations with secular or religious courts and their use of coded language to get round censorship make up a collective memory on which the ethics of modern and contemporary creators are based even if these may also be found on the side of the censors. In this respect, the fatwaissued against Salman Rushdie for his Satanic Verses in 1989 and the subsequent assassination attempt represent a new type of threat to a freedom that was seemingly taken for granted in liberal democracies. And yet the history of literature and the arts is full of examples of artistic and literary productions causing controversy or being censored because they were considered blasphemous, licentious, dangerous to society, too 'crude', 'obscene', insulting or hateful. This raises a number of issues including the specific nature of freedom of expression in works, indirect representation and the responsibility of the author, the effect of literalisation and more generally the meaning that should be accorded to artistic gestures. Obviously this also raises the question (as in the other themes of the chair) of who is qualified to act as a censor along with the issue of the instrumentalisation of art.

Some people argue that creative freedom should be defined as distinct from freedom of expression, citing the rights of fiction which are still often recognised by courts.

However this also brings up the issue of people using fiction to convey racist, anti-Semitic or sexist (and so forth) messages that are prohibited in the public arena. Furthermore, freedom of artistic expression is still severely limited by defamation law and the protection of privacy which even applies in the case of fiction and also by legislation that protects minors and prohibits paedophile discourse and depictions.

More generally, debate about artistic exception is ongoing and all these debates deserve to be analysed as such. The privileged status accorded to fiction does not mean the debate on art, its scope or its relationship with reality is over as has been observed for other forms of artistic expression.