Free speech absolutism is dangerous

Normally, I write something that is ironic or humorous on Fridays but today, I want to talk about a study that I recently came across that I think is important to understand in our current media environment. It concerns the current debate about free speech.

In many countries the rise of extremist views on social media and other platforms has triggered a debate about free speech and the question if there are limits to free speech. In the US, free speech is a topic that has led to the development of free speech absolutism. An unholy alliance of techno-optimists like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, comedians, writers, and right-wing extremists like Alex Jones all claim that free speech is an absolute right that should not be curtailed. They may acknowledge the dangers of hate speech and disinformation, but their argument is that the only remedy against disinformation and hate speech is more free speech. They think that in a free market for speech people will be able to judge opinions on their merits and inevitably come to a measured conclusion. If you are interested in a well-articulated argument along these lines, just listen to the first Reith lecture of 2022.

To me, this is an argument that is clearly negated by the facts and in fact dangerous when put into practice. You see, I am German, and Germany has some of the strictest laws against hate speech, i.e. speech that can incite violence against people and groups of people, anywhere in the world. And for good reasons. After all, Monday marks the 90th ‘anniversary’ of Hitler coming to power in 1933. Germans know the damage that unregulated free speech can create.

But so can you, by reading a study of a group of political economists, sociologists and legal historians. In this study, the researchers looked at the rise of radio during the Weimar Republic in the 1930s. Back in the day, radio was the fashionable new mass media, just like social media is today. But unlike social media today, the content of radio broadcasts was controlled by editors and the ruling political classes. From 1928 to 1930, political broadcasts in Germany were controlled by the pro-democracy government of the Weimar Republic. In late 1932 the Nazi Party took control over broadcasters and with it came a significant increase in the representation of Nazi views in radio broadcasts. Between November 1932 and the election in March 1033 that got Hitler into power, Nazi views were the dominant views on national radio.

Nazi representation in radio broadcasts and Nazi vote share in German elections

Source: Adena et al. (2013)

The study shows that this shift in broadcast content had a significant impact on the vote share of the Nazis and societal attitudes towards Jews and other minority groups. Between 1928 and 1930, an 8% increase in the subscriptions to radio led on average to a 1% decline in the vote share of the Nazis since their views were balanced by broadcast views from the pro-democracy parties. In late 1932 and early 1933, the same increase in radio subscriptions led to a 1% increase in the vote share of the Nazis. By keeping the Nazis off the airwaves, their political influence was effectively curtailed. Once that limitation on Nazi propaganda was lifted, the Nazis were able to significantly increase their vote share and eventually take power. In fact, the study shows that it took the Nazis just a couple of months to reverse all the benefits of keeping their vote share low over the previous 5 years. There simply was no time for people to ‘weigh opinions and come to a conclusion’. In the free speech world of Germany in 1933, the Nazis overwhelmed the airwaves with their propaganda and rode this to an election victory.

Today, we don’t even need anyone to control the airwaves anymore. In today’s social media, the algorithms of the platforms choose the content you see for you. And because incendiary content, hate speech and propaganda create more engagement, they get amplified and reach more people. Just like in 1930s Germany, there is no balance and no possibility for consumers to assess different opinions. Their personal feeds are overwhelmed by one opinion and their actions change based on these opinions. Note that in parts of Germany where radio adoption increased and exposure to Nazi propaganda through radio broadcasts become more frequent, discrimination and violence against Jews became more frequent and more people joined the Nazi Party.

Plus, there is the illusory truth effect documented in behavioural economics. Essentially, the more often we hear something the more likely we think it is true. Even statements that are obvious lies can become ‘true’ in the minds of people who are exposed to these lies often enough.

This is why free speech absolutism is so incredibly dangerous. If nobody regulates speech, the most extreme voices will overwhelm the more measured statements and the more often the extreme statements are repeated, the more people will believe in them and act accordingly. Free speech absolutism can spell the end of a democracy. We know that because it did so before.