Free speech works in 'all directions'
free speech. Yet, democratic states are not immune to authoritarian impulses.
In October 2020, at the height of the pandemic, academics Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard published 'The Great Barrington Declaration', named after the town where it was drafted, and where the declaration's sponsor, the libertarian free-market think tank, American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), is located. It was an open letter that went against the US' pandemic-containment strategy, urging the end of restrictive policies such as lockdowns as they disproportionately harmed the young and the poor.
Instead, the letter endorsed measures to protect high-risk populations while allowing lower-risk individuals to return to normal life with precautions.
Rather than reviewing the declaration, endorsed by many doctors and public health scientists, senior US officials viewed it as heresy and suppressed the declaration on social media. A pushback began in 2022 when the attorney generals of Missouri and Louisiana asked Bhattacharya to join as a plaintiff in a lawsuit aimed at ending the government's role in this censorship.
Earlier this month, an appeals court ruled that the Biden administration's policing of social media content has likely violated the First Amendment. It barred White House aides and other officials from pressuring online platforms to suppress free speech.
The court order is welcome.
It upholds that free speech is a key ingredient of any democracy, and indirectly nudges states to be open to dissenting voices when it comes to public policymaking. This holds lessons for governments of other democracies as well, the one we live in included.
