Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today, we find ourselves at a crossroads where the very essence of our social values, and most importantly democracy itself, is being meticulously scrutinised and redefined.

Shading light to the complexities of notions such as free speech and hate speech, as well as the ramifications that their various interpretations would have upon the ideal of a militant democracy are therefore apposite.

Allow me to kick off this contribution quite in a paradoxical way, by invoking our latest Time Person of the Year, Taylor Swift. Her broad appeal and musical prowess have captivated millions of fans globally and have helped her establish a unique connection with her audience. Through her songs, as is the case with most art creators of such popularity, she mirrors contemporary realities and social concerns.

Consider the playful yet resonant lyrics of her 2019 song “You Need to Calm Down,” the lyrics of which prompt one not to “step on the gown” of another, especially a stranger. This metaphorical gown, a long garment, symbolises personal space. Stepping on it literally traps the bearer, hindering movement. The songwriters may not have consciously intended this allegory, yet the power of words in the arts lies exactly in the impact they actually have. In this instance then, we are told of the boundaries we must respect in social criticism — the song suggests that words possess the ability to disturb, to coerce, to silence.

Defining speech one way or another has profound consequences which extends beyond the realm of music and run deep to the entirety of our societal structures. American free speech firebrand Greg Lukianoff astutely observes a contemporary shift in perceiving freedom of speech not as an essential element but rather as an obstacle – a hinderance and impediment to social progress, fostering a climate where differing opinions are unwelcome. This emerging “freedom from speech” mentality perpetuates social division, as individuals isolate themselves within echo chambers of like-mindedness.

Michael Bloomberg echoed this sentiment as early as 2014, in his Harvard Commencement Speech, when he highlighted how intolerance towards “offensive speech” leaves society vulnerable to authoritarian tendencies of various strands.

Our ever-changing perception of hate speech and its growing breadth necessitates, some insist, up-to-date legal measures to protect individuals from disturbing discourse. Defined traditionally as speech inciting violence against marginalised groups, hate speech is identified by the criteria set forth by the U.N. Commission of Human Rights in its Rabat Plan of Action, which includes contextual, intent-driven parameters of such identification.

Of course, critiques question the vagueness and enforceability of such definitions. Where does one draw the line between permissible discourse and unacceptable hatefulness? How can we link hateful speech to specific acts of harm? These are complex questions, demanding nuanced answers to safeguard free expression while preventing harm.

Some philosophers of language, like Catharine McKinnon or Rae Langton, propose a paradigm where speech in itself is viewed as an act. Beyond the act of utterance, these thinkers maintain, speech holds illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions, intending to convey a message and exert specific influence. They argue that a speech act has the ability to directly silence, intimidate, or render ideas inconsequential. Such a perspective however raises concerns about the potential violence that may be inherent in hate speech.

In recent socio-political debates, instances like the Greek Orthodox Church’s stance on same-sex marriage and calls for legal action against its leaders exemplify the precarious balance between expression and harm. In the context of the political debate over a recent bill which legislated same-sex marriage in the country, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece issued a leaflet whereby it stated:

“The Church holds that children have an innate need and therefore a right to grow up with a man as their father and a woman as their mother. […] Kids are neither pets for anyone who wants to feel like being a custodian of a living creature, nor are they accessories or ornaments that will formalise a homosexual relationship and grant it social acceptance.”

A day afterwards, a well-known liberal journalist, with close ties to the ruling party posted on Facebook:

“What the Holy Fathers said, that a person might regard a child as a pet only because they are homosexual is indeed very grave and quite far from what one expects of spiritual men. I am sorry that we were once more exposed to such violent and cruel speech.”

The journalist then went on to suggest that the public prosecutor must intervene and hold the high priests liable for violations of the national hate speech law. Should they do so? Answering on the affirmative entails giving in to the argument that qualifies speech as an act. And truly, interpreting speech as an act presents challenges in pre-determining the intent and impact of words, blurring the lines between offensive discourse and actual harm.

When it comes to the actual physical consequences of intolerant ideologies, history offers lessons on dealing with them. Karl Loewenstein’s concept of a militant democracy, born from eras of conflict, in 1937, urges societies to guard against threats from anti-democratic forces. However, in contemporary times, the workability of this concept faces scrutiny and is rendered untenable if we accept the predicate that speech is an act, regardless of its impact, intent and actual consequences. The need to defend democracy from enemies within its walls, while at the same time avoiding to stifle dissent requires indeed a delicate equilibrium.

As our perception of liberal democratic ideals has evolved, the relationship between hate speech and militant democracy demands re-examination. Parties challenging the liberal democratic order must without saying be scrutinised, but the distinction between legitimate albeit harsh critique against the system and incitement of actual physical violence remains very crucial and needs to be underlined. Banning parties solely based on their controversial rhetoric, equating their provocative words to violent actions, risks chilling democratic discourse. The case of the small conservative party “Niki” in Greek politics is a suitable case in point.

Indicatively, a week before the latest election, on Jun. 15, 2023, the party’s chairman stated:

“The pseudo-Greek state is faltering. It is high time for Romiosyni (Greekdom) to ascend, so as the country to be governed by the Greeks. Cleanse poor Greece from this intellectual plague, in order for worthy labourers to be able to work for her […] All the intellectual charlatans have taken custody of high offices. And they are tied together, like swarms. If you separate them, they drop dead. […] My dear brethren, Greeks of pure decent, unroot this deleterious filthy grass.”

Their rhetoric may be divisive, nationalistic, extremist and the like yet the context, intent, and likelihood of inciting violence through this rhetoric must certainly be evaluated in order to come to any decision. Such evaluations though are impossible if we assume the posture that speech is tantamount to physical acts and thus it requires no further act so as to realise its purportedly violent potential. Viewing speech as violence and thus acting in a precariously preventive way of regulation risks suppressing diversity of opinion and the free exchange of ideas.

In conclusion, the intricate interplay between free speech, hate speech, and the principles of militant democracy requires a careful approach.

While containing discourse that incites violence is a valiant goal, we must do so safeguarding the sanctity of free expression. Equating words to acts only inhibits our efforts, intersecting definitions and creating an illiberal environment of confusion. A democratic society’s strength lies in its ability to embrace radically divergent viewpoints without curtailing individual liberties.

It is then contradictory to view partisan utterances as putative acts of violence and proactively phase them out, purporting that doing so preserves democracy, when in essence it erodes it.

As we navigate the free speech labyrinth, ladies and gentlemen, let us heed the wisdom that words may sting, but only actions can truly harm. Upholding democratic principles demands a delicate balance — a balance that preserves free expression while guarding against genuine threats to our societal fabric. And to strike this balance correctly and in good faith, we truly need to calm down.

Thank you.

* Η ομιλία αυτή εκφωνήθηκε στα Αγγλικά ως εισήγηση στο 9ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ανθρωπιστικών και Κοινωνικών Επιστημών, στο Μιλάνο της Ιταλίας.