Have you ever wondered what freedom of expression looks like in countries beyond the United States? Free speech laws are influenced by a country’s history, political climate, socio-cultural dynamics and other factors, and you may be surprised by how some countries differ from the U.S.’s First Amendment.
This article will review three other countries’ laws and regulations related to freedom of expression and compare certain policies with similar policies enacted in the U.S.
According to research published by the Library of Congress, Sweden differs from the U.S. when it comes to freedom of expression by criminalizing public statements that threaten or disrespect an individual or group on the basis of identity factors such as race, gender, faith or national origin.
Interestingly in 2017, a citizen-curator for the official Sweden Twitter account – which was managed by one new citizen per week between 2011 and 2018 – blocked over 14,000 users for suspected Nazi links or “threats against migrants, women and LGBTQ people” (the block list was eliminated after public backlash).
For instance, interrupting a political campaign speech is prohibited by Japan’s Public Office Election Act and may be punishable by imprisonment (up to 4 years) or a fine of up to one million yen (approx. $9,000 US). Japan’s courts have also ruled that an individual or group’s actions that make it impossible or difficult for members of an audience to hear a speech may constitute a punishment-worthy disruption of a campaign speech, which is quite a different approach than what we’ve witnessed in political campaign speeches in the U.S.
Japan also criminalizes certain speech acts involving defamation, insult or intimidation.
Section 16 of the Republic of South Africa’s Constitution (1996) guarantees the right to freedom of expression – with some caveats. University of the Witwatersrand Professor Victoria Bronstein wrote in a 2006 report that South Africa’s limitations on free speech do not protect war propaganda, inciting violence, or advocating hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion.
As of 2016, a newer piece of legislation — The Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill — seeks to increase protections for individuals and groups facing discrimination, harassment and/or violence on the basis of identity factors (e.g., age, disability, skin color, culture, sex/gender identity, language).
The bill was presumably designed to resolve lasting implications of the country’s history of racial segregation (Apartheid). However, there is also vocal opposition to it from organizations such as the Helen Suzman Foundation (a nonpartisan South African think tank centered on promoting liberal democratic values), which argued that the bill doesn’t clearly differentiate between offensive versus harmful speech, among other reasons.
On this day, I reflected about the struggles of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights advocates decades ago, realizing how much we have yet to achieve. I recall how even in combat in Iraq, we took time to pause on this day, considering the legacy and our own role furthering it. We compared the sectarian tension in Baghdad and other cities to the racial strife in our own country. Dr. King’s struggle was not just an African American struggle, but one on behalf of all Americans and many others around the world. He helped us inch forward toward the aspirations in our founding documents. I hope that you had time to reflect on the relevance of that struggle, 50 some odd years ago, to our contemporary challenges.
Keep inspiring each other and holding out a hand to your neighbors. During the health and economic crises, turning our attention to others not only brightens their day but brings health benefits to those in service. How appropriate that this day is designated a national day of service. Thank you for being a part of our community and inspiring us to continue on in the march to live up to the ideals of public service and civility.
In honor of Dr. King’s birthday, we take you back a couple of years ago in Philadelphia when we reflected on why our individual voices matter to the contemporary struggles in our country. The speakers represent different generations, ethnicities and perspective, but they all encourage us to live up the FAV motto that “Citizenship is not a Spectator sport.” Enjoy!
SAN CLEMENTE, CA — First Amendment Voice stands with the many voices raised against the political violence at the Capitol building and other areas around the country on January 6th. While we steadfastly champion freedoms of expression, assembly and the ability to petition the government for grievance, we denounce those who would use violence as a weapon against the pillars of democracy due to an election outcome. As the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently announced, “We witnessed actions inside the Capitol building that were inconsistent with the rule of law. The rights of freedom of speech and assembly do not give anyone the right to resort to violence, sedition and insurrection.” The rioters, due to ignorance, arrogance, or some combination, have endangered the very rights they professed to defend. The First Amendment allows citizens to express themselves, assemble and petition the government for grievance. It does not afford the right to push through barricades, loot and destroy property, or endanger the lives of others.
We mourn the loss of life, including police officers in the line of duty and others, due to violence and call on leaders to settle grievances at the ballot box and through legal means. The country faces myriad health and economic challenges without need for self-inflicted losses from illegal mob actions.
We celebrate the thousands of heroes across the country who monitored the election, volunteered at the polls, served in the courts during legal challenges, and many other civic functions. These unsung citizens stepped forward during an international health crisis, despite the risks, to play their role in shepherding our democratic processes. Civic engagement is daily work, not something that occurs only during elections. Thank you for leading by example.
We express gratitude to our elected leaders, military, first responders, and countless others involved in safeguarding our democratic process and our citizens. Stay resilient and keep moving our country inexorably toward the aspirations outlined in the Constitution.
First Amendment Voice (FAV) is a non-profit, nonpartisan movement created to bring awareness, provide education and promote advocacy for citizens to exercise their First Amendment freedoms of religion, expression, press, assembly, and petition while encouraging citizens to understand, protect, and exercise those rights through ongoing programs and partnerships. Our board consists of veterans, lawyers, clergy, different ethnicities, genders, faiths, and three different generations.
What roles do your social identities play in your life?
Whether or not we’re always conscious of it, our group affiliations – such as nationality, economic class, gender, race/ethnicity, dis/ability, military/veteran status, etc. – are significantly influential factors when it comes to who we interact with, how others engage with us, how and which public policies impact us (not to mention how we feel about those policies) and so much more.
Given the importance of varying aspects of our identities in everyday interpersonal situations, it’s no wonder social identities are increasingly influencing our political affiliations, behaviors and feelings as well.
As Peter Grier wrote in an October 2018 article for the Christian Science Monitor: “social identity is now at the heart of the two big parties that govern America. They’re split along racial, religious, and cultural lines. The crosscutting social ties that once promoted partisan understanding have withered. Democrats and Republicans live in different neighborhoods, send their kids to different schools, attend different churches, and increasingly inhabit their own news and information bubbles.”
In the book, Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations, author and Yale Law School Professor Amy Chua explained how identity politics came to mean two very different things for liberals and conservatives.
For the Left, Chua wrote that identity politics became a means for “confront[ing] rather than obscur[ing] the uglier aspects of American history and society,” as we’ve seen from the rise of “cancel culture,” discussions about systemic racism and cultural appropriation, implicit bias trainings, and the expansion of gender identity vocabularies, to name a few.
Meanwhile, the Right – which has typically eschewed racial group affiliations and privileged individualism as one of America’s greatest ideals – has increasingly engaged in similar forms of identity-based political tactics.
A political commentator cited in Chua’s book summarized the rise of white identity politics succinctly: “many feel that society has come to glorify all things non-white, demonize all things white, and that if they do not fight back no one will…feeling as though they are under perpetual attack for the color of their skin, many on the right have become defiant of their whiteness, allowing it into their individual politics in ways they have not for generations” (p.191).
In a nutshell: our social identities have become so deeply connected to who we are as citizens and voters that it often seems impossible to separate identity from politics, whether you’re liberal, conservative, or anything in between.
Perhaps this reveals another cause behind our collective inability to reach compromises and engage in constructive political dialogues: many people perceive they’re being targeted by the “other side” based on some aspect of their identity, which prompts them to feel defensive and even lash out in response.
To learn more about the growing “pandemic of polarization” happening in the U.S., be sure to sign up for our soon-to-be-released white paper, which will be exclusively available for First Amendment Voice newsletter subscribers and members.
If all news is BREAKING NEWSand demands our immediate attention, then how can citizens possibly stay adequately informed when so-called “breaking news” comes out 24/7/365?
If anyone can start a website, rhetorically frame their opinions as “facts,” and call themselves a “journalist,” then what does journalism mean anymore?
And if any critical report published by a reputable news organization can be dismissed as “fake news,” then have we lost our ability to speak truth to power and hold public figures accountable?
These questions highlight some of the biggest challenges facing journalists, media organizations and freedom of the press in our current socio-political climate, all while trying to adapt business models to changing technology and economics.
Regarding the problem of never-ending streams of “breaking news,” neuroscience and media researcher Lu Hanessian wrote in a May 2020 article on Medium: “the News is flooded and hyper-channeled. Divided into Us and Them. Facts and Conspiracies. Reporting and distorting news. Truth-telling and Bot sharing. Breaking News has become a catch-all phrase. A massive net to capture as many eyes and ears as possible. Attention is revenue.”
The industry’s fervent obsession with being the first source to break a major news story – and thus, get the most recognition from audiences – poses some troubling long-term implications for public trust in the media.
As an August 2020 Pew Research report showed, 55% of Americans say careless reporting leads journalists to make mistakes, while 44% of Americans believe journalists intentionally mislead the public through erroneous reporting. 53% agreed that the “rapid pace of breaking news” is a common cause of mistakes in the media.
Furthermore, the hyperdrive pace of today’s overwhelming, 24/7 news cycle sometimes leads to psychological consequences for audiences and journalists alike.
An April 2020 Psychology Today article explained how today’s dramatic, hyped-up media climate leads some people to compulsively obsess over the news as a form of reassurance-seeking:
24/7 digital access to a bottomless well of information and misinformation comes with psychological dangers. Have you ever gotten stuck for hours trying to self-diagnose a health problem on the internet? Or hitting ctrl-R over and over, waiting for exit polling numbers on the night of an election? Suddenly, that well of information feels more like quicksand.
Perhaps you’ve experienced something similar before? While we can’t fully detach from current events and media – especially while many of us are reliant on the Internet to work from home – there are ways to moderate your exposure to news and kick the “infinite scroll” habit for good.
First Amendment Voice’s upcoming white paper on polarization, social media, and civil discourse in the U.S. will offer a treasure trove of communication and “digital detox” strategies for successfully engaging with those who disagree with you, mitigating the effects of news cycle fatigue, and so much more.
To get the latest news on the white paper’s release, please subscribe to our newsletter in the meantime.
Have you ever paused to consider the ways in which you may be arguing from a biased perspective when engaging in a political debate? Even if you remained completely calm, cited evidence from credible sources, and logically articulated each of your points, could it be possible that you are still letting personal biases get in the way of genuinely objective reasoning?
Chances are, you’ve probably engaged in what is called “motivated reasoning” before, even if you didn’t consciously realize it at the time. As Nicholas Epley and Thomas Gilovich explained in their 2016 article published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives: “people generally reason their way to conclusions they favor, with their preferences influencing the way evidence is gathered, arguments are processed, and memories of past experience are recalled.”
Just as we’re prone to self-serving biases to explain events that happen to/around us, we’re similarly vulnerable to motivated reasoning (also referred to as confirmation bias). In an article published in the Journal of Communication in 2011, political science researchers James Druckman and Toby Bolsen described motivated reasoning as “the tendency to seek out and/or view new evidence as consistent with one’s prior views, even if this is not objectively accurate.”
In simplest terms: humans generally prefer to consume and interact with information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, but we’re not so inviting of information that contradicts our beliefs (even if the information is reliable and accurate). Some of this is associated with our emotional responses to information, but that doesn’t explain the whole story.
Let’s dive in further to assess how motivated reasoning is interfering with Americans’ ability to constructively engage in political dialogues with those whom they disagree.
As University of California, Santa Cruz professor of philosophy Jonathan Ellis said in a 2017 interview with NPR News:
Human beings have been doing this forever. So Thucydides, an ancient Greek historian, wrote that it’s a habit of human beings to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy. And what he was describing, and in fact what countless playwrights, philosophers and novelists have described ever since, are these human tendencies towards confirmation bias, rationalizations, self-deception. And I think this is the same problem that we’re observing in our political culture today.
So all humans are prone to motivated reasoning, right? What about those of us who are well-read and stay up-to-date with the news? Are well-educated, scientifically literate, and self-aware individuals free from the confines of motivated reasoning?
It is the best educated and most scientifically literate who are the most prone to motivated reasoning…studies suggest that strong partisans with higher science literacy and education levels tend to be more adept at recognizing and seeking out congenial arguments, are more attuned to what others like them think about the matter, are more likely to react to these cues in ideologically consistent ways, and tend to be more personally skilled at offering arguments to support and reinforce their preexisting positions.
On the flip side, however, research has shown that people who are scientifically curious (as opposed to merely scientifically literate, which involves comprehension) are less prone to resorting to partisan biases, whether they’re conservative or liberal. Further studies are likely necessary for understanding this phenomenon, but the scientific curiosity – engaging with information for personal pleasure – may indeed be one solution for resolving issues associated with motivated reasoning.
For more information on the ways in which our minds influence our ability to constructively engage in socio-political discourse, be sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive our soon-to-be-released white paper covering motivated reasoning and so much more!
Social psychologist and Stanford University Professor of Sociology Robb Willer is an expert in political polarization. His 2017 TEDx Talk on “How to Have Better Political Conversations” offers an in-depth glimpse into growing divisions among Americans across the political spectrum, comparing it to a disaster or zombie apocalypse movie:
There’s people wandering around in packs, not thinking for themselves, seized by this mob mentality, trying to spread their disease and destroy society.
So, how can we escape this trap of division, disinformation and disrespect in order to heal as a nation? Let’s dive deeper into Robb Willer’s TEDx topic to understand why divisions exist and what we can start doing about them.
Liberal vs. Conservative Values
In a sociological study conducted by Willer and his colleagues at the Polarization and Social Change Lab at Stanford, they found liberals and conservatives often adhere to different values. Whereas liberals typically prioritize equality, fairness and caring for others, conservatives reportedly prioritize loyalty, patriotism, moral purity and respect for authority.
The study’s design was fascinating in that it asked liberal-identifying participants to write a persuasive essay in favor of gay marriage and conservative-identifying participants to write a persuasive essay in favor of making English the official language in the U.S. Although the essays were intended to persuade the “other side,” both groups relied on their own values to convey their messages. As Robb Willer explained in his TEDx presentation:
When we go to persuade somebody on a political issue, we talk like we’re speaking into a mirror. We don’t persuade so much as we rehearse our own reasons for why we believe some sort of political position.
There’s nothing wrong with having your own values and beliefs, of course. But if you’re trying to persuade someone who believes in a very different ideology than yours, then it’s important to adapt your message to be more palatable for those on the “other side” or they likely won’t be as willing to listen to your viewpoints.
Leverage the Power of Moral Reframing
Robb Willer and his co-researcher Matthew Feinberg published their study’s results in the peer-reviewed journal, Social and Personality Psychology Compass in December 2019. In the paper, they laid out a highly effective persuasion concept called “moral reframing,” which they defined as a technique “whereby a position an individual would not normally support is framed in a way that is consistent with that individual’s moral values.”
This technique involves learning more about other people’s political beliefs and utilizing their language and values to reshape the way you communicate with someone who disagrees with your viewpoints. For instance, President Trump referring to the act of wearing a face mask as “patriotic” is arguably an example of moral reframing.
Similar to sales and marketing, persuasion isn’t about getting what you want. It’s about conveying your message in a way that makes the audience not only want to listen to you but also embrace what you have to say. If you’re not speaking the language of the “other side,” then compromise will be challenging to establish (if not impossible).
Change won’t happen overnight. America is deeply divided right now, but it doesn’t have to stay that way forever. As Robb Willer said at the end of his TEDx Talk:
We owe it to one another and our country to reach out and try to connect. We can’t afford to hate them any longer, and we can’t afford to let them hate us either. Empathy and respect. Empathy and respect. If you think about it, it’s the very least that we owe our fellow citizens.
Thanksgiving conjures feelings of gratitude. We celebrate this time of year thinking of all we are thankful for, even during hard times like the current health crisis and other challenges. Personally, I have been grateful for the lack of travel during the last eight months. It has offered the opportunity to learn more about my new home town, including co-sponsoring two special Candidate Forums to help voters be more informed at the polls. Over 800 people had a chance to participate live or watch the videos prior to casting their ballots, allowing FAV to live out our tagline that “citizenship is not a spectator sport.” I am grateful to the San Clemente Chamber of Commerce for inviting us to be a co-sponsor.
As an organization, FAV is grateful for our members who invest in our programming to help reach a broader audience. We offered a free Difficult Conversations workshop to members last month. Based on a special request from University of San Diego, we programmed another workshop in December during the student recess. Basic members and above are welcome even if you have participated in Kern’s amazing workshop before. I’ve done it five times, and I’ve learned something every time! Kern leads us on a journey of self-discovery in our relationships and ourselves. Send an email to [email protected] to inquire about registration. We’ll let you know if we have a slot or put you on our waiting list.
According to a 2018 report from the Center for American Progress, just nine states and the District of Columbia require a full year of U.S. government or civics education for high schoolers, while 31 states require at least half a year and 10 states have no government or civics requirements at all. In an era where political polarization in the U.S. is at all-time highs, it’s concerning to think of the implications these arguably-outdated educational policies might have on future elections at the local, state and national levels.
If we are to protect our nation’s democratic foundations for generations to come, we must be putting more time and energy into promoting the value of civic literacy and engagement. In the exceptionally well-researched Peabody Journal of Education article, “Civic Education and the Paradox of Political Participation,” author Lora Cohen-Vogel describes a “paradox of political participation” in which sizable numbers of younger Americans are opting out of the voting process and engaging more in protests as means for enacting societal change.
Given the importance of protests throughout American history and the right to protest enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, this “paradox” wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing if it weren’t for the low voter turnout rates associated with it. While increased access to flexible voting options — like mail-in ballots in 2020 — may turn the tides against this trend, the fact remains that our nation’s civic educational programs are in desperate need of a makeover if we hope to restore trust in our democratic institutions and encourage greater critical thinking among current and future voters alike.
Whether you’re a parent, teacher, youth sports coach, scouting leader, community volunteer or someone who’s just very passionate about the First Amendment, democracy and civic engagement, you can make a difference in the lives of youth by sharing the valuable lessons of civic literacy and political participation. If we can’t consistently rely on our state and/or federal education policies to ensure students are well-versed in civic affairs, then it’s up to us to fill in the gaps. We can’t afford to rest on our laurels, simply hoping that our middle and high schoolers are developing adequate knowledge and skills to become informed, engaged citizens prior to graduation.
The importance of civic education is further demonstrated by the article, “What Social Scientists Have Learned About Civic Education: A Review of the Literature,” in which author David E. Campbell argues that well-designed civic education programs have strongly correlated with a positive, long-lasting impact on the civic engagement rates of young Americans. Campbell explains that four aspects – class instruction, extracurricular activities, community service, and a school’s ethos – are essential to increasing civic engagement among youth. However, the aforementioned Center for American Progress report found that only Maryland and the District of Columbia require community service as a prerequisite to receiving a high school diploma.
Additionally, the U.S. Census Bureau found that students engaged in extracurricular activities were also more likely to be highly engaged in school:
U.S. Census Bureau findings on engagement in extracurricular activities and overall school engagement.
With this information in mind, it’s our civic duty as American adults to not only engage in our own political advocacy efforts, but also encourage our nation’s youth to get involved and stay involved as well. Whether you have kids or not, the lack of rigor in many states’ civic education programs (or complete lack thereof) can impact all of us as we continue to face enormous challenges like the seemingly endless stream of disinformation swirling around online and ongoing concerns related to First Amendment protections.
So, what will you do to pass along the torch of civic literacy for future generations?
2020 is truly a year for difficult conversations. Rates of polarization in the U.S. seem to be constantly on the rise, and frustrations spurred by the pandemic have led to a widespread breakdown in clear, collaborative and constructive conversations in our society.
Inspired by the Difficult Conversations Workshops at our national symposium, let’s explore how a little psychological concept called “self-distancing” can lead to huge positive benefits in difficult conversations you may be having with your own family, friends, colleagues and neighbors:
What Is Self-Distancing?
There are two basic sides involved in almost any interpersonal encounter: self-immersed perspectives and self-distanced perspectives. Simply put, a self-immersed perspective keeps your mind focused on internal factors: your own needs, wants, interests and desires. On the flip side, a self-distanced perspective accounts for one’s own interests but views them as similarly important to the interests of other parties in a conversation.
With this in mind, self-distancing (not to be confused with this year’s popular phrase, “social distancing”) refers to processing negative emotions or events in adaptive (healthy) ways.
While it can be immensely challenging (and perhaps bruising to our egos) to back down or listen to others when we’re absolutely convinced that we’re “right,” doing so is a crucial step towards preserving our relationships with others and cultivating meaningful conversation climates. But the benefits aren’t primarily for other people; according to an article published in Greater Good Magazine (backed by the University of California, Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center), self-distancing offers a host of personal benefits, including:
Greater capacity for adaptive self-reflection (as opposed to maladaptive self-reflection, which magnifies negative emotions instead of constructively processing them)
Reduction in aggressive, angry thoughts and behaviors
Greater ability to make rational, clear-headed decisions
So how can you successfully self-distance from negative emotions without forgoing that difficult conversation entirely? Let’s see what the research has to say:
Change Your Self-Talk
Researchers have suggested that changing the way you talk to yourself (sometimes referred to as “intrapersonal communication”) can be a powerful mechanism in which you emotionally distance yourself from tense interpersonal interactions and/or maladaptive self-reflections and ruminations.
One of the best self-talk strategies involves changing the pronouns in which you refer to yourself. Specifically, referring to yourself in the second-person “you” pronouns (as though you’re speaking with a friend) or third-person (he/she/they or your name) can help you constructively assess negative thoughts and process upsetting emotions when engaging in difficult conversations with others.
Embrace Wise Reasoning
Another strategy for reigning in your emotions to more effectively engage in difficult conversations with others involves developing your wise reasoning skills. There are four central tenets to wise reasoning, including: (1) recognizing the limits of your own knowledge (intellectual humility), (2) recognizing and appreciating larger issues involved, (3) sensitivity to changes in social relationships, and (4) a willingness to compromise or meaningfully consider other opinions besides your own.
Wise reasoning is important for self-distancing because it encourages us to recognize and accept the fact that we don’t have all the answers and that our opinions are just that: subjective opinions. Not objective reality. Once you can genuinely accept the possibility that you could be wrong (or simply unaware of information that may change your mind), you’ll be in a much better position to take other people’s concerns more seriously and keep your emotions in check when dealing with an interpersonal conflict.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Have you ever wondered what freedom of expression looks like in countries beyond the United States? Free speech laws are influenced by a country’s history, political climate, socio-cultural dynamics and other factors, and you may be surprised by how some countries differ from the U.S.’s First Amendment.
What roles do your social identities play in your life?
If all news is 
Have you ever paused to consider the ways in which you may be arguing from a biased perspective when engaging in a political debate? Even if you remained completely calm, cited evidence from credible sources, and logically articulated each of your points, could it be possible that you are still letting personal biases get in the way of genuinely objective reasoning?
Social psychologist and Stanford University Professor of Sociology Robb Willer is an expert in political polarization. His 2017 TEDx Talk on “
According to a 
