1881 like a totem
Freedom of expression remains a human affair of individuals whose powers are multiplied by the power of technology
On our beautiful continent, a unique edifice of respect for human rights, anything can be thought, but not everything can be said. This is an opportunity that must be preserved. Freedom of expression and opinion are the intangible foundations of our democracies. Even if the virality of social media amplifies silent attacks against this patiently constructed architecture of rights, the framework remains a “precious democratic and social consensus,” to quote a report aimed at “Reaffirming Freedom of Expression” published on Thursday by La villa numeris.
“No posting” signs still sometimes appear on walls in our cities under the seal of the law of July 29, 1881. This is not the least paradoxical aspect of this law, a true pillar of our Republic, which sets out clear principles where freedom is the rule and restriction is the exception. Far from being a relic, this 145-year-old text serves as a necessary compass in the digital storm. To face this storm, Thaima Samman, the lawyer who led the work that led to this report, reminds us that “we have a robust legal framework.”
Europe has therefore adopted the Digital Services Act (DSA). Sometimes mistakenly perceived as the ultimate solution, it cannot be an end in itself. The European regulation imposes a procedure for removing objectionable content from the largest platforms, referring to national legislation to determine its illegality. We must be careful not to confuse the plumbing with the water that flows through it. Without the safeguards provided by the 1881 Act, there would be a high risk of falling into a state of private arbitrariness, where social media operators would remove content as a precautionary measure, not only to comply with the law but also to appease their shareholders and consumers, in order to avoid sanctions.
Breaking waves. Faced with what can sometimes seem like an endless scroll, where one piece of information chases another, where manipulation for commercial or ideological purposes distorts the truth by compromising the narrative, where hatred is expressed openly, repeated ad nauseam in the form of intolerable harassment, the first reflex is often to want to tighten regulations even further. This risks piling up laws, making them less readable and therefore ineffective. Over-legislation becomes an illusion. Our organizations face a massive challenge. The problem is not a legal vacuum, but large-scale disputes that the 1881 law, originally intended for professionals, was not designed to handle.
Therefore, strengthening the resources of our sovereign institutions is a priority if we want to “beef up” our justice system. The dematerialization of the Department of Justice, promised by 2027, should enable us to be more responsive. Beyond that, in order to arm itself, the institution will undoubtedly have to open up to consultative structures made up of volunteer lawyers, or strengthen dialogue with civil society actors, as recommended in the report. On a global scale, preserving a space for dialogue is becoming everyone’s business. Speech is golden there.
Reaffirming the basis of the 1881 Act means rejecting intellectual laziness. With all due respect to Mr. Vance, it also means remembering that freedom of expression is a human right, attached to citizens and their fundamental responsibility. At a time when algorithmic activism is in full swing and chatbots are saturating the digital space, to the point where machines talk to machines on the social network called Moltbook reserved for them, refocusing the debate on humans is becoming a vital imperative.
Thaima Samman puts it clearly: “No freedom of expression for robots.” In doing so, she rightly points out that “technologies are not enemies but, on the contrary, must be put at the service of this cherished freedom.” Omnipresent digital tools help us to better anticipate information and cyber attacks, but also to learn better, in a more personalized way, and thus sharpen our own critical thinking skills. But we still have to want it. Because if individuals behave like machines, they will be replaced by machines, without rights.
This article was originally published in French in L’Opinion