If free speech only matters when convenient, it isn’t free at all – FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

Report on the State of Free Expression and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

An analysis of recent trends in public discourse reveals a significant erosion of the principles of free expression. This development poses a direct challenge to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The treatment of speech not as a fundamental right but as a conditional privilege undermines the foundations of democratic resilience and inclusive societies. This report examines the institutional and cultural shifts contributing to this trend and outlines the implications for sustainable development.

Challenges to SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The Erosion of Fundamental Freedoms (SDG Target 16.10)

Recent events indicate a departure from the protection of fundamental freedoms, a core objective of SDG 16. The prevailing climate suggests that freedom of speech is increasingly conditional, applied only to politically comfortable expression. This trend is characterized by several key observations:

• Public discourse has become a zero-sum contest where speech is grounds for institutional retaliation, professional punishment, and social ostracism.
• A pattern has emerged where institutions and individuals abandon stated commitments to free expression when those commitments are tested by controversy.
• The focus has shifted from criticism of ideas, which is central to free speech, to imposing penalties on individuals associated with those ideas.

This drift toward a model of expression that only tolerates majority sentiment is fundamentally at odds with the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Institutional Responses and Democratic Resilience

The response of institutions, particularly universities, to controversial speech reflects a weakening of the democratic principles necessary for achieving SDG 16. A mature liberal democracy protects speech precisely because it is controversial, as open contestation is the engine of resilience.

1. Institutional Cowardice: Rather than upholding principles of open debate, many institutions respond to pressure campaigns by canceling speakers or disciplining faculty, signaling that conformity is safer than inquiry.
2. Suppression of Dissent: Organized efforts to deplatform, disrupt, or punish those with dissenting political positions are becoming commonplace.
3. Erosion of Corrective Capacity: Societies that abandon free expression lose the ability to self-correct, allowing errors to calcify into doctrine and undermining long-term stability and justice.

Implications for SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

Impact on Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education (SDG Target 4.7)

The narrowing of permissible speech has profound consequences for the educational environment, directly hindering the aims of SDG 4 to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education. The university’s role as a space for intellectual exploration is under threat.

• Self-Censorship: When administrators respond to public outrage, they foster a climate of self-censorship. Students and faculty learn that alignment, not argumentation, leads to advancement, which stifles the critical thinking skills necessary to promote sustainable development.
• Intellectual Homogeneity: The “theater of ideas” shrinks, limiting the intellectual diversity required for learners to appreciate cultural diversity and develop into global citizens as envisioned by SDG Target 4.7.
• Performative Tolerance: A paradox has emerged where institutions proclaiming a commitment to diversity and inclusion often prove least capable of tolerating genuine intellectual diversity, resulting in a shallow tolerance that collapses when challenged. This undermines the goal of reducing inequalities (SDG 10) by silencing marginalized or unpopular viewpoints.

The Framework of Suppression

A cultural shift that reframes speech is contributing to this educational deficit. This framework has the following components:

1. Emotional discomfort is increasingly equated with injury.
2. Speech is treated as a form of violence.
3. Dissent is framed as a moral failing.

Within this logic, silencing speech becomes a virtuous act of justice. This rationale, once adopted, expands, threatening the open inquiry essential for quality education.

Conclusion: Civic Courage as a Prerequisite for Sustainable Development

Recommendations for Upholding Foundational Principles

Achieving the SDGs requires a robust public square where ideas can be debated and challenged. This necessitates a renewed commitment to the principles of free expression, grounded in civic courage rather than political convenience.

• Distinguish Criticism from Coercion: It is essential to maintain a distinction between moral disagreement, which is vital for democratic life, and institutional suppression, which corrodes it.
• Promote Civic Maturity: Progress requires the ability to hear and confront disagreeable ideas without seeking to destroy the speaker. Institutional leaders must model this resilience.
• Value Persuasion Over Prohibition: A free and sustainable society must be strong enough to withstand unpopular ideas and trust its citizens to engage in persuasion rather than resorting to prohibition.
• Ensure Non-Partisan Defense: The defense of free expression must be a civic, not partisan, exercise. The erosion of this freedom eventually impacts all sides of the political spectrum, hindering the collaborative partnerships (SDG 17) needed to solve global challenges.

Ultimately, the strength of a liberal society, and its capacity to achieve sustainable development, lies not in silencing dissent but in enduring it. This endurance is a hallmark of strong, just, and democratic institutions.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

  The article directly engages with the principles of a “mature liberal democracy” and the strength of its institutions. It critiques the weakening of institutional commitments to free expression, arguing that this erosion threatens democratic resilience. The discussion revolves around free speech as a “constitutional principle” and the role of institutions in upholding justice and fundamental freedoms, which is the core of SDG 16.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The analysis is heavily centered on the environment within universities and on college campuses. It discusses how the suppression of speech affects students and faculty, leading to self-censorship and a narrowing of the “theater of ideas.” The article questions whether universities are functioning as spaces for “intellectual exploration” or “ideological enforcement,” directly addressing the quality and nature of the educational environment.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article addresses inequality in the context of political and ideological expression. It argues against the “selective silencing of whatever unsettles the cultural majority” and the punishment of those with “political positions deemed unacceptable.” By defending the right of controversial and minority viewpoints to be heard, the article advocates for greater political inclusion and equality of opportunity in the public sphere.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

   The entire article is a defense of this target. It explicitly discusses “free expression” and “free speech” as a fundamental freedom under threat. It highlights how this freedom is being treated “not as a constitutional principle, but as a conditional privilege,” and details the mechanisms of its suppression, such as “pre-emptive suppression,” “social ostracism, and institutional retaliation.”

2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article critiques institutions, particularly universities, for their failure to be effective and accountable in upholding their principles. It describes “institutional cowardice” and notes how institutions “abandon their stated commitments to free expression the moment those commitments become uncomfortable.” This points to a lack of institutional strength and accountability in protecting democratic principles.

3. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   The article’s concern that public discourse is narrowing and that only “politically comfortable” speech is tolerated relates to this target. By advocating for the protection of controversial and dissenting views, it argues for a more inclusive and participatory public square where a wider range of ideas can be debated, which is essential for representative democracy.

SDG 4: Quality Education

1. Target 4.7: Ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote… a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity.

   The article argues that a core component of education is learning to engage with diverse and challenging ideas. It advocates for universities to cultivate “tolerance even — especially — when it offends our sensibilities” and to be a “space for intellectual exploration.” This directly relates to Target 4.7’s goal of promoting an appreciation for intellectual diversity and the skills for robust, non-violent civic debate.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social… and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… other status.

   The article champions the political inclusion of individuals regardless of their ideological position. It argues against a system where people are subject to “professional penalties, public shaming, or formal censure” for their views or associations. The defense of speech “precisely because it is controversial” is an argument for the inclusion of all voices, not just those that flatter “majority sentiment.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Indicators for SDG 16 Targets

• Prevalence of speech suppression incidents (Target 16.10): The article implies this can be measured by tracking the frequency of “organized efforts to deplatform, disrupt, shame, or punish” speakers, as well as instances of institutions “canceling speakers” in response to pressure.
• Rates of self-censorship (Target 16.10): Progress could be measured through surveys assessing the extent to which “students learn that advancement depends not on argumentation but on alignment” and “faculty learn that silence is prudent.” A decrease in self-reported censorship would indicate progress.
• Institutional policy adherence (Target 16.6): An indicator would be the degree to which institutions uphold their stated free speech policies when faced with controversy. The article notes that the “principle collapses the instant it is tested,” suggesting that tracking institutional responses during controversies is a key metric.

Indicators for SDG 4 Targets

• Ideological diversity on campus (Target 4.7): The health of the “theater of ideas” could be indicated by measuring the range and diversity of speakers, debates, and viewpoints presented and tolerated on university campuses over time.

Indicators for SDG 10 Targets

• Incidents of professional or social punishment for speech (Target 10.2): This can be measured by documenting cases of “professional punishment, social ostracism, and institutional retaliation” against individuals for expressing dissenting or unpopular views. A reduction in such incidents would signify greater political inclusion.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thefire.org