Ever post a Bible verse on social media? Under the law in Finland, this could land you in jail. A Finnish provision holds that if a person is found to have expressed an “opinion” or “another message” deemed to have “threatened, defamed, or insulted” they could face imprisonment for up to two years—potentially serious jail time for nothing more than a perceived insult.
Lest this sound unfathomably dystopian, this law has been employed by Finland’s Prosecutor General to bring three criminal charges against long-time Finnish Member of Parliament, former Minister of the Interior, and current Parliamentarian Dr. Päivi Räsänen. Her alleged crime: she expressed her deeply held beliefs about marriage and sexuality in a 2019 Bible tweet and subsequent radio show, in addition to writing a church pamphlet on the topic seventeen years ago. Now, this committed public servant, medical doctor, and grandmother of six faces onerous legal proceedings, and the looming threat of imprisonment.
This is a watershed moment for fundamental human rights. How can Finland, a country that often tops the charts in rule of law rankings, so blatantly disregard the basic human right to freedom of speech? Let this be a warning for Americans as well. Europe may be leading the charge on the proliferation of silencing “hate speech” laws, but the United States is far from immune to this insidious trend. The idea that the government has the prerogative to silence speech with criminal sanctions is gaining traction across the world, with severe ramifications for all fundamental freedoms.
Some might perceive Dr. Räsänen’s case as yet another example of “cancel culture” gone awry, but we can’t discount the severity of what’s at stake—a possible prison sentence simply over voiced views.
As with any speech, the public expression of opinion always has the potential to offend. And Dr. Räsänen’s words may have indeed offended some, but is this criminal? As tensions flare, we need to be reminded that it’s not about whether you agree or disagree with her statements. Put simply, it’s about whether the government should be able to silence what it considers the “wrong” kind of speech.
This toxic cocktail of censorship and criminal sanctions isn’t in anyone’s interest. After all, who among us could survive having almost two decades worth of personal speech examined on the basis of the extraordinarily low bar of “insulting” content? Also consider the chilling effect that targeting public officials engenders. If the statements of our high-profile leaders are taken out of context, and the beliefs that they espouse suddenly criminalized, surely the average person will often be intimidated into retreating from public discourse altogether.
In the U.S., if the conscience-crushing Equality Act becomes law, it would move the American speech context more in line with that of Europe—a formidable threat that runs antithetical to the free speech protections at the core of American law and ethos. And yet, speech is already under assault in the U.S. See for example Dr. Nicholas Meriwether, disciplined by Shawnee State University for declining to refer to a male student as a woman.
At its core, speech censorship is totalitarian—it certainly doesn’t promote diversity or tolerance. Moreover, “hate speech” laws don’t work in practice. Speech restrictions in place across Europe have in no way countered the rise of extremism on that continent. It is impossible for authorities to draw the line between acceptable and illegal. The concept of hate speech is so slippery that it can be applied to almost any speech and any situation. As exemplified by Dr. Räsänen’s case, there are no discernible limits once governments start policing legitimate speech.
It is imperative that restrictions on our fundamental freedoms be extremely limited and well-defined. When it comes to speech, we should all concur that incitement to violence is impermissible. But beyond that, it is the free and open transmission of ideas that is most conducive to the flourishing of democracy. Freedom to speak only inoffensively is no freedom at all. And no one stands to benefit from an Orwellian future restricted to the parroting of state-sanctioned speech.
Dr. Räsänen’s case may very well be the canary in the Twittersphere—alerting us of the urgent importance of standing up for our imperiled fundamental freedoms, both in law and in practice. As “hate speech” and similarly censorious laws sweep across “progressive” countries, now is the time for a renewed commitment to the Western tradition of promoting and protecting free speech. These protections are enshrined at the level of international law as well. We must not only defend existing law, but also unambiguously oppose so-called “hate speech” laws and other pernicious efforts to position the government as the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be said.
The facts of Dr. Räsänen’s case in no way support a finding of criminal wrongdoing, or any wrongdoing whatsoever. All should hope that justice will prevail for her, revealing the absurdity of not only her charges, but also the law under which she has been charged. Given the burdensome nature of this legal ordeal, it is clear that she is being made an example of—an ominous warning for all.
Although a world away in Finland for now, the ripples of this case surely will be felt across the Atlantic. The lawsuit touches on far more than the freedom to tweet Bible verses. In jeopardy is our very right to express our opinions and beliefs in the public square without fear of retribution—a fundamental human right most urgently in need of defense at this time.
Elyssa Koren is director of United Nations advocacy for ADF International. Follow her on Twitter: @Elyssa_ADFIntl.