Freedom unlimited
Participants explore the idea of freedom of expression using a number of case studies. They need to decide what to do with comments or communications which are controversial, abusive or potentially dangerous.
| Age group | 14 – 18 years |
|---|---|
| Duration | 45 minutes |
| Learning goals & outcomes |
|
| Methods | Plenary discussion, small group work, case study analysis, reflection and discussion |
| Source / Author | Bookmarks – A manual for combating hate speech online through human rights education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2020. p. 69ff. https://www.coe.int/en/web/no-hate-campaign/bookmarks-connexions |
| Values | This lesson explores the values of freedom, human dignity, equality and respect for others. Participants reflect on freedom of expression as a fundamental human right while considering its relationship with other rights and social responsibilities. The activity encourages tolerance, empathy and democratic dialogue by asking learners to engage with controversial opinions, recognise the impact of hate speech and discrimination, and evaluate when restrictions may be necessary to protect the rights and dignity of others. It supports the development of critical thinking, responsibility and respect for diversity in democratic societies. |
Didactic notes
The following lesson proposal aims to encourage learners to reflect on freedom of expression as a fundamental human right and to explore the tensions that can arise when its exercise affects the rights and dignity of others. In particular, it seeks to develop an understanding that freedom of expression is essential for individuals and democratic societies, but is not an absolute right and may need to be balanced against other human rights.
At the centre of the lesson are case studies involving controversial, abusive or potentially harmful online content. Learners are encouraged to develop their own positions, discuss different perspectives and provide reasons for their decisions. Rather than offering simple answers, the activity makes conflicting rights and interests visible and encourages learners to consider where restrictions on freedom of expression may be justified. Through discussion and reflection, learners develop critical thinking, democratic judgment and an awareness of the responsibilities connected with exercising freedom of expression.
Material & Downloads
Flipchart and marker pens
Copies of the cards
Exploring Freedom of Expression
Ask participants what ‘freedom of expression’ means to them. Collect ideas on a flipchart, inviting discussion of some of the following points if they are not raised by participants:
- Does freedom of expression mean we can say whatever we want?
- If you think certain ‘expressions’ should not be permitted, how could we decide what needs banning? Who should decide?
- Apart from through speaking or writing, what are the other ways we ‘express’ ourselves (music, drama, images, body language, etc.)?
Do not attempt to ‘resolve’ the issues at this moment: gather some opinions and explain that these are often controversial questions which will be explored in more detail through the activity.
Ask whether anyone has ever been prevented from saying something they wanted to – at home, school, or in public. How did it make you feel? Why was it important to you to be able to express your point of view?
Provide some brief information about freedom of expression. Use the information below, or add to it from the background materials (see chapter 5 of the Bookmarks manual, p. 147pp. https://www.coe.int/en/web/no-hate-campaign/bookmarks-connexions):
Freedom of expression
The right to be free to express our thoughts or opinions is an important human right, and is part of international human rights law. The right is valued both because our thoughts, opinions and ability to communicate are a central part of what it means to be human, and because communication and discussion are essential in building an effective democratic society. Understanding and living side by side with others depends on open and free communication – even if we sometimes have to hear opinions we don’t agree with.
Nevertheless, freedom of expression is not an ‘absolute’ right which always applies, without limits. It is a right which has to be balanced against the rights of others, or against the good of society as a whole. When expression is either extremely damaging to certain individuals or is likely to be damaging for society, it can be limited.
Analysing Cases and Making Decisions
Tell participants that they will work in small groups (4 – 5 people) and will discuss a number of cases in which people post things online which are harmful to others and their human rights. The groups need to decide whether this is a case where any of the material should be taken offline – in other words, whether freedom of expression should be restricted.
- If they decide it should: what should be taken offline, and why?
- If not, why not? What else can be done and by whom?
Divide participants into groups of 4 or 5 people and give each group a copy of the cases. Give them about 20 minutes to discuss each of the cases. They should try to provide reasons for the decisions.
Reflecting on Freedom, Rights and Restrictions
Go through each of the case studies asking for groups’ responses. Discuss briefly the reasons behind the decisions they took. Use some of the following questions to draw out other key points:
- Were there any cases where you could not reach agreement in the group? What were the key differences in opinion?
- Did it make a difference who was responsible for the posts? Did it make a difference how many people responded, or how they responded?
- Did you arrive at any general principles to decide when freedom of expression can (or should) be restricted? What are the dangers in being over-restrictive? What are the dangers in being overpermissive?
- Do you think that closing down websites or removing harmful posts is an effective way of combatting hate speech online?
- In your country, are there restrictions on what people are allowed to say – online or offline? Do the rules differ for online expression?
Tips for faciliators
- When participants discuss the cases, remind them to consider how much material they would take offline, if they decide to do so. For example, they could decide to remove the whole site (or profile) or they could remove a single post / video, ban the user who posted, and so on.
- It may be worth reminding participants that the European Court of Human Rights considers any restriction of freedom of expression as a very serious step! It should only be done when there is strong justification.
- You may want to explore with participants the extent to which the discussions themselves were useful in helping them to form their opinion, and what this may tell us about freedom of expression.
- If necessary, or if time allows, you may want to explain that human rights law, and freedom of expression, is really about how governments should behave. Limiting expression on the Internet is often more complicated because much of the Internet is ‘owned’ by private companies (e.g. private hosting providers, news sites ‘owned’ by companies, etc.). There are questions about whether or how much governments should and can regulate speech on the Internet. Have a look at Chapter 5, Background Information, on freedom of expression.
- You may want to explain that human rights law is really about how governments should behave. Limiting freedom of expression on the Internet is often more complicated because much of the Internet is ‘owned’ by private companies (e.g. private hosting providers, news sites “owned” by companies, etc.). Familiarise yourself with the key points reflected in Chapter 5, Background Information, on freedom of expression or the section ‘Freedom of expression and information’ in the Guide to Human Rights for Internet Users.
- Try to find out before you start the activity whether any of the cases would be illegal under your national laws.
- It may be useful to end the activity by considering other ways of responding to the cases. Refer to the material on the campaign No Hate Speech Movement in Chapter 2 for some suggestions. Remind participants that removing offending material, or the site, is not the only response! It can also be very difficult to implement practically, given the amount of material posted online.
Variations
The case studies could be performed as a role play: each small group could prepare one of the scenarios and perform it to the others. Discussion about the most appropriate response would then take place in the group as a whole.