Georg Henrik Wrede

Who Isn’t in Favor of “Free Speech”?
One would think that the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), the world’s leading alliance of public service media organizations (with European members similar to PBS in the US), and the organizers of the Eurovision Song Contest, would be among the strongest defenders of free speech. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case. In fact, upon closer inspection, the EBU’s actions suggest quite the opposite.

Recent news has highlighted the EBU’s attempts to censor three entries in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest. Malta is prohibited from using the word “kant,” meaning “song” in Maltese; the Finnish group KAJ is barred from using the Finnish curse word “perkele”; and singer Erika Vikman tells EBU is pressuring her to change her performance. It would seem EBU would preferably heavily discourage her from appearing all together.

It’s crucial to continually reflect on the meaning and global state of free speech. The truth is, “free speech” as a concept is often as vague as any other buzzword. Nowadays, “people’s democratic republics” are less common in Europe than they were after World War II, with Russian, then the Soviet Union’s blessing. Everyone understood the distinction between Western democracies and Eastern European “democracies.” Additionally, there was a gray area, exemplified by Finland and the term “Finlandization.”
A frequently overlooked aspect in today’s global discourse is the difference in starting points for free speech. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has significantly influenced discussions elsewhere. Approved on December 15, 1791, it’s a part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, specifically within the U.S. Historical context reveals it as an amendment intended to severely limit the government’s power to control speech. The Enlightenment-era Americans recognized the limitations of human understanding. Our knowledge is constantly expanding. Therefore, debate must not be censored—not by the state, not by churches, not by anyone. Americans had bitter experiences of life in their former homelands in Europe.
For us in Finland, or then the eastern part of Sweden, the initial steps toward free speech came early by European standards. In Sweden, freedom of the press was established through the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766. In France, the principle of freedom of the press was enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen during the French Revolution in 1789. Mind you, the French revolution was not a peaceful and bloodless affair, but at times, full terror and speechless authorities.

Today, free speech is a cornerstone, if not the cornerstone, of preserving Western democracies. Therefore, it’s particularly disheartening, though not entirely surprising, to see European public service media leading the charge for censorship. While it’s likely justified by the need for “family-friendly” entertainment, the current media landscape—shaped by the internet and social media, free from state monopolies—fosters a more open climate. Public service media monopolies, or as they are rightfully called the “fourth estate,” are under pressure and have long lost their grip on news dissemination, now struggling with other traditional media in the “fake news” arena. Their strategy to remain relevant seems to heavily rely on entertainment-driven experiences, whether it’s large-scale events like the Eurovision Song Contest or the Olympics, or smaller-scale productions of reality TV shows. Entertainment has become a primary, if not the primary, product for public service media. When public service engages in censorship for its main product, it doesn’t take much to guess their stance on censorship and free speech regarding less prioritized products like “fake news.”