Between speech and silence, justice can only emerge when it is allowed to speak

The central tenet of human rights law is that all rights are universal, indivisible, interlinked, and inalienable. They are complimentary, with the implicit assertion that the fulfilment of one right does not mean infringement of another right. That sounds fine in principle, but once we begin to examine it, we uncover dilemmas and challenges, and discover that we are caught between Scylla and Charybdis – where protection from one harm greatly increases another harm.

The Scylla here is unrestrained speech intended to challenge, cast fresh light, even provoke, but also to shock and disturb, and at times, even disgust; the Charybdis is the principle of non-discrimination which calls upon regulators, governments, owners of social media platforms, and human rights practitioners to do all they can to protect vulnerable groups from abusive language that violates their rights to privacy, security, and safety, and indeed, their legitimate desire for justice.

Balancing the two is not easy.

Unrestrained free speech can spread lies and propaganda, otherwise popularly termed as fake news, incite violence against marginalised groups, strengthen the hands of those who wield power, and create a climate that permits injustice to prevail. The most potent tool against power is speech.

Many countries in the Asia-Pacific region have been colonised, and...

Read more