Recently signed Westminster Declaration by 138 luminaries drawn from the government, technology, business , media and medical fields wants to ensure robust protections for freedom of speech and open discourse exist in the US and in international law, but which protections are now also under serious threat.

“The US First Amendment is a strong example of how the right to freedom of speech, of the press and of conscience can be firmly protected under the law,” the declaration states, describing this as “a vital ‘first liberty’ from which all other liberties follow.”

“It is only through free speech that we can denounce violations of our rights and fight for new freedoms,” the declaration states.

US government policies that have allegedly resulted in censorship of online speech, including Covid-19 counternarratives, are being challenged on the basis of the First Amendment in several ongoing lawsuits, including Missouri et al v. Biden et al and Kennedy et al v. Biden et al. The two cases were consolidated in July.

The Westminster Declaration also cites the UDHR (United Nations Human Rights), which “was drafted in 1948 in response to atrocities committed during World War II,” as another example of how protections for free speech are legally enshrined.

The declaration specifically cites Article 19 of the UDHR, which states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’”

According to the declaration: “As is made clear by Article 19, the corollary of the right to free speech is the right to information. In a democracy, no one has a monopoly over what is considered to be true. Rather, truth must be discovered through dialogue and debate – and we cannot discover truth without allowing for the possibility of error.

“While there may be a need for governments to regulate some aspects of social media, such as age limits, these regulations should never infringe on the human right to freedom of expression.”

Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, said there are more provisions of international law which also prevent free speech, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1966.

Boyle told The Defender that the covenant “is the international implementing legislation for the UDHR,” adding that “It has strong protections for freedom of speech and is a binding treaty that can be argued in the courts of its contracting parties.”

The signatories of the Westminster Declaration argue that free speech includes protecting the right to speech that may be offensive to some: “We recognise that words can sometimes cause offence, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship. Open discourse is the central pillar of a free society, and is essential for holding governments accountable, empowering vulnerable groups, and reducing the risk of tyranny.

“Speech protections are not just for views we agree with; we must strenuously protect speech for the views that we most strongly oppose. Only in the public square can these views be heard and properly challenged.”

The declaration points out that “time and time again, unpopular opinions and ideas have eventually become conventional wisdom.” Far from promoting a prevalence of misinformation and disinformation, the declaration argues that free speech, and the robust debate it fosters, provides the best safeguard against such information.

“By labelling certain political or scientific positions as ‘misinformation’ or ‘malinformation,’ our societies risk getting stuck in false paradigms that will rob humanity of hard-earned knowledge and obliterate the possibility of gaining new knowledge. Free speech is our best defence against disinformation,” the declaration states.

On this basis, and “For the sake of human welfare and flourishing,” the declaration’s signatories made three calls to action, including: Calling upon “governments and international organisations to fulfil their responsibilities to the people and to uphold Article 19 of the UDHR.”

Calling upon “tech corporations to undertake to protect the digital public sphere as defined in Article 19 of the UDHR and refrain from politically motivated censorship, the censorship of dissenting voices and censorship of political opinion.”

Calling upon “the general public to join us in the fight to preserve the people’s democratic rights.”

“Legislative changes are not enough. We must also build an atmosphere of free speech from the ground up by rejecting the climate of intolerance that encourages self-censorship and that creates unnecessary personal strife for many. Instead of fear and dogmatism, we must embrace inquiry and debate,” the declaration states.

“Censorship in the name of ‘preserving democracy’ inverts what should be a bottom-up system of representation into a top-down system of ideological control. This censorship is ultimately counter-productive: it sows mistrust, encourages radicalisation and de-legitimises the democratic process,” it added.

Fitts told The Defender she hopes the Westminster Declaration will “inspire millions of people around the world to recommit to share this covenant with us,” noting that there are many actions that “individuals, families, community groups, state legislators, officials and investors” can take in such a direction.

“The more who read and share the declaration, the more powerful the commitment we share to free speech and freedom becomes,” Fitts said.

Describing the “attack on speech” as a “crisis of humanity,” the declaration states that “Every equality and justice campaign in history has relied on an open forum to voice dissent,” citing the civil rights movement and the abolition of slavery as key examples.

Conversely, the declaration states that throughout history, “attacks on free speech have been a precursor to attacks on all other liberties.”

According to the declaration: “Regimes that eroded free speech have always inevitably weakened and damaged other core democratic structures. In the same fashion, the elites that push for censorship today are also undermining democracy. What has changed though, is the broad scale and technological tools through which censorship can be enacted.

“We stand for your right to ask questions. Heated arguments, even those that may cause distress, are far better than no arguments at all. We do not want our children to grow up in a world where they live in fear of speaking their minds. We want them to grow up in a world where their ideas can be expressed, explored and debated openly.”

• The Defender report