The saying often attributed to Voltaire—“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”—has become a cornerstone of Western thought on free expression. Although Voltaire never actually wrote these words, they encapsulate an Enlightenment ideal that has influenced constitutional frameworks, particularly in Europe and North America. However, Voltaire’s vision of free speech, shaped by the specific circumstances of 18th-century European absolutism and religious oppression, proves remarkably resistant to seamless global translation.
The Historical Context of Voltaire’s Vision
To understand why Voltaire’s ideals of free speech face challenges in gaining universal acceptance, we must first acknowledge the specific circumstances that gave rise to them. Voltaire lived during an era when the Catholic Church and French monarchy held immense power over public discourse. His personal experiences, including censorship, imprisonment in the Bastille, and exile, deeply influenced his unwavering dedication to intellectual freedom. Voltaire’s advocacy for free expression was primarily driven by his desire to combat religious dogmatism and monarchical tyranny.
The Enlightenment project, spearheaded by Voltaire, emerged from a specific historical context: the aftermath of devastating religious wars, the rise of scientific rationalism, the growth of a literate bourgeoisie, and the gradual erosion of feudal structures. In this setting, free speech transcended and became a practical instrument for challenging entrenched power. The coffeehouse culture of Paris and London, where ideas circulated freely among educated elites, provided the social framework that nurtured this vision. The assumption that these solutions are universally applicable, irrespective of cultural context, historical experiences, or social structures, embodies a form of intellectual imperialism that undermines the very principles of respect that the Enlightenment championed.
The Cultural Relativity of Speech and Harm
One of the most significant obstacles to globalizing Voltaire’s vision is the fundamental divergence in how speech is perceived in relation to harm and community. Western liberal theory generally holds that speech should only be restricted when it directly causes physical harm or incites imminent violence. In this framework, words themselves are distinct from actions and deserve the utmost protection.
Many non-Western cultures, however, operate from different foundational premises. In numerous Asian, African, and Indigenous societies, speech is perceived as a form of action with tangible consequences for social harmony and collective well-being. The distinction between word and deed that appears natural to Western liberals seems artificial or even absurd from these alternative perspectives. Speech that disrupts community cohesion, disrespects elders, or violates sacred boundaries may not be seen as the exercise of individual liberty but as genuine harm.
Consider the concept of “ubuntu” in many African philosophical traditions, often translated as “I am because we are.” This worldview prioritizes communal interdependence over individual autonomy. From an ubuntu perspective, asserting an individual’s absolute right to disturb community peace doesn’t seem like enlightened progress but rather destructive selfishness. Similarly, many Asian cultures influenced by Confucian thought emphasize social harmony, filial piety, and respect for authority as fundamental values. Free speech absolutism may be perceived as social chaos.
Religious Sensitivity and Secular Assumptions
Voltaire’s opposition to organized religion, especially Catholicism, was a key factor in his support for free expression. His famous slogan, “Écrasez l’infâme!” (Crush the infamous thing!), aimed at religious superstition and clerical authority, exemplifies how his vision of free speech. The Enlightenment movement generally believed that diminishing religion’s public influence would liberate human reason and propel civilization forward.
This secularist assumption presents significant challenges when applied to societies where religious identity holds paramount importance in personal and communal life. For instance, in many Muslim-majority nations, Islam transcends being a mere private belief system; it serves as a comprehensive framework that governs law, ethics, social interactions, and cultural identity. The notion that religious sensibilities should be subordinated to secular principles of unrestricted speech is perceived as cultural imperialism.
The controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” vividly highlighted these tensions. While Western liberal societies largely defended Rushdie’s right to publish his novel as a matter of artistic freedom, many Muslims worldwide perceived the book as a profound attack on their faith and prophet. This disparity between these perspectives goes beyond mere political differences and reflects fundamental divergences in worldviews between individual expression, religious reverence, and community identity.
Furthermore, secular Western societies frequently overlook their own quasi-religious commitments. The devotion to free speech itself can function as a kind of secular religion, complete with its own sacred texts (such as the First Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), its martyrs (ranging from Socrates to Charlie Hebdo), and its heretics (those who challenge the absolute nature of speech). Acknowledging this religious aspect of secular liberalism could foster greater humility in the process of cultural translation.
Colonial Legacies and Power Asymmetries
The export of Enlightenment values, particularly Voltaire’s vision of free speech, is inextricably linked to the history of Europe. Western powers that colonized vast regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America often justified their dominance through civilizing missions that promised to introduce Enlightenment rationality to supposedly primitive societies. This history has left profound scars and fostered understandable suspicions.
When Western nations now champion free speech as a universal value, many in formerly colonized societies live through echoes of past grievances. While the message may be well-intentioned, it can sound strikingly similar to: “We possess superior knowledge of how your society should be structured; embrace our values or remain in the shadows of ignorance.”
The power imbalances in global communication further complicate matters. Western media corporations, social media platforms, and cultural products dominate the flow of information worldwide. When Facebook, Twitter (now X), or Google make decisions about what constitutes acceptable speech, they effectively impose specific cultural norms on billions of users globally. The notion that these platforms provide neutral spaces for free expression becomes hollow when their algorithms and content policies encode particular cultural assumptions about individualism, privacy, and permissible speech.
Furthermore, the resources available for speech are vastly unequal. While a French cartoonist can mock the Prophet Muhammad and garner international support for free expression, a Palestinian activist’s social media posts about Israeli occupation often face shadowbanning. In contrast, Western corporations’ lobbyists can overwhelm political discourse with their messages, while marginalized communities in the Global South struggle to make their voices heard at all. In practice, free speech often means those with resources speaking freely while others remain unheard.
Different Priorities, Different Contexts
Perhaps the most fundamental challenge to globalizing Voltaire’s vision of free speech lies in the fact that different societies face distinct pressing problems and prioritize different values. In the 18th century, European intellectuals were primarily engaged in the central battle of challenging religious and monarchical authority. However, contemporary societies confront diverse challenges.
In post-genocide Rwanda, for instance, maintaining ethnic harmony takes precedence over unrestricted speech rights. Laws prohibiting ethnic divisionism and genocide denial are not signs of illiberal backwardness but rather hard-won lessons from the 1994 genocide, when radio broadcasts played a role in inciting mass murder. To Rwandans, the Western insistence on absolute free speech, without regard for context or consequences, can appear naive.
Similarly, societies emerging from civil war, ethnic conflict, or authoritarian rule often prioritize stability and nation-building over expansive individual rights. While Western critics may perceive restrictions on hate speech or inflammatory rhetoric as authoritarian overreach, leaders in these contexts face genuine dilemmas: How can they prevent renewed violence while simultaneously respecting freedom?
Economic development presents another competing priority. Some Asian nations, particularly Singapore and China, have adopted models that prioritize economic growth and social stability over Western-style political freedoms. While these approaches warrant critical scrutiny and certainly involve genuine repression, they also reflect different judgments about which rights are most important. For societies where living memory includes widespread poverty, famine, or instability, arguments that prioritize free speech over economic security may seem like luxuries that only wealthy Western nations can afford.
The Digital Age and New Complexities
The internet and social media have revolutionized free speech debates in ways Voltaire could never have envisioned, presenting new challenges for any vision of free expression, whether Western or otherwise. The rapid, expansive, and anonymous nature of online communication poses problems that 18th-century frameworks are ill-equipped to address. Disinformation campaigns can now manipulate elections and incite violence on an unprecedented scale. Authoritarian regimes weaponize free speech by exploiting democratic openness while crushing dissent domestically, creating asymmetries.
These challenges impact all societies, but their manifestations vary across cultural contexts. For instance, WhatsApp rumors in India have led to deadly mob violence. These cases demonstrate how technology interacts with local factors such as religious tensions, communal histories, and weak institutions to create harms that abstract free speech principles alone cannot prevent.
The platforms, primarily developed in the United States, incorporate Silicon Valley’s libertarian ideals into their architectures. However, content moderation policies face challenges in accommodating the linguistic and cultural nuances across hundreds of languages and thousands of cultural contexts. For instance, what constitutes hate speech in Germany differs from Indonesia and Brazil. Consequently, the expectation of universally applying a single free speech standard seems unrealistic.
Conclusion: Beyond Universalism
Recognizing that Voltaire’s vision of free speech may not be universally applicable doesn’t means abandoning concerns for expression rights or embracing authoritarianism. This begins by acknowledging that there are multiple legitimate approaches to balancing individual expression and collective well-being. While Western liberalism offers valuable insights, it doesn’t hold a monopoly on wisdom.
Other traditions, such as African ubuntu philosophy, Buddhist concepts of right speech, and Islamic principles of adab (proper conduct), provide alternative frameworks for thinking about communication ethics that deserve engagement rather than dismissal. Contextual approaches recognize that the same expression can have different meanings and consequences in various settings. For instance, critiquing Christianity in France, where Catholics hold institutional power, is fundamentally different from critiquing Islam in the same country, where Muslims are a marginalized minority.
Voltaire’s vision of free speech emerged from specific historical circumstances and reflected particular cultural assumptions. While it has contributed valuable ideas to global human rights discourse. A mature global conversation calls for genuine cross-cultural dialogue that acknowledges diverse philosophical traditions.
The objective should not be exporting Enlightenment but rather cultivating genuinely inclusive dialogues about how diverse societies can safeguard human dignity, facilitate meaningful participation in public life, and prevent the powerful from silencing the vulnerable. Voltaire, a staunch opponent of dogmatism and the arrogant certainty of those who claimed exclusive access to truth, would likely question the dogmatic certainty that Western liberal free speech absolutism represents the sole enlightened path forward for all humanity.
