Free Speech Advocates Warn Against "Dignity" as Legal Standard, Citing European Censorship Concerns

Free speech advocates Greg Lukianoff, Dylynn Lasky, and Bobby Ramkissoon have issued a stark warning against the peril of elevating "dignity" to a legal standard, arguing it often serves as a pretext for censorship, particularly in Europe. Lukianoff, President and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), highlighted this concern on social media, urging the United States to resist such a "misguided rationale."

Lasky and Ramkissoon, in an article titled "The trouble with ‘dignity’" published by FIRE, contend that the concept's vagueness allows institutions, including universities, to suppress speech deemed "undignified." They note, "The moment ‘dignity’ becomes a standard of compliance, it stops inspiring behavior and starts regulating it. The language of virtue invariably becomes the grammar of control." This ambiguity, they argue, leads to subjective enforcement and a chilling effect on open discourse.

Concerns about "dignity" and similar broad concepts justifying speech restrictions are particularly pronounced in Europe. Over 100 free speech experts recently wrote to the European Commission, warning that the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) risks censoring global online speech due to its wide definition of "illegal content." This broad scope could allow the most speech-restrictive provisions of one EU country to become a standard across the Union and potentially worldwide.

Unlike the United States, where the First Amendment offers robust protection for even offensive speech, European legal frameworks often balance free expression against other rights, such as protection from hate speech or affronts to dignity. This difference is evident in cases where European individuals face legal repercussions for online comments or protests, which would likely be protected in the U.S.

Lukianoff, Lasky, and Ramkissoon's warning underscores a critical debate about the boundaries of free expression in an increasingly interconnected world. They advocate for a clear distinction between promoting respect and legally enforcing a subjective standard of "dignity," which they believe can easily be weaponized to stifle legitimate, albeit uncomfortable, speech.