Free Speech Regimes and Democratic Cooperation
Joseph E. Yi · 2023
Liberal-democratic polities increasingly diverge on free speech rights, and such divergence undermines their cooperation. A “procedural-rights” (PR) perspective would protect the rights, and promote the capacity, of individuals to express alternative viewpoints. Conversely, a “victim-rights” perspective would restrict speech that offends or psychologically harms victimized (marginalized) groups, although its advocates from the political left and right disagree on who are victims. I posit less cooperation between democratic polities with different rules of public discourse on a contested issue, i.e., different _discourse regimes_. The ruling elites in one discourse regime view that in another as allowing or committing violations of individual rights. Critically, they also access different information, as VR-oriented media report selective information supporting the victimized groups. Cooperation is especially difficult when one polity follows a VR-hegemonic regime (leftist or rightist) that comprehensively restricts discourse among all major organizations. In Europe and North America, democratic polities (national and subnational) with diverging discourse regimes on ‘culture war’ issues frame each other as illiberal and express mutual animus (‘vehemence’). Mutual animus is especially severe in East Asia, as one democracy (South Korea) comprehensively restricts discourse on Japanese colonialism and the other (Japan) does not. Conversely, the discourse regimes of South Korea and Japan increasingly converge (procedural-rights) on other issues, such as communist North Korea and China, which promotes bilateral consensus and cooperation.