From Safety Valve to Pressure Cooker: When Silencing Speech Fuels Extremism
My contribution to the UK’s Commission for Countering Extremism essay collection: “Countering extremism: defending free speech.”
It’s not every day that a government official invites you to write a lead essay critical of speech restrictions.
That openness itself is worth noting — and commending, and I'm very grateful to (now former) UK Counter Extremism Commissioner Robin Simcox for inviting me and a number of other authors to provide perspectives that are often absent — or paid lip service to — by governments when restricting free speech in the name of countering extremism.
The sincerity of Robin Simcox's concern about this issue can not be doubted and is made clear from his foreword:
I hoped to shift a perception that I know can exist around the counter-extremism field writ large: that while it may pay lip service to defending free speech, in practice it is too often a cudgel by which to enforce ideological and intellectual conformity. That it inevitably leads to more restrictive laws and ultimately more censorship. That it obscures systemic challenges, rather than addressing them.
Yet countering extremism and advancing free speech must go hand-in-hand. Where free speech thrives, so too does human liberty. After all, things we now know to be scientific fact were once considered heretical or blasphemous.
So we should not just defend free speech out of habit. We defend it because freedom of expression is the route by which we discover the truth; because testing conflicting opinion can be challenging but ultimately makes our discourse healthier; and because we learn to accept and indeed cherish those with differing viewpoints. The alternative – a coerced, ‘acceptable’ consensus of the day – offers a bleak vision of the future.
My essay aims to contribute to Simcox’s vision by exploring an underappreciated paradox: what happens when efforts to counter extremism undermine free speech—and in doing so, risk fueling the very extremism they aim to prevent?
Below is an excerpt:
Introduction: Free Expression as a Safety Valve
In 1964, Nelson Mandela stood in a Pretoria courtroom charged with “sabotage” for using armed force against South Africa’s white supremacist Apartheid regime. In his famous “Rivonia Trial” speech Mandela provided a clear and unapologetic explanation for why the armed wing of the African National Congress had resorted to violence:
“All lawful modes of expressing opposition to [Apartheid] had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.”
Mandela essentially likened free expression to a safety valve in a pressure cooker: if people cannot peacefully voice grievances, their anger will explode in other ways. His insight was simple but profound: when governments suppress peaceful expression, even those committed to democracy may see violence as the only remaining option. This pressure cooker theory of free speech suggests that open debate and protest offer a nonviolent alternative to extremism and conflict.
Modern democracies, of course, are not Apartheid South Africa. They fight terrorism in the name of protecting freedom and equality, not entrenching oppression. Moreover, their foes are typically not freedom fighters committed to democracy and human rights, but groups and individuals whose religious or ideological doctrines call for violently abolishing these values. Yet Mandela’s warning remains strikingly relevant. Today, many governments – democratic and authoritarian alike – are expanding anti- terrorism and extremism laws to curb radical ideas and movements. These measures are often justified as essential for national security or public order. But history and emerging evidence suggest that overzealous censorship and suppression can backfire, undermining the very democratic values they purport to defend.
This essay explores the growing tension between counter-extremism efforts and freedom of speech. It begins with the approach of the UK, France, and Germany, showing how even well-intentioned democracies risk eroding civil liberties. Next, it examines how authoritarian states have made “extremism” a catch-all excuse to silence dissent – and how they are influencing global norms. We then turn to the paradox of censorship: why suppressing extremist speech can make society less safe. Finally, we consider how democratic backsliding and authoritarian influence are reshaping international free speech standards and argue for a more principled path that defends both security and liberty.
Jacob Mchangama is the Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech and a research professor at Vanderbilt University. He is also the author of Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media.