Freedom of Religion and Speech Is on Trial in Finland

H ave you ever posted a Bible verse on social media? In Finland, this could land you in jail. The Finnish criminal code holds that if a person is found to have expressed an “opinion” or “another message” deemed to have “threatened, defamed, or insulted” someone, that person could face imprisonment for up to two years. That’s serious jail time for nothing more than a perceived insult.

Unbelievably dystopian, this law is currently being used to bring criminal charges against long-time Finnish member of parliament, and former minister of the interior, Dr. Päivi Räsänen. Her alleged crime: She expressed her deeply held beliefs about marriage and sexuality in a 2019 Bible verse tweet, and during a debate in a radio show, in addition to writing a church pamphlet on the topic 17 years ago. This committed public servant, medical doctor, and grandmother now faces onerous legal proceedings and the looming threat of imprisonment.

Her trial, which began today, marks a watershed moment for human rights. How can Finland, a country that tops rule-of-law rankings, so blatantly disregard freedom of speech? Let this be a warning for us all. Europe may be leading the charge on the proliferation of silencing “hate speech” laws, but the United States is far from immune to this insidious trend. The idea that the government has the prerogative to silence speech with criminal sanctions is gaining traction across the world, with severe ramifications for all fundamental freedoms.

As with any speech, the public expression of opinion always has the potential to offend. Räsänen’s words indeed may have offended some, but is this criminal? As tensions flare, let’s remember that it’s not about whether you agree or disagree with her statements. Put simply, the issue here is about whether the government should be able to silence what it considers the “wrong” kind of speech.

This toxic cocktail of censorship and criminal sanctions isn’t in anyone’s interest. After all, who among us could survive having almost two decades’ worth of personal speech examined on the basis of the extraordinarily low bar of “insulting” content? Consider also the chilling effect that the targeting of public officials engenders. Surely this will intimidate many a person into retreating from public discourse altogether.

In the U.S., free speech has long underpinned our national ethos, defining who we are as Americans. And yet, it would be naïve to assume that this liberty is ironclad. Could what’s happening to Räsänen happen here? The ease with which social-media giants censor and ban accounts with “wrong” opinions should give us pause. U.S. courts increasingly have had to grapple with speech as well. See, for example, Nicholas Meriwether’s challenge to the Shawnee State University transgender-pronoun policy. While Meriwether, a philosophy professor, emerged from the U.S. Court of Appeals with his right to speak intact, this was far from a foregone conclusion with speech increasingly under assault in this country.

Censorship is both ineffective and totalitarian. Speech restrictions in place across Europe have in no way countered the rise of extremism on that continent. Clamping down on free expression flies in the face of diversity and tolerance. And as exemplified by Räsänen’s case, there are no discernible limits once governments start policing legitimate speech.

Freedom to speak only inoffensively is no freedom at all. We should all concur that incitement to violence is impermissible and necessitates restriction. But beyond that, it is the free and open transmission of ideas that is most conducive to the flourishing of democracy. Everyone loses in an Orwellian reality where you’re too scared to speak lest you end up in jail.

Räsänen’s case may very well be the canary in the Twittersphere — reinvigorating the fight for our imperiled rights, both in law and in practice. As censorious laws sweep across “progressive” countries, now is the time for a renewed commitment to the Western tradition of free speech. We must wholeheartedly oppose pernicious efforts to position the government as the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be said.

The facts of Räsänen’s case in no way support a finding of criminal wrongdoing, or any wrongdoing whatsoever. Defenders of human rights should hope that justice prevails here, revealing the absurdity of not only her charges but also the law under which she has been charged. Given the burdensome nature of this legal ordeal, it is clear that she is being made an example of — an ominous warning for all.

Although this case is a world away in Finland for now, the ripples of this case will be felt across the Atlantic. It concerns far more than the freedom to tweet Bible verses. Our very right to express our opinions and beliefs in the public square without fear of retribution, a right central to our identity as free-thinking persons, is in jeopardy.