COMMENTARY: Free speech faces a tough battle as moralism and taboos spread

Switzerland likes to see itself in the tradition of Voltaire, the French Enlightenment thinker who defended freedom of thought and expression against authority. Without those freedoms, the commentary argues, democracy cannot exist. Yet the country’s present reality is far less lofty.

People in Switzerland do not disappear into prison or land on a sanctions list because of the wrong political position. They can spread their ideas across social media, as long as they follow a few basic rules. Even so, public debate is becoming narrower. Freedom does not vanish with a bang, the article says. It disappears quietly, and speaking and arguing freely has already become more difficult.

The commentary links this change to pervasive moralism, which it says now reaches almost every area of life and is particularly associated with the left. It points first to language, which public institutions have reshaped to meet gender and diversity standards. In the article’s view, public speech has become softened and stripped of its edges, with grammar and style yielding to the spirit of the times and inclusion.

But language is only the most visible part. Moral guardians also set the tone on substantive issues, reducing disputes to good versus evil. The article gives examples involving corporate responsibility, forest funding, campaigns against domestic violence and efforts to shrink the state. Those who take opposing positions are portrayed as sharing blame for distant or grave consequences.

The same pattern, it says, appears in the debate over the neutrality initiative. Opponents are labeled warmongers and traitors, while supporters are called Putin sympathizers or misguided peace doves. Such labels leave no room for distinctions.

The next stage is a claim to possess the correct opinion, or even absolute truth. The commentary points to the climate debate as an example, recalling a period when the Greens and allied circles were riding high and many political programs focused on the supposedly imminent climate catastrophe. Its conclusion is direct: Switzerland needs open debate, and those who want to defend freedom of expression must actively use it.