Power, Justice, and the Foundations of Human Dignity
Freedom of speech, thought, and conscience constitutes the foundational precondition for the realization of all other human rights. Without the capacity to articulate grievances, contest authority, and participate meaningfully in public discourse, rights remain abstract and unenforceable. Engaging with arguments advanced in Muslims and the Western Conception of Rights, this essay contends that freedom of speech must be reconceptualized not as an absolute or context-neutral entitlement, but as a relational right shaped by asymmetries of power. Historical and normative analysis demonstrates that transformative social and political change has consistently originated not from centers of institutional authority, but from the speech of marginalized actors. Consequently, a just framework for free expression must afford robust, near-absolute protection to the speech of the structurally disempowered, while subjecting the expressive acts of dominant institutions—particularly the state and its agents—to meaningful limitations when they threaten democratic integrity, public safety, or the rights of others.
The efficacy of any human rights regime presupposes the ability of individuals and communities to assert claims against power. Rights, by their nature, are not self-executing; they require articulation, advocacy, and institutional recognition. As argued in Muslims and the Western Conception of Rights, freedom of speech functions as the enabling condition for this process. It is not merely one right among others but the procedural and epistemic foundation upon which the entire edifice of human rights depends. In its absence, individuals are rendered incapable of contesting violations, demanding accountability, or affirming their inherent dignity.
This constitutive role of speech becomes especially salient when analyzed through the lens of structural inequality. Rights do not operate in a vacuum of formal equality; rather, they are exercised within deeply stratified social, economic, and political contexts. Actors endowed with institutional authority—states, large corporations, dominant media entities, and socio-political elites—enjoy disproportionate access to communicative platforms, discursive legitimacy, and material resources that amplify their voices. Conversely, marginalized groups—including racial and religious minorities, the economically disenfranchised, political dissidents, and historically oppressed communities—frequently encounter systemic barriers to participation in public discourse. A conception of free speech that ignores these asymmetries risks reinforcing, rather than redressing, existing hierarchies.
Accordingly, a normatively coherent theory of free expression must be relational: it must account for the differential impact of speech based on the speaker’s position within structures of power. When powerful actors—particularly state authorities—invoke free speech to justify expressions that incite violence, disseminate disinformation, or delegitimize vulnerable populations, their speech acquires a coercive dimension that transcends individual expression and becomes an instrument of domination. In such instances, unfettered speech functions not as a safeguard of liberty but as a mechanism of control. By contrast, for those lacking institutional power, speech often represents the sole available means of resistance and moral witness. For these actors, expansive protection is not a matter of privilege but of necessity.
Speech, moreover, is inherently situated and contested. What one community interprets as an assertion of identity or conscience may be perceived by another as injurious or threatening. Abstract formulations that posit “equal and absolute” speech rights for all actors obscure these contextual complexities and inadvertently entrench inequality by treating formally equal rights as substantively equivalent. A more rigorous approach must therefore attend not only to the legal right to speak but also to the material, social, and institutional conditions that determine whose speech is heard, credited, and acted upon.
Historical evidence strongly supports this relational understanding. Epochal shifts in moral and political consciousness have rarely emanated from established centers of power but from the courageous speech of those on the margins. The prophetic traditions of figures such as Jesus and Muhammad challenged prevailing religious and imperial orthodoxies despite their lack of institutional authority. Socrates’ dialectical inquiries into Athenian virtue led to his execution on charges of impiety, yet his legacy redefined the trajectory of Western philosophy. Martin Luther’s 1517 denunciation of ecclesiastical corruption—deemed heretical by the Catholic Church—catalyzed the Protestant Reformation. Galileo Galilei’s defense of heliocentrism, though condemned by ecclesiastical authorities, ultimately transformed scientific epistemology.
In the modern era, Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) was widely derided as radical and unnatural, yet it laid the groundwork for feminist political thought. Frederick Douglass’s public testimonies on the brutality of slavery were dismissed by many contemporaries as inflammatory, yet they proved indispensable to the abolitionist movement. In the twentieth century, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu articulated critiques of apartheid that were initially criminalized and pathologized, yet their voices became central to South Africa’s democratic transition. These cases illustrate a recurring historical pattern: speech that disrupts dominant norms and provokes institutional backlash is often the very speech that advances justice.
This historical record underscores a critical normative insight: the protection of dissenting, marginalized speech is not ancillary to justice—it is constitutive of it. Denying such speech not only perpetuates existing injustices but forecloses the possibility of transformative change.
From this analysis follows a clear prescriptive framework: freedom of speech must be calibrated according to the speaker’s structural position. The speech of the powerless—precisely because it lacks institutional amplification and poses minimal systemic risk—warrants the strongest possible protection, approaching the absolute. Conversely, the expressive acts of powerful entities, particularly state actors, must be subject to proportionate limitations when they undermine democratic institutions, incite violence, or target vulnerable groups. The speech of a head of state, for instance, carries institutional weight and potential for harm that fundamentally distinguishes it from that of an ordinary citizen. Judicial and administrative institutions must therefore adopt a differentiated approach, denying authoritarian executives the authority to suppress dissent while refusing to extend immunity to state actors whose speech legitimizes oppression or erodes public trust.
Admittedly, this relational model challenges dominant liberal conceptions of free speech, which often treat expression as a context-independent right. Contemporary governance, moreover, frequently operates within either rigidly rule-based frameworks or ideologically instrumentalized paradigms, both of which risk reducing rights to procedural formalities or partisan tools. To realize free speech as a living principle rather than a doctrinal abstraction, legal and political systems must transition toward principle-based governance—one anchored in the normative commitments to human dignity, substantive equality, and democratic participation. Such an approach provides the necessary flexibility to respond to evolving social conditions while preserving the moral core of rights discourse.
Freedom of speech, thought, and conscience is not a neutral or static entitlement but a dynamic and relational right essential to the realization of justice. Its normative value is most fully realized not in the protection of dominant voices, but in the amplification of those historically excluded from public reason. Only by centering the expressive needs of the marginalized can human rights frameworks fulfill their emancipatory promise. Thus, freedom of speech must be recognized not merely as a legal guarantee, but as the indispensable foundation of human dignity and democratic legitimacy.
Posts
