Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of Estonia's constitution and democracy. But does freedom of speech mean that every opinion or claim is protected, even if it could directly harm someone? This is precisely where two other concepts come into play — ones we talk about far too little: responsibility in speech and the duty to speak.

Three concepts that always go together

Freedom of speech is the right to say what you think or believe. If a person says, "I drink lemon water and feel healthier," they have every right to do so. No one can forbid someone from sharing their personal experience.

Responsibility in speech comes into play when the same person declares, "Lemon water cures cancer, don't go to the doctor." That's a completely different matter. It's no longer a personal experience but a false claim that can have life-threatening consequences. If a fake healer sells miracle drops, it's consumer fraud. If a doctor advises a patient to abandon treatment and that leads to death, the doctor bears both professional and legal responsibility.

The duty to speak is the third dimension, the other side of responsibility in speech. There are situations where silence is as dangerous as a lie. If a claim spreads in society that "vaccines contain microchips," then the state and the medical community have an obligation to respond. If experts stay silent, the falsehood prevails. The same responsibility lies with the media — presenting falsehood or opinion and scientific fact as if they hold equal weight does not create balance; it creates confusion.

The lesson of the pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic shook public trust around the world. In Estonia, part of society lost faith in official decisions and scientific recommendations. There were several reasons for this.

Scientific knowledge evolved rapidly. At first, people were told that masks weren't effective; later, they were told masks were necessary. This was a natural part of the scientific process, but to many, it simply seemed inconsistent.

Communication often took the form of orders — "do this because it's mandated" — rather than being explanatory and well-argued, offering recipients a clearer understanding of the purpose and the expected positive impact of compliance.

Some government-employed doctors and public figures spread contradictory views. When a doctor says a vaccine is dangerous, citizens are more likely to trust the doctor than a government minister.

The result was skepticism — something we still feel today. Trust is easy to lose and very hard to rebuild.

How to restore trust?

If we want our society to move forward based not on fear and misinformation but on knowledge and transparency, we must act on three levels at once: government, media and citizens.

Five steps for the state

1. Transparency. Decisions must be based on specific data and research. It should be made public who prepared the recommendations and on what basis.
2. Clear explanations. Don't just say what to do — explain why it should be done. Clarify the consequences of acting otherwise.
3. Admitting mistakes. For instance, if pandemic restrictions were too harsh or decisions came too late, this must be acknowledged honestly. Doing so does not undermine trust — it helps restore it.
4. Create forums for public dialogue, where citizens can ask questions and experts can respond. Trust is built through dialogue, not just directives.
5. Consistency and values-based governance. The state must show that it's not choosing between science and freedom, but striving to find a balance.

Five steps for the media

1. Facts before clicks. Journalism must not equate a science-based fact with an unverified claim. An opinion that distorts science without evidence is misinformation and should not be published. It is important to distinguish between a question and a claim when publishing opinions.
2. Explain how science evolves. When expert opinions change, show why and how — don't present it as chaos. Help create and convey clarity within society.
3. Highlight qualified experts. The loudest voice is not always the wisest.
4. Show the background of decisions. What data were they based on? Why was that decision made?
5. Take responsibility for headlines and tone. The need for clicks must not come at the cost of public trust.

Five steps for citizens

1. Ask for sources. Who is making the claim? Is it a doctor, a scientific institution or an anonymous user?
2. Distinguish opinion from fact. An opinion may be sincere, but that doesn't make it true.
3. Cross-check multiple sources. If a claim appears in only one place, be cautious.
4. Recognize emotional triggers. If the content provokes fear or anger, pause and verify. Misinformation often targets emotional reactions.
5. Take responsibility for what you share. Anyone who shares unchecked information becomes part of the problem.

As a society, we have a strong foundation to rebuild the shared sense of security and trust that was shaken during recent crises.

Freedom of speech is a value worth protecting. But when it's used without responsibility or a sense of duty, it can become a weapon that harms society. The pandemic showed us how quickly trust can erode — and how difficult it is to restore.

But restoration is always possible. The government must be honest and transparent. The media must be accurate and explanatory. Citizens must be critical and responsible. Only then can we regain a sense of security — that the state stands with its people, not against them. The state is all of us, both individually and collectively.

In closing: while this piece used the pandemic as an example, the broader goal is to apply these principles across topics and fields, in our everyday lives.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!