Ethics, Hybrid Warfare and the Violation of Freedom of Opinion

The U.S. Vice-President's recent diatribe against the European Union, which he accuses of not guaranteeing freedom of expression, must be seen as an attempt to recuperate ethics that fails to mask a strategy of manipulation targeting populations, particularly in the United States. This strategy undermines freedom of opinion, which - like freedom of expression - is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human “rights”: a set of values

Three years after its creation, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Ioanna Kuçuradi reminds us is first and foremost a set of ethical principles.

Among them, Article 19 guarantees freedom of opinion and expression, which raises two questions: how credible is JD Vance's position on freedom of expression, and how is it linked to the problem of freedom of opinion?

Freedom of expression and information, surveillance and manipulation

The cindynic approach to conflictualities in the information sphere considers three classes of dynamic deficits that can affect informational flows: openness (creation of flows infringing confidentiality), closure (blocking of flows infringing freedom of expression in particular) and toxicity (generation of captious flows, manipulation of perceptions and opinions).

As these deficits are linked, it is impossible to discuss freedom of expression without considering manipulation operations, which are a major component of hybrid warfare. Similarly, the efficiency of manipulation is greatly enhanced by the collection of personal data, as Volker Türk pointed out when he warned against techno-oligarchs who “know how to manipulate us”.

JD Vance, Elon Musk and Thierry Breton

During his speech in Munich, JD Vance parroted the rhetoric of Elon Musk, whose absolutism when it comes to freedom of expression seems symptomatic of a lack of understanding of the history of the Internet.

Historically, after September 11, 2001, a series of directives and bills led to unprecedented mobilizations on the Internet in Europe, and particularly in France, to defend freedom of expression in the information society. At the time, cyber-activists were not calling for absolute freedom of expression, but simply for the judiciary to determine whether litigious content was illegal. Elon musk did not exist during these debates, and his absolutist stance would have immediately brought him under informational fire from cyber-activists, if only because this absolutism leads, among other things, to the dissemination of racist or neo-Nazi content.

Moreover, JD Vance's diatribe may have been commissioned by Elon Musk because of the DSA directive, which Thierry Breton frequently asked him to comply with.

Freedom of expression as a pretext for undermining freedom of opinion

Like Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump doesn't bother with reality: his trajectory is strewn with manipulations, and these can only be encouraged by the suppression of moderation on social networks.

Besides, the owners of some social networks, who are allies or close allies of the U.S. President, have control over the algorithms used to promote specific content. The Trump clan's rhetoric on freedom of expression can thus ultimately appear as a pretext for disinformation with impunity, and for seizing power over opinions.

Apart from the fact that it kills, as it did in Niger, in Téra, the manipulation of perceptions and, consequently, of opinions, constitutes a flagrant attack on freedom of opinion. While some have tried to portray the blocking of media dedicated to Russia's hybrid warfare as an attack on freedom of expression, it should be clear to everyone that freedom of expression, guaranteed by article 19 of the UDHR, can in no way be used as a pretext for manipulating opinions, for example to generate conflict or racial hatred, destabilize democracies and install military juntas, since this fundamentally undermines freedom of opinion, guaranteed by the same article.

What practical response: privateers or civil defense?

Faced with the widespread use of manipulation, a purely institutional response is not sufficient: while educating new generations may help to reduce ductabilities in the long term, immediate responses are needed.

Privateer-type solutions may be effective, but as they are open to unimpeachable criticism, it would probably be more appropriate to explore solutions based on an adaptation of the concept of civil defense.