Freedom of speech is a necessity for human survival.

[Header image Dr. Li Wenliang (1985-2020)]

We frequently conflate “freedom” with “free” in the sense of being gratis—something easily bestowed or revoked, possessing little intrinsic value. This perception is further eroded by the modern landscape of speech itself; the prevalence of gossip, logorrhea, and superficiality does little to inspire reverence. Consequently, freedom of speech is often reduced to a mere administrative variable—something to be authorized, restricted, or regulated at will.

Furthermore, this liberty is often dismissed as a contemporary luxury or a “gadget” exclusive to affluent Western societies. Historically, this skepticism is grounded in reality: for the vast majority of human history, such freedom did not exist. Figures like Spinoza, Hobbes, and Kant were atheists, had they openly declared such a radical rejection of religion, they would have invited a death sentence.

While historical societies functioned without these protections, our modern reality is fundamentally different. We inhabit an open, global society that relies on the unrestricted and transparent circulation of information to function safely. To illustrate this interconnectedness:

Human Mobility: On average, 12 million people undertake international trips daily across 1,500 destinations.

Pathogenic Risk: Every traveler, animal, and shipment in the global market serves as a potential vector for infectious disease.

In this context, the absence of free speech is no longer a localized domestic issue, it is a global biological and economic hazard. We can no longer afford uninhibited relations with nations like China that suppress information. The COVID-19 pandemic serves as the ultimate proof of this necessity: a disaster of such magnitude could not have manifested in its current form had the principle of freedom of speech been upheld in China.

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in Wuhan, China in December 2019 initially presented as a series of unexplained pneumonia cases. While extensive debate has surrounded the primary source of the virus—whether zoonotic or laboratory-based—historical analysis suggests that the eventual global escalation was dictated less by the origin and more by the delay in containment. Had internationally recognized protocols and an immediate local quarantine been instituted upon discovery, the event might have remained a contained regional epidemic rather than a global catastrophe.

The decision to delay such measures was significantly influenced by economic considerations. Local authorities resisted the imposition of a quarantine to protect the city's robust automobile industry, which serves as a critical pillar of the regional economy.

A pivotal moment in the early timeline involved a physician in Wuhan, Dr. Li Wenliang, who, having contracted the virus himself, attempted to alert the media and his colleagues to the budding outbreak. Rather than integrating Dr. Li’s warnings into a public health strategy, the authorities detained him. He was released only after agreeing to a public retraction of his statements. Shortly thereafter, the physician succumbed to the illness, becoming a prominent symbol of the early transparency failures.

The management of movement during the Lunar New Year—the most significant travel period in China—further complicated the containment efforts. The Chinese government declined to cancel domestic flights to and from Wuhan during the onset, citing the importance of the holiday celebrations.

A notable shift in policy occurred once the outbreak reached a level of notoriety that could no longer be ignored because the Lunar New Year travelers had already distributed the virus in most of China:

Domestic Travel: Authorities eventually suspended domestic flights from Wuhan to other Chinese provinces.

International Travel: Paradoxically, international flights from the region were permitted to continue for a period after domestic restrictions were enacted, facilitating the global transmission of the pathogen.

The international community's reaction was marked by intense political and institutional friction. During his first term, President Donald Trump moved to prohibit incoming flights from China to the United States. This executive action faced immediate domestic and international scrutiny:

Domestic Criticism: Members of the Democratic Party characterized the travel ban as a xenophobic or racist measure rather than a health necessity.

Institutional Stance: The World Health Organization initially criticized the travel restrictions, maintaining that air travel from China remained safe.

The WHO delayed the official designation of a Global Pandemic until the virus had achieved a significant presence across multiple continents. This declaration was finally issued on March 11, 2020, more than two months after the 10-day window for localized containment had closed.

If Dr. Li Wenliang and the Chinese media had freedom of speech, the virus infection would have been contained in Wuhan. COVID-19 would have been no more than an epidemic among many others.

It is imperative that we refrain from maintaining expansive or flexible diplomatic engagements with nations that fail to uphold the fundamental principle of freedom of speech.