It is a universally accepted principle that, from a legal standpoint, anyone can do whatever they wish unless expressly prohibited by law or if the law also mandates it as an obligation. I am not free to run a red light, nor can I leave an injured person without assistance. This principle applies not only in democracies but in any form of government, both present and past, although in democratic regimes, the scope of a citizen's freedom of action tends to be broader, though not always.

What characterizes democracies, however, is that thought is free, and above all, its expression is free, allowing everyone not only to think whatever they believe (it would be impossible to forbid it) but also to express their thoughts. Thus, there is also broad freedom of the media, which has expanded enormously with the spread of the internet.

However, even in democratic regimes, there are, though not explicitly named as such, crimes of opinion. They are generally labeled as incitements to hatred or discrimination on the assumption that they somehow contradict constitutional principles.

But let's examine the issue.

It seems to me that such crimes are in conflict with democratic freedoms. Certainly, laws can prohibit racial and sexual discrimination: therefore, I cannot exclude homosexuals or Black people from hiring if I own a business (though I could still do so under a different pretext).

But I believe that if there is freedom of opinion, we cannot ban opinions that are contrary to the prevailing ones, even in matters of race and gender: that would be a reverse fascism, as they say.

It also seems contradictory to me that a law should prohibit the dissemination of a particular opposing idea. Laws, after all, can be repealed (there is also a referendum). Now, if a law prohibits the spread of a contrary idea, then it would no longer be possible, in effect, to repeal it. It would no longer be a state law tied to an ever-changing culture but an immutable divine law for eternity. The same argument applies to the Constitution: it too is the result of the prevailing culture at a certain historical moment and can be modified according to procedures that the Constitution itself provides. It seems entirely arbitrary to determine that some of its articles are untouchable and unchangeable like a divine law, while others are not.

If the majority believes that X is right, that does not necessarily mean that X is right: it is an essential premise of democracy to have opposing opinions that might, at some point, prevail. That is the very essence of democracy. Freedom of thought does not mean conforming to an official truth.

For example, in some states, Holocaust denial has become a crime, equated with the justification of the Holocaust itself. But it is a clear contradiction that someone who believes the Holocaust never happened (rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter) can then be accused of justifying a fact they claim never happened. But the issue of Holocaust denial is a specific case that we will not delve into here.

Let's look at some more common examples.

If I think that Black people are less intelligent than white people, or that homosexuality is a dangerous vice, or that women have different aptitudes and roles than men, should I be able to say so?

In the past, Black people were considered an inferior race, and homosexuality was seen as a dangerous degeneration for society, while nowadays, the idea of equal abilities and homosexuality as a variant of sexuality prevails. Similarly, today there is agreement that women and men can aspire to the same roles, except for specific limitations that are nevertheless acknowledged (for example, in the entertainment industry), and these limitations are actually much broader than the laws permit; for instance, it is quite rare to hire a man as a domestic helper, just as it is unlikely that a woman would be hired as a bodyguard.

We cannot ignore that for millennia in all civilizations, male and female roles were strictly defined according to the cultures of the time, and nothing should prevent us from thinking that they should be standardized (something that does not even happen today).

Democracy proclaims equal rights for minorities, but these refer to ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities. Differences between men and women or homosexuality, for example, do not fall into these categories: in fact, for centuries, even democracies acknowledged the husband's authority over the wife and considered homosexuality a dangerous degeneration for society, while today the idea that it is a simple variant that does not harm society has emerged.

The conception of women and homosexuality has changed over time, but that has little to do with democracy. To prove this, in ancient times, democracy as we understand it was indeed unknown, but homosexuality was often accepted (even practiced by great thinkers and emperors).

The essence is that only the ideas that are currently dominant and fashionable are considered the only true and right ones, while those that, even slightly, dissent are seen as false and bad, which contradicts freedom of thought, the essence of modernity.

In conclusion, I would say that the claim to absolute and definitive truth is in conflict with modern culture, which rejects such claims even in science.

The problem is that some people no longer feel free to express their opinions because there is something like a Big Brother, a self-proclaimed authority that seeks to impose a uniformity of thought that does not actually exist in reality.

However, I want to make it very clear that in no way and in no aspect is it intended here to support racism, homophobia, or deny gender equality, but only to uphold the right to express ideas that are also contrary to such views.