Debating Matters Transatlantic
INTRODUCTION
‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ This is how Evelyn Beatrice Hall summarised the attitude to free speech of the Enlightenment thinker and author, Voltaire [Ref: BBC]. However, the advent of the internet and social media has changed the nature of open debate. Public discussion has moved online, changing the way people interact and digest information, resulting in calls for more stringent laws against hate speech.
Free speech, once esteemed as the most fundamental principle of Western democracies, ultimately prioritises the ability for citizens to speak freely, without consequence from the state, despite many knowing they will not agree with everything that is said. This was enshrined in the US constitution through the First Amendment in 1787, which states that ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’ [Ref: Constitution Annotated]. This prevents the government from taking direct action to curtail speech, across the political spectrum, despite the fact many might abhor much of what is said [Ref: The Conversation].
The nineteenth-century philosopher JS Mill defended freedom of speech by arguing that it is only by allowing ideas to be criticised that we can justify believing that they are true [Ref: Project Gutenberg]. Free speech was seen as foundational to democracy, as citizens are able to debate and discuss ideas, stopping a fall into ‘managed consensus’ or stagnant orthodoxies [Ref: Prosperity Institute]. Debates over free speech have been transformed by the online world. Once, individuals’ opinions, public or private, had little reach or impact. Yet on social media, provocative or extreme messages can reach thousands of people in seconds as algorithms work to promote extreme content for engagement. Previously, people were held to social norms and standards of behaviour through social accountability. However, the power and relative anonymity of the online world has removed these safeguards on free speech, allowing for echo chambers that are detached from their community.
Thus, while some support the protection of free speech in the realm of ideas, they question whether this extends to expressions of hate. International IDEA, an international intergovernmental organisation working to support democracy and electoral assistance, argues that ‘hate speech undermines the foundations of democracy’ by eroding genuine pluralism, participation and respect for ideas and beliefs. They even argue that it harms democratic discussion, by ‘normalising intolerance, dehumanising specific groups’ and encouraging violence [Ref: International IDEA].
On the other side of the argument, Helen Andrews argues that hate speech has been used to justify censoring conservative opinions on social media – opening the doors for free speech to be stifled, with a two-tiered standard on what is allowed to be discussed in public. For example, Coca-Cola diversity-training modules have been able to train employees to ‘try to be less white’, meaning ‘be less oppressive, be less arrogant, be less certain, be less defensive’. Yet saying the opposite would be seen as unacceptable. Andrew argues that the accusations of hate speech were used to suppress public opinion and prevent criticism of progressive ideologies and beliefs [Ref: Compact].
In America, David Streever was given a warning by federal agents in June 2026 for an email he had sent to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Streever had called the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, ‘a monstrous human being’ who ‘will never know peace’. However, FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) filed a lawsuit, claiming that there were no direct threats, and that Streever was expressing a ‘moral objection’ to the conduct of the federal authorities.
The case exemplified concerns that the protection from abuse is being hijacked to intimidate and silence opposition [Ref: New York Times]. There have been many high-profile cases of artists, authors and singers being deplatformed or cancelled as a result of offensive or hateful language proliferated online. In March 2026, rapper Kanye West was banned from the UK as his antisemitic comments led the UK Home Office to rule that his presence would ‘not be conducive to the public good’ [Ref: The Conversation]. In September 2026, Macklemore was removed from support slots for Ed Sheeran’s US tour after promoters took issue with the rapper’s ‘Free Palestine’ comments at concerts. In response to this, all the other supporting acts withdrew to defend artistic expression [Ref: Guardian].
This exposes a fundamental tension at the heart of liberal democracy: whether the protection of free speech should be prioritised as a near-absolute right or balanced against the state’s responsibility to prevent harm and protect people from hate. Neither approach is without cost: one risks permitting harmful rhetoric to circulate unchecked and potentially grow, while the other risks overreach and the gradual normalisation of censorship. The challenge lies in determining which of these competing risks is more acceptable to bear in a democratic society.
Should we tolerate offensive language?
Supporters of hate-speech laws argue that rights must be balanced. No individual has unlimited freedom: just as people are not free to inflict physical violence on others, many believe they should not be free to use speech that can cause psychological damage or incite discrimination. They argue that speech is not only used to make rational arguments, but to foment hatred and stigmatise minorities. Rather than free speech being egalitarian, it is too often used to oppress those ‘without a voice’.
Organisations such as Hate Aid – an organisation focusing on tackling hate, violence and systematic disinformation online – argue that by countering hate online they are working to strengthen freedom of speech. They contend that online hate speech deters countless people – especially members of minority groups – from participating in political debates. The result, they say, is that the loudest voices dominate online discussions, and digital violence is able to spread [Ref: HateAid].
Proponents of laws against hate speech argue that such rules are not designed to prevent the expression of different ideas, but rather to stop the denigration of ideas through insult to individuals. For example, Sebastien Bishop argues that ‘hate speech involves vilifying and promoting hostility towards a vulnerable social group… painting the targeted social group as dangerous or disgusting’ [Ref: The Philosophical Quarterly].
Yet, critics of Hate Aid’s approach say that freedom of speech has always posed a challenge to groups, precisely because it confronts fundamental parts of people’s world views, calling their deepest convictions into question. People tend to avoid such uncomfortable experiences – often by shunning those who think differently. The tendency to create safe spaces that protect people from speech that is deemed unpleasant is simply the protection of an individual view, which is presented as standing above any criticism [Ref: BpB].
This can have a chilling effect on free speech, as a report by King’s College London found that 40 per cent of the UK students felt that the freedom to say what you think without interference is the freedom most under threat at university [Ref: King’s College London]. The US State Department’s annual report on Freedom of Expression criticises the UK for trying to ‘chill’ free speech and suppress dissent. Meanwhile, there have been concerns that the Trump administration has used subversive investigations into individuals and media organisations to silence opposition to his presidency [Ref: Guardian].
Moreover, the perception of speech being restricted, and limits being placed on expressions of political grievance, can inflame social tensions. This is leading some to argue that this restriction on speech has radicalised groups towards violence and racism because the state has failed to recognise their genuine democratic concerns and grievances [Ref: The Conversation]. Furthermore, state control or criminalisation of incitement, alongside the increase of ‘political correctness’, has raised concerns that this will lead to a more extreme right-wing politics among those who feel unable to express their frustration at, for example, immigration policies or changes in gender norms.
Free speech, civil society, and social cohesion
Social media has been viewed as a tool that has the ability to exacerbate fragmentation and social tension. Therefore, some argue that greater regulation against hate crime is now necessary, as the ability for provocative and extreme opinions to have a wider reach can quickly exacerbate social tensions. In the case of Lucy Connolly, a woman who was jailed for stirring up racial hatred against asylum seekers, her post ‘was viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times’ in just three hours before it was taken down [Ref: Prospect].
Thus, increasingly, ‘tackling hate crime matters, not just because of the devastating consequences it can have for victims and their families, but also because it can divide communities’ [Ref: HM Government]. In 2024, the UN released a report calling for the UK government to take action against racist hate speech due to concerns that it is increasing acts of violence and hate crimes against ethnic minorities [Ref: United Nations].
Journalist Simon Jenkins argues genuine free speech cannot exist without regulation. He cites US President Obama’s comments about the need to civilise political debate, ‘to impose some order on the chaos’, rather than allowing hatemongers to dominate the public sphere [Ref: Guardian]. And with social media becoming the new public sphere, online anonymity and extreme echo chambers have driven discourse to be more hostile and divisive than it was previously. Many believe that free speech comes with responsibility, including respect for others’ views and beliefs, while others state that it must contain a balance between the open expression and the prevention of harm to others [Ref: Taylor & Francis]. This suggests that free speech should not be protected as an absolute right but regulated to ensure that democratic discourse is upheld, to improve ideas and arguments rather than to denigrate others.
The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has traditionally been known for its defence of free speech for all individuals, even those with ‘radical’ views. However, since 2017 it has changed its guidance, suggesting that they should ‘balance representing the free speech of right-wing groups with their values and offence to minority groups’, leading some to argue that civil-rights organisations are now prioritising the views of progressive clients over their commitment to free speech [Ref: New York Times].
However, since the re-election of Trump in 2024, there have been concerns that the administration has used measures to regulate social media to silence opposition while claiming to support free speech. One example is the claimed encouragement of employers to take action against those who praised the killing of Charlie Kirk, alongside using economic sanctions against organisations supporting Palestine. This highlights the difficulty with any government power in regulating speech to balance social cohesion: it can lead to a loss of free speech for those who disagree with that government’s particular vision of inclusion.
Legal limits on free speech
While free speech is often heralded as a key cornerstone of European democracy and remains a key freedom in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights [Ref: European Commission], in practice each society differs in how far it is willing to uphold it.
The United States, where restrictions only apply when speech directly incites violence, is considered the most absolutist on freedom of speech. The Heritage Foundation claims that hate-speech laws are the biggest threat to free speech in the Western world, as there is no universal definition of hate speech. This can lead both prosecutors and individuals to be overcautious when deciding what can and can’t be said. For example, a member of the Finnish Parliament, Päivi Räsänen, was investigated and convicted for inciting hatred after tweeting against LGBTQ groups [Ref: Guardian]. Thus, the US is often critical of Europe’s approach to regulating speech online. The US vice president, JD Vance, has accused European leaders of retreating from the continent’s ‘most fundamental values’, including free expression [Ref: The Atlantic].
Meanwhile, many European nations, including the UK, adopt a more ‘qualified’ approach. In the UK, hate speech – defined as stirring up hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation – is illegal. Legislation such as the Online Safety Act (2023) has criminalised sending ‘grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or knowingly false’ messages intended to cause distress or harm, leading to several controversial prosecutions [Ref: Criminal Defence Barrister]. In the UK, 550,000 people signed a petition against the Online Safety Act [Ref: Open Rights Group], as they felt they were being deliberately excluded, ignored and silenced. The petition was inspired by concerns that the law will bring in unequal restrictions on certain types of videos and content, especially relating to immigration and sexual violence [Ref: London Mail].
In 2019, the Maya Forstater case in the UK brought to the fore the dangers of restricting views on perceptions of hate or incitement. She argued that she suffered from employment discrimination due to her gender-critical beliefs, and the Employment Tribunal initially ruled against Forstater, stating that her views were ‘not worthy of respect in a democratic society’ [Ref: Sex Matters], and could be perceived as a threat to the transgender community. (Forstater won the case on appeal.) Later in 2023, Forstater was investigated under the Malicious Communications Act 1998 [Ref: The Free Speech Union] for a social-media post due to concerns that she would ‘target’ the transgender community. Such offences are punishable with up to two years in prison.
In the US, the First Amendment does not constrain private actors [Ref: Economic Policy Institute], which has led to several cases of students and academics being punished for opposing DEI policies or beliefs. In Australia, the Law Society Journal found over 300 cases of employees being fired because of a social-media post, often linked to racism or homophobia. This highlighted key tensions between accountability and privacy especially between employers and employees. They argue that the growing ‘hidden curriculum of surveillance’ by employers could have negative impacts on employees – producing sterile, apathetic employees and damaging civic engagement [Ref: Law Society Journal].
Moreover, following the Southport riots in July 2024 – a series of violent incidents following the fatal stabbing of three young girls – there have been up to 30 arrests a day under the Communications Act and the Malicious Communications Act 1998. Many point the figure at social media, with widespread concern that ‘hateful’ social-media posts and misinformation fuelled the violence and discontent [Ref: The Free Speech Union]. But others argue that the suppression of these concerns around immigration inflamed social tensions by fuelling the sentiment that certain opinions are not permitted.
Some argue these restrictions on online speech have created a climate of fear and discrimination in the real world; as certain opinions are removed online, they become seen as unacceptable in workplaces and communities [Ref: Compact]. This illustrates the trickle-down consequence of moving away from the absolute principle of free speech, as it gives the power to companies to regulate what is permitted to say or critique.
Incitement to hatred – and racism / anti-immigration
The use of hate-speech laws can be used against those with different fundamental value systems, as it can be seen as harmful to minority groups. Article 20 of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that ‘states are required to prohibit by law any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’. However, there is no requirement to criminalise these acts. But it is clear that such articles have empowered states to pursue censorship under the guise of protecting against hatred, as they can use this machinery to empower their legislation.
The murder of Charlie Kirk in September 2025 highlighted the fragmentation of the belief in free speech across the US, as while some saw his death as a repercussion from a loss of toleration for differing views, therefore requiring an expansion of free expression, others sought to restrict the offensive speech following his death. This led to multiple accounts of companies and organisations firing and suspending employees for social-media posts seen to be endorsing the violence and the murder. This was constitutionally lawful, as the First Amendment only protects citizens from government interference. The Amendment specifies that ‘Congress shall make no law’, meaning private employers and property owners retain the right to set their own conduct and speech rules, thus allowing for a suppression of free speech that evades the legal right [Ref: Syracuse Law Review]. This erodes First Amendment free-speech rights, as citizens understandably prioritise job security over saying anything that might conflict with company values.
However, Tamar Shirinian, who was fired by the University of Tennessee at Knoxville following a private Facebook post criticising Charlie Kirk after he was assassinated, received $1.9million in compensation – showing that while employees can be disciplined, there is little support for the government or institutions policing privately held opinions [Ref: The New York Times].
Most recently, in July 2026, the leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, Zack Polanski, was reported to the police after he shared a post of a man wearing a t-shirt featuring a guillotine and the words ‘Making plans for Nigel’. This was widely read as a threat to the leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage. Given this was just weeks after the brutal murder of another Reform UK politician, Ann Widdecombe, the party made a formal complaint to the police and claimed it was ‘incitement to murder’, in which case it could be (but wasn’t) prosecuted under the Public Order Act (1986) [Ref: BBC].
However, other legislation, such as libel laws, have long been used to restrict speech to uphold integrity. And the EU’s introduction of the European Democracy Shield, while criticised for ‘elevating filterers and gatekeepers’, and limiting the spread of democratic opinion and debate, has alternatively been seen as necessary to counter the rise of ‘foreign interference, misinformation, and hybrid threats’ [Ref: The Heritage Foundation]. In this view, the ability for inflammatory or hateful comments to spread via social media has the potential to do unprecedented damage to the genuine democratic discourse that free speech was envisioned to uphold.
And if some employers are able to withhold employment or dismiss existing employees for controversial opinions, this becomes discrimination and censorship, not enacted by the state but enabled by it. Or are employers acting within their rights by firing people for social media posts, as hate speech or discrimination can reflect badly on the company and interfere with other employees protection from discrimination? [Ref: New York State Bar Association]
So where should we draw the line between hate speech and differing opinions? Is the government justified in its role of policing certain types of speech in order to protect citizens from escalating violence and social tensions? What constitutes democratic discourse, and what can just be seen as meaningless hatred and slander? Is it more important to protect people from hate, or to allow open discussion?
ESSENTIAL READING
FOR
Me in The Washington Post: Where ‘hate speech’ censorship is even worse than on U.S. campuses
Greg Lukianoff Substack 7 January 2026
Britain’s hate crime laws are eroding free speech
Joan Smith UnHerd 18 November 2024
Tolerating Intolerance: The Free Speech Paradox
Ange Eduardo Quillette 23 August 2023
Hate speech laws threaten free speech
Marc Glendening Institute of Economic Affairs 23 October 2023
Regulating free speech on social media is dangerous and futile
Niam Yaraghi Brookings 21 September 2018
Protecting Free Speech in Social Media: A Pathway to Self-Determination in International Law
Sydney Marie Harley Emory Law 2024
Restoring Free Speech on Social Media
Alexander Bauer The Princeton Tory 16 February 2026
“Hate Speech” Laws Undermine Free Speech and Equality
John Samples Cato Institute 8 June 2018
AGAINST
Should we hate hate-speech regulation? The argument from viewpoint discrimination
Sebastien Bishop Philosophical Quaterly 25 July 2024
When words become weapons: How hate speech threatens democracy
Nicolette Karina Kalfas International IDEA 25 September 2025
Blog: End hate speech and discrimination in Malaysia
Nalini Elumalai Article 19 17 June 2022
Regulate Social Media to Mitigate Societal Harm
Moshe Vardi Baker Institute 2024
Countering Hate Speech in Times of Crisis: Considerations for Mayors and Local Governments
Strong Cities Network 31 January 2025
BACKGROUNDERS
Greg Lukianoff: Is Trump worse than Biden on free speech? Greg Lukainoff and Freddie Sayers UnHerd on YouTube 22 December 2025
Can free speech survive in America’s universities?
Andrew Jack The Financial Times 10 October 2025
Free speech is facing threats in the US and beyond. Here are the pressure points Angele Latham et al. Freedom Forum 9 October 2025
How the simmering UK freedom of speech row reached boiling point
Nick Robinson BBC News 23 September 2025
Why Europe fears free speech: A war of repression is under way
Wolfgang Munchau UnHerd 13 January 2025
Free speech can’t exist unchained. US politics needs the tonic of order
Simon Jenkins Guardian 13 January 2011
Free Speech and Social Media: Maintaining the Right Balance
Dr Aikyna Finch American Public University 8 December 2025
Challenges of Ethically Regulating Free Speech on College Campuses
Olivia Welsh University of North Carolina 28 March 2024
A Tale of Two Arguments about Free Speech on Campus
Michael C. Behrent Academe Magazine
The First Amendment’s application to public university students: an explainer
Alex Rivenbark SCOTUSblog 11 March 2026
Social Media and the First Amendment
Deborah Fisher Free Speech Center 30 April 2026
IN DEPTH
The Racial Crossroads
Helen Andrews Compact Magazine 3 August 2026
Reversing Britain’s Free Speech Recession
Jon Holbrook The Prosperity Institute 9 July 2026
The Freedom of Speech Bill (2026)
Preston Byrne, Michael Reiners, and Elijah Granet The Adam Smith Institute 27 March 2026
European Democracy Shield: A Threat to Free Speech and Democratic Accountability
Paul McCarthy The Heritage Foundation 5 March 2026
Europe’s Free-Speech Problem
Connor Friedersdorf The Atlantic 19 August 2025
Challenge it, Report it, Stop it: The Government’s Plan to Tackle Hate Crime
HM Government (UK) March 2012
On Liberty
John Stuart Mill Project Gutenberg 10 January 2011
Supreme Court Ruling Underscores Importance of Free Speech Online
ACLU 1 July 2024
Citizen preferences for online hate speech regulation
Katherine Ognyanova NIH 12 February 2025
IN THE NEWS
Hate content flourishing on Meta’s Instagram, ADL report claims
Carl Campanile New York Post 15 April 2026
Kanye West banned from UK: legal expert explains why
Jonathan Collinson The Conversation 8 April 2026
Europe now treats Christian views as criminal
Lorcán Price spiked 5 April 2026
Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages
Charlie Parker, Yennah Smart and George Willoghby The Times 4 April 2025
Finland’s Top Court Split on Christian Politician’s Hate Speech Charges
Ken Chitwood Christianity Today 27 March 2026
UK Police To Scrap ‘Non-Crime Hate Incidents’ After Free Speech Backlash
Michael Curzon European Conservative 23 December 2025
Joint Briefing: Petition Debate on Repealing the Online Safety Act
Open Rights Group 11 December 2025
‘Free speech for me, not for thee’: how Trump’s censorship blitz is splitting the right Ed Pilkington The Guardian 27 September 2025
Woman jailed for race hate post released from prison
Harriet Heywood BBC News 21 August 2025
Brits rebel against Online Safety Act as petition reaches 380,000 signatures – and age checks spark concerns around privacy and free speech
London Mail 29 July 2025
Understanding the sentence of Lucy Connolly
Dat Green Prospect 23 May 2025
Attacks on Universities over Gaza Protests Threaten Students’ Free Speech
Andrew Beale Human Rights First 21 April 2025
Supreme Court Finds That Internet Platforms Have Free Speech Rights Over Content Decisions
The Authors Guild 19 July 2024