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 summed up the attitude to free speech of the Enlightenment thinker and author, Voltaire [Ref: BBC]. 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]. But can all speech be deemed as equal? While some argue we should protect free speech in the realm of ideas, they question whether this can be extended to expressions of insult and hate. For example, International IDEA argues that hate speech harms democratic discussion, by ‘normalizing intolerance, dehumanizing specific groups’ and encouraging violence [Ref: International IDEA].
Proponents of free speech argue that fully open debate is the only way of truly countering false or offensive views, but critics contend this only works if debates are regulated so as not to offend or stir up hatred. In recent years, legislation such as the Online Safety Act in the UK and Section 188 of the German Criminal Code has imposed increasing limits on what people say to protect others from harm. In June 2025, the police visited 170 houses in Germany, after investigating individuals for ‘hateful’ or offensive comments online, as Section 188 of the criminal code criminalised insults to politicians [Ref:The European Conservative]. This law against ‘insult directed at persons in political life’ aims to protect those in public life from comments that deliberately attack honour, not ideas, supposedly allowing a higher level of debate than if disagreements are waged through personal attacks.
Concerns remain that any regulations on speech can be used to brandish those with opposing ideas as hateful or causing harm. There have been many high-profile cases of artists, authors and singers being deplatformed or cancelled as a result of offensive or hateful language. 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].
Also in the UK, the case of Lucy Connolly caused considerable controversy. In the immediate aftermath of the stabbing of three young children in north-west England in 2024, which provoked widespread rioting, Connolly posted on X demanding the mass deportation of migrants and saying rioters could set fire to migrant hotels ‘for all I care’. It was agreed at her trial that she ‘intended to incite serious violence’. She was given a sentence of two years and seven months. However, there was widespread criticism of Connolly’s sentence [Ref: BBC News]. In 2025, it was reported that, on average, 30 people per day are arrested (in England and Wales) for content posted online [Ref: The Times].
These laws allow the arrest of those disturbing public peace by inciting hatred. In Germany, the application of these laws has led to court cases where individuals are tried in relation to their position criticising Islam, migration policy or individual politicians.
Also in Germany, there is the Brandmauer – a ‘firewall against the far-right’. This is a strategy of non-cooperation and deplatforming by mainstream political parties of the AfD and other far-right politicians to supress their influence. Is this a legitimate way to control hate speech and ‘extremist’ politics, or should free speech be the bedrock of defeating bad arguments?
Ultimately, 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 overreach and the gradual normalisation of censorship, while the other risks permitting harmful rhetoric to circulate unchecked and potentially grow. 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 serious psychological damage or incite discrimination. They argue that speech is not only used to make rational arguments, but to foment hatred and stigmatise powerless minorities. Rather than free speech being egalitarian, it is too often used to oppress those ‘without a voice’.
Organisations such as Hate Aid in Germany have made it their mission to prosecute violations of German law (especially relating to Section 188). Yet, their representatives argue that they are strengthening freedom of speech, contending 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 [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 denegration 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 Quaterly]. Following the murder of German politician Walter Lübke in 2019, calls for stricter regulation of free speech have gained momentum; for some commentators, the murder – committed by a lone right-wing extremist – served as proof that words can lead to harmful actions. [Ref: tagesschau.de]
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.de]. This can have a chilling effect on free speech, demonstrated by a survey by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation which found that the majority of respondents felt inhibited from speaking freely: 60 per cent reported being more cautious because they fear negative reactions [Ref:Meinungsfreiheit].
Moreover, the perception of speech being restricted, and limits being placed on expressions of political grievance, can inflame social tensions. For example, 550,000 people in the UK signed the petition against the Online Safety Act (2024) [Ref: Open Rights Group], as many people feel they are 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].
Some argue 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]. And with the AfD gaining momentum in Germany, despite the Brandmauer, some argue that ‘excluding a party from the democratic process radicalises it’ [Ref: Bruin Political Review]. Thus, those who wish to restrict free speech to protect against incitement can radicalise others and, ironically, exacerbate threats of violence to minority populations.
Free speech, civil society and social cohesion
Social media has been viewed as a tool with 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 more expansive reach can quickly exacerbate social tensions. In the case of Lucy Connolly, her tweet ‘was viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times’ in just the 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. If classical liberals believe that free speech comes with responsibility, including respect for others’ views and beliefs, 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.
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. Meanwhile, many European nations, including the UK, adopt a more ‘qualified’ approach to free speech than the US. 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 (2024) 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]. Therefore, the US is often critical of Europe’s approach to regulating speech online. The vice president, JD Vance, has ‘accused European leaders of retreating from the continent’s “most fundamental values”, including free expression’ [Ref: The Atlantic].
In Germany, section 130 of the criminal code was used in May 2024 to sentence Michael Stürzenberger to a fine of €3,600 following a report suggesting that comments he made in the presence of counter-demonstrators constituted ‘incitement to hatred’. But some view this as the use of hate-speech law and claims of incitement to curb, or silence, certain political opinions, as there have been ‘an increasing number of court cases against radical critics of Islam and German immigration policy’ [Ref: MCC Brussels].
The use of hate-speech laws can be used against those with different fundamental values systems, as it can be seen as harmful to minority groups. This suggests that the regulation of speech can quickly strip the public of the ability to publicly debate and defend their beliefs. Some argue that this was demonstrated by the case of a Christian politician. Päivi Räsänen. who was convicted of ‘hate speech’ in Finland’s Supreme Court in March 2026, as her beliefs were deemed as offensive to homosexual groups [Ref: spiked].
By curtailing free speech on the basis of social cohesion, are governments in danger of infantilising populations by suggesting they are unable to manage disagreements of belief and opinion? Räsänen’s conviction denied an opportunity for both a Christian politician and groups supporting gay rights to openly debate and discuss the origins of homosexuality. This could lead to a ‘slippery slope’, where citizens are increasingly unable to defend their beliefs in public and rely on the state to uphold civil order in the face of social fragmentation.
But 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.
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?
READINGS
FOR
Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages
Charlie Parker, Yennah Smart and George Willoghby The Times 4 April 2025
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 Affairs23 October 2023
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
Clamping down on hate speech
Michael Thaidigsmann In. House Legal 12 June 2019
BACKGROUNDERS
Is Germany’s Firewall against the AfD Working?
Kiet Huynh Brun Political Review 23 March 2026
Umfrage zur Meinungsfreiheit – Jüngere und Social-Media-Nutzer fühlen sich häufiger gehemmt
Sophie Eichhorn Friedrich Naumann Stiftung 14 November 2025
How the simmering UK freedom of speech row reached boiling point
Nick Robinson BBC News 23 September 2025
Germany’s ‘Speechcrime’ Raids Are a Chilling Sign of Things To Come
Lauren Smith European Conservative 25 June 2025
Why Europe fears free speech: A war of repression is under way
Wolfgang Munchau UnHerd 13 January 2025
Keine Meinungsfreiheit ohne ein Klima der Freiheit
Sandra Kostner Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung 13 March 2020
Free speech can’t exist unchained. US politics needs the tonic of order
Simon Jenkins Guardian 13 January 2011
IN DEPTH
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
Silencing Alternatives: Germany’s war on Free Speech
Sabine Beppler-Sphal MCC Brussels February 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
IN THE NEWS
Hate content flourishing on Meta’s Instagram, ADL report claims
Carl Campanile New York Post 15 April 2026
Europe now treats Christian views as criminal
Lorcán Price spiked 5 April 2026
Kanye West banned from UK: legal expert explains why
Jonathan Collinson The Conversation 8 April 2026
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
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
Berlin forced to defend hate-speech law
Guy Chazan Financial Times 5 January 2018
Wenn aus Worten Taten werden
Patrick Gensing Tagesschau 29 December 2019