Freedom of Speech: Testing the Perceived Loss of a Fundamental Right in Western Democracies
Freedom of speech is apparently under threat across several liberal democracies in the West. This belief was most recently tested on Saturday, 13 September 2025, when anywhere between 110,000 and 150,000 people converged on central London for the “Unite the Kingdom” rally. The idea was, among other things, to exercise their lawful right to protest and to ensure that free speech prevailed on the day. Although the numbers were much larger than expected, and many could neither see, nor were within hearing distance of, the giant screen erected in Whitehall for the occasion, they would have gone home reassured that freedom of assembly had been protected and that many stalwart upholders of free speech, including Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), Ant Middleton, Ben Habib, Éric Zemmour, Katie Hopkins, Laurence Fox, and even Elon Musk himself (via video link) were able to communicate freely with their audience. No one was prevented from speaking or otherwise cancelled. Musk even called for, somewhat provocatively, a “change of government in Britain”, along with the “dissolution of parliament and a new vote.” The only arrests, a total of 24, were for engaging in violent confrontations, in which 26 police officers were injured. Although the demonstrators’ concerns over mass immigration and loss of national identity remain unaddressed, at least freedom of speech seems to have been preserved on the day.
Across the Atlantic, on the other hand, all is not well. What was once a liberal concern has now become a major plank of the conservative agenda in America. At the same time, and paradoxically, current working definitions of free speech in the US are intent on excluding “dangerous” radical leftist beliefs while expressions of disloyalty to, or condemnation of, President Trump are leading to cancellations and ostracisation of those deemed responsible. What is one person’s free speech can indeed be verboten for many others.
Freedom of speech can be broadly defined as “the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.” Herein lies the problem. The wide-ranging definition of speech in this context includes not just political speech, including symbolic acts in public (flag, cross, or book burning), but also commercial speech (advertising, marketing), and sexually explicit material (pornography). It covers written material (articles, pamphlets, blogs, books, print media), spoken material (speeches, podcasts, song lyrics, broadcast media), and visual material (cartoons, paintings, photographs, videos).
Given the many possibilities, there can be no absolute right to free speech in all its forms. Restraint is indeed a defining feature of all civilised societies. During wartime, state-imposed constraints on press freedom are accepted by the majority of citizens without question. Censorship can then be justified in the interests of national security. In peacetime, however, a hierarchy of protection of speech, depending on content, is more appropriate. Malicious slander, hate speech, incitement to violence, misleading advertising, child pornography, disclosure of government secrets, and other forms of “speech “which could potentially harm private individuals as well as the wider public have to be reined in for the greater good.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed by Article 19 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights of (1948), the First Amendment to the Constitution (1791) in the US, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act (1998) in the UK, Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (1953), and Article 5 of the German Basic Law (1949), among the constitutional and legislative instruments devised for this purpose. According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The Founding Fathers of America, while gathering at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, could not have anticipated all the advances in communication that were to follow, including broadcast media and social media, and their recommendations need to be qualified in the light of modern technological advances. In the US, a growing body of First Amendment jurisprudence has thus been added to since 1919, when the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of political dissenters, in three separate cases, under the Espionage Act of 1917 for criticising involvement in the First World War and the draft. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) has set the standard in the America, banning speech that either incites or produces “imminent lawless action”, or is likely to do so. The massive traffic on social media platforms has made regulation of speech in the public arena incredibly more difficult, justifying such attempts at control as the controversial Online Safety Act (2023) in the UK. The explosive spread of dangerous speech, protected by anonymity and amplified within online echo chambers has thrown up new challenges for which we seem ill-prepared.
Unrestricted free speech, at least in theory, allows exposure to a wide range of opinions, helping people in their search for truth. In the view of libertarians, laissez-faire in the so-called ‘marketplace of ideas’ facilitates the free exchange of ideas, just as the free market allows the self-regulated exchange of goods and services. Such views presuppose that people can weigh up the pros and cons of opposing viewpoints and make their own informed choices. Unfortunately, in the real world, people are driven by their biases and seek out opinions that align with their own views, rather than explore all that is on offer. Either way, and without doubt, words, images, and voices are all potent weapons and must not be misused, especially at a time when the West is splitting up into polarised groups, with little or no common ground. As the Culture Wars intensify, debates over free speech and its various ramifications are likely to become more vitriolic, with no early resolution in sight. In conclusion, one can sum up by stating that freedom to speak does not come with freedom to hate.
Ashis Banerjee