A re-examination of free speech

Is free speech under threat, and is that necessarily a bad thing? Answers will vary depending on who you ask and how you ask, but one thing's for sure, at this present moment there are countless strains on the concept. With cancel culture informing how a generation perceives debate, TikTok censorship in America limiting a population's access to that debate in the first place, 10,000’s strong protests in Eastern Europe being neglected by news media, and the UK government discussing laws around freedom of expression at universities, the issue is as disconcerting as it always has been. 

Do we have free speech? How far towards allowing hate speech can that definition stretch before censorship arises? As the paradox of tolerance continues revolving, where do we stand?

In universities there is reform on the horizon, as on 15th January 2025 the Government announced that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 will be brought into force. The Conservative Department for Education introduced the act in 2021 and received royal assent in May 2023. It was due to come into force in 2024 but was delayed by the Labour government. This followed concern from institutions that due to the current economic climate we are already financially struggling, and that the Act’s introduction of fines for failures to uphold freedom of expression may harm them disproportionately. 

The National Union of Students had also been lobbying against the act. They raise the issue that forcing institutions to ensure all viewpoints are given a platform would inevitably lead to space being held for dangerous and harmful ideals, disproportionately affecting minority and otherwise oppressed groups. The issue therefore goes beyond tolerating intolerance, as the act obliges universities not to allow the deplatforming of any lawful viewpoint.

Is it fair for repercussions of people responding with their own free speech to that which they disagree with to occur, or is it unfair silencing and erasure?

The issue of freedom of speech for young people exists beyond purely a legislative framework but is alive in the culture with both a liberating and cutting force: Cancel Culture. It is a phenomenon of internet users voting with their feet on whether certain views should be acceptably proclaimed or actions deemed permissible. ‘Censure or censorship’ could rename the backlash to cancel culture. 

Is it fair for repercussions of people responding with their own free speech to that which they disagree with to occur, or is it unfair silencing and erasure? The paradox of tolerance was put forward by Karl Popper in the wake of WWII, stating that tolerating intolerance would eventually give dominance to the latter. With this in mind, we can attempt to navigate the scourge of cancel culture, individually assessing whether the ‘offender’ or the ‘offended’ is in a tolerable position and deciding which, if either, to accept. 

Further from this grassroots form of self-governing expression in online spaces is the threat of a national ban on one of the world's most prolific social media platforms from the USA. In mid-January TikTok briefly went dark, as the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the law creating the ban was against the constitution's first amendment which protects free speech. It was passed for the protection of national security from the Chinese parent company ByteDance. This was not to say that free speech wasn’t infringed, only that the protection of national security is considered significant enough in this instance to justify it.

Shortly after going dark, the app became available again to those who had already downloaded it. Trump’s executive order allowed ByteDance 75 days to relinquish sole ownership of their flagship product and sell up to a US buyer. In protest (ex)users are migrating to another Chinese-owned equivalent, RedNote, undermining the purpose of the ban and proving interconnectedness is wider than one app. Alternative mainstream social media platforms are still available in the US, whereas in China, Instagram, Facebook and X are all banned. Google has also been banned there since 2010.

In the UK, we are also not exempt from challenges to the free flow of information. Whilst we still have free access to the internet, our news media has glaring blind-spots. For example, the tens of thousands strong protests ongoing in Eastern Europe. Georgia, Slovakia and Serbia have all had deep political troubles with their Prime Ministers, yet news of these events rarely makes headlines in the UK. This reminds us that we cannot be complacent and accept only the easily available information as being a full story.

Freedom of speech and access to information are always politically coveted, whether it is for better or for worse. All we can do is our best to stay informed, aware of our rights, and open minded.

Published 6 March 2025