Member of the European Parliament Alexandra Geese writes that illiberal politicians and Big Tech social media platforms have abused the principle of freedom of speech to suppress ideas with which they do not agree and promote hate speech. She provides three recommendations for retaking speech from the social media platforms that constitute today’s public sphere.
“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the right of another […]. The sacred privilege is so essential to free governments… These words from the Cato’s Letters, a collection of 144 essays published from 1720-1721 by Thomas Gordon and John Trenchard, served as inspiration for the colonists who would lead the American Revolution and found the new republic. Its message is clear: freedom of speech was originally conceived to protect citizens against government censorship and reprisal for expressing their views. It was never meant to be a free pass for insulting fellow citizens or inciting others to hate and violence.
Yet, the loudest advocates of free speech today focus on the very particular elements of protecting citizens’ rights to spread harmful lies and the right of powerful Big Tech corporations to help them spread this speech. Social media platforms’ role comes from algorithmically downranking the free speech that they find ideologically disagreeable and promoting the speech that is hateful, both because it is profitable or, as most prominently in the case of X, ideologically aligned with its CEO.
The United States government claims to defend free speech while attacking and censoring Harvard University‘s freedom to choose its students, banning reporters from the Oval Office and intimidating their publications and broadcasters, threatening law firms who have represented ideological foes, and coercing private companies to abandon diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Scientists live in fear. The Guardian recently nailed it with the headline “When physicists need a burner phone, that’s when you know America has changed.” Advocacy for free speech by the U.S. right wing has become a Trojan horse for protecting hate speech in violation of the liberal principles of equal respect and dignity that motivated the principle of free speech in the first place.
The Trump administration and its Make America Great Again movement have coopted narratives about freedom of speech to restrict the rights of their own citizens and to deny them the right to truthful information. Trump has also wielded its nakedly illiberal abuse of freedom of speech as a geopolitical cudgel against the European Union. In February, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a highly publicized speech attacking EU member states for supposedly suppressing free speech. Vance’s speech was packed with misinformation. He described the EU’s so-called “violations” of civil liberties as a greater threat to democracy than Russia or China, which alone should demonstrate how unserious was his speech. Any rational inquiry shows that the EU is one of the few places in the world where citizens still enjoy the highest level of freedom.
Take, for example, the index maintained by Reporters Without Borders, a nongovernmental organization committed to promoting free speech and truthful information. The U.S. ranks 57th, far behind Germany, which Vance targeted for its restrictions on hate speech and Nazi slogans and symbols. The top 15 countries in the index are all European. One of the EU member states that does score behind the U.S. is Hungary, whose illiberal government under Viktor Orbán has served as a role model to Trump’s MAGA movement.
Meanwhile, social media platforms, whether cowed by the Trump administration, ideologically aligned with its illiberalism, or indifferent to any value that doesn’t come with a dollar sign, are helping to compromise free speech and the marketplace of ideas where speech is exchanged. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in January the rollback of trust and safety content moderation to promote “free expression,” which he clarified meant in part opening up discourse to racist and intolerant opinions on “immigration and gender.” Plenty of research shows how social media platforms algorithms are designed and rewarded to spread hatred. X recently perverted its AI chatbot, Grok, to spew antisemitism and pro-Nazi remarks after CEO Elon Musk was dissatisfied with the moderation of earlier versions.
Aspiring autocrats and tech billionaires use narratives about protecting freedom of speech to entrench their illiberal policies through misinformation, lies, and hate. With one hand they preserve the right to spread hate, while on the other they silence the speech of their liberal foes. If this continues, freedom of speech will spell the end of freedom of speech.
It’s time to take back the freedom of speech idea into our hands. It’s time to push back against the illiberality of the autocrats, disinformation peddlers, hatemongers, and powerful corporations who believe they can silence citizens. It’s time to stop being intimidated and defensive. It’s time to share common lines to attack their attack on free speech.
Here are three suggestions that focus on the social media platforms which disproportionately form today’s marketplace of ideas and determine the practical levels of free speech we are allowed to achieve:
1. Algorithmic Management: The Antithesis of Free Speech
Arguments about freedom of speech that focus on content being deleted from social media are often used to distract from the actual problem: invisible algorithmic management stands as the very antithesis to free speech. Hidden content moderation algorithms that downrank or boost content without accountability represent a centralized form of control where tech giants decide who gets heard and who gets silenced. This power dynamic undermines the core principle of open discourse, regardless of political rhetoric claiming that content moderation rules fall under the rights to free speech of the private companies that provide social media platforms. It’s a system where a select few can manipulate the flow of information, effectively censoring voices and shaping public opinion.
During the 2024 German electoral campaign, X boosted pro-Putin parties Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) and suppressed speech by the moderately progressive Social Democratic Party (SDP) and Greens. Even without direct intervention, most digital platform algorithms rank content eliciting fear and anger higher than any other speech. This is not freedom; it’s a new form of censorship that suppresses honest, thoughtful speech to promote hatred. Engagement-based ranking that relies heavily on content eliciting anger and other negative emotions in users should be replaced by explicit users’ choice or transparent algorithmic pluralism.
Figure 1. Party representation in X users’ default feed before 2025 German federal election
Source: Tabia Tanzin Prama et al., “Political Biases on X before the 2025 German Federal Election,” https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.02888.
2. Hate Speech and Harassment: Driving Voices Out of the Public Sphere
Hate speech and harassment campaigns actively drive out vulnerable individuals from public discourse, thereby severely limiting their freedom of speech and the broader marketplace of ideas. These campaigns often align with a far-right agenda of suppressing the voices of women, political dissidents, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community. When people are subjected to relentless online abuse, threats, and intimidation, they are silenced. These attacks, amplified by algorithms, create an environment where only the most privileged can participate in the marketplace of ideas. Freedom of speech for all requires an environment free of hate and harassment. A system rewarding hate and harassment campaigns is a new form of censorship. We cannot allow content moderation algorithms to be designed to promote hate and violence. They should be designed to be content neutral.
3. Defamation: Not an Opinion, But a Deliberate Assault
Defamation is a deliberate lie told about another person to harm their reputation and credibility. It is exactly what the original advocates for freedom of speech excluded from their definition of free speech. Courts do not recognize it as protected under free speech. So why do social media platforms? When false and malicious statements are spread with the intent to damage someone’s character, it not only causes personal harm but also undermines their ability to participate in public discourse. Defamation is a weapon used to silence critics, suppress dissent, and manipulate public opinion. It should never be conflated with the right to express one’s views freely. It is an attack on the very foundation of a fair and open society. A system advocating for defamation as free speech is a new form of censorship. Social media companies cannot allow its spread.
Freedom of speech in the digital age requires transparent algorithms and user choice over what content they see, safe and inclusive spaces for every viewpoint, and protection from defamation. These are the essential elements of real free expression. Let’s champion them with pride.
Author Disclosure: Alexandra Geese is a member of the European Parliament, which is her only source of income. The author reports no conflicts of interest. You can read our disclosure policy here.
Articles represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its faculty.
Subscribe here for ProMarket’s weekly newsletter, Special Interest, to stay up to date on ProMarket’s coverage of the political economy and other content from the Stigler Center.
