The first executive order that President Trump signed following his inauguration in 2025 was entitled Restoring Free Speech and Ending Federal Suppression. The order accused the former administration of “trampling free speech rights by restricting Americans’ online speech.”
Trump’s censorship is the government’s attempt to work with social media, broadcasting platforms, and other agencies to regulate misinformation, false information, and misleading content by removing, labeling, or limiting their dissemination, and sometimes including fact-checking. In 2024, the Supreme Court heard similar accusations. The justices supported the federal Government, which allowed it to interact with and coordinate with social media platforms.
The decision was made during a period of deregulation for online platforms, as Elon Musk had removed guardrails following the acquisition of X and Meta and YouTube had removed policies designed to combat misinformation and hate. Online platforms will likely remove more guardrails with Trump’s commitment towards free speech protections via deregulation.
As a expert in legal and political philosophy I am aware that deregulation is often associated with free speech. Recent court rulings have supported deregulation across all market sectors. This includes contributions for political campaigns and graphic labeling on cigarettes.
It is not surprising that this has happened, given the fact that the concept of free speech was long associated with the metaphor of free trade of ideas and closely linked to the value a deregulated marketplace. It has long been assumed that the best way to preserve freedom of expression is through a market economy deregulated. This includes speech on social media platforms. Research on online speech suggests the opposite: Regulation of online speech protects freedom of speech.
What is content moderating?
The right to free speech and its limitations
In the U.S., free speech has always been accompanied with a set of exceptions that are clearly laid out by the courts and which constrain speech on the basis of a competing interest in preventing harm. Speech that directly or indirectly threatens harm, incites violence, or causes it is not protected.
The courts have made it clear that when it comes down to content-based regulations that deal with ideologies or ideas the government cannot place burdens on speech which is objectionable. The government can’t censor speech which is false, but doesn’t cause a specific harm.
Researchers have suggested that despite these legal restrictions, maintaining the value of freedom of speech would require some content-based regulations. It’s crucial to understand the value of free speech in order to fully grasp this paradoxical conclusion. Free speech enables you to be an autonomous member of society by <a href="https://politicalphilosophyjournal.org/article/id/15321/#:%7E:text=Authors%20who%20champion%20individual%20autonomy,we%20have%20free%20speech%20rights. You can express yourself as well as listen to others express themselves.
It is wrong for people to believe that a government can ban the discussion of a certain viewpoint or piece content, because it violates their rights as speakers or listeners. Free speech is important because it allows citizens to freely choose what they listen to and say.
A citizenry that can engage in meaningful and free discourse on the topics of their choice is also a benefit to democracy. was originally inspired by democratic dissent. It is still the basis of free speech protections.
Regulating free speech
Research has shown that hate speech online in particular and the proliferation of extremism online in general have a chilling effect on online speech through intimidation and fear. Research has shown that online hate speech in particular, and the proliferation extremism in general online have a chilling impact online speech by intimidation and fear. Restriction of hate speech is not detrimental to free speech.
spreading online misinformation, and the challenges in detecting it also undermine people’s abilities to evaluate and exchange viewpoints independently as speakers or listeners. research has shown that online users have a difficult time separating between truthful and false claims . This fundamental weakness will undermine your ability to be an autonomous listener or speaker.
the increased polarization on the internet, which is caused by the dissemination of falsehoods undermines the democratic purpose of free speech protections. People can’t meaningfully participate in a marketplace of ideas when lies are amplified. This insight is important because it aligns with users’ preference for platforms to remove disinformation instead of protecting it.
This is all evidence that deregulating the social media platforms will result in a loss of free speech. In economic markets to maintain a consumer’s right to choose, regulations are needed against deception and coercion. The principle is the exact same in the marketplace of thoughts: the free exchange of ideas requires regulations.
Michael Gregory has not disclosed any relevant affiliations other than their academic appointment. He does not work, consult, own or receive funding from companies or organizations that would benefit from the article.
