With his announcement earlier this year that Meta would dispense with fact-checking, Zuckerberg followed Musk, who, when he took over Twitter (now X), sacked 80% of the staff dedicated to trust and safety. Musk and Zuckerberg have claimed that such moves restore freedom of speech and expression.

While removing fact-checkers and staff dedicated to ensuring trust and safety may theoretically provide more freedom of speech, the practical outcome for ‘X’ was the loss of 2.7 million users in two months in late 2024.

 

Given Musk’s access and ascendancy within the White House, it is understandable that Zuckerberg would bend the knee to Trump. However, while tech leaders and billionaires bow to political pressure, the question arises: What are the long-term consequences of loosening speech restrictions for society? And what does this mean for the future of social media platforms?

 

What is Free Speech

 

Originally, free speech was the right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalties. It was intended to protect the rights of ordinary citizens to speak without interference from the government or higher powers. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies that fosters open discourse and the exchange of ideas. 

 

In the United States, freedom of speech is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." 

 

Similarly, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) safeguard freedom of expression, ensuring that individuals can voice their opinions without government interference.

 

However, this freedom does have some exceptions that are narrowly tailored to balance the protection of free speech. These exceptions include:

 

• Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action: Speech directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
• True Threats: Statements that express a genuine intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group.
• Harassment: Severe, pervasive, and offensive behaviour that interferes with a person’s ability to access education or opportunities.

 

Interestingly, in the United States, hate speech lacks a formal legal definition and is not directly regulated by the government, due to the constitutional protection of free speech. In contrast, in Australia, hate speech is defined, and there are laws to prevent it from occurring.

 

The Co-opting and Hijacking of Free Speech

 

Increasingly, the term "free speech” is being co-opted as a defence for spreading extremist content, misinformation, and hate speech.

 

This shift distorts the original purpose of free speech, which was intended to protect ordinary citizens from government oppression. Now, it is often weaponised to promote harmful narratives under the guise of "openness." The combination of declining content moderation and fact-checking on social media has raised concerns about its impact on public discourse, democracy, and online freedoms worldwide

Groups that use the term "free speech" as a defence for spreading extremist content, misinformation, and hate speech are mainly far-right and use several key strategies:

 

• Portraying Themselves as Victims: 

Far-right groups argue that mainstream media and social media platforms censor conservative voices. These groups frame their ideology as under attack from "woke" culture. This narrative has led to the rise of alternative social media platforms that reject content moderation.

 

Woke culture refers to efforts to promote social and economic equity and generally manifests in:

• Advocating for marginalised groups such as racial minorities, LGBTIQ+ communities and people with disabilities.
• Fighting for gender equality and against discrimination.
• Advocating for the environment, sustainable policies and environmentalism; and
• Holding public figures accountable for discriminatory or offensive actions – cancel culture.

 

Far-right groups often oppose these movements because they challenge traditional values, national identity, and their interpretation of free speech. Their resistance is fuelled by nationalism, religious conservatism, conspiracy theories, and a belief that progressivism threatens their way of life.

 

These groups claim that:

• woke culture limits free speech by punishing those who express dissenting views, and
• cancel culture unfairly ‘fires’ individuals who do not conform to progressive ideals, and 
• woke culture is authoritarian and suppresses open debate.

 

• Spreading Misinformation and Alternative Facts: 

Disinformation and misinformation campaigns, such as those surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and election fraud, often disguise themselves as "free speech." We have written previously about the issue of misinformation and moral panic.

 

Deepfakes, conspiracy theories, and medical misinformation are the types of misinformation that are particularly dangerous as they spread rapidly and exploit emotional responses. 

 

The danger of misinformation lies in its ability to:

• Distort reality and confuse the public.
• Erode trust in institutions like governments, science, and journalism.
• Deepen societal divisions, leading to poor decision-making on critical issues like healthcare and elections.

 

• Abolishing Fact-Checking as a Form of "Censorship": 

Far-right activists and political figures have campaigned against content moderation, claiming it suppresses conservative perspectives. Nevertheless, research from the Pew Research Center (2021) shows that fact-checking mainly targets false claims rather than political perspectives.

 

• Normalising Hate Speech: 

By framing bigotry and racism as "free expression," extremist groups have aimed to normalise hate speech within mainstream discourse. This not only alienates marginalised communities, increasing distrust and fear, but also fosters an environment conducive to radicalisation.