Key Takeaway:
President Donald Trump’s executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” accused the previous administration of stifling free expression by working with social media companies to curb misinformation and label misleading content. However, recent research suggests that less regulation can actually make the internet a less free place for speech, not more. Unmoderated platforms don’t necessarily promote healthy dialogue, as hate speech and extremist rhetoric often intimidate users into silence. Studies show that people have a poor ability to distinguish between fact and falsehood online, which undermines their autonomy as speakers and listeners. Content moderation isn’t censorship, but a form of consumer protection. Users prefer platforms that take steps to curb disinformation rather than letting it proliferate, suggesting that a more nuanced understanding of true freedom of speech might require more regulation, not less.
Shortly after taking office in January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. The directive accused the previous administration of stifling free expression by working with social media companies to curb misinformation and label misleading content. In Trump’s view, such collaborations crossed a line into government-sanctioned censorship.
This move came at a time when the landscape of online speech was already undergoing significant change. Elon Musk had relaxed content moderation policies at X (formerly Twitter), while Meta and YouTube had also rolled back various safeguards designed to reduce the spread of hate speech and falsehoods. With Trump’s new policy direction, this broader trend toward deregulation seems poised to accelerate.
To many, deregulation sounds like a logical path toward protecting freedom of expression — an extension of the classic “marketplace of ideas” philosophy. But recent research into how people interact on digital platforms suggests a surprising conclusion: less regulation can actually make the internet a less free place for speech, not more.
What Does Free Speech Really Mean?
In legal and political philosophy, freedom of speech has always carried important boundaries. In democratic societies, it’s never been an unlimited license to say anything at any time. Courts have long held that speech inciting violence, making threats, or causing immediate harm is not protected. But when it comes to expressions of belief or ideology — even false ones — the law has tended to err on the side of protection.
Still, the fundamental goal of free speech is not simply to protect speech for its own sake, but to ensure citizens can meaningfully express themselves and hear others — a process that supports autonomy, civic engagement, and democracy itself. This is why democratic dissent has always played such a central role in the legal defense of speech rights.
So what happens when a flood of misinformation, hate speech, or algorithmic amplification of polarizing content crowds out more thoughtful, reasoned voices online? The result isn’t a robust marketplace of ideas — it’s one where many people are silenced, not by the government, but by the conditions of the platform itself.
When Free Speech Gets Drowned Out
Unmoderated platforms don’t necessarily promote healthy dialogue. In fact, mounting evidence suggests the opposite. Hate speech and extremist rhetoric often intimidate users into silence, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups. Instead of creating a space for open exchange, these online environments become hostile — pushing many voices out of the conversation.
The unchecked spread of misinformation also poses serious threats to the quality of public discourse. Studies show that people have a poor ability to distinguish between fact and falsehood online. This inability undermines their autonomy as speakers and listeners, which is at the core of what free speech protections are meant to secure.
If individuals can’t rely on the information ecosystem to provide credible viewpoints or accurately label misleading content, then their freedom to make informed decisions and meaningfully engage in debate is fundamentally compromised.
A Flawed Analogy
The common metaphor of a “marketplace of ideas” imagines speech like a product that competes based on merit — the best ideas rise to the top, while the worst fade into obscurity. But just like in economic markets, the marketplace of ideas needs safeguards. Without rules against fraud or manipulation, consumers — or in this case, citizens — cannot make informed choices.
Unchecked misinformation functions like false advertising, and hate speech acts like intimidation in a shopping aisle. Without protections, people’s ability to participate freely in the exchange of ideas becomes distorted and diminished.
This suggests that content moderation isn’t censorship — it’s a form of consumer protection. Rather than undermining free speech, well-crafted regulation may actually be essential to preserving it.
What Users Actually Want
Interestingly, public sentiment seems to reflect this view. Surveys consistently show that users prefer platforms that take steps to curb disinformation rather than letting it proliferate. Most people want to interact in digital spaces that are safe, informative, and trustworthy — not ones flooded with inflammatory rhetoric or baseless conspiracy theories.
This runs counter to the idea that all regulation is inherently anti-democratic. Instead, it points to a more nuanced understanding: when platforms are held to higher standards for how they manage content, the result is a freer, fairer environment for speech.
A Call for Rethinking Online Speech
As digital platforms become increasingly central to democratic participation, the idea that deregulation is synonymous with freedom deserves serious reexamination. The evidence suggests that without proper moderation and oversight, these platforms can quickly become echo chambers, breeding grounds for manipulation, and spaces where thoughtful conversation is drowned out by noise.
Rather than dismantling content moderation in the name of free speech, it might be time to recognize that certain rules and standards are not a threat — they’re a necessity. Protecting the integrity of public discourse means ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to speak, be heard, and engage with accurate information in a space that doesn’t reward outrage over truth.
True freedom of speech isn’t just about removing restrictions. It’s about creating the conditions under which everyone can speak freely and safely — and that might require more regulation, not less.
