Katsuras 1
Alexia Katsuras
Shunzi Redfern
Professor Nigmendra Narain
POLISCI 1020E 200
28 February 2025
The Freedom of Open Dialogue in Societies
Should the state put limits on free speech? This question ignites a lot of debate between
people's rights to speak freely and the negative effects that come with unrestricted speech. In
this essay, I argue that the state should not put limits on free speech. Free speech is necessary
for an open, well-functioning democracy that can progress socially and politically, allowing
individuals to receive and exchange uncensored information, and be able to seek justice against
sexual violence. This essay will explore the importance of unrestricted speech by examining,
using examples from different countries, why free speech is more than just a human right, and
how it is a meaningful contribution to democracy and its process, being able to freely share
ideas, thoughts, and experiences that contribute to society without fear of censorship and how
free speech is used to challenge authoritative figures, hold people accountable and help
individuals regain empowerment through both the media and activism like movements such as
#MeToo and #LetHerSpeak.
Free speech is not only a basic human right but also a shared cultural value (Nossel 120).
It is through freedom that individuals can openly share their perspectives and beliefs, advocate
for their ideas and thoughts, and engage with others through conversation, protests,
movements, media, and more, fostering a well-functioning and inclusive democracy. Free
Katsuras 2
speech contributes to significant democratic events, like elections. Democracy demands more
than simply just voting from its citizens; casting a ballot involves voters receiving valuable
information, forming personal beliefs, and understanding the concerns of the public (Nossel
120). Citizens must have access to viewpoints of different information, especially when it comes
to key issues and shaping directions of governance. Without the ability to freely exchange and
access information, casting a vote is just an empty act, rather than a meaningful civic
contribution (Nossel 120). This example of voting highlights not just informed decision-making,
but the importance of participation in society, as every vote is a voice. Moreover, Nossel
states, “Free speech makes it possible to sound the alarm if a society is eroding other
democratic values or lurching toward authoritarianism” (123). This illustrates that free speech
allows individuals to inform others if democracy weakens, or becomes oppressive, reinforcing
the idea that this right is fundamental for maintaining a healthy democracy. Limiting free
speech would make significant discussions and debates with others who have similar, unique,
or opposing views impossible, hindering social cohesion and political progression in societies.
However, while free speech is essential for a well-functioning democracy, the absence
of limitation can result in negative forms of speech, particularly hateful speech, targeting
marginalized groups. Hate speech frequently refers to a certain expression of hatred toward
certain characteristics of individuals, or groups of people, in specific contexts (Howard 95).
Thus, in an unrestricted society, individuals will use their freedom to promote racism,
discrimination and derogatory or violent ideologies against targeted groups, including gender,
sexuality, race, etc., whether it is through the media, internet, or in-person interactions. To add,
the internet is the fastest growing and most powerful communication medium for hate groups,
Katsuras 3
playing a significant role in the spread of white supremacist ideologies, while also serving as a
hub for the organization of hate actions against marginalized groups (Demaske 144). For
example, Titley stated, “In 2015 the Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat reported that Laura
Huhtasaari, an MP for the right-wing nationalist True Finns Party, was a member of a closed
Facebook group ‘The racist background of rapists that hide in bushes’” (2). The group's content
was both racist and anti-Muslim. It contained photos of men who were of North African and
Somalian descent, implying that immigration was the cause for increased rapes in Finland and
other European countries in the north. This perpetuated stereotypes about immigrants,
specifically those who are Black and Muslim. The group also contained anti-Black comments
and posts (Titley 2). The spread of hate speech gains momentum and begins to create a society
where hostility and resentment are normalized, preventing bridges, and weakening social
stability, cooperation, respect, and harmonious coexistence between diverse people of
different communities. New Zealand, for instance, “bans speech with “threatening, abusive, or
insulting...words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of
persons...on the grounds of the color, race, or ethnic or national... origins of that group of
persons” (qtd. in Demaske 95). These examples demonstrate that imposed limits are necessary
for increased respect, safety, and inclusivity in order to keep an equitable society, and to ensure
that speech is not weaponized against marginalized groups.
To address the growing concern of hate speech, governments have implemented strict
approaches both on and off-line in ensuring proper mitigation of the issue, such as entrenched
laws, codes, regulations, and legal actions that protect society from hateful remarks. France has
made regulations for social media networks, making it mandatory that platforms must be
Katsuras 4
transparent about online content removal processes and account oversight to ensure adequate
measures, as companies are penalized for systemic violations (Hochmann 144). This monitors
what is being posted online, and by who. Failure to comply will result in heavy penalties from
the French media regulatory authority (Hochmann 144). This systemic approach ensures that all
media platforms intervene when inappropriate content, such as hate speech, is shared to
create a safe and inclusive environment for its users. Similarly, in Canada, encouraging genocide
and inciting hate against a specific group of people in public is an offence under sections 318
and 319 of the Criminal Code (CC) (Tunnicliffe 67). France also has laws against hate speech
under their own Criminal Code, and under the First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech is
criminalized if it specifically threatens violence or consists of specific threats against a particular
person, or group of people (Vergani et al. 30). Therefore, there is no need for limits on free
speech as these laws and regulations are designed to preserve the right to individual free
speech while protecting people from the damaging impacts of hateful speech.
Secondly, free speech is a key component for the uncensored exchange of information.
It keeps individuals connected with up-to-date news and prominent issues in the world. Media
is an innovative tool that has altered the way in which we communicate with others, and it
allows for lighting speed interactions as well as shared content and material worldwide
(Bollinger and Stone 23), whether it is revealing current news and events, sharing
entertainment and stories, or holding accountable those in spheres of power (Nossel 129). Apps
like Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, and more have completely changed the way we
interact and receive information. Uncensored information means individuals are free to expose
wrongdoing in government and society while lessening retaliation risk (Nossel 123). Especially
Katsuras 5
those who are reporters and journalists (Nossel 123). They can share insight without fear of
censorship, which can include public health emergencies, natural disasters or holding
authoritative figures accountable for corruption or unprofessional behaviour. The uncensored
exchange of information lets society know the suppressed truth about real-time events when it
may not be so blatantly obvious. Individuals also have the freedom to publicly share lived
experiences and struggles with thousands of others without being silenced (Nossel 122).
Moreover, the robust protection for press freedom lets journalists and the media expose
political corruption or scandals like the #MeToo movement, which utilized social media to
amplify the voices of victims and expose perpetrators, ensuring honesty within society’s
democracy (Nossel 122). It is clear that transparent information is crucial for the public's wellbeing. Imposed limits on free speech would keep information censored, suppressing society
and hiding individuals away from the truth, leaving people lost and vulnerable.
Despite the uncensored exchange of information in society and through the media being
a key component for keeping communities informed about current events and issues, it has its
drawbacks. Without imposed limits, information spreads like wildfire, especially through the
media, faster than it can be verified, leading to the rapid increase of misinformation and
disinformation. Examples of this include major incidents like the Russian interference in the
2016 US presidential election, large-scale protests for racial justice, the proliferation of
conspiracy theories along with disinformation concerning the 2020 US presidential election and
its outcome, as well as the COVID-19 global pandemic (Di Domenico et al. 1700-1701). During
the worldwide pandemic, misinformation caused widespread rejection and skepticism over
COVID-19 public health measures as conspiracies circulated about the effectiveness of vaccines,
Katsuras 6
and whether they are harming our immune systems (Bollinger and Stone 23). This
misinformation fuels a lot of confusion, and distrust and even defames people and company
names. Following, fake news that targets companies who are private can result in serious
consequences that affect brand trust (qtd. in Di Domenico et al. 1700), reputation (qtd. in Di
Domenico et al. 1700) and product boycotts (qtd. in Di Domenico et al. 1700). In 2017, the
sportswear company New Balance, faced both reputational damages and negative reactions
from their consumers ahead of false allegations of offering “a wholesale endorsement of the
Trump revolution” (qtd. in Di Domenico et al. 1700). “Similarly, in 2016 untrue news about
parasites found in Coca‐Cola bottles distributed across the US, rapidly spread through social
media and forced the company to issue an official response to the hoax to protect the brand
reputation” (Di Domenico et al. 1701). These companies unfortunately received backlash for
claims that failed to be true, and received damage to their brand’s images, all due to the spread
of false information. Source credibility and ratings also play a factor in heavily affecting
message believability and user responses, with influence from the individuals sharing this false
information, as it may be someone you know or look up to who is sharing the content which
influences user behaviours and beliefs (qtd. in Di Domenico et al. 1701). Imposed limits and
regulations will decrease the amount of misinformation that is manipulating public perception
and tearing down reputations, leaving less room for harm toward citizens, companies, and
states.
Although the spread of misinformation and disinformation is a prominent issue in our
digital age, it can be approached and prevented by measures without the need for imposed
limits on people's freedom of speech. Social media efforts such as fact-checking and flagging,
Katsuras 7
the reporting of false or offensive content, are responsible for reviewing what is posted on the
media, especially if the content violates the platform's terms, conditions, and regulations.
Twitter has demonstrated this tactic by attaching warning and fact‐check labels to posts by
Donald Trump on US election results, regarding election fraud claims in 2020 (Di Domenico et
al. 7101-1702). Flagging media content increases credibility and accuracy on posts consisting of
fake news that have failed to be flagged while discouraging users from continuing to share the
false content (Di Domenico et al. 1702). Going back to the COVID-19 pandemic, conspiracies
and false information were floating all around the internet. A fact-check and flagging
experiment was done to see if Twitter's precautions had an impact on participants. 299
participants reacted to tweets about conspiracies of the total death count caused by COVID-19
in the U.S (Lanius et al. 4). They first looked at a tweet matching their initial thought on the
number of deaths, and then looked at the same tweet, except this time it had an automated
tag, indicating the information is coming from an automated system, not a real person (Lanius
et al. 2). Lastly, they looked at the same tweet again, with a flag warning, which tells users that
the tweet contains misinformation (Lanius et al. 2). The findings imply that these precautions
are effective in reducing participants' tendencies to engage with tweets consisting of false or
disinformation, and influences participants' attitudes towards misinformation (Lanius et al. 2).
These measures help educate social media users and let them make informed decisions on if
the information they have obtained is true or not while knowing it contains false information or
is from an automated source. While also mitigating the spread of fake news as flagging and
fact-checking successfully mitigate shares of false content, without the need for state-imposed
laws.
Katsuras 8
Finally, free speech is crucial in upholding many rights, such as seeking justice against
sexual violence. “The #MeToo movement has reached 85 nations worldwide” (StubbsRichardson et al. 1330). #MeToo began in 2006 to support victims of sexual abuse, assault, and
violence in speaking up about their subjective experiences (Stubbs-Richardson et al. 1331). The
nonprofit became a global movement, taking over social media with reports in late 2017,
through 2018 (Stubbs-Richardson et al. 1331). Popular U.S male figures were named and
deplatformed by the movement, including famous film producer Harvey Weinstein, former U.S
gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar, politician Roy Moore, actor Kevin Spacey, and more
(Stubbs-Richardson et al. 1331). Many of these men lost, left their jobs, were put on leave,
suspended or under investigation (Stubbs-Richardson et al. 1331). Sexual violence is an
experience that typically silences its victims (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski, 657). Despite
state censorship in places like China, Chinese women used alternative media platforms, like
WeChat, to contribute to the movement and shed light on sexual violence in the country
(Stubbs-Richardson et al. 1332). Without limitations on free speech, individuals can have a
voice through movements like #MeToo, holding people accountable and telling personal stories
to seek justice and reclaim power back (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski 654). A study was done
to investigate how participation in anti-sexual assault activism affects sexual violence survivors.
Participants felt encouraged to talk about their experiences and confront and hold perpetrators
accountable (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski 660). #LetHerSpeak is another example of a social
movement in Tasmania, challenging the limited rights of survivors of gender-based violence, to
speak about their cases to the media (Alcalde and Villa 22). Females are not the only people
who experience sexual violence: men can also be victims. For example, Terry Crews, a famous
Katsuras 9
Black male actor, announced on Twitter that he was a victim of sexual assault at the hands of a
male Hollywood executive (Curry 288). With limitations on free speech, it would be impossible
for people to speak out. Free speech allows all kinds of individuals to speak freely and seek
justice against issues like sexual violence.
However, the absence of limitations on free speech regarding sexual violence can result
in rape culture; “A hotly contested term and idea, which refers basically to “a complex of beliefs
that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women,” leading to the
acceptance of rape as a normal part of life” (Durham 3). The prevalence of rape culture has
highly increased in the #MeToo movement (Durham 3). The widespread adoption of rape
myths, which are false beliefs about rape and its victims, creates a hostile setting, deterring
survivors from sharing their experiences as they fear they will not be believed (qtd. in Kettrey et
al. 1617). Due to this, sexual violence in the U.S. remains an unreported crime (Kettrey et al.
1617). The 2022 National Crime Victimization Survey found that only 21.4% of sexual assaults
were reported, making it the lowest reporting rate of any examined crime (qtd. in Kettrey et al.
1617). Furthermore, for decades, media corporations like Fox News, The Weinstein Company,
and Miramax have consistently concealed sexual violence in their workplaces (Durham 3).
These accounts often normalize violence against women, and vulnerable groups as well as
participate in victim-blaming, holding survivors accountable for the violence and placing
emphasis on the credibility of the victim's character, which is especially seen in the film,
television, and Hollywood industry (Durham 89). This displays that limitation is necessary to
prevent such harmful ideas, like rape culture, from continuously thriving and making survivors
seem like the real perpetrators.
Katsuras 10
Although, limitations on the topic of free speech, related to rape culture, may hinder
activism by silencing survivors even more. Victims of sexual violence recognize that they are not
alone, and activism gives them a sense of unity that can enable them to break their silence
collectively (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski 660-661). A study was done to explore the role
activism, such as the #MeToo movement, plays in sexual violence survivors’ healing process.
Survivors transitioned from emotions of pain and shame to ones of empowerment and freedom
(Strauss Swanson and Szymanski 658). Through advocacy, participants learned that sexual
violence is a common occurrence rather than an isolated incident (Strauss Swanson and
Szymanski 658). Several participants felt encouraged to discuss their personal experiences in a
public attempt to help influence social change. For example, Swanson and Syzmanski stated,
“Helen discussed feeling more comfortable sharing her experience as a survivor after being
involved in activist work Survivors talked about how, as activists, they had increased motivation
and opportunity in talking about their experience and publicly advocating for change” (658).
Many individuals gained a better comprehension of the quality of their own skills and drive to
pursue justice, which increased their self-esteem, and confidence and encouraged others to do
the same (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski 658). Thus, free speech without any kind of
limitation is crucial for making sure survivors continue to share their stories, refute false
narratives and advocate for social change. Even when speech restrictions are imposed to
combat rape culture, they may unintentionally silence activist who use their voice to demand
justice and healing.
Overall, this essay has explained the importance of not putting limits on free speech as
free speech is needed for a well-rounded democracy, the transparent exchange of information
Katsuras 11
between individuals, especially across media platforms, and helping individuals seek justice
against issues like sexual violence while gaining empowerment. State restrictions on free
speech are not the answer, despite legitimate worries about issues including hate speech,
misinformation and disinformation, and rape culture. Rather than limiting fundamental
freedoms, alternative approaches like entrenched legal frameworks, codes, and laws, social
media restrictions including flagging and fact-checking and collective activism solve concerns.
Free speech guarantees that society stays informed and that underrepresented views are
heard. It keeps society moving forward in a positive light. Therefore, the state should not put
limits on free speech, as our societies and democracies should be able to freely create
atmospheres that value open discussion, honesty, accountability, empowerment, and
inclusivity.
Katsuras 12
Works Cited
Alcalde, M. Cristina, and Paula-Irene Villa. #Metoo and beyond: Perspectives on a Global
Movement. University Press of Kentucky, 2022.
Bollinger, Lee C., and Geoffrey R. Stone. Social Media, Freedom of Speech and the Future of Our
Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2022.
Curry, Tommy J. “Expendables for whom: Terry Crews and the erasure of black male victims of
sexual assault and rape.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 42, no. 3, 3 July 2019,
pp. 287–307, https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2019.1641874.
Demaske, Chris. Free Speech and Hate Speech in the United States: The Limits of Toleration.
Routledge, 2021.
Di Domenico, Giandomenico, et al. “Free but fake speech: When giving primacy to the source
decreases misinformation sharing on social media.” Psychology & Marketing, vol. 38,
no. 10, 13 Mar. 2021, pp. 1700–1711, https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21479.
Durham, Meenakshi Gigi. Metoo: The Impact of Rape Culture in the Media. Polity Press, 2021.
Hochmann, Thomas. “Hate speech online: The government as regulator and as speaker.”
Journal of Media Law, vol. 14, no. 1, 2 Jan. 2022, pp. 139–158,
https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2085014.
Howard, Jeffrey W. “Free speech and hate speech.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 22,
no. 1, 11 May 2019, pp. 93–109, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343.
Katsuras 13
Kettrey, Heather Hensman, et al. “‘A woman, with no evidence, can send any man to jail
whenever she wants’: Men’s Rights Activists’ digital narratives of a culture of false rape
allegations.” Sex Roles, vol. 90, no. 11, 10 Oct. 2024, pp. 1616–1632,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01526-6.
Lanius, Candice, et al. “Use of BOT and content flags to limit the spread of misinformation
among social networks: A behavior and attitude survey.” Social Network Analysis and
Mining, vol. 11, no. 1, 12 Mar. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-021-00739-x.
Nossel, Suzanne. “The fate of American democracy depends on free speech.” Daedalus, vol.
153, no. 3, 2024, pp. 119–134, https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02093.
Strauss Swanson, Charlotte, and Dawn M. Szymanski. “From pain to power: An exploration of
activism, the #Metoo movement, and healing from sexual assault trauma.” Journal of
Counseling Psychology, vol. 67, no. 6, Nov. 2020, pp. 653–668,
https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000429.
Stubbs-Richardson, Megan, et al. “It’s a global #MeToo: A cross-national comparison of social
change associated with the movement.” Feminist Media Studies, vol. 24, no. 6, 4 July
2023, pp. 1330–1349, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2023.2231654.
Titley, Gavan. Racism and Media. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2019.
Tunnicliffe, Jennifer. “‘to attack the rights of one man is to attack the rights of everyone’:
Conservative rights talk and Canada’s first hate speech laws.” American Review of
Katsuras 14
Canadian Studies, vol. 54, no. 1, 2 Jan. 2024, pp. 50–69,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02722011.2024.2329028.
Vergani, Matteo, et al. “Mapping the scientific knowledge and approaches to defining and
measuring hate crime, hate speech, and hate incidents: A systematic review.” Campbell
Systematic Reviews, vol. 20, no. 2, 28 Apr. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1397.