Freedom of expression is at the heart of democracy. Yet ‘free speech’ is constantly wheeled out as an excuse for attacks on democracy – blatant lies and propaganda that mislead the public, stir up division and provoke hate-fuelled violence.
Racist rage-baiting, vicious stereotyping and fabricated allegations are targeted at those who the speaker wants to shame or silence. Critics of this so-called ‘free speech’ are accused of promoting ‘cancel culture’ and stifling open debate.
The media lap it up, because angry, emotive slogans make strong headlines and grab attention online. Oh, and because in many cases those media outlets are politically and financially hand in glove with the powers behind the propaganda.
It’s not ‘free speech’ when someone’s paying for it.
[ VIEW ON BLUESKY | X | INSTAGRAM ]
A media revolution for free speech means reclaiming the true meaning and intent of the principle, and putting it into practice.
Carrying the torch for human rights
Progressive free speech has carried humanity forward. It gave abolitionists the power to challenge slavery, suffragettes the power to demand the vote, and civil rights leaders the power to break segregation. Anti-colonial leaders across Africa, Asia and Latin America relied on their voices — often branded as “subversive” or “terrorist” — to expose imperial violence and claim independence. These declarations were dangerous to the powers of their day, but they were the lifeblood of progress. Without the right to speak truth to power, none of these movements would have won through.
Yet history also shows us the power of hate speech in the media as a political weapon. Nazi propaganda in 1930s Germany did not only accompany the Holocaust — it deliberately prepared the ground for it. In Rwanda, instigators of the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi people used radio broadcasts to brand the Tutsi people “cockroaches” and openly call for their extermination.
In each case, words were not commentary – they were inflammatory. They lit the fuse. That is why international human rights law has always distinguished between expression that challenges power and expression that incites violence. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN in 1966, makes this distinction explicit .
Today, that distinction is being deliberately blurred – and in some cases, completely ignored. On 13 September 2025, Elon Musk appeared by video at an anti-migrant rally in London organised by the far-right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson, and billed as a demonstration in support of free speech. Musk declared: “violence is coming to you” and “you either fight back or you die.” He also called for the dissolution of parliament before the next general election. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the remarks as “dangerous and inflammatory” but stopped short of taking any action against Musk.
What makes Musk’s speech especially volatile is not just the content of his words, but the reach he can guarantee for them. In 2023, he reportedly instructed engineers at X (formerly Twitter)to change the platform’s algorithm so that his own posts would always appear more prominently in people’s feeds, whether they followed him or not . When someone who controls both message and distribution seeks to stir up violence, ‘free speech’ is a flimsy excuse for his actions.
And this is not only a British or American issue. In Myanmar, Facebook admitted that its platform had allowed hate speech against the Rohingya minority to spread unchecked, fuelling ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In Brazil, disinformation was circulated on WhatsApp before and during elections, undermining trust in democratic institutions under President Jair Bolsonaro. In Kenya, coordinated online hate campaigns have stoked ethnic violence around elections, leaving scars that last for generations . In India, mainstream TV channels have been criticised for amplifying divisive rhetoric against Muslims, emboldening extremist mobs.
Across the world, the pattern repeats: words become weapons, with the media as their mouthpiece.
So what does a media revolution for free speech look like? Well, let’s go back to the reasons why freedom of speech was established – as a right, not a get-out clause.
First, it means redrawing the boundaries with clarity — and enforcing them. Speech that challenges power, including dissent or satire, must be protected; speech calculated to provoke violence or hatred must not. The Media Freedom & Accountability Bill — a new UK bill, (LINK) drafted and proposed by campaign group Hacked Off — shows that this is possible. It proposes enforceable duties for national newspapers and websites to prevent disinformation, protect against intrusion, and end discrimination and hate, while guaranteeing freedom of the press and protecting journalistic independence. This is how to protect dissent while refusing protection for harm.
Second, it means strengthening media literacy. If citizens can spot inflammatory rhetoric, fearmongering headlines, and fake “free speech” excuses for propaganda, we turn manipulation into empowerment. News Clubs – being set up by Media Revolution and others – are one way of introducing these skills into communities.
Third, it means real accountability for the powerful. Politicians, media hosts, and influencers who whip up hatred must face consequences — not applause — for putting lives at risk. The Media Freedom & Accountability Bill in the UK would empower OFCOM to investigate and fine outlets that spread harmful falsehoods, and require corrections to be published prominently – and this could set a precedent around the world.
Free speech is vital — it has carried every liberation struggle in history. But when it becomes a weapon of oppression, it violates the social contract of mutual respect and equality. Exercising free speech to incite harm or intolerance is not an act of liberty — it is a direct threat to the fabric of a democratic society.
In this context, exercising free speech to incite harm or intolerance is not only morally damaging but also a threat to the cohesive fabric of a society built on respect and inclusion. In short, it is anything but an instrument of freedom.
We need a media revolution for free speech: one that defends the powerless, challenges the harmful, and equips people everywhere to recognise the difference. Because ‘free speech’ is not okay when the malignant media decide whose voices to amplify.