The State of Free Speech: How Different Sectors Shape What We Can Say

Image Sourced Through Pinterest

Free expression is a hot topic in America right now under the current presidency. And, in today’s society with an increase in digital media, safeguarding our rights is more important than ever. The responsibility to protect these rights falls across several sectors, each with its own power, influence, and vulnerability. 

This blog post will aim to explore how four key sectors including private internet companies, government and policymakers, civil society, and the media industry both help and damage the protection of free expression in the modern world. 

Private Internet Companies: 

Social media platforms have opened the floodgates for public discourse in a completely new sector. Their moderation policies determine what content is shown in our feeds, what gets flagged, and who gets their account's taken away. While social media platforms like Instagram, X/Twitter, and YouTube are not legally bound by the First Amendment, their decisions impact global decisions on our freedom of speech. 

One of the most significant challenges is finding the line between protecting users and upholding speech rights. As Kate Klonick explains in her analysis of platform governance, content moderation operates within a semi-opaque/grey line framework shaped by internal values and external pressures.

The Facebook Oversight Board, for instance, reviewed a case involving the removal of a post that shared a private residential address, ultimately upholding the removal but advising more transparency around enforcement standards (Oversight Board Decision).

While platforms do have tools to balance safety and expression, the solution isn’t overregulation.

As Techdirt notes, legislative efforts to force platforms to adopt specific speech rules often backfire or run into constitutional issues (Techdirt Analysis). Instead, platforms must commit to transparent, consistent, and rights-respecting content governance, while resisting state overreach and vague mandates. Or risk losing users and trust from the public that relies on these platforms for speaking their minds. 

Government and Policy Making

Governments are tasked with protecting the rights of their citizens, including the right to free expression. However, the temptation to overreach in the name of security or public order is a dangerous and recurring issue.

A great example of this was when a proposed Arizona bill sought to criminalize filming police officers within eight feet, even in public settings. This was a move seen by many as a violation of free speech and press freedoms (Reason Magazine). Similarly, on the international stage, Russia's support for a UN cybercrime convention has raised red flags for its potential to decrease dissent under the guise of combating crime (ARTICLE 19 Analysis).

What the government should be focusing on is not more restriction of free speech, but stronger protection for whistleblowers and journalists whose main goal has always been to serve the public. While policy makers should focus on transparency and building up democracy, not expanding censorship powers under the guise of better serving the public. 

Civil Society & Third-Party Researchers: 

Civil society groups and independent researchers play a vital role in this discussion by holding both governments and tech platforms accountable. Organizations like ARTICLE 19 regularly call out dangerous policies and promote international standards for free expression.

However, these individuals often operate with limited access to platform data or governmental processes. Without better collaboration, their influence remains constrained. As discussed in the Knight First Amendment Institute's policy roadmap, social media regulation must include space for independent audits and civic input (Knight Columbia Policy Guide). 

To fully safeguard expression, platforms and governments must provide researchers with accurate data, while civil society must continue to act as a bridge between marginalized voices and institutional power.

Media and the News Industry:

While in the past, the media has been the public’s access point to the truth, with the introduction of social media, this point has been skewed. In a landscape plagued by misinformation and a president who handpicks journalists for press conferences, our role as journalists is more essential to protect than ever. 

While mainstream media is still relevant and is able to elevate vital issues, they also tend to suppress dissenting voices or fall prey to state influence and corporate interests. Ensuring freedom of the press will require not just legal protections, but also financial support for independent outlets, and active resistance against state-driven disinformation and media capture.

Media institutions must re-invest in ethical reporting, resist sensationalism, and double down on transparency and source verification to rebuild public trust in an age of oversaturation and misinformation.

In today’s society, free expression is a shared responsibility between the public and those in positions of power. Private companies need to regulate transparently, the government must legislate with the actual good of the public in mind, and civil society must be uplifted by the public and embraced financially by those who can. And, the media must focus on integrity and honesty in order for our rights to be respected. 

The digital age is fractured and beat down at this moment in time, but with time comes change. Safeguarding speech is less about choosing a side and more about coming together to rebuild accountability, transparency and resilience across all sectors of society in order to ensure spaces where we can openly express ourselves.