Exploring how the current U.S. absolutist free-speech approach challenges the very notion of individual freedom.

A couple of days ago, while working on this article, I came across a piece from the Financial Times that really resonated with this perspective. The article was written by Fara Dabhoiwala (who I could not find here on LinkedIn) and focused on the history of free speech, titled “The real history of free speech – from supreme idea to poisonous politics”. The writer studies the notion of free speech from the 1700s and also talks about J.S Mill.

While I was planning on sharing my perspective, and introducing what I believe is “The Digital Tyranny”, following the philosophical conception of free speech by J.S Mill, my argument will also be backed up by Fara Dabhoiwala, who I believe has shared new points that contribute to this idea.

Four months ago, Trump said this:

“If we don’t have free speech, we don’t have a free country” and proceeded by stating “the censorship must be dismantled and destroyed,” quote from Trump’s speech on Free Speech, from YouTube.

In the same speech, he claimed that any federal department or agency that impedes the lawful speech of American citizens will be banned. He talked about a previous "censorship regime” and explained why all big online platforms should be uncensored, meeting “neutrality, transparency, fairness and non-discrimination” standards. He further mentioned how US universities that engage in censorship activities will also lose research dollars and federal loan support.

Trump claimed that he will pass a digital bill of rights, where, for online content to be removed, government officials would need a court order. Additionally, users over 18 should have the right to remove content moderation and curation if they choose.

One hundred and sixty-six years ago, J.S. Mill also reflected on individual freedom.

And today, following his reflection, I will explain why Trump’s free speech contradicts the very essence of individual liberalism.

Mill published “On Liberty” in 1859, where he argued that individual freedom is both essential for personal development and societal progress. Mill believed that one is sovereign over one’s own body and mind. It is for this reason that society must protect one’s individual independence against the state and “social tyranny” (Mill, 1859).

Mill talks about the “tyranny of the majority.” This happens when the preferences, opinions, or values of the majority rule over the preferences, opinions, or values of a minority. When this happens, the minority is suppressed. Furthermore, the preferences of the majority can be imposed on the minority or the individual through societal norms. This is what Mill calls “social tyranny.” Social tyranny is dangerous because it does not require laws but can happen through prevailing opinions and rules.

Why is it dangerous for a minority not to be heard? One could say that perhaps in a society where common sense prevails, the opinion of the majority might be the right opinion. The answer for Mill lies in truth. Mill makes an important distinction between assuming an opinion is true because it has not been refuted and assuming its truth because refutation has not been permitted. Diversity of opinion allows for social progress, which is why individuality is crucial for society (Mill, 1859).

Can we see a contradiction to Trump’s free speech? Well, on the one hand, one could argue that no, Trump follows an idea of individual freedom, which is why he seeks policies that manifest this. One could possibly say that Trump sees a “woke majority” where societal norms are suppressing one's individuality. On the other hand, we could say that Trump and his narrative is no minority; the man is backed by all these powerful people like Musk or Zuckerberg, who also have access to large platforms where societal values from a majority could persist. Of course, this is debatable.

The issue lies when the Trumpist narrative forgets quite an important part of freedom of discussion. I will also argue how, in today’s digital age, a “social tyranny” or “tyranny of the majority” is even more dangerous because of algorithms.

Should individual freedom have limits?

Mill said that for a society to progress, a society must protect the individual freedom of those who constitute it. If we look at our history, we can see why freedom of discussion and freedom of speech are so important for societal progress. Today, everyone who is rational understands why women need to vote; we consider this a truth. However, at some point in history, in fact, during Mill’s lifetime, women were not allowed to vote. It took for a minority to challenge what the majority considered an established truth, to understand why women must vote. Had that minority, The Suffragettes, never been listened to (we know the struggle that it took), the truth of the majority would have never been challenged. There are, of course, other examples that support this, like activism for LGBTQ+ rights or the very Nelson Mandela.

Does this mean that any individual can come to say the most problematic or offensive statement, justified through their freedom of speech? Well… here is where the current U.S. free speech narrative differs from Mill’s individual liberty, and this is why we believe Trump contradicts himself.

Mill believed that freedom of expression has its limits and stated this through the Harm principle. For Mill, establishing a limit in how much a society can interfere with individuality is crucial for societal progress. Finding this limit lies in the harms of others. For this reason, society should establish laws and rules of conduct to protect individuals from the harms of other individuals (Mill, 1859).

The American Free-Speech Absolutism

What Trump wants for America is a free-speech absolutism. This is dangerous.

Backing up Mill’s harm principle is the possibility for hate speech. Philosophically this is valid, and philosophically, Trump’s absolute free speech is not really free speech. Yes, one’s individuality should be protected, but one’s individuality coexists with the individuality of others. I, as an individual, am as much of an individual as another, which is why if I express an opinion through my individuality that undermines another person, I am challenging the individuality of that other, which will be a challenge for societal progress. When Trump said four months ago that we must leave the society of censorship, Trump does not consider (or perhaps he does, but it is not in his interest) that censorship is part of the protection of individual freedom.

Moreover, Dabhoiwala distinguishes between responsible vs irresponsible free speech. The latter is the absolutist model of free speech, invented in London 1721 by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon who mainly wrote to defend their own, corrupt ideas, this is the free-speech established in the First Amendment. Is it the “going back to our roots” that Zuckerberg spoke on? America wants clear rules that ignore falsehood, civic harm, media responsibilities and the complexities of communication. Like I stated above, the purpose of freedom of speech relies on truth. Like Dabhoiwola clarified too, free speech is a means to an end, to achieve societal progress and truth, this also justifies the need for regulation

If we understand that communication and expression are complex, and how important truth is as an end in itself, we understand the importance that regulation  plays. First, because of the responsibility of what is expressed and how it is amplified. Secondly, because truth requires investigation, evidence, fact-checking and oversight (Dabhoiwola, 2025).

We saw a couple of months ago a shift in social media platforms too. Remember Zuckerberg saying “we should go back to our roots”? This is an example of that. Now, an absolute freedom of speech on social media is dangerous, and arguably more dangerous than during Mill’s writing.

Then, only last week, we saw a major drama about Meta’s glitch, which caused violent Reels recommendations on Instagram. Was this a coincidence? I don’t think so… Mill would say this is an example of absolute freedom that results in harm for others.

Social Media and the Spread of Misinformation

Why is absolute freedom more dangerous today than during Mill’s time? When you combine algorithms and behavioral surplus with absolute freedom of expression through social media platforms (that everyone can access), there is not only a higher, and more threatening possibility of harming others’ individuality, but there is a riskier chance of misinformation.

Moreover, when you interact with platforms that are highly based on data extraction and personalization, the “tyranny of the majority” can result in a “digital, social tyranny,” where the opinion of a minority has even fewer chances of being refuted and established as true, and the “digital tyranny” will be exacerbated through algorithms. Especially when those who own the digital platforms of discussion, such as Elon Musk with X, Zuckerberg with Meta, are also those whose opinions align with the current, predominant, Trump narrative.

In saying this, we want to ask you for your opinion, so perhaps we can challenge the established truth ;) and we open the following questions:

Is Trump's free speech narrative contradictory to the principle of individual liberty? Do you think Instagram’s glitch is a consequence of Meta’s policy changes? Should there be limits to freedom of expression?

References

Mill, J.S. (1859) On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son

Dabhoiwala, F. (2025, March 15). The real history of free speech — from supreme ideal to poisonous doctrine. Financial Times. https://on.ft.com/427eHYg

‍