Â鶹ÒùÔº

One of the first executive orders that President Trump signed after his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, was titled . The order accused the previous administration of having "trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans' speech on online platforms."

What Trump was referring to as censorship was the government's attempt to work with social media and broadcasting platforms to regulate misinformation, disinformation and misleading information by removing content, limiting its dissemination or labeling it, sometimes with fact-checking included. Similar accusations had been brought before the Supreme Court in 2024, where the government, preserving its ability to interact and coordinate with social media platforms.

However, the decision came during a trend toward deregulation of online platforms as after acquiring X, and Meta and YouTube meant to combat hate and misinformation. With Trump's commitment to free speech protections through deregulation, online platforms are likely to remove more guardrails.

As a , I know that deregulation and free speech are often linked. Recently there has been a in broad court rulings on the First Amendment that support deregulation in all sorts of market sectors, from to .

This is not surprising considering that free speech has long been associated with the metaphor of , closely tied to the value of a deregulated market economy. The presumption has been that the way to protect freedom of speech is through a deregulated marketplace, and speech on social media platforms is no exception. However, research on online speech shows the opposite to be the case: Regulating online speech protects free speech.

Free speech and its exceptions

Free speech in the U.S. has always been accompanied by a series of exceptions, laid out clearly by the courts, that constrain speech based on a competing . For example, speech that threatens, incites or directly causes harm is not protected speech.

Yet, when it comes to content-based regulation dealing with , the courts have been clear that the government should not place burdens on speech that is objectionable. The government cannot censor speech that is but does not lead to a .

Despite these legal constraints, researchers have suggested that upholding the value of free speech . To understand this seemingly paradoxical conclusion, it's important to understand why free speech is valuable in the first place. Free speech enables you to be an autonomous member of society by and express themselves.

People consider it wrong when a government bans discussion of a viewpoint or piece of content because that violates their right as speakers and listeners to engage with the viewpoint or content. In other words, having free speech is essential because citizens need to be able to choose freely what they say and listen to.

In addition, democracy is served by having a citizenry that is able to engage freely and meaningfully in the content of their choosing. Democratic dissent, after all, was the for free speech protections and serves as the backbone of their protections today.

Regulating for free speech

The need for citizens in a democratic state to be autonomous speakers and thinkers underscores the importance of content-based regulation in upholding free speech. hate speech online in particular and the proliferation of extremism online in general have a on online speech through intimidation and fear. So, restrictions on hate speech can support free speech rather than undermining it.

In addition, the and the can similarly undermine the people's ability to exchange ideas and evaluate viewpoints as autonomous speakers or listeners. In fact, shows that users are online. This fundamental weakness undermines your ability to operate as an autonomous speaker or listener.

Finally, online, caused by the , undermines the democratic point of free speech protections. People cannot meaningfully engage in the marketplace of ideas on a platform where . Importantly, this insight aligns with users' rather than protect it.

All of this is evidence that deregulating social media platforms is a net loss for free speech. In economic markets, maintaining a consumer's freedom of choice requires regulations against coercion and deceit. In the marketplace of ideas, the principle is the same: The free trade of ideas requires regulation.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .