Freedom of Speech – A Critical Analysis

99 ZU EINS

January 7, 2026

In the United States, the debate over freedom of speech is often at the center of public discourse. Hailed as a cornerstone of American democracy, the First Amendment is evoked by people across the political spectrum — whether to defend controversial opinions, protest state censorship, or criticize media platforms. Yet, paradoxically, many of the recent defenders of free speech are not traditional libertarians or conservatives, but progressive and left-leaning groups who feel silenced by institutional power.

A notable example occurred in 2024, when pro-Palestinian student groups at several major universities — including Columbia, UCLA, and Harvard — were disciplined or disbanded for organizing sit-ins, protests, and public statements condemning the U.S. government's support for Israel. In several cases, university administrations, under pressure from donors and lawmakers, revoked access to campus spaces, threatened academic penalties, and labeled student actions as hate speech. The response from the left was swift: legal challenges, mass demonstrations, and op-eds in defense of the students’ right to protest and express political dissent. Under the banner of free speech, they demanded space for political critique in public institutions.

A similar dynamic unfolded in Germany. In late 2023 and throughout 2024, several Palestinian solidarity events were banned in major cities like Berlin, Frankfurt, and Hamburg. Authorities justified the bans with concerns over public safety, incitement, and anti-Semitism, even in cases where no inciting speech had yet occurred. In some instances, even holding a Palestinian flag or chanting “From the river to the sea” led to detentions or police intervention. Civil rights organizations, leftist groups, and Jewish anti-Zionist networks criticized the repression, arguing that the state was selectively defining “hate speech” to suppress political opposition. They staged counter-demonstrations, launched petitions, and took legal action — all in defense of what they framed as a fundamental right: the right to dissent, to express solidarity, and to speak politically, even — or especially — when that speech is controversial.

This growing conflict raises an urgent question: What exactly is this right to freedom of speech? Is it a neutral guarantee of liberty, a tool for justice, or something else entirely?

What is freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech is often understood as a natural right — something inherent to human beings. But the fact that it is codified in law, and contingent on state recognition, points to a different reality: freedom of speech is not absolute or natural — it is granted, regulated, and enforced by state power.

You are allowed to think and speak — but only because the state has decided not to prevent you. And precisely because it is permitted, this freedom also carries conditions. The state defines what is acceptable, what is dangerous, and where the boundaries lie. This means that the right to freedom of speech is not simply a given, a natural state of human existence — it is a legal framework designed to manage expression. 

So while it may seem like an expression of liberty, it is better understood as a structure of control: a space in which speech is allowed precisely because it is separated from action. You may criticize, discuss, protest — but only if that criticism remains symbolic, rhetorical, and contained.

The regulation of opinion

When the state declares that everyone may say what they want, it does not retreat from power — it exercises it. Granting permission implies ownership. Opinions are permitted, but only when they do not challenge the foundational order. 

This arrangement rests on three principles: 

1. The state tolerates its citizens. It allows dissenting voices, but on its terms, and only if they remain within the scope of the legal and political framework. 

2. Citizens must tolerate each other. No one may suppress another’s opinion or enforce their own by force. Debate is encouraged, but resolution through action is forbidden — except through official channels. 

3. The whole of society is expected to willingly and voluntarily accept that the state is the only legitimate agent of realization. If a person or group has an idea, a demand, a political vision, it may be spoken, petitioned, or voted on — but it must ultimately pass through the machinery of the state to become real. The monopoly on action, on enforcement, on transformation — belongs to the state alone. 

In this way, freedom of opinion is not just about expression — it is about containment. You may think what you want and even say what you want — but you may not implement what you want. That power has a single home. 

The result is a society in which all opinions are equal — not in power, but in powerlessness. Because no one may claim superiority or enforce their position, all opinions become equally meaningless. Speech is emptied of consequence. 

The collapse of argument into opinion

In public discourse, this framework often plays out in a familiar pattern: people assert their beliefs, are met with disagreement, and respond not with counter-argument but with claims to victimhood. “You’re being intolerant.” “I’m entitled to my opinion.”

This rhetorical move shuts down debate. It shifts the focus away from substance and toward entitlement. It treats disagreement as aggression. And it reinforces the idea that speech exists not to clarify or transform — but to comfort, to express, and to be respected. 

In this landscape, the freedom to hold an opinion becomes a defense against critique. Instead of striving for truth or understanding, we are encouraged to coexist with contradiction and retreat into subjectivity. Every opinion is “just personal.” And if everything is personal, nothing can be political. 

How the state manages dissent

The state does not simply tolerate free speech — it carefully cultivates the conditions under which it functions. Through education systems, public discourse, and media institutions, people are taught to see their own views as private interests that must be subordinated to the common good. 

You can demand better wages — but only if you frame it in terms of national competitiveness. You can criticize inequality — but only if your critique proposes a more efficient form of governance. All dissent must appear constructive, reasonable, and ultimately compatible with the system it targets. Crucially, dissent is not permitted to speak from a place of sheer subjectivity or personal need. You cannot say, I want what I want because I want it. Instead, you are expected to subjugate your interests to the so-called greater good. Only if — and only to the extent that — you can prove your demand serves a collective purpose beyond yourself, can you expect your voice to be tolerated, let alone taken seriously. In this way, even the language of protest is colonized: your hunger, your struggle, your anger must be reformulated as contributions to the health of the system that oppresses you. 

Why the state prefers free speech over repression

Ironically, the permission to speak makes control more effective. In an open society, where elections are held and people are invited to express themselves, the system gains legitimacy. Citizens believe they are being heard — even when they are not, not in a practically relevant matter at least. 

The real brilliance of liberal democracy is that it turns dissatisfaction into performance. People are free to complain, criticize, and protest — but always within the system. By allowing expression, the state does not lose control — it deepens it. Citizens internalize the rules, moderate their demands, and become their own censors. 

As a result, freedom of speech does not challenge power. It makes power more durable.

When speech becomes dangerous

Of course, not all speech is tolerated. When dissent begins to organize, to mobilize, to act — that’s when the state steps in. 

What counts as “dangerous speech” is determined not by abstract principles, but by political judgment. The state restricts speech when it believes its authority, reputation, or order is at risk. It may cite hate speech, public safety, or social cohesion — but at the core, these justifications reflect a political calculus.

And because the state defines both freedom and its limits, it has the final say on what may be said — and what must be silenced. 

The contradiction of calling for state repression

If freedom of speech serves as a mechanism to manage dissent, then calling on the state to repress certain voices — no matter how reactionary or dangerous they may seem — becomes politically self-defeating for anyone who claims to oppose state power. 

It is understandable that leftists, progressives, or anti-fascists may demand the banning of racist demonstrations, the silencing of far-right platforms, or the criminalization of hate speech. After all, these forces often seek to violently exclude, exploit, or dehumanize others. But appealing to the state to perform this repression is not a neutral act. It means actively legitimizing the same apparatus of power that is, by design, not on your side. 

To demand that the state silence your enemy is to concede that the state is the rightful arbiter of truth and legitimacy — that it should have the authority to decide who may speak and who must be silenced. But if you already know that the state tolerates dissent only to manage and neutralize it, then granting it the power to repress becomes an act of political suicide. 

The same tools of repression used against the far Right today can and will be used against the Left tomorrow. In fact, they already are. Censorship laws, police bans, surveillance mechanisms, and speech restrictions are far more often wielded against strikers, migrants, anti-capitalists, and internationalist solidarity movements than against those who uphold the dominant order. 

When leftist actors turn to the state to police expression, they trade their own autonomous capacity to organize and resist for a dependent relationship to institutional power. They become managers of contradiction rather than forces of disruption. The terrain of struggle is relocated from the streets, workplaces, and communities into the courtrooms, party platforms, and police orders — domains the Left does not and cannot control. 

If the Left critiques freedom of speech as an empty gesture of managed dissent, then it cannot coherently demand its selective suspension. That only reinforces the fiction that the state can be trusted to determine whose speech is harmful — and whose is valid. 

Beyond the illusion of expression

Freedom of speech is not what it seems. It offers the illusion of empowerment while reinforcing structures of control. It invites critique — but only when critique is toothless. It promises recognition — but only on terms that ensure nothing truly changes. 

The fact that we must ask permission to speak should make us question the entire framework in which we are allowed to be heard. Speech that cannot be acted upon is not freedom — it is spectacle. It is a gesture made within a system that already knows how to absorb it. 

If we are serious about transformation, we must stop mistaking expression for resistance. We must stop celebrating the right to speak while surrendering the power to act. We must stop submitting our demands to the very institutions that depend on our silence. And just as we should not idealize free speech, we must also reject the illusion that the state can ever be a neutral or reliable enforcer of our values — empowering it to silence others only strengthens the apparatus that ultimately silences us. 

So the question is not: do we have enough freedom of speech? 

The real question is: why do we keep settling for speech — when what we need is power?