The classical understanding of democracy rests on the abstract concept of the “common good” and the idea that people elect representatives to carry out their collective will, a conception Schumpeter famously critiqued. While scholars tend to differ in the principles they consider necessary for a regime to be classified as a democracy, many definitions emphasize three fundamental elements: (1) free and fair elections, (2) the voice of the people, and (3) the protection of basic political rights and freedoms. Yet, today, in an era of social media and artificial intelligence, these fundamental principles have become increasingly difficult to reconcile.

Simply put, democracy, and more specifically, the right to free speech in America, gives citizens a voice in how they are governed. This right is a critical piece in fostering a healthy democracy; however, what happens when the will of the people conflicts with the principles democracy is supposed to uphold? What happens when exercising that voice threatens others’ rights and freedoms? Today, more than ever, social media and artificial intelligence can spread political misinformation and extremist rhetoric to millions instantly, raising new questions about the consequences of protecting freedom of expression. In a democratic society, protecting democracy should be a priority for citizens and political leaders alike, though it can be difficult to distinguish genuine democratic safeguards from measures that harm and weaken democracy.  For instance, the solution cannot be to simply eliminate extremist rhetoric, because that raises the valid concern of who gets to decide what thoughts and ideas should be allowed.

While it is not a clear-cut answer to this dilemma, I argue that democracies must adapt their approach to protecting freedom of speech in the digital age, not by granting governments greater authority to censor political opinions, but by holding digital platforms accountable for how political content is amplified and ensuring that restrictions remain subject to independent oversight. 

The Paradox

The paradox of democratic defense lies in the possibility that protecting democracy may require those in power to undermine the very principles and rules they seek to preserve. One of these fundamental principles is the citizen’s freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As Randall Bezanson explores in Too Much Free Speech?, the constitutional definition of “speech” has expanded over time to include corporate expression, government speech, voting and petitioning, and “out of thin air” speech. Because the free-speech guarantee was born in a ‘largely oral’ and ‘infant-print’ age – few printing presses, few printed images, less photography, no radio, no television, etc. – the right to free speech had low stakes and felt like an indisputable right that should be granted to all citizens. Today, however, the rise of social media and artificial intelligence poses a major threat. It is now more challenging than ever before to decipher what is real and what is not. These developments raise questions about whether existing protections adequately address the consequences of modern freedom of speech.

The tension between protecting free expression and defending democratic values is hardly new. In the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, Clarence Brandenburg, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, was convicted under an Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute after delivering a speech advocating for “unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform” at a Klan rally. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction, protecting his inflammatory speech under the First Amendment because the freedoms of speech and press do not permit a state to disallow advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case exposes the difficulty of balancing the protection of democratic freedoms while also limiting harmful, extremist rhetoric. Protecting speech that promotes anti-democratic ideas may seem contradictory, but allowing governments to suppress those ideas creates its own dangers. If democratic rights are intended to protect citizens from government overreach, can restricting those rights ever truly strengthen democracy?

The Digital Dilemma

Although freedom of speech has become a central pillar of American democracy, the rise of social media, and particularly public figures who broadcast hateful rhetoric, has complicated the instinct to protect complete free rein in online political expression. While it is true that social media platforms such as X (Twitter), Instagram, and TikTok have taken small measures to inform users of misinformation and AI content through mechanisms such as flagging posts or fact-check warnings, there are few other safeguards that manage this, leaving all users vulnerable to harmful rhetoric and false information. 

Contemporary right-wing political figure Charlie Kirk exemplifies this dilemma. Prior to his assassination in September 2025, Kirk was well-known for debating college students through his organization Turning Point USA and promoting pro-life, anti-immigration, anti-transgender visibility, etc. Despite his substantial following, he garnered great criticism for his hate speech and discussion of marginalized communities. In 2026, Rivera- Martín and colleagues analyzed over 196 posts from Kirk’s X account during the final two weeks of his life, which collectively received more than 505 million views. The researchers determined that the recurring rhetoric targeting transgender people, migrants, political opponents, etc., heavily contributed to political polarization and the normalization of exclusionary attitudes. Further, under Elon Musk’s ownership of X, formerly Twitter, the algorithms tend to reinforce exposure to hateful content by ranking it by its ability to generate interaction, creating echo chambers (Cinelli et al.). So despite these figures’ rhetoric seeming trivial or inconsequential, it is clear this language and rhetoric do not stay within online forums; they become ingrained in audiences’ minds and translate into daily life, resulting in harassment and aggression.  Yet silencing or heavily monitoring these voices directly undermines democratic values. Safeguards on freedom of speech are undeniably a slippery slope, yet is it better to do nothing?

Where Do We Draw the Line?

Restricting harmful rhetoric may seem like a reasonable solution at first. After all, if democracy depends on equal political participation and the protection of basic rights, governments arguably have a responsibility to prevent intimidation, threats, and violence from undermining those principles. Supporters of stronger speech regulation may argue that allowing misinformation and extremist rhetoric to spread without meaningful safeguards leaves vulnerable communities exposed to false information and conspiracy theories that can distort their understanding of political reality.

As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt explain in How Democracies Die, democratic erosion does not always occur through sudden military coups or the complete suspension of constitutional government. It can also develop gradually as elected leaders weaken democratic norms and institutions while maintaining the appearance of legality. Broad restrictions on political expression could create opportunities for precisely this kind of abuse. However, this does not mean democracies should accept the consequences of harmful political rhetoric without intervention. Rather than expanding the government’s authority to censor controversial opinions, democratic protection should focus on how political speech is amplified and distributed, rather than simply what individuals are allowed to say.

First, governments could require greater algorithmic transparency from social media platforms, allowing users to understand why certain political content is promoted and providing greater control over what appears on their feeds. Second, platforms should be required to clearly identify deceptive AI-generated political content, particularly fabricated videos or statements that misrepresent political figures or events. Finally, any government restrictions on speech should be narrowly defined and subject to independent judicial oversight, ensuring that political leaders cannot arbitrarily silence opposing viewpoints. Together, these measures would address some of the challenges posed by modern technology without giving governments unrestricted authority over political expression.

Ultimately, the question is not whether freedom of speech should be protected but whether our understanding of that freedom has kept pace with the world in which it operates. While freedom of expression remains essential to democracy, citizens must also have access to reliable, trustworthy political information that allows them to make informed decisions. Democracies must be willing to reconsider how they apply existing protections in an evolving digital landscape. Protecting democracy does not and cannot require abandoning freedom of speech, but it may require rethinking how we protect it. After all, a democracy is healthiest when citizens prioritize truth and the collective good over partisan victories and political agendas.