Listen to the article
In a sharp pivot toward deregulation, one of President Trump’s first executive orders after his January 20, 2025 inauguration targeted what he called federal censorship of online speech. The order, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” accused the previous administration of trampling free speech rights by censoring Americans on digital platforms.
The executive order takes aim at government efforts to coordinate with social media and broadcasting companies on content moderation – particularly the removal, labeling, or limiting of content deemed misinformation or disinformation. This comes despite a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that preserved the federal government’s ability to interact with social media platforms on content issues.
Trump’s order arrives amid a broader industry shift away from content moderation. Under Elon Musk’s leadership, X (formerly Twitter) has dismantled many content safeguards, while Meta and YouTube have scaled back policies designed to combat hate speech and misinformation. With the new administration’s emphasis on deregulation as a free speech protection, more platforms are likely to follow suit.
The connection between deregulation and free speech reflects an established trend in American jurisprudence. Recent years have seen an uptick in broad First Amendment rulings that support market deregulation across various sectors, from political campaign finance to cigarette packaging requirements.
This approach aligns with the long-standing metaphor of “free trade in ideas” – the notion that freedom of speech thrives best in an unrestricted marketplace. However, research on online communication challenges this assumption, suggesting that certain regulations may actually strengthen rather than weaken free speech protections.
Free speech in the United States has historically included clearly defined exceptions. Courts have established that speech that threatens, incites, or directly causes harm falls outside First Amendment protection. However, the judiciary has been reluctant to allow government regulation of content based solely on objectionable ideas or ideological expressions. Even false speech is protected unless it causes specific, identifiable harm.
Despite these legal boundaries, researchers have identified a seeming paradox: upholding free speech values may require some content regulation. To understand this contradiction, it’s necessary to consider why free speech matters in the first place.
Free speech enables autonomous participation in society by allowing individuals to express themselves and hear others. People consider it wrong when governments ban discussion of viewpoints because it violates citizens’ rights as both speakers and listeners. Additionally, democracy depends on citizens being able to engage meaningfully with content of their choosing – a principle dating back to the revolutionary dissent that inspired free speech protections.
Studies have documented how unrestricted online environments can actually diminish free speech. Hate speech and online extremism create chilling effects through intimidation and fear, reducing overall participation. Similarly, the proliferation of misinformation undermines users’ ability to function as autonomous speakers and listeners, as research consistently shows people struggle to distinguish between true and false claims in digital spaces.
The increasing polarization fueled by online falsehoods further undermines the democratic purpose of free speech protections. When platforms amplify misinformation, meaningful engagement in the “marketplace of ideas” becomes nearly impossible. Notably, research indicates that users themselves generally prefer platforms to remove disinformation rather than protect it under free speech claims.
This evidence suggests that deregulating social media platforms may actually harm rather than help free speech. Just as economic markets require regulations against coercion and deception to maintain consumer choice, the marketplace of ideas needs certain guardrails to function effectively. In both arenas, truly free exchange depends on thoughtful regulation.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
While I appreciate the goal of protecting free speech, this executive order seems overly simplistic. Deregulation alone won’t solve the complex challenges of content moderation on digital platforms. More nuanced solutions are needed.
I agree. Knee-jerk deregulation is unlikely to address the root issues. Policymakers should seek input from experts, platforms, and users to develop a balanced approach that safeguards both free expression and online safety.
This is a concerning development. Unfettered free speech online can quickly devolve into the spread of dangerous misinformation and hate. Responsible content moderation policies are essential, even if they sometimes limit certain types of speech.
I share your concerns. Deregulation in this domain could have serious consequences for public discourse and societal wellbeing. Policymakers need to carefully consider the trade-offs and potential harms before rushing into changes.
This executive order seems like a knee-jerk reaction that could have unintended consequences. Deregulation may backfire if it leads to the proliferation of harmful content online. A more nuanced approach is needed.
I agree, a more measured and thoughtful policy would be better than hastily dismantling content moderation rules. The risks to public discourse and online safety need to be carefully weighed.
This is a complex issue without easy answers. On one hand, the government shouldn’t be dictating content moderation policies. On the other, we’ve seen the damage that unchecked misinformation and hate can cause. I hope policymakers can find a reasonable middle ground.
Well said. Navigating the tension between free speech and content moderation is a delicate challenge. Thoughtful, evidence-based policies will be key to protecting both democratic values and public wellbeing.
While I’m a strong proponent of free speech, I’m concerned this deregulation could open the floodgates to misinformation and hate speech. Online platforms have a responsibility to their users that shouldn’t be ignored.
That’s a fair point. Unfettered free speech online can come at the expense of a healthy, informed public discourse. Striking the right balance is critical.
Interesting perspective on the potential risks of deregulating online platforms. While free speech is important, we need to balance it with safeguards against misinformation and hate speech. Curious to see how this plays out in practice.
You raise a valid point. Striking the right balance between free speech and content moderation is a complex challenge that lawmakers and platforms will need to grapple with.