The irony is glaring: those who demand absolute free speech, believing it will sustain itself indefinitely, are, in reality, ensuring that free speech is the very first thing to disappear.

This article explores why “absolute free speech” is a myth, how unrestricted speech often triggers repressive backlash, and why accountability, not just lofty rhetoric, is indispensable in keeping free speech genuinely free.

The paradox of absolute free speech

The Ideal vs. the Reality

• Ideal: Everyone can say anything, no matter how incendiary, hateful, or damaging.
• Reality: Rampant abuse, like direct calls for genocide, systematic hate speech, or encouraging extremist violence, provokes a public outcry for censorship. In an ironic twist, demands for zero restriction can precipitate heavy-handed restriction.

How It Leads to Repression

• When self-declared “free speech champions” with autocratic tendencies assume power, they rarely extend the same freedom to critics or media outlets that question them.
• The majority or those in power can easily pass or enact laws restricting speech they find threatening. Without accountability structures, these powers get abused, silencing dissent instead of protecting dialogue.

Two models of censorship (There are only 2, and one will always be present)

Societal / Universal Boundaries

• Shared Principles of Harm Prevention
  • Instead of leaving the definition of “acceptable speech” to autocrats, societies can adopt transparent, narrowly drawn rules.
  • Examples of typically disallowed content:
    • Incitement to imminent violence (e.g., “We must kill all Group X!”)
    • Glorifying terrorism or encouraging extremism (e.g., urging people to join violent militias)
    • Persistent harassment or threats creating genuine fear for someone’s safety
    • Defamation or libel that purposefully spreads harmful lies (e.g., knowingly accusing an innocent person of a crime)
    • Fraudulent financial schemes (e.g., Ponzi scheme promotions)
    • Child exploitation or other forms of sexual violence
• Goal: Prevent tangible harm and uphold accountability, so that free speech remains truly free rather than hijacked by harmful extremism, deceit, or intimidation.

Dictatorial Boundaries

• “Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee”
  • Authoritarian regimes build propaganda machines and punish dissent, controlling information flow.
  • Only pro-regime narratives are permitted; critics face imprisonment, violence, or exile..
• Modern Examples
  • States where political opponents vanish or get shot, media outlets are shut down, and disinformation is spread unchecked, all under claims of “protecting” the public.

Accountability is the linchpin of real free speech

Freedom without accountability isn’t freedom at all; it’s a license for destructive behavior. If there are no consequences for harmful speech, be it incitement, defamation, or threats, offenders have little reason to stop. In a robust society:

1. Legal Accountability
   • Those who defame others, call for violence, or violate hate speech laws must face lawsuits, fines, or criminal charges.
   • Applies regardless of medium—social media, newspaper columns, graffiti on a wall.
2. Social Accountability
   • Beyond legal measures, communities often enact social sanctions, loss of credibility, boycotts, or public condemnation, for those who consistently cross ethical lines.
   • This creates cultural pressure reinforcing that certain behaviors or statements are unacceptable.
3. Institutional Checks
   • Independent courts and a free press help ensure that punishments are not politically motivated but are tied to genuine violations.
   • Mechanisms like judicial review, ombudspersons, or ethics committees can scrutinize whether speech truly violates harm principles or if authorities are silencing dissent.

When accountability is missing, people can spread harmful lies or incite violence without fear of consequence, ironically eroding trust in the free speech itself.

Evaluating speech: A four-category framework

To decide which speech deserves robust protection and which crosses into punishable territory, we can adopt a practical categorization system. Of course, in the real world, a single utterance can contain pieces of multiple categories, but defining them clearly helps assess responsibility. Also, slapping “in my opinion” at the start doesn’t magically turn an incitement or threat into an innocuous opinion:

1. Opinions
   • Definition:
     Expressions of subjective belief, preference, or feeling that do not purport to be factually verifiable. They do not directly urge action nor declare intent to harm.
   • Typical Legal/Free Speech Treatment:
     Generally Protected: Opinions are core to free expression, as they reflect personal viewpoints.
   • Potential Exceptions:
     Subject to Accountability: All jurisdictions should disallow certain “opinions” if they promote or normalize criminal behavior (e.g., advocating pedophilia or terrorism) or if they meet the threshold of hate speech in certain legal frameworks.
   • Example:
     “I think that democracy is overrated”  Usually protected as a pure opinion.
     “I like sex with minors” This is deemed obscene or indicative of criminal content and could be restricted despite being an opinion.
2. Claims (Verifiable Statements)
   • Definition
     Assertions about reality (past, present, or future) that can, in principle, be proven true or false.
   • Typical Legal/Free Speech Treatment
     1. True or Good-Faith Claims
        Protected: Even if controversial or embarrassing, you’re generally safe if you reasonably believe it’s true.
     2. False and Harmful Claims
        Subject to Accountability: Knowingly or recklessly spreading harmful falsehoods (defamation, fraud) can incur legal liability.
   • Example
     “This politician took bribes” Covered if demonstrably true or made in good-faith belief; could be defamation if knowingly false and damaging.

This category of speeches is the most debatable one but we have to know and enhance that context matters.

• Various obscure social media users, Telegram groups, and fringe blogs labeled Volodymyr Zelensky a "dictator."
  These often pro-Russia or “anti-globalist” sources used the term to criticize Ukraine’s wartime policies and justify, or at least rationalize, Russian aggression. However, some of them may hold this belief in good faith.
• Trump calls Zelensky a „dictator”.
  As President, Trump had access to comprehensive intelligence and professional counsel, making it inexcusable for him to promote the blatant falsehood that Zelensky is a dictator. Such misinformation not only undermines U.S. credibility and alliances but also strengthens adversarial narratives, representing a serious breach of responsibility at the highest level of leadership.

This is a violation of free speech principles is punishable even now under U.S. Law

3. Directives (Calls to Action)
   • Definition
     Speech urging or instructing others to act, whether peacefully (e.g., vote, protest) or violently/illegally (e.g., commit assault, vandalism).
   • Typical Legal/Free Speech Treatment
     1. Lawful Directives
        Protected: Encouraging peaceful or legal action (boycotts, voting, fundraising, etc.) is generally covered by free speech.
     2. Incitement to Unlawful Acts
        Subject to Accountability: Encouraging imminent violence or crime (e.g., “Burn down that building now!”) is typically not protected.
   • Example
     “Let’s boycott Store X this Saturday” → Protected call to action.
     “Go break into Store X right now” → Unprotected incitement to crime.
4. Threats
   • Definition
     Statements expressing an intention to harm, injure, or punish a target, creating a credible fear for the target’s safety or well-being.
   • Typical Legal/Free Speech Treatment
     1. Subject to Accountability:
        True threats, indicating unlawful violence or harm. Those fall outside free-speech protections and the authors need to be held accountable.
     2. Lawful Threats’:
        Threatening to do something lawful (e.g., “I will sue you”) usually doesn’t rise to the level of an unprotected threat, because legal action is not considered illegitimate harm.
   • Example
     “I will kill you if you publish that article” → Subject to Accountability threat.
     “I will sue you if you keep lying about me” → Typically considered a lawful warning or statement of intent, usually protected speech.

Summary of the Spectrum

1. Opinions: Often presumed protected, unless they cross specific legal lines (e.g., advocating criminal behavior or crossing hate-speech lines).
2. Claims: Protected if true or made in good faith; Subject to Accountability if deliberately false and harmful.
3. Directives: Protected if urging lawful actions; Subject to Accountability if inciting illegal or violent acts.
4. Threats: Typically Subject to Accountability if they promise unlawful harm; possibly protected if they merely indicate a lawful action (e.g., suing).

This four-category system highlights that context and jurisdiction can shift how each category is treated. In essence, free speech is not absolute in any category, but these labels help clarify which types of speech are generally covered and which should be restricted. Crucially, a single statement can combine these categories. Also, “In my opinion, we should forcibly remove all foreigners” is still a directive to commit wrongdoing, not an opinion, despite author’s attempt to mask it.

Why these four categories support accountability

By explicitly labeling speech: opinion, claim, directive, or threat, courts and communities can assign responsibility. Those who abuse free speech through fraudulent claims, hateful incitements, or threats can’t hide behind “absolute freedom.” Transparent definitions help ensure speech that genuinely harms is penalized, preserving space for legitimate debate and dissent.

Conclusion: Stop even pretending that absolute free speech exists

Let’s cut the crap: the absolute free speech is a dangerous myth. Without accountability, some people will inevitably use speech to defame, incite violence, or threaten harm. That chaos leads to demands for sweeping crackdowns, ironically destroying the very freedoms that “absolute free speech” was supposed to protect.

There is no such thing as absolute free speech. Period. A society either has a common-good–oriented system of accountability, where genuine wrongdoers are held responsible, or it has a dictator’s version of accountability, where anyone who challenges those in power is punished. Real-world systems often mix elements of both, but they never provide absolute freedom of speech. It simply doesn’t exist and never will.

When a dictator-like figure exploits unrestrained speech to gain power, real free speech becomes the first casualty. Total freedom will always provoke some boundaries. So, the question is: who draws them, when, why, and how? If we cede that power to dictators or power-hungry majorities, we get “free speech for me, not for thee.” If we foster accountable, transparent limits that protect everyone, we preserve a world where people can express themselves freely, without enabling destructive lies or calls to violence.

A society without accountability isn’t free. It’s a playground for manipulation and fear. By using clear, reasoned categories and holding speakers responsible for harmful content, we ensure that free speech remains truly free, benefiting all rather than serving as a weapon for the few.

Finally, the “absolute freedom of speech” doctrine must be abandoned by anyone capable of recognizing the reality: there has never been, and never will be, such a thing as the absolute free speech. The only people who will keep promoting this illogical fantasy are those who want “free speech for me, but not for thee.” Indeed, they are the only ones who truly benefit from an “absolute” freedom, for themselves and no one else.