Elon Musk has been nominated for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. Slovenian Popular Party MEP Branko Grims, nominating, cites Musk’s “consistent support for the fundamental human right of freedom of speech and thus for peace”. In a letter to Members of the European Parliament, Grims wrote: “I systematically reject all pressure for public authorities or anyone else to interfere with the freedom of expression of differing opinions and the dissemination of ideas and beliefs, regardless of national borders.“
Musk himself, purchasing Twitter (X) in 2022, highlighted its potential “to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy”.
The nomination highlights a growing divide in use of the term ‘freedom of speech’. Here, we try to unravel some of the issues.
Freedom of speech is a human right
Freedom of speech is one of 30 fundamental human rights enshrined in the United Nations’ (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Created between 1946 and1948 in response to the atrocities of World War II, the declaration itself is not legally binding. All UN member states have an obligation to promote and protect the rights, but they enact their own legislation.
In the UK, the basis of human rights law is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Some 16 of the rights and freedoms contained therein are incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act, 1998. These include Article 10: Freedom of expression:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
Fundamental for a democracy
Musk is correct: Freedom of speech and democracy are deeply interconnected. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) emphasises that democracy requires the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives.
Compare with the Stasi of East Germany 1950-1990, with censorship in Pinochet’s Chile, or Franco’s Spain, and with authoritarian regimes today.
With rights come responsibilities
So far, then, the facts agree with Musk and Grims. However, ‘freedom of speech’ does not mean we can say whatever we like. We must behave in ways that respect and protect the rights of others.
In the UK, limitations on freedom of speech derive from paragraph two of Article 10 of the ECHR. These are limitations “necessary in a democratic society” in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety; preventing disorder or crime; protecting health or morals; protecting others’ reputation or rights; preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The exercise of these limitations by the state must be fair and proportional.
In the summer of 2024 riots broke out throughout the UK. The unrest, erupting after a horrifying fatal attack on children at a dance class, was met with swift action from the government and police.
Some convictions relied on social media posts by far-right groups and high-profile individuals deliberately sharing false claims that the perpetrator was a Muslim and asylum seeker; and inciting retribution. This has outraged supporters of the riots who insist that comments and posts on social media are protected by freedom of speech.
Yet as we have seen, this is not the case. Limitations on freedom of speech, essential for a functioning democracy, mean it cannot protect incitement to racial hatred and serious violence, not even if couched as ‘opinions’.
A lie can travel halfway around the world …
Grims applauds dissemination of ideas and beliefs across national borders. Yet this boundary-crossing, where legal limitations on freedom of speech may differ, presents a challenge for national security and sovereignty. Not only do social media, 24-hour online news streaming, videos and podcasts permit information to travel night and day at lightning speed around the globe, but most output is not fact-checked.
X has abandoned independent fact-checking, and with Meta’s plans to do likewise in the US this will only deteriorate, although fact-checking remains in Europe.
This is of real concern. Research suggests that misinformation and fake news is more likely to be shared on social media by people motivated by power and a desire to influence. Another study found that around a quarter of individuals are unable to distinguish factual statements from opinion in the news.
They are also more likely to accept statements that reinforce their own political perspectives as true. For example, despite ongoing news reports to the contrary, a quarter of Britons now falsely believe the Southport attacker to be Muslim, an immigrant and to have been motivated by religious terrorism.
Similarly, in September 2024, two weeks after Donald Trump repeated a baseless claim during a televised presidential debate that illegal immigrants from Haiti in Ohio eat domestic pets, a quarter of Americans, including 52% of intending Trump voters, believed it.
An unequal freedom
Musk has a personal following on X of 210 million. A snippet in the recommendation algorithm prioritises his posts across the platform, worldwide. Yet Musk’s take on freedom of speech is not supportive of democracy; it forcefully supports his own political views.
On 2 January Musk demanded the release from prison of far-right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, otherwise known as Tommy Robinson. On 6 January he posted a poll: “America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government. Yes/No?” Last December he reportedly planned to donate £100mn to Reform UK. Nigel Farage, who has since fallen out of favour with Musk, explained: “He thinks that if Reform do well in the UK, we can bring about the same kind of change that he intends to do with Trump in America.”
UK safeguarding minister Jess Phillips revealed that Musk branding her a “rape genocide apologist” and demanding she be jailed has endangered her life. Meanwhile, Musk is accused of interference in the German parliamentary election campaign, endorsing the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).
On 20 January, following Trump’s inauguration, he made a gesture reminiscent of a Nazi salute. Since then, a number of ‘copycat’ videos have appeared online. One woman, an official in Montgomery, Pennsylvania, has been obliged to resign her position for emulating Musk.
Freedom of speech is a two-way street
Suggestions that limits on freedom of speech are ‘censoring and silencing’ are wrong. It is not a question of interfering with the freedom of expression of differing opinions and dissemination of ideas and beliefs, but of mutual respect, responsibility, and understanding the spirit of human rights.
My freedom of speech must not endanger your human rights.
Bearing in mind the inability of many to distinguish truth from fake news, and their willingness to be led by powerful individuals, the normalisation of disinformation and othering masquerading as freedom of speech represents an erosion of human rights and is a threat to democracy and global peace.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
