From Stronghold to Suppression: The Changing Landscape of Free Speech in the US

Introduction 

Over the past several decades, the United States has been widely regarded as a stronghold of free speech. When comparing this to other legal frameworks, it becomes evident that this right is more narrowly constrained in the European Union, particularly in cases involving hate speech or the incitement of violence. The US has notably been much more lenient and has created the space for all ideas to roam free in contrast.¹ 

In recent years, this contrast between the US and the EU regarding free speech has shifted. Republican lawmakers and the current US administration have introduced measures that restrict certain forms of expression, such as literature, school curriculums and journalism.² However, unlike the EU’s bans on hate speech intended to protect vulnerable groups, these US restrictions often appear aimed at silencing activists, educators, and journalists who challenge discriminatory policies and expose systemic injustices. This begs the question - how is the US moving away from its strong protection of free speech? 

Legal Framework 

In order to fully understand the concept of freedom of speech, multiple legal frameworks must be consulted. Firstly, the freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, reading “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.³ 

This right has been referred to in cases such as Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), where the Brandenburg-test was created.⁴ This formed the standard that all speech is protected unless it incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. As this can be difficult to prove in court, hate speech, disinformation, or extremist rhetoric are generally protected unless they meet this narrow standard. Moreover, in R.A.V. v City of St. Paul (1992), it was deemed that there will be no censorship of ideas, and that the government may not regulate speech based on hostility towards the underlying message expressed.⁵ 

Under the international legal framework, freedom of speech fits into the definition freedom ofexpression enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

(UDHR), and Art. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Although the UDHR is not legally binding, the US has both signed and ratified the ICCPR and thus is legally bound by it. Notably the ICCPR holds Art. 20, which effectively bans propaganda used for war and hate speech. Moreover, this idea is echoed in Art. 7 of the ECHR, which calls for the prohibition of abuse of the rights enshrined in the Convention. This is also reflected in Art. 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which calls for the prohibition of all hate speech and specifically racist speech. However, although the US has ratified the CERD, it has also submitted a reservation which directly barricades Art. 4 CERD from altering or inhibiting the freedom of speech in any way.⁶ This, along with US case law, exemplifies the almost limitless freedom of speech in the US. 

A Shift in US Free Speech Norms 

Nevertheless, in practice, during the current right-leaning political environment in the US, the freedom of speech is both politicized and contested. It is limited not in regards to protecting vulnerable persons, but instead for silencing activists and promoting a far-right agenda which benefits businesses and dictators.⁷ 

For example, President Donald Trump has consistently targeted the media, labeling them as "the enemy of the people”.⁸ This rhetoric has been accompanied by actions perceived as attempts to undermine press freedom, such as verbally attacking the press and taking legal action against them. This is seen in his lawsuits against CBS and the New York Times, as well as his actions against “nearly every major American TV news network to be punished in reaction to interview questions or coverage he dislikes”. ⁹In fact, in 2025, he banned the Associated Press from the White House press pool “for not following his order to rename the Gulf of Mexico” to the Gulf of America.¹⁰ Although this was later challenged by a federal judge, similar actions against the press have not subsided. 

Moreover, the widespread ‘book-bans’ across the nation have restricted writer’s voices and limited children’s ability to be educated on issues of race and gender. Books that have been banned include The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, which details a fictional dystopian world where women are used as slaves for child-bearing.¹¹ Another example is Toni Morrison’s novel the Bluest Eye, which follows the story of a young American Black girl growing up in the Great Depression. This joins the long list of works which are banned from schools in many states in the US.¹² 

This trend has also found its way into state legislation, notably with the Stop ‘Woke’ Act passed in Florida in 2022. This law prohibits certain teachings related to race and gender in schools and the workplace.¹³ Similarly, in 2023 Arkansas passed the ‘LEARNS Act’ which effectively limits the teaching of critical race theory and other "divisive concepts" in public schools.¹⁴ Similar legislation has been passed in states such as Indiana, Texas and Iowa.¹⁵ 

Conclusion 

In an increasingly right-leaning political environment, the freedom of speech has been limited in the US. In light of this apparent deviation, instead of taking the freedom of speech to a direction similar to the EU, the US has gone on an opposite course which suggests the breakdown of this right in American politics. Paradoxically, American lawmakers are now imposing limitations to the freedom of speech after decades of promoting the free exchange of ideas, regardless of their potential harm. It is seen here that when the freedom of speech barricades certain political agendas, it is limited, to the detriment of the American people. In this way, right-leaning legislators contribute to the dissolution of the Constitution itself. The freedom of speech, and thus the human right to freedom of expression, is therefore challenged by one of the most powerful States in the world. 

---

Reference List

¹ Brandenburg v Ohio 395 US 444 (1969).

² Michel Martin, Taylor Haney, and Adriana Gallardo, 'How Lawsuits Threaten Freedom of the Press' (NPR, 9 April 2025) https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5318045/freedom-of-the-press-lawsuits-trump accessed 23 May 2025; Lisa Tolin, 'Banned Books List 2025' (PEN America, 4 February 2025) https://pen.org/banned-books-list-2025/ accessed 23 May 2025. 

³ US Constitution amendment I. 

⁴ Brandenburg v Ohio 395 US 444 (1969). 

⁵ RAV v City of St Paul 505 US 377 (1992). 

⁶ See USA Reservation: "To the extent, if any, that Article 4 of the Convention requires or would require adoption of measures with respect to private conduct that are inconsistent with the freedom of speech, expression and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the United States does not accept any obligation under the Convention to restrict those rights through the enactment of legislation or the performance of any other act."; United Nations Treaty Collection, 'International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination' (adopted 7 March 1966, entered into force 4 January 1969) UNTS vol 660, p 195 https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&clang=_en accessed 23 May 2025.

⁷ Democratic National Committee, 'Fact: Project 2025 is a Dangerous, Unpopular, and 'Trump-Driven Operation' To Let Him Be a Dictator on Day One' (19 August 2024) 

https://democrats.org/news/fact-project-2025-is-a-dangerous-unpopular-and-trump-driven-operation-to-let-him-be-a dictator-on-day-one/ accessed 23 May 2025. 

⁸ Jodie Ginsberg, 'Trump called the press ‘the enemy of the people’. Now it’s time to defend ourselves' (The Guardian, 14 February 2025) 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/14/trump-press-journalists-enemy accessed 23 May 2025. ⁹ Michel Martin, Taylor Haney, and Adriana Gallardo, 'How Lawsuits Threaten Freedom of the Press' (NPR, 9 April 2025) https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5318045/freedom-of-the-press-lawsuits-trump accessed 23 May 2025. ¹⁰ Ibid. 

¹¹ Lisa Tolin, 'Banned Books List 2025' (PEN America, 4 February 2025) https://pen.org/banned-books-list-2025/ accessed 23 May 2025.

¹² Ibid. 

¹³ John R Vile, 'Stop W.O.K.E Act (Florida) (2022)' (The First Amendment Encyclopedia, 10 August 2023) https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/stop-w-o-k-e-act-florida/ accessed 23 May 2025. ¹⁴ Arkansas Department of Education, 'Arkansas LEARNS Act' https://learns.ade.arkansas.gov/ accessed 23 May 2025. 

¹⁵ Sharita Forrest, 'Study: Educators Say Iowa’s Divisive Concepts Law Complicates Teaching' (University of Illinois College of Education, 11 September 2024) 

https://education.illinois.edu/about/news-events/news/article/2024/09/11/study--educators-say-iowa-s-divisive-conce pts-law-complicates-teaching accessed 23 May 2025.