Historically, liberal democracies have concluded that the negative consequences of broad prohibitions on speech to limit misinformation outweigh the potential benefits

Overview Debates Related claims Topics Sources

There should be an upper age limit for driving

Minors should be allowed abortions without parental knowledge

Juvenile detention makes young offenders more likely to commit violent crimes

Social media platforms should never censor political opinions

Convicted prisoners should retain voting rights

Employers should not dismiss workers for lawful political speech outside work

Elite schools kept using race in admissions after the U.S. Supreme Court banned it

U.S. universities have not made adequate progress in addressing antisemitism, since October 7, 2023

Academic freedom often shields department conduct from civil rights oversight

Masked, unlawful encampments on university campuses cannot claim the moral authority of civil disobedience

Faculty diversity hiring programs at U.S. public universities systematically violate civil rights law

Public records laws are an effective check on university misconduct

Requiring a "commitment to social justice" or a DEI statement in hiring is a political test

University civil rights offices protect institutions more than they protect complainants

The death penalty should be abolished

Governments pressure social media companies to censor speech that is not misinformation but goes against political norms or majority opinion

Governments are pressuring social media companies to censor misinformation

A person banned by all major technology companies, such as YouTube, Instagram, and Meta, has no speech left at all

Regional institutions like the European Union have influence over technology companies, causing them to block content in certain countries

Governments can use regulations to prevent technology companies from implementing freedom of speech online