When does freedom of speech become an endorsement of violence?

In a time of growing polarisation, how do we balance free speech and mutual respect?

Sahar Elragig
24th October 2025
Image Credit (Narih Lee, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons)
Freedom of speech is one of democracy’s most celebrated rights. But what happens when that freedom shields something darker like hatred or division that neglects the value we place on human life? In the UK, we pride ourselves on debate without fear, but the lines are growing blurry over time.

We often hear “free speech” spoken of as if it’s absolute. It isn’t. In the UK, the law protects expression only as long as it doesn’t endanger others. Laws like the Public Order Act 1986 and the Communications Act 2003 exist for a reason: to prevent words from causing harm and shaping dangerous behaviour.

Yet legality seems to have become the most important part of the narrative. The bigger question is moral: when does speech stop being opinion and start undermining the basic respect we owe one another as human beings?

Public figures, commentators, and even students can use rhetoric to make disagreement feel like a battle to villainise their political opponents instead of presenting them as people. This isn’t about direct calls to violence, but about creating an environment where hostility feels normal and empathy feels optional.

Take Charlie Kirk, the American conservative activist behind Turning Point USA. His beliefs are polarising, and many people hold strongly positive or negative views of him. Yet regardless of where anyone stands politically, violence against him (or anyone) cannot be justified.

Whatever you think of Kirk’s views, his life has value. The moment we start deciding who “deserves” to speak or to live safely based on belief, we abandon the very principle of free speech itself.

History shows that silencing people through intimidation or harm doesn’t stop their ideas, it solidifies them.

History shows that silencing people through intimidation or harm doesn’t stop their ideas, it solidifies them. It breeds echo chambers, conspiracies, and creates more divisions. Free speech doesn’t thrive in fear.

When a public figure is attacked for their words, it doesn’t end the argument; it ends the willingness to engage. And that’s where democracy loses its meaning, not because of too much speech, but because people become too afraid to use it.

We don’t have to agree with everyone. We don’t have to like what they say. But the moment we start deciding that some lives are expendable because of their opinions, we lose civility and the ability to connect and find common ground.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ReLated Articles
[related_post]
magnifiercross
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap