In discussions around online moderation, one idea frequently resurfaces: that “free speech” is an absolute right, especially in the United States. For many members raised in or familiar with the United States’ constitutional framework, the First Amendment is invoked as both shield and sword against content moderation. But this interpretation often misrepresents what the First Amendment actually protects, and more importantly, who it constrains.
Free Speech as an Ideal vs Legal Principle #
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
This protection is often taken as a universal declaration that all speech must be allowed, everywhere, by everyone. In reality, the First Amendment is a limit on government power. It ensures that the state cannot punish or restrict most types of speech. It does not compel private individuals, organisations, or platforms – centralised or decentralised – to host, promote, or tolerate any particular content.
Put simply, free speech in the US is a legal guarantee against government censorship, not a free pass to say anything without consequence in any context.
Private Spaces, Public Misunderstandings #
This distinction matters. Most social media platforms, including decentralised ones, are operated by private individuals or communities. These platforms are free to establish their own rules, block or restrict content, and curate community standards that suit their values and needs. This is not a violation of free speech, it is a legitimate exercise of community autonomy.
At the extreme there is, for example, both a server that prohibits the use of the letter “e”, and another that prohibits anything except the letter “e”.
Too often, however, the rhetoric of “absolute free speech” is used to criticise moderation or defederation decisions, especially when those decisions remove or limit harmful content. This perspective risks conflating censorship with community safety, and overlooks the very real harms that unmoderated online spaces can perpetuate, particularly towards marginalised groups.
Not All Speech Is Free, Even in the United States #
Within the legal boundaries of the US, certain forms of speech are not protected under the First Amendment. The US Supreme Court has long recognised that some categories of speech carry such significant risk of harm that they may be legally restricted or punished. These include:
- Incitement to imminent lawless action: Speech that is intended to provoke immediate violence or illegal acts (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).
- True threats: Serious expressions of intent to commit violence or harm (Virginia v. Black, 2003).
- Obscenity: Material that meets the “Miller test” for lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (Miller v. California, 1973).
- Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputation (libel and slander).
- Perjury: Knowingly lying under oath in legal proceedings.
- Child sexual abuse material (CSAM): Explicit content involving minors, which is categorically illegal.
- Commercial speech violations: Such as false advertising or fraud.
- Lying to federal agents: Knowingly making false statements to US federal officials is a criminal offence under 18 U.S. Code § 1001.
- Certain forms of hate speech: When they cross into harassment, threats, or incitement, they may be actionable under federal or state laws.
These are not fringe exceptions, they are well-established legal limits recognised even in the most speech-protective judicial system in the world.
Content Moderation in Democratic Spaces #
Online communities are not courts of law, but they can draw from legal principles to inform fair and consistent moderation. When community guidelines prohibit content that falls within or even near these legally unprotected categories, they are not stifling freedom, they are building safer, more inclusive environments.
From a human rights perspective, freedom of expression is a fundamental right, as enshrined in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). But these rights are not absolute, and they come with responsibilities and limitations, particularly where the rights of others are affected.
Importantly, freedom of speech also entails freedom not to speak. It includes the right not to be compelled to express certain views or to participate in discussions one does not wish to engage in. Similarly, freedom of association includes the right not to associate, to choose one’s communities and to decline to engage with individuals, content, or groups that feel harmful, harassing, or misaligned with one’s values.
Just as no one can force you to speak, no one can claim the right to force others to listen. In a network of federated communities, this means users and moderators have the right to shape their spaces, to limit what kinds of content are welcome and to curate community norms that protect dignity, safety, and mutual respect. This is not censorship; it is self-determination.
Everyone has the right to block anyone, at any time, for any reason.
A Shared Responsibility #
In decentralised social media, where users often build and moderate their own spaces, recognising the limits of speech – even in the US – helps foster healthier conversations. It reminds us that free expression must coexist with responsibility, and that protecting civil discourse sometimes requires setting boundaries.
In general, consider a more nuanced view: moderation is not censorship, and all speech – online or offline – has consequences. Recognising this can lead to richer, more respectful conversations and communities.
