Freedom of speech has been a topic of contention, and tension, for centuries as the interplay between governments and their citizens straddles what can only be described as a cautionary ‘fine line’ between the rights of the expressor, to the rights of the audience. The recent and shocking passing of Charlie Kirk, the US conservative-aligned values promoter, has inflamed this debate even further.
Ultimately, free speech is a cornerstone of democracy – but it is not absolute. Philosopher Karl Popper warned of the paradox of tolerance:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance… If we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
This paradox is increasingly relevant in today’s political climate. Figures like the late Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump offer cautionary examples: both claimed/ claim to defend liberty while at times undermining the very freedoms they champion. Their rhetoric was/ is not just provocative; it tested/ tests the boundaries of free speech itself.
The Weaponisation and ‘Social Engineering’ of Free Speech
Prior to his death, Charlie Kirk positioned himself as a defender of unfiltered debate. He once said:
“Free speech is not just a right, it’s the right that protects all other rights.”
On the surface, this is a compelling argument. Free speech safeguards the marketplace of ideas, ensures accountability, and preserves liberty. But Kirk’s platform frequently amplified narratives that demeaned and excluded others. He characterised Islam as a threat to “Western civilisation,” portrayed transgender people as societal dangers, and framed dissenting political voices as enemies of the nation.
By presenting intolerance and division as free expression, Kirk flouted Popper’s paradox: extending tolerance to the intolerant risks eroding the very freedoms that make tolerance possible. In effect, he turned free speech into a tool of exclusion and disruption rather than dialogue.
Donald Trump has long styled himself as a champion of free speech. Upon returning to office in his second (and should be final term) as POTUS, he signed an executive order promising to “restore free speech” and end censorship. Yet his administration has repeatedly targeted journalists, students, and political opponents, and he has normalised rhetoric that demonises opposition.
History demonstrates that extremism has often dressed itself as liberty. Hitler, Mussolini, and other fascist leaders did the same. They claimed to speak for the people, invoked freedom of expression, and rallied against censorship – but once in power, they dismantled democratic institutions, silenced dissent, and weaponised speech against the vulnerable. Trump’s rhetoric, amplified by modern platforms, carries echoes of these historical patterns. Claims of “unfettered free speech” can mask an agenda that undermines pluralism.
History repeatedly demonstrates a brutal truth – unchecked tolerance of the intolerant often leads to tyranny. Adolf Hitler used the language of free assembly, press, and national “voice” to mobilise popular will – then systematically silenced dissent, imprisoned opponents, and orchestrated mass atrocities. Benito Mussolini appealed to national revival and public engagement, only to outlaw opposition, shut down the press, and concentrate power in his own hands.
These patterns are not merely historical; they are warnings. Free speech exploited by intolerant actors is a prelude to eroding the freedoms it purports to protect. Donald Trump’s recent actions in sending the US military into the Democratic Party aligned states and cities of Los Angeles, Washington D.C. and is now on the verge of doing the same in Portland, Oregon – smacks of vengeance for dissenting voices under the shadowy cloak of lawlessness and illegal immigration. 
He’s also instructed government agencies to remove any references to terms such as DEI, emissions and climate change, and has pressured US media regulators and broadcasters to clamp down on individuals who criticise him and/or his administration.
Welcome to the new world of American conservative ‘social engineering’. Once the domain of US Foreign Policy – Trump has now flipped that strategy towards internal matters.
Limits Are Not Betrayals – They Are Natural and Needed
Nature itself demonstrates that beauty and stability rely on constraints:
- Rivers follow gravity and contours; without banks, they flood and destroy.
- Species survive only within metabolic and ecological constraints.
- Gravity enforces order, shaping everything from planetary orbits to the formation of mountains.
In the Arts, paintings have borders, songs and movies have time limits and the most beautiful gardens in the world are contained and scaled. Popper’s paradox is a call to apply this reasoning and discernment: the freedom to speak must coexist with limits, and the responsibility to prevent harm by respecting them. Rivers, species, gravity and everything that is creative serve as metaphors: limits are not oppression – they are what allow freedom, structure, imagination and beauty to exist and flourish. In short, ugliness and incoherence thrives when and where boundaries are exceeded.
This is not a call to censor ideas or debate, and we must be conscious of where those boundaries should sit and be balanced for societal flourishing to occur. In that vein, we must differentiate between provocative thought and corrosive hostility. Free speech is valuable when it enlightens; dangerous when it destroys. Platforms that amplify intolerance must be held accountable. Political figures who cloak exclusionary rhetoric as “liberty” must be challenged.
Society must cultivate discernment, recognising when speech protects freedom, and when it threatens it. Kirk, Trump and social media celebrities/ influencers like Joe Rogan and platforms like ‘Gab’, provide contemporary examples of this challenge. Their rhetoric tests the balance between liberty and harm. History and philosophy remind us that freedom without boundaries is not freedom – it is vulnerability that invites a dangerous slippery slope.
Closing Thought
In a response to Donald Trump’s mocking of a disabled reporter during his first term as POTUS, American actor Meryl Streep articulated in an acceptance speech at the 2017 Golden Globes Awards, that such powerful displays of humiliation normalise and encourage similar behaviour from others, ultimately harming society, stating:
“Disrespect invites disrespect, violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.”
Beauty, survival, and social cohesion all rely on constraints – a biomimetic law, and Popper’s paradox is a natural law of democracy. Unchecked tolerance of the intolerant undermines the very freedoms we treasure. As Meryl Streep rightfully suggests, disrespect only breeds disrespect, dragging society into a race to the bottom of the barrel. There, in the darkness, awaits humanity’s destruction if we don’t get this right – one that’ll prove difficult to recover from. The challenge we face is to defend speech while safeguarding the society that enables it. Just as rivers must obey gravity and species must obey ecological limits, so too must free speech contend with the right amount of boundaries – if it is to remain truly free.