How the World Fell Out of Love With Principles and Into Bed With Power
There’s a phenomenon happening across the globe right now that would be hilarious if it weren’t so bloody depressing. It’s what I’m calling The Great Free Speech Switcheroo, a magnificent display of intellectual gymnastics where everyone’s commitment to freedom of expression is directly proportional to whether their side is holding the microphone.
You know the drill. When your lot’s in power, censorship is a dangerous tool of authoritarians. When the other lot’s in power, it’s “common-sense content moderation” or “protecting vulnerable communities.” The principle remains constant only in its complete absence.
The American Theatre of the Absurd
Let’s start with the Americans, because they’re never shy about going first. The polling data is almost satirical in its clarity: conservatives went from being the most pessimistic about free speech to the most optimistic following Trump’s election, whilst liberals’ optimism plummeted like a piano off a roof. It’s not even subtle. It’s the political equivalent of everyone simultaneously revealing they’ve been wearing team jerseys under their “I support free speech” t-shirts all along.
Trump signed an executive order in January titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” Noble stuff. Inspiring, even. Right up until you remember his administration’s also been discussing how to crack down on university protests, limit nighttime demonstrations, and generally make campus activism as difficult as parallel parking a lorry.
The left isn’t any better, mind you. They spent the Trump years shouting about the importance of dissent and speaking truth to power, then immediately pivoted to demanding tech platforms ban more people and regulate harder the moment they got a sniff of influence back. Principles, it turns out, are remarkably flexible when power’s on the table.
The Transatlantic Slapfight
Then there’s the delicious irony of the US-Europe free speech war that’s been brewing. American politicians, including VP JD Vance, have been accusing the UK and Europe of “clamping down on citizens’ free speech,” particularly around the UK’s Online Safety Act, which could slap tech companies with fines up to £18 million or 10% of annual revenue for failing to remove harmful content quickly enough.
The Americans are absolutely furious about this. How dare Europeans regulate speech? Don’t they know freedom means letting people say whatever they want without consequences? It’s a beautiful principle, really, one that the US has defended vigorously by, er, prosecuting whistleblowers, threatening journalists, and maintaining the world’s largest surveillance apparatus. But sure, Europe’s the problem.
Meanwhile, House Republicans released a report claiming the EU’s Digital Services Act “compels global censorship and infringes on American free speech”. The horror! Foreign governments are trying to set rules about what happens in their own jurisdictions! It’s almost like… sovereignty or something. Can’t have that.
The Europeans, for their part, are bemused. They’re sitting there thinking, “Wait, you lot invented FOSTA-SESTA, the PATRIOT Act, and have been pressuring tech companies to remove content for decades. But we’re the censors?” It’s like being lectured on sobriety by someone mid-bender.
The Commonwealth Circus
Let’s pop over to the Commonwealth, where things are equally farcical. The UK just introduced new rules in August 2025 to “protect academic freedom” at universities, this from a government that’s simultaneously enforcing some of the strictest online speech regulations in the Western world. It’s protecting freedom by restricting it, which is a bit like promoting vegetarianism by mandating steak dinners.
Australia’s in a similar bind. As of 2025, several political parties are pushing for a referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in the Constitution, which suggests that perhaps, just perhaps, they’re noticing the current setup isn’t quite cutting it. But this push is coming largely from the right, and you can bet your last dollar that the moment they get what they want and it starts protecting speech they don’t like, the enthusiasm will evaporate faster than ice cream in Darwin.
The Global South’s Honest Approach
At least places like India and Brazil are being more honest about the whole thing. India recorded 329 free speech violations in just the first four months of 2025, an impressive commitment to suppression that doesn’t even bother with the pretence. When Modi’s government wants a BBC documentary banned, they just ban it. No committee hearings, no hand-wringing op-eds, just straight-up censorship. It’s refreshingly efficient, if utterly horrifying.
Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled in June 2025 that social media platforms are liable for user content and may be required to expedite content removal even without a court order. At least they’re not pretending this is somehow expanding free speech. They’re just saying, “Yeah, we’re regulating this heavily. Deal with it.”
There’s something almost admirable about the lack of pretence. Western democracies tie themselves in knots trying to explain why their restrictions on speech are Actually Good and Definitely Not Censorship, whilst Brazil’s just like, “We’re the government, we make the rules, what’s the problem?”
The Real Punchline
The joke…and it is a joke, just not a funny one…is that everyone’s playing the exact same game whilst pretending they’re different.
Conservatives claim to champion free speech until someone kneels during the anthem or criticises the military. Then suddenly it’s all about “respect” and “knowing your place.” Progressives bang on about the importance of marginalised voices until those voices say something uncomfortable about gender or religion, at which point it’s “harmful rhetoric” that must be stopped.
Governments worldwide insist they’re protecting freedom whilst building the infrastructure to suppress it. Tech companies position themselves as neutral platforms until advertisers get nervous, then they’re content moderators extraordinaire. Everyone’s constantly redefining the terms to suit whatever’s convenient in the moment.
The through-line? It’s all bollocks.
Free speech has become a team sport. You’re not defending a principle; you’re defending your side’s right to speak whilst looking for creative ways to shut up the opposition. The Americans accuse the Europeans of censorship while discussing how to limit protests. The Europeans mock American chaos whilst building their own restrictive frameworks. Everyone’s pointing fingers whilst doing exactly what they’re accusing others of doing.
Why This Matters (And Why We’re Probably Screwed)
Here’s the bit where I’m supposed to offer hope, some inspirational call to action about how we can reclaim genuine free speech principles from the partisan muck. But honestly? I’m not sure we can.
Because the problem isn’t that people have different views about where the limits of free speech should be…that’s natural and inevitable. The problem is that we’ve collectively abandoned the idea that there should be consistent principles at all. We’ve embraced situational ethics so thoroughly that “free speech” now means “speech I agree with” and “censorship” means “consequences for speech I support.”
Global support for free speech is actually declining, down from 63% calling it “very important” in 2019 to 58% in 2024. People are getting tired of defending speech they hate. And who can blame them? It’s exhausting. It’s much easier to just defend your side and attack the other.
But here’s the rub: once you’ve made free speech conditional on political convenience, you’ve lost it entirely. Because power changes hands. Today’s censors become tomorrow’s censored. The tools you built to silence your enemies get inherited by people who consider you the enemy. And by then, it’s too late to appeal to principles you spent years undermining.
So where does that leave us? Watching the world’s great democracies engage in an elaborate pantomime where everyone pretends to care about freedom, whilst systematically dismantling it. The Americans lecture the Europeans. The Europeans clutch their pearls at American chaos. India and Brazil just get on with the censoring. And all the while, ordinary people are caught in the middle, trying to figure out what they’re still allowed to say without losing their jobs, their platforms, or their liberty.
It’s a tragicomedy, and we’re all cast members whether we like it or not. The only question is whether anyone remembers their lines about actual principles before the curtain comes down.
I’m not optimistic. But then again, pessimism has always been realism’s clever disguise.
Until Next Time
Discover more from Dominus Owen Markham
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.