Protect Freedom of Speech While Opposing Deceptive Propaganda and Censorship

6. Civic Knowledge and Skills

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

June 21, 2025

In polarized and intractable conflicts, speech can do enormous harm. False rumors can trigger violence. Propaganda can turn whole groups into enemies. Coordinated disinformation campaigns can make it difficult for people to know what is happening or whom to trust. At the same time, efforts to control dangerous speech can easily become censorship. Governments, parties, platforms, and advocacy groups may be tempted to label inconvenient criticism as “misinformation” or “propaganda” and then try to suppress it. The challenge is to protect the freedom to argue, dissent, investigate, and criticize, while still resisting deliberate deception and manipulation.

The first step is to draw a careful distinction between false, offensive, or unpopular speech and speech that crosses a legally or ethically important line. In the United States, the First Amendment protects many kinds of speech that people find hateful or wrong. It also protects strong political advocacy. Under Brandenburg v. Ohio, the government may not punish advocacy of unlawful action unless the speech is directed to producing imminent lawless action and is likely to do so. Other categories, such as fraud, defamation, true threats, and speech that is integral to criminal conduct, can be regulated more directly. As FIRE’s overview of unprotected speech explains, the fact that speech is false does not automatically remove it from constitutional protection. This high threshold is frustrating when falsehoods spread quickly, but it protects everyone from giving the state broad power to decide what may be said.

It also helps to distinguish misinformation from disinformation. UNESCO describes misinformation as inaccurate information that may be spread without deceptive intent, while disinformation involves deliberate efforts to mislead or manipulate. This distinction matters. People who are confused, mistaken, or relying on bad sources should usually be answered, not punished. Deliberate deception is different, especially when it involves impersonation, fabricated evidence, hidden sponsorship, coordinated bot networks, or foreign influence operations. Even then, the safest response is often to target the deceptive practice, rather than the viewpoint being expressed. A rule requiring disclosure of who paid for an advertisement is very different from a rule banning criticism of the government.

Many useful responses to propaganda and disinformation do not require censorship. Public officials can provide fast, accurate information and correct rumors. Journalists can investigate claims and expose hidden agendas. Educators can strengthen media literacy so that people learn to ask who is speaking, what evidence is being offered, and who benefits if the claim is believed. Platforms can label manipulated media, reduce automated spam, give users more control over recommendation systems, and be more transparent about who is behind posts, as well as how information is ranked and amplified. The ACLU has argued, however, that giving powerful platforms the role of “Guardian of Truth” creates serious dangers, but that transparency about algorithms and user control are more speech-protective alternatives. UNESCO similarly emphasizes journalism, media literacy, and access to reliable information as central tools for countering misinformation while protecting freedom of expression.

The best line-drawing principles are narrowness, transparency, accountability, and viewpoint neutrality. Restrictions should be aimed at clearly defined harms, not at disfavored opinions. Decisions about content removal or demotion should be explainable and subject to appeal. Government should be especially restrained, because state censorship can quickly become a weapon against dissent. Private platforms also need standards that are consistent enough to be trusted, and flexible enough to address new forms of manipulation. The goal is not to create a “ministry of truth,” nor is it to let deliberate deception dominate public life. The goal is a stronger information environment in which people can argue freely, expose propaganda, correct falsehoods, and make decisions with access to the best evidence available.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.