On May 12, 2025, visitors at the National Archives in Washington paused before the U.S. Constitution’s faded parchment, perhaps reflecting on its enduring promise: liberty, equality, and the right to speak one’s mind. But as the world watches, the very freedoms enshrined in that document are increasingly under scrutiny, both in the United States and abroad. Recent events and polling suggest that the once-unquestioned value of free speech is now at the heart of deep divisions and growing anxieties.
According to a recent poll by The Argument, a publication dedicated to making the case for liberalism, Americans’ commitment to the First Amendment is wavering. The survey asked registered voters nationwide whether controversial figures—ranging from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Palestinian activists calling for the abolition of Israel—should be allowed to speak on college campuses. The results were striking: more than half of those who voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election said they would oppose Netanyahu’s right to speak, while nearly 70% of Trump voters would bar a Palestinian activist from the podium.
It doesn’t stop there. The same partisan reflexes surfaced around other divisive topics. Transgender rights activists and those who oppose same-sex marriage each faced strong opposition, depending on the political leanings of the respondents. As the Chicago Tribune editorial board put it, “Too few of us consistently support free speech—unless it’s speech we like. And that’s just not how this American experiment is supposed to work.” The board lamented that Americans seem to have forgotten the old adage: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
This erosion of support for free expression is not just an American phenomenon. Around the globe, governments and societies are wrestling with the boundaries of speech. In Hong Kong, Jimmy Lai—a prominent newsman and business owner—has spent about five years behind bars, punished for his steadfast advocacy of free expression in the face of the Chinese Communist Party’s iron grip. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, a British comedian was arrested on September 1, 2025, after authorities deemed content posted on X (formerly Twitter) to be anti-trans. As the Chicago Tribune noted, “others are frequently questioned or arrested for sharing unwelcome opinions on social media and elsewhere under that country’s speech rules, which seem to blur the line between legitimate expression and explicit threats.”
It’s a distinction that matters. There is, after all, a world of difference between offensive speech and genuine threats of violence. The former, as unpleasant as it may be, is protected by the First Amendment; the latter, rightly, is not. But as debates intensify and lines blur, the temptation grows to silence dissent—often with the justification that it’s for the greater good. Yet, as the editorial warns, “Those who weaponize speech laws to silence dissent forget that one day, the same might be done to them.”
Across the Atlantic, South Africa offers a different but equally instructive perspective. For those who lived under apartheid before 1994, the right to speak, to gather, to worship, and to dissent is not taken for granted. As Daily Maverick observes, “Those once unfree, like the vast population of South Africans who grew up before 1994, know what it feels like to be free. Anyone who has survived an authoritarian government understands the feeling.” The freedoms now protected by South Africa’s constitution—including speech, religion, and political participation—are cherished, even as the country grapples with persistent inequality and the legacy of corruption.
The past decade has seen staggering abuses of public trust in South Africa. Between 2016 and 2017, the infamous Gupta brothers, aided by former President Jacob Zuma and their allies in the ruling African National Congress, siphoned off R57-billion in public funds. Markus Jooste, the disgraced head of Steinhoff, diverted R100-million from investors to fund his lavish lifestyle. To put the scale of corruption in perspective, Daily Maverick offers this analogy: “Imagine spending R10,000 every day for the next 250 years and you would not have gone through the pile.”
Despite these setbacks, key institutions like the judiciary and the National Prosecuting Authority have survived political attacks and remain poised for repair under a new coalition government. There is a sense of resilience—and hope—in South Africa’s constitutional democracy, even as many freedoms remain hobbled by inequality. “Young South Africans all around us are ready to take up the challenge,” writes Daily Maverick. “We are free. We should cherish this.”
Meanwhile, the United States finds itself at a crossroads. Fifteen years ago, most Americans would have described their nation as “the land of the free,” a beacon of democracy and civil liberties. Yet, as Daily Maverick points out, “within a short time the US finds itself governed by a party and a man who is the epitome of Western sado-capitalism—transactional to the bone—Donald Trump and the Republican MAGA cult.” The article criticizes the role of technology platforms like Trump’s Truth Social and Elon Musk’s X, arguing that they amplify misinformation and polarize the electorate. “The technological brainwashing on Trump’s Truth Social and Elon Musk’s X works on the same atavistic circuits that Nazi propaganda genius Joseph Goebbels tapped into,” the piece asserts.
Protests have erupted across the U.S. in response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests and what many see as extrajudicial acts of lawfare. Citizens are filming detentions and speaking out against what they perceive as an erosion of civil liberties. “Those resisting MAGA have seen how freedom can be taken for granted and that within just a few months, if it is not stopped, violence will be the law of the land,” Daily Maverick writes. The sense of urgency is palpable, as Americans confront the reality that rights once considered unassailable can be lost—sometimes swiftly, and sometimes with barely a whimper.
All of this raises uncomfortable questions. Are Americans—and indeed, citizens of democracies everywhere—losing faith in the very freedoms that underpin their societies? Is free speech only worth defending when it aligns with one’s own beliefs? And what happens when the machinery of government, or the court of public opinion, turns against those who dare to dissent?
As the world marks another year since the signing of the Constitution, the lessons are clear. Freedom is precious, but it is not inevitable. It must be debated, defended, and—above all—practiced, even when it is uncomfortable or inconvenient. In the words of Kris Kristofferson, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” For those who have known its absence, and for those who risk its loss, the fight to preserve it is more urgent than ever.