Free speech in the United States and the United Kingdom stands at a crossroads, buffeted by political polarization, shifting cultural tides, and the ever-present specter of cancel culture. This was the central theme at the recent Global Free Speech Summit, held at Vanderbilt University in Nashville on October 8, 2025, where lawyers, scholars, and advocates from around the world gathered to grapple with the mounting pressures facing the First Amendment and similar rights abroad.
According to USA TODAY, the summit’s conversations focused heavily on what many described as an "unprecedented" government role in curtailing speech since the Trump administration took office in January 2017. The debates were lively, sometimes heated, and always underscored by a sense of urgency: free speech, long considered a bedrock of liberal democracy, is under threat from all sides.
Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley squared off over whether America is experiencing its darkest hour for free speech. Kennedy argued that President Trump's executive orders—which labeled law firms working for his political opponents as national security threats, cancelled government contracts, and revoked security clearances—represented a new low. "Trump's brazen disregard for the law," Kennedy contended, "is worse than anything we've seen before."
Yet Turley countered that this perspective overlooks the Biden administration's own efforts to pressure social media companies during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as positive steps taken by the Trump administration, such as rejecting the European Union’s Digital Services Act. That act, Turley noted, modernizes regulations for tech companies dealing with "illegal and harmful activities online" and the "spread of disinformation." Turley argued that free speech advocates had long sought a White House ally willing to push back against the DSA, and that the courts’ willingness to rule both for and against Trump showed that the system, while strained, was still functioning. "The rule of law hasn't died in this country," Turley declared.
But the story of free speech in 2025 isn’t just about government action. Surveys released by the Freedom Forum and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) reveal a deeper malaise: Americans are increasingly unsure of what the First Amendment protects, and a staggering 65% say they are afraid to speak freely, fearing violence, social tension, or ostracism. As Kevin Goldberg of the Freedom Forum explained, "The purpose of the First Amendment isn't to change minds. The purpose of the First Amendment is to allow you to even speak in the first place."
On college campuses, the situation appears especially fraught. According to FIRE, a record number of students now support disruptive tactics—including violence—to silence controversial speakers and suppress opposing viewpoints. Greg Lukianoff, CEO and president of FIRE, called this trend "a calamity." He urged, "Take a deep breath, people. Do you want to live in the kind of country where you can have a strong opinion and a job, but not both?"
Tragedy has only intensified these debates. The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in recent weeks has sent shockwaves through both the political and academic worlds. The University of Virginia’s "Think Again" organization, which promotes civil conversations across ideological divides, reported a "noticeably bigger" turnout at its programs following Kirk’s death, according to director and politics professor Mary Kate Cary. Hundreds of students enrolled in a course on the 2024 election co-taught by professors with opposing views, signaling, as Cary put it, that "the student demand is there."
Yet the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination also sparked a wave of firings nationwide, as employees were dismissed for posting opinions critical of Kirk—an episode experts at the summit labeled another form of cancel culture. Rikki Schlott, a New York Post columnist, argued that universities "desperately need" to provide First Amendment and free speech orientation to students. She suggested that a clearer understanding of time, place, and manner restrictions could have allowed pro-Palestinian student protesters to express their views without triggering "bombastic" administrative responses.
The summit also explored the evolution of America’s culture wars, tracing a shift from the racial reckoning and debates over educational curriculums that defined 2020 to today’s climate of "cancel culture." John Wood of Braver Angels remarked that the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020 had a "radicalized effect," leading to widespread disrespect for opposing viewpoints. This, he said, was mirrored in President Trump’s speech at Kirk’s memorial, where Trump contrasted himself with Kirk’s widow, Erika, who forgave her husband’s killer. "He said it in his stand-up comic kind of way, but I also took it internally seriously," Wood reflected.
Across the Atlantic, similar themes are playing out. In an October 12, 2025, article published by the Mises Institute, Dr. Wanjiru Njoya argued that free speech in the UK has become "parceled out among favored groups." While British Prime Minister Keir Starmer insists that free speech exists, Njoya pointed to the thousands arrested for social media posts deemed offensive to the left. She noted a stark double standard: police declined to intervene when someone celebrated Kirk’s assassination online, even as they have arrested comedians for posts targeting "protected groups." Njoya wrote, "Offending the left is seen as a greater threat to public order than calling for the killing of conservatives or erupting in celebration when this happens."
The case of comedian Jimmy Kimmel, briefly canceled for remarks about Kirk’s assassination before returning to his show, was hailed by many as a victory for free speech. Yet, as podcaster Joe Rogan warned, "If people on the right are like, 'Yeah, go get 'em,' oh, my God, you’re crazy. You’re crazy for supporting this. Because it will be used on you." Rogan’s caution highlights the broader danger: cancel culture, once wielded by one side, can all too easily be turned against its former champions.
From a libertarian perspective, as articulated by Njoya and drawing on the philosophy of Murray Rothbard, free speech is not simply a constitutional right but is rooted in private property and self-ownership. "There is no extra 'right of free speech' or free press beyond the property rights that a person may have in any given case," Rothbard argued. When free speech is divorced from these foundations, it becomes "nothing but a euphemism for power, denoting which side has the power to crush their political opponents."
Indeed, the limitation of government power in the First Amendment protects against state threats, but it says nothing about whether private employers should fire people for their views. As cancel culture swings from left to right and back again, the result, Njoya contends, is an erosion of free speech for everyone. The only way to defend free speech as an absolute right, she argues, is to anchor it in property rights and to apply rules equally, regardless of political ideology or personal identity.
As the dust settles from the Global Free Speech Summit and debates rage on both sides of the Atlantic, one thing is clear: the fight for free speech is far from over, and the stakes—personal, political, and philosophical—have rarely been higher.
