Drawing the Line Between Free Expression and Intimidation
A few days ago, while scrolling through my social media feed, I saw a laughing emoji in a reposted news story about the apology extended by Ateneo de Manila University to the families of Rene and Divine. Two weeks earlier, I also saw one of my Facebook friends share a post about the same incident that was plainly inaccurate – all of the information screamed ‘fake news.’
I am generally quite restrained when it comes to social media. I rarely engage in online debates because I recognize and respect that people hold different opinions, particularly on issues that are emotionally charged or politically contentious. Reasonable people can disagree, that’s not an issue.
What triggers me is not disagreement, but misinformation presented as truth, and ridicule masquerading as freedom of expression. When people I know to be thoughtful and rational confidently share falsehoods as fact, or defend humiliation as an exercise of free speech, I feel compelled to call it out. Public discourse depends on our willingness to distinguish evidence from misinformation, especially when influential voices shape public opinion.
Freedom of expression is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society. Speaking our minds, questioning authority, challenging prevailing ideas, and participating meaningfully in public life are not just philosophical ideals, but our sacred duty as citizens. These are the foundations of the democratic political system. However, freedom to speak must also take cognizance of the integrity of the public space where ideas are exchanged.
When misinformation and fake news distort public discourse, citizens lose their ability to make informed judgments. When expression ceases to be dialogue and becomes intimidation, the loudest, the most influential, or the most aggressive voices can drown out reasoned debate.
The danger is that these can gradually erode the very conditions that make democratic discourse possible: trust in facts, respect for truth, openness to dialogue, and the willingness to disagree without belittling, ridiculing, and even dehumanizing others. A democracy cannot flourish when citizens no longer know whom to believe, when public debate is driven by misinformation, and when disagreement is treated as something to be crushed rather than engaged.
Freedom of expression is meant to expand democratic participation, not diminish it. It should encourage citizens to speak and question authority, challenge injustice, and hold those in power accountable. But these freedoms can only flourish within a legal and social environment where people can articulate their ideas publicly without fear of repression and harassment.
When falsehoods shape public discourse, and intimidation silences dissent, where do we draw the line?
When relentless public condemnation, or what Gen Z calls cancel culture, pushes individuals to the point of contemplating self-harm; when intimidation compels people to self-censor out of fear of public shaming or retaliation; when coordinated online attacks strip individuals and communities of their dignity; when expression becomes humiliation rather than dialogue – can we still call these legitimate exercises of freedom of expression?
Free expression is about the exchange of ideas, however uncomfortable or unpopular they may be. Democracy thrives on disagreement. It is through robust debate and the contestation of ideas that we refine our thinking, hold leaders accountable, and pursue the common good. Criticism of government, public officials, institutions, or policies is not only legitimate; it is an essential feature of democratic life.
But not everything done in the name of free expression is genuinely an exercise of that freedom. We must be circumspect on what is being said, but also in how it is said, why it is being said, and what effect it is intended to produce. Is the goal to convince others through reason and evidence, or to pressure them into silence? Is the purpose to contribute to public discourse, or to instill fear and discourage participation? These are questions we must continually ask ourselves.
Today’s digital environment makes this challenge even more pressing. Social media has expanded opportunities for public engagement, but it has also created new avenues for harassment, coordinated attacks, and the spread of fear. A healthy democracy requires the broadest possible space for open debate while ensuring that every person can participate in that debate without fear. Freedom of expression is meaningful only when everyone—not just the loudest or most powerful—can exercise it safely and confidently.
Back to the FB friends that I called out. One recognized his mistake and made the necessary correction to his post. The other unfriended me.
Freedom of expression is one of democracy’s greatest strengths, but only when exercised with responsibility. The right to speak is balanced with the duty to seek the truth, engage in dialogue, and protect the public interest. The strength of a democracy is measured not only by how freely its citizens can speak, but by how responsibly they use that freedom to advance the common good. Because ultimately, democracy is sustained not by the loudest voices, but by citizens who value truth, dialogue, and justice.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Dr. Jennifer Santiago Oreta is the Dean of the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG). She is an expert in security governance and peacebuilding, having served as Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP).
