Having looked at how Freedom of Expression is governed in 2026, I think that it can no longer be defined entirely by courts. A large part of the landscape that is being navigated in Freedom of Expression is our society, policymakers, and the platforms where expression takes place. It is becoming more apparent that expression is determined by a combination of things.
1) Private Internet Companies
The Knight Institute discusses how platforms function as “information fiduciaries,” structuring public discourse through algorithms and moderation systems. Although this benefits scale and can be regulated through moderation, the companies in charge are often pushing stories that benefit their wallets rather than sharing general public discourse. Oversight Board illustrates the importance of transparency and reason-giving in high-profile cases of moderation. Oversight Board also reflects on current efforts to balance safety and expression.
Yet, Tech Dirt argues that regulatory options are limited and often get caught in political red tape. Too much moderation can lean towards government-compelled speech or viewpoint discrimination. Platforms must strengthen due process, transparency reporting, and consistent rule enforcement while resisting both over-removal and political pressure.
2) Government and Policymaking
Governments have a constitutional duty to protect expression; recent events have shown both the tendency and consequences of overreaching. Article 19 highlights gaps in the UN cybercrime treaty, including a lack of a clear definition of cybercrime. Consequently, these vague cybercrime definitions could criminalize dissent globally. Reflecting in our own backyard, Reason points out that the Arizona bill that would make recording police illegal demonstrates how public safety rationales can threaten core accountability speech.
It’s also important to remember that Government inaction can still enable harm. Georgetown Free Speech Project analyzed January 6th, discussing how the incredibly unsafe actions of individuals move beyond the protection of the First Amendment. It’s important to tread the thing line between targeting potentially harmful threats and allowing a healthy discourse. I think that policymakers need to focus more on procedural safeguards, with an emphasis on transparency.
3) Civil Society and Third-Party Researchers
Civil society groups like Article 19 and academic centers are incredibly important in their work to provide critique and monitoring. Foreign Affairs shows that these groups highlight censorship patterns taking place. Their benefit is that they create accountability in a system that seems to be designed to thrive without it.
That’s to say that they aren’t without their flaws. Strong bias is a major piece of this, in addition to limited access on the platforms that control the overall narrative. To safeguard expression, a stronger focus on accountability and transparency is essential. With transparency comes accountability and access to less biased materials overall.
4) Media and the News Industry
The media and news industry is incredibly important. They act as the go-between, providing citizens not only contact but also clarification. It tends to be a way for people to easily understand and digest current events. Their benefit is that citizens have access to information. But economic and governmental pressures can amplify extreme voices due to engagement.
The importance of fact-checking and verification of online sources comes into play here. The goal is to avoid distorting public debate. They should focus on journalism that clarifies and is informative. If people have the most access to transparent narratives, the overall public discourse is educated and designed to inform.
Conclusion
Free expression today depends on institutional interdependence. Platforms must build fair moderation systems; governments must avoid coercive overreach; civil society must push transparency; and media must inform responsibly. In an era of global censorship pressures, safeguarding speech requires vigilance across sectors—not absolutism, but accountable governance.