Free speech: should we have the right to be offensive?

This debate is part of Battle of Ideas Helsinki 2026.

When it comes to exercising free speech, Finland – along with its Nordic neighbours – is widely praised. A constitutional guarantee on free expression helped Finland to score a maximum ‘100’ in the latest ranking from Freedom House, who praise the country’s ‘respect for freedom of speech, religion and association’. As the long-term beneficiary of one of the first-ever laws prohibiting censorship, adopted under Swedish rule in 1776, Finland ranks sixth of out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index 2026.

However, recent developments seem designed to challenge any complacency – and instead may set alarm bells ringing, noisily.

One issue is the legal and ethical balance between freedom of expression (and religion) and protection against hate speech and minority discrimination. The prosecution (now being appealed) of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen for ‘agitation against a minority group’ over traditional biblical views on marriage and sexuality has triggered intense debate over how subjective terms like ‘insult’ or ‘defame’ are defined in a court of law. Critics argue that vague laws set a low threshold for what courts consider hate speech and create a ‘chilling effect’ on religious and political discourse. Proponents maintain, however, that legal limits are necessary to protect vulnerable populations from systemic harm and harassment.

Räsänen’s defence team express worries that the Finnish ruling will influence courts throughout Europe. But US Vice President JD Vance spoke for many when he noted, at the Munich Security Conference last year, that already ‘across Europe, free speech… is in retreat’. Many liberals agree. The Economist avowed that ‘Europe really does have a problem with free speech’ and that ‘when states have too many powers over speech, sooner or later they will use them’. How worried should we be over the increasing dominance of the courts, judiciaries and human-rights agendas that seemingly curtail rather than support free speech? Or is the problem wider social and cultural shifts meaning societies are estranged from and even hostile to the principles of tolerance and all too eager to silence the other side?

Many fear the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) will utilise fears over misinformation and political extremism to justify restrictions in the online public square. Critics say the firewalling of political ideas threatens the very freedoms that made European nations thriving democracies. While the Finnish constitution guarantees ‘no prior censorship’ or blocking of a publication, the ‘European Democracy Shield’ proposed by the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, will detect, track and delete deceitful online content. This would be a shift from retrospective debunking to so-called ‘pre-bunking’.

Are we right to fear states exercising what critics call ‘narrative control’? Does new technology, foreign misinformation and social-media driven polarisation justify new restrictions, especially given the young and the vulnerable are thought to be particularly susceptible to harms and mental-health challenges?

To what extent do Finns and Europeans still believe in the principle that bad ideas are best defeated by better ones, not by bans? Can civil society organise to resist the bureaucratic silencing of debate? Will Europe’s digital-censorship regime now replace American tech giants as arbiters of truth? How can those who value free speech ensure that Europe once again rediscovers the values of tolerance and free speech?