“If somebody doesn’t want to be your friend because they don’t like what you posted on your Instagram feed, that’s not a violation of your constitutionally protected free speech rights,” said Deborah Hellman, UVA Law’s Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law. “They’re appealing to one of our constitutionally inspired values, rather than a legal right.”
The Constitution and laws set the parameters of speech, yet societal norms and values often determine its consequences. In today’s public square, there is widespread disagreement about when and how to invoke the core democratic principle of free speech.
Experts in law, social media, business, and free speech say the real question is often less about legality and more about who holds the power to amplify speech, challenge it, or impose consequences when it causes harm.
“The constitutional guarantees of rights, like free speech, are only rights against state action. They are not freestanding in the sense of ‘I have a right to say whatever I want without consequences.’ ”
From a constitutional law standpoint, the boundaries of free speech are clearer than public discourse often suggests because the First Amendment is narrowly constructed. “The constitutional guarantees of rights, like free speech, are only rights against state action,” Hellman said. “They are not freestanding in the sense of ‘I have a right to say whatever I want without consequences.’ They are rights against infringement by the government.”
That distinction matters when public and private citizens say they are being wrongfully “canceled,” losing their jobs or being publicly shamed. As a matter of constitutional law, social disapproval, professional consequences, or loss of an audience are not violations.
Still, widespread social or professional backlash can be bad for democracy, argued Robert Shibley, special counsel for campus advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “One of the main functions of free speech in a democratic society is to let the people who are governing know the real feelings of the people over whom they have authority. Leaders can’t be democratically responsive to public opinion if there’s a culture where what is being expressed is not reflective of what peopleactually believe.”
In the digital public square, those tensions are intensified. Media platforms, caught between competing values, have responded inconsistently with speech regulation. “Perhaps the variance in content moderation policies exists because there are legitimate concerns on both sides of most debates,” said Polina Landgraf, assistant professor at UVA’s McIntire School of Commerce. Landgraf’s research shows that people from traditionally marginalized communities generally oppose censorship in the abstract but are less resistant when it could negatively affect their particular group.
“As such, content moderation decisions are nuanced and require understanding the specific context, the communities affected, and the nature of the content itself,”she explained.
Further complicating the situation, the power dynamics shaping modern media ecosystems represent a shift in how and where the public gets its information. “Decades ago, most consumption of news was shaped by editorial choices that humans made,” said Steven L. Johnson, associate professor at McIntire and faculty co-lead of UVA’s Digital Technology for Democracy Lab. “But today, what most people read or watch online is heavily influenced by algorithmic recommendations.”
This, Johnson’s research suggests, creates an online echo chamber where it can be “impossible to distinguish between crowd-sourced advocacy against injustice and an influencer producing ‘rage bait’ content to rile up a mob to cancel someone.”
In the online echo chamber, it can be “impossible to distinguish between crowd-sourced advocacy against injustice and an influencer producing ‘rage bait’ content to rile up a mob to cancel someone.”
Not all public fallout, however, constitutes pile-on behavior. Landgraf’s research found that calls for censorship aren’t necessarily knee-jerk reactions or mob mentality. “They may be a form of consumer activism, not cultural suppression,” she said. “They are deeply personal responses to content that threatens how people see themselves and their communities.”
Deeper disagreement exists about where accountability ends and coercion begins. “There is broadly a line that can be drawn between trying to convince someone versus actively seeking to get them fired for speech that has nothing to do with their job—at least, when they’re not an elected representative,” Shibley said. “John Stuart Mill made a similar observation in ‘On Liberty.’ He said that a government doesn’t need to make it illegal to say something if simply doing so will deny a person the ability to earn their daily bread. It’s not reasonable to expect people to express themselves freely if their job is always at stake.”
The very architecture of social media platforms also can amplify the intensity of calls for action. “When algorithms prioritize engagement over accuracy, content that is controversial or creates a strong emotional response is more likely to be seen,” said Johnson. “This speed and reach in turn can fuel the mob dynamics associated with cancel culture.”
That tension is also visible in everyday consumer interactions, underscoring that public backlash exists along a wide spectrum, from informal calls for accountability to coordinated campaigns that can carry serious consequences. Across these contexts, similar dynamics—algorithmic amplification, personal incentives, and asymmetric power—shape how criticism spreads and how its effects are felt. Companies, like individuals, can be criticized, shamed, or “canceled,” depending on the scale and intensity of the public response.
Public backlash exists along a wide spectrum, from informal calls for accountability to coordinated campaigns that can carry serious consequences.
Take, for example, a scenario where an airline damages a passenger’s bag. “From a personal perspective, amplifying content about the issue is an act of holding the corporation accountable,” Johnson said. “From the airline’s perspective, though, it is an inaccurate depiction of the typical experience and a localized issue best resolved through normal channels—frequently by moving into a direct 1:1 conversation, rather than a public one. Ironically, when consumers realize that it may be quicker to reach customer service by complaining online, it creates an incentive to do so, which further fuels the cycle.”
Ultimately, the challenge facing democratic societies is not whether speech should be free or whether accountability should exist, but how citizens, institutions, and platforms decide how to balance the two—without undermining either—and whether those decisions expand or contract who feels able to participate in public life.
“People will draw lines differently,” Shibley said, “but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a line to be drawn.”