Freedom, With Limits: Censorship in Democracies

Censorship Is Not Just For Authoritarians

Recently I have written about online censorship that takes place in very authoritarian countries such as Russia and China. Anybody with even a passing knowledge of current events would not be surprised that these governments, as well as other oppressive regimes like Turkey, Iran, and Myanmar, censor what their citizens see online. In Freedom House’s publication Freedom On The Net, China, Russia, Iran, and Myanmar rank at the very bottom of the rankings (China gets a 9 out of 100).

What readers may be surprised to learn is that some of the countries that rate very high for freedoms also practice censorship. This is possibly due in part to a general shift toward authoritarianism around the world (but can’t be completely explained by this trend). Another Freedom House publication, Freedom in the World 2025, ranks countries for overall freedom. The three countries this post will cover all ranked very high overall. But, those high rankings didn’t provide absolute protection from censorship of various forms.

Unlike the countries at the bottom of the rankings, censorship in democracies won’t appear draconian. China’s “Great Firewall” is incredibly sophisticated and provides tight control of what information reaches the Chinese people. That’s not what you’ll find in free countries. Also, some laws put in place in the free countries may start out as legitimate. A civilized society will normally have guardrails in place to protect children from exploitation. This is expected. In some cases, though, these safeguards “drift” over time to encompass more and more behavior typically considered acceptable. Other reasons cited for censorship in democracies might include:

National Security
Fighting Terrorism
Combating Misinformation
Public Safety
Removing Harmful Content
Intellectual Property Rights

Japan has high scores on both of Freedom House’s rankings, scoring a 78 on net freedom and in the top 20 countries for overall freedoms. Freedom House says “Japan is a multiparty parliamentary democracy. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has governed almost continuously since 1955. Political rights and civil liberties are generally well respected.” Online freedom is considered a key part of Japanese law. There are some challenges though.

Criminalizing Insults

A 2022 law passed by the Japanese Parliament increased penalties for online “insults.” It is possible to go to jail for violating this law. Also, ISP’s do monitor their users online activity which could definitely be a privacy concern. Prior to the G20 summit in 2019, there were even reports of news sources being cut off. According to veepn.com:

Interestingly, many of these instances often come packaged with benign justifications, saying that the governments are blocking “extremist content” or preventing illegal gambling. But a fun fact is that these abrupt blackouts usually align with politically sensitive moments.

Manipulating Public Opinion

There have also been cases of “public opinion manipulation” by government agencies, including the Ministry of Defense. Also, in the Japanese press club, known as Kisha Kurabu, there have been accusations that government officials have denied access to younger journalists and to journalists printing critical articles. These activities have also helped create an obstacle to digital journalism in the country. Other issues in Japan include:

Self-Censorship by the public from social and cultural pressures
Regulation of some platforms by the government
AI moderation of content
Technical blocking of websites

Overall, while Japanese citizens enjoy significant freedoms, censorship does occur, at least sporadically.

Poland’s Law And Justice Party (PiS) Follows the Authoritarian Playbook

Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, Poland existed behind the Iron Curtain. Once out from under this shadow, democracy took root and expanded after 1989. Some of this growth, though, was curtailed by the rise of the far-right Law and Justice party (PiS) which retained power from 2015 until 2023. After 2023, attempts were made to reform the political system. According to Freedom House:

In February, the government presented an action plan to restore the rule of law in Poland, and its reform efforts ended a long dispute between the European Commission and the former PiS government. Among other moves, Justice Minister Adam Bodnar curbed the powers of disciplinary officers who had sought to punish judges for ruling against the PiS government.

The PiS Becomes a Threat to Freedom

Some of these initiatives have been blocked by conservatives, slowing change in Poland. Overall, the country rates an 82 for overall freedom. The years where the government was controlled by the PiS, though, saw significant censorship. A 2016 law known as the Anti-terrorism Act gave law enforcement and regulators significant power to “block content and disable all communication” in Poland. The law was criticized for degrading due process and also for the targeting of foreigners. Another 2016 law expanded police powers even further.

A 2021 law was passed with the supposed intent of preventing content not banned under Polish law from being removed. The law was to be adjudicated by a council in parliament. At the time, though, the parliament was dominated by the PiS. Critics worried the law would be used to quash dissent from the opposition. The PiS government countered that social media content moderation unjustly targeted conservatives, so the law was to protect them (a similar tactic has been used by the Trump administration in the U.S.).

The PiS government wanted to have control over all public media. They set out to make broadcasters tools of the government, turning them into basically the propaganda wing of the PiS. This way, like in other very authoritarian governments, they were able to suppress opposition voices and control the narrative in their own favor. This method comes straight from The Authoritarian Playbook.

Is Poland Backsliding?

After the Law and Justice party lost power in 2023, the era of government censorship looked to be over. This may or may not actually be the case. Freedom House shows Poland losing ground in their 2025 report on freedom in the world referenced above. While not the worst offender, they were rated among countries with the largest 10-year decline in overall freedom, losing 11 points.

This downgrade may be in part due to proposed 2024-2025 regulations that would give a government agency power to block “harmful” online content. The content moderation would be done without any court oversight. Those affected would not have any input on the regulation, either. Obviously, the PiS, no longer a majority, sees this as a potential tool to silence their voices. Other critics, including the Helsinki Foundation, concur. They say that the proposed law is just a new tool for censorship and that it lacks any “checks and balances” against abuse.

The United States: Book Bans, Project 2025, and Other Controversies

Some of the issues in the U.S. mimic those seen in Poland. Under the Biden administration, content moderation on social media was pushed, both overtly and under the table. Conservatives felt that the administrations attempts to regulate content amounted to censorship and that they were the target. Under the present Trump administration, there has been a backlash against content moderation. Unfortunately, this has allowed the proliferation of conspiracy theories and disinformation, which the Trump administration is in no hurry to challenge (See this article and this one for more information on the paradox between free speech and content moderation).

Not wanting to be outdone in following The Authoritarian Playbook, the Trump administration has banished news organizations over trivialities, maligned opposition, pulled funding from legitimate research, and encouraged the spread of a plethora of questionable ideas. While maybe not as overt as what is seen under the PiS in Poland, the actions do seem aimed at amplifying Trump’s narrative while suppressing other voices.

Controversial Laws

The machinations of the last two administrations have been in the news enough that most people are aware of them. The free speech/disinformation issue isn’t going to go away. There have, though, also been many lesser known laws and proposed laws in the U.S. that have been designed to address different issues, including:

Sex Trafficking
Child Exploitation
Cybersecurity
Terrorism
Online Piracy
Intellectual Property Protection
Combatting Copyright Infringement

Some of these laws, many of which are form the 1990’s and 2000’s, have been controversial for the same reasons discussed above: citizens don’t always trust that the government will know when to impose limits on itself. Given an inch, will they take a mile?

Book Banning

A very contentious issue in the U.S. right now involves the banning of books. The American Library Association (ALA) reports that thousands of titles have been removed from school libraries, and hundreds of others face threat of censorship. The push to remove titles comes from the conservative right and frequently involves titles that deal with LGBTQ+ issues or sexuality. This push has resulted in some state laws regulating books as well. Book banning looks to face the same paradox as the free speech/disinformation issue. One side wants to protect children from content deemed inappropriate, the other sees this as censorship of an at-risk community.

The “Take it Down Act

Another recent issue is the proposed “Take it Down” act proposed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill is designed to facilitate the take down of non consensual illicit imagery, but critics argue it could be abused. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday advanced the TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146) , a bill that seeks to speed up the removal of certain kinds of troubling online content. While the bill is meant to address a serious problem—the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII)—the notice-and-takedown system it creates is an open invitation for powerful people to pressure websites into removing content they dislike.

Their concern is that legitimate protected speech such as journalism and satire will be taken down if someone is simply offended by it.

Project 2025

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 causes some of the same concerns mentioned above. The plan identified keywords associated with content the organization deemed objectionable. It was also designed to target organization like NPR, CPB, and The Voice of America that receive federal funding (See my article on The Great Firewall of China for a discussion about keyword filtering by technological means). The goal is ideological conformity. This is a concerning mentality because it mirrors the actions of other authoritarian leaders like the PiS in Poland, Victor Orban in Hungary, and Vladimir Putin in Russia. It begs the question: is this by accident or by design.

Conclusion

Censorship in democratic countries is a contentious issue and likely will be for a very long time. Both sides raise concerns, often legitimate, that need to be addressed. Both sides have also proposed laws and rules that, taken to their logical conclusions, could lead to more draconian censorship. It isn’t a big step from “ideological purity” to outright oppression, for example, but many parents want more say over what their children are exposed to. Right now, the political right has power, but that will change. Any laws one side makes can easily become a tool for the other.

The countries discussed above, Japan, Poland, and the United States are a representative sample. Other democracies have also engaged in censorship, including: