What about your right to freedom of expression?

Is freedom of expression under threat?

The original Wanted Facts dates from 6 November 2020. This updated version was prepared on 10 March 2026 (informational – not legal advice).

Freedom of expression is regularly under pressure—for example in the fight against fake news, or following terrorist attacks linked to publications (such as the Mohammed cartoons). So it’s a good moment to briefly reflect on the right to freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is a universal human right that belongs to everyone. It is one of the pillars of our democratic society. A democracy must be open to dissenting opinions, even if they are shocking. Social problems should be addressed through dialogue and without violence. The fact that people are murdered because of their opinions can never be justified or tolerated.

In the original text, the importance of this right was illustrated (among other things) with a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech”.

After the horrors of World War II, freedom of expression was widely accepted as a human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 was the first to explicitly highlight freedom of expression. Since then, this freedom has only grown in importance.

Freedom of expression as a fundamental right (Belgian context)

Freedom of expression can be described as the right to express one’s philosophical, religious, political, ideological, or personal beliefs through words, writings, or conduct.

In Belgium, this freedom is protected, among other things, by Article 19 of the Belgian Constitution. In the original Wanted Facts, this article was cited as follows (reproduced here in abridged form to keep the quote short):

“... the freedom to express one’s opinion in all matters is guaranteed, subject to punishment of offences ...”.

There is also Article 25 of the Belgian Constitution, classically known as the ban on censorship (often summarised as: the press is free; censorship can never be introduced). This principle also plays a role in debates about (preventive) government interference with publications.

Freedom of expression as a human right

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) also describes what falls under the right to freedom of expression. The original Wanted Facts referred to Article 10 ECHR, which (among other things) speaks of:

the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

Within EU law, freedom of expression and information is also recognised, including in Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Limits to the right to freedom of expression

Freedom of expression is fundamental, but not absolute. Article 10(2) ECHR emphasises that exercising this right also carries duties and responsibilities. Freedom of expression can therefore be subject to certain conditions, restrictions, or sanctions.

However, a fundamental right cannot be restricted arbitrarily: restrictions generally must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society.

Freedom of expression is also limited by other people’s constitutional rights and by criminal law. For instance, an expression may be punishable when it violates specific criminal provisions (e.g., denialism) or when someone deliberately incites others to discriminate, hate, or use violence based on protected characteristics (such as race, origin, skin colour, nationality, etc.).

New: internet censorship and online expression

When people say “internet censorship”, they often mean different things. Legally, it is useful to distinguish between (1) government action and (2) moderation by private platforms.

1) Government interference: blocking, takedowns, restrictions

In “classic” terms, censorship is often understood as the government preventing publication beforehand. In Belgium, the ban on censorship is an important starting point (Article 25 of the Constitution), but that does not mean authorities can never act against online content.

Examples of government measures that can occur in practice:

• orders to remove specific illegal content;
• orders to provide information (e.g., identification data);
• (having) access blocked to specific illegal content or websites (typically via judicial/administrative procedures depending on the context).

The key questions are always: is the measure lawful, does it pursue a legitimate aim, and is it necessary and proportionate?

2) Platform moderation is not always “censorship” (but it can feel like it)

When Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, YouTube, or a news site removes a post or suspends an account, this is usually not “government censorship”, but private enforcement of:

• terms of service;
• community guidelines;
• advertising rules;
• or internal safety rules.

That said, it can have a major impact on public debate, especially where platforms play a dominant role.

3) The Digital Services Act (DSA): more procedures and transparency in the EU

Within the European Union, the Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065) sets rules for online intermediary services (such as hosting services and platforms). In the context of “internet censorship” debates, these points are particularly relevant:

• Orders by authorities: under certain conditions, authorities can issue orders to act against specific illegal content.
• More transparency and remedies: in many cases, platforms must better explain why content was removed/restricted and indicate the available options to challenge the decision.

The DSA is not intended to impose a “general gag order”, but to address illegal content and certain systemic risks with more transparency and accountability.

4) What can you do if your online content disappears or your account is restricted?

• In cases of platform moderation: first use the platform’s internal complaint/appeal procedure. Keep screenshots and correspondence.
• In cases of a government measure: request the legal basis and reasoning, and have it assessed whether an appeal/objection is possible.
• If you are unsure about the boundaries of freedom of expression: have the specific content and context assessed (intention, context, audience, impact, repetition, etc. often matter).