The debate hinges on just 10 of the 45 words of the First Amendment to the US Constitution – those which state that "Congress shall make no law (...) abridging the freedom of speech." Since 1791, they have guaranteed this fundamental freedom, along with freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government. At a time of political and religious absolutism, these few words made the young republic one of the freest in the world.

Freedom of speech, which is part of the American identity, has nevertheless become the backdrop for a fierce battle in which ideology, economic interests, accusations of manipulation, the questioning of traditional media and the exponential growth of misinformation are intertwined. And so, ahead of Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20, two billionaire owners of powerful social media companies, Elon Musk with X and Mark Zuckerberg with Meta (Facebook, Instagram & WhatsApp), and with them the Republican Party, are posing as intractable defenders of freedom of speech. They have become virulent critics of "censorship" coming from "rogue" progressivism that would, in their view, like to constrain the First Amendment.

When he took over Twitter in 2022, Musk, the richest man on the planet, presented himself as a "free speech absolutist." Can "free speech" really be absolute, when "obscenity," incitement to violence or to commit illegal acts, among other things, are not protected by the Constitution? In 2022, the radical interpretation of the First Amendment was embodied by a less flamboyant proponent than Musk, conspiracist Alex Jones. Taken to court by victims' parents for claiming in his broadcasts that the mass shooting perpetrated in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, was a staged event to obtain greater gun control, he had appeared in court wearing a gag on which was written: "Save free speech."

You have 89.38% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.