There’s a big difference between saying something controversial and saying something meant to dehumanize or divide

Freedom of Speech Isn’t Freedom to Hate

When it comes to freedom of speech in America, George Dfouni doesn’t mince words. In a recent conversation, he stressed the importance of protecting the First Amendment — while also drawing a hard line against hate.

“Free speech is the soul of American democracy,” Dfouni said. “It’s what allows people to challenge authority, to protest, to speak truth to power. Without it, we lose the very essence of what makes this country strong.”

For him, the issue isn’t just about defending speech. It’s about recognizing the difference between dialogue and destruction — understanding when words stop being ideas and start becoming weapons.

“There’s a big difference between saying something controversial and saying something meant to dehumanize or divide,” he explained. “When speech crosses into hate, it’s no longer about freedom. It’s about harm.”

The Impact of Hate Speech

Dfouni warned that dismissing hateful rhetoric as “just words” is dangerously naïve.“Words don’t just vanish,” he said. “They land. They linger. They shape how people see each other. Hate speech doesn’t just express an opinion — it spreads fear, it emboldens violence, and it chips away at the trust that holds communities together.”

Indeed, history has shown us how rhetoric paves the way for real-world violence. From the anti-Semitic propaganda of 1930s Europe to the racist incitement that fueled the Rwandan genocide, words laid the groundwork for atrocities long before bullets or machetes were ever used. Dfouni drew parallels to today’s America, warning that dismissing modern hate speech could blind us to its consequences.

“We’ve seen what happens when dangerous rhetoric goes unchecked,” he said. “From genocides abroad to domestic acts of terrorism, hate speech often lays the groundwork. It normalizes hostility and gives cover to those who wish to act on it.”

Closer to home, tragedies like the Charleston church shooting, the Tree of Life synagogue massacre, and the January 6th insurrection all had one thing in common: an environment poisoned by inflammatory language and conspiracy theories spread online and echoed in political arenas.

“Hate speech disproportionately impacts marginalized groups,” Dfouni added. “It silences their voices before they even have the chance to speak. If free speech is supposed to create a marketplace of ideas, then hate speech is a hostile takeover. It doesn’t compete — it crushes.”

Leadership and the Media’s Role

When asked about the role of political leaders and the media, Dfouni didn’t hesitate.

“Leaders set the tone,” he said firmly. “When politicians use insults and inflammatory language, they’re not just talking — they’re modeling behavior for the country. And the media, when it amplifies that without context, gives it oxygen. Both sides have a responsibility to do better.”

In today’s hyper-partisan environment, outrage often substitutes for leadership. Politicians resort to soundbites designed to go viral rather than statements aimed at healing or problem-solving. For Dfouni, this is a dangerous path.

“The danger isn’t only in what leaders say, but in what they fail to condemn,” he stressed. “Silence in the face of hate is complicity. We need leaders who stand up to divisive rhetoric, not those who wink at it for political gain.”

He also challenged the media to take a harder look at its own incentives. “Sensationalism may drive ratings, but it corrodes trust. Journalism should clarify, not inflame. The truth matters more than the clicks.”

Dfouni pointed to the amplification effect of digital media — where one provocative clip can ricochet around the internet, stripped of nuance, reaching millions in minutes. “In an age where virality is the currency, the responsibility to contextualize is more urgent than ever,” he warned.

Free Speech as Right and Responsibility

Dfouni circled back to a theme he considers vital: responsibility. “Free speech is a right, but it’s also a responsibility,” he emphasized. “The First Amendment protects us from government censorship. It doesn’t protect us from the moral duty to use our voices wisely. We can disagree without dehumanizing. We can challenge without inciting. That’s how democracy survives.”

This perspective echoes a larger cultural debate: how do we balance robust free expression with the need for civility and protection against harm? For Dfouni, the answer lies not in censorship but in conscience.

“Nobody’s saying you can’t have strong opinions,” he clarified. “But opinions aren’t free passes to degrade people’s humanity. That’s where the line is.”

He believes that, especially in today’s digital world, accountability must be a shared value. “Every post, every comment, every headline has weight. We need to ask ourselves before we speak: am I adding to understanding, or am I fueling division?”

The Digital Age and Amplified Consequences

One of the greatest challenges, Dfouni argued, is the scale of communication in the digital era. Social media platforms, while giving people unprecedented access to free expression, also amplify hate at lightning speed.

“A single post can reach millions in seconds,” he noted. “That power demands more care, not less. Our voices should be tools for building bridges, not burning them.”

He pointed to the role of tech companies, which often hide behind the shield of being “platforms, not publishers.” While Dfouni acknowledges the importance of protecting open dialogue online, he believes there must be clearer accountability. “If a company profits from amplifying content, it has a duty to consider the consequences of that content. Free speech doesn’t mean free amplification.”

Drawing the Line

In Dfouni’s view, the distinction between free expression and hate is not as complicated as some make it out to be.

“The line is simple but urgent,” he said. “Freedom of speech isn’t freedom to hate. If we want to preserve liberty, we need to draw that line — and we need our leaders, our media, and our communities to show us how.”

For him, the strength of American democracy will never be measured by how loud people can shout, but by how responsibly they can speak.

“True freedom isn’t about speaking the loudest,” he concluded. “It’s about speaking with integrity.”