On the day the UK High Court ruled that banning Palestine Action was unlawful it would seem to be odd to be writing about free speech absolutism, yet here we are. It may take a while for this post to go live, I just wanted to timestamp it in some way. [I am now publishing this almost 2 months later, having run into some technical difficulties along the way…who said this was going to be easy?]
I’ve been told by a lot of people lately that I need to get better about talking about what we do at Unburdened, so there will be a few things coming over the next few months which reflect this need, one of which is the re-launch of the Unburdened blog. When Unburdened launched in 2019 we had a blog on the website which only had one article on it, something along the lines of “coming soon”, which simply became a magnet for spam comments and bots.
In the years since, I’ve ghost-written many articles, and I’ve done a few pieces on LinkedIn, most of which are very personal. This blog will be slightly different in that it will be an outlet for Unburdened’s three pillars, in particular the creation and sharing of knowledge with the intent of helping financial planning firms improve.
I tend to like to think [some] things through before I do them, sometimes to the extent that nothing actually gets done. Having decided that Unburdened needed to have a blog of sorts (yes, an actual decision) it was then necessary to decide where that blog would live. Do I want the option of automatic newsletters to be crafted from each blog post? What about the possibility of having longer form content only available to paying customers? In 2026, choosing where to set up a blog is less font-picking and more like choosing somewhere to live: Lovely place, decent infrastructure… but who else lives here, and are they the kind of neighbours I want my clients and readers bumping into?
Given that I pay for a Vimeo license to avoid people having to see adverts which may have nothing to do with the subject when they are looking at video content we have uploaded (more on that in subsequent posts) I don’t really want people to have to wade through a barrage of advertising to get to the written content I share either.
So I thought I would shop around and see what platforms are available. Whilst there are various platforms to choose from, I decided to check out Substack. I’m not exactly one for following trends, but it seems a lot more trendy than some of the others out there. Amongst thousands of others some pretty interesting people I follow like Professor Steve Keen and the team at Democracy For Sale use it, and I like the way it prompts subscription and notification of posts.
But I’d also heard rumours about Substack. Something didn’t sit right. Whilst not everything I write is about ethics, there’s always that element of professional integrity which underpins what we do. It made me think about the ethical aspects of where I host my content. In the same way that a lot of people have flapped their wings and flown away from certain social media platforms because of their ownership or stance on certain issues, I felt it was important to reflect the ethics of implementation in my platforming decisions for my writing.
This brings me neatly to the heart of this post: free speech absolutism. I want to think a little about what it promises, what it delivers, and why it’s professionally dangerous.
I should probably begin with a little sidebar on what free speech absolutism is. Essentially, it means that people should be able to say anything, free from any form of censorship. The idea being that certain perspectives will rise to the top in this market of ideas, while others will fall, based on their popularity. It means that no one should be “de-platformed” and have their right to say what they want to say removed from them.
Whilst it might at first seem positive that some platforms want to allow for all voices to be heard, we have to understand that all voices means literally that; ALL voices. No moderation, no interference, no decisions about what is or is not acceptable.
This raises multiple issues around what responsibilities such platforms have regarding the safety of their users. If you’ve spent any time on any form of social media it is likely that you will know that an unmoderated space does not miraculously produce philosophical debate and mutual enlightenment. It produces…chaos. And not the fun, creative kind.
A free-speech absolutist may believe that allowing everyone the opportunity to speak is fair because in theory this allows for both sides of an argument or debate to be presented. But if one of those sides is intimidating, harassing or abusive, it’s never that simple. If the decision to diminish or promote one voice is not made by the platform’s governance, then it might well be made by the most aggressive users dominating the space by shouting down those with whom they disagree, or just through the sheer volume of what they post.
Freedom of speech cannot mean the ability to shout the loudest or to abuse and frighten less powerful opponents into silence. Professor Sasha Roseneil, Sussex University
This isn’t just an abstract philosophical debate, it’s something I watch play out in real lives.
I work with people who are queer, trans, disabled, neurodivergent, or otherwise targeted disproportionately in unmoderated online spaces. For them, the challenges of free speech absolutism aren’t about a philosophical stance it’s a fundamental health and safety issue. When online platforms allow targeted hostility to flourish under the guise of free expression, those environments stop being neutral. They become complicit.
This doesn’t mean that I believe all platforms should descend into heavy‑handed censorship. This is arguably just as bad. Like the New York Times editorial team, someone will eventually decide what is and is not acceptable. What it does mean is that platforms must accept reality. A refusal to moderate is not neutrality it is a choice that shapes outcomes. Just as there can be challenges around neutrality in the presentation of information in decision-making, Sunstein argues that neutrality is not always the most ethical choice.
Substack as a real‑world example of an absolutist problem and it brings me back to my original question: Where should the Unburdened blog live?
Substack seemed like a tempting option. But a little more digging exposed high‑profile writers leaving over moderation failures and the platform hosting extremist content under the guise of free speech as well as issues regarding delayed enforcement and inconsistent policies. Its also become more of a long-form social media platform rather than a core blogging site.
This is precisely the problem with taking an absolutist line on platform governance. Good people end up leaving; not because they oppose free speech, but because they value their safety, their integrity, and their ability to participate without being drowned out by hostility.
As someone whose work is rooted in ethics, sustainability, and supporting a diverse client base, the choice seems rather obvious: I can’t put my writing in a place that doesn’t align with the values behind it.
It’s worth drawing a distinction here that can get muddled: freedom of speech is the right to express your views without state punishment; freedom of reach is the expectation of being algorithmically amplified, monetised, or promoted.
Absolutist platforms can conflate the two. Allowing people to speak is one thing. Boosting harmful speech because the platform refuses to intervene is something else entirely. Let’s not forget that articles which are the most controversial tend to be the ones which gather the most interest, the most comments and reactions. Don’t pretend that you haven’t occasionally thought about posting a comment on something in social media which exists only to get attention; not so much click-bait as comment-bait. It is often in a platform’s interest to algorithmically amplify voices which are in some way controversial.
Curating a responsible digital space isn’t about silencing dissention but about setting the necessary boundaries and conditions for constructive participation. In effect, guardrails don’t necessarily unduly restrict freedom, but they can enable it.
Hosting the blog on the Unburdened website enables me to maintain alignment with my professional values as well as protecting the diverse communities I serve from being pulled into hostile engagement environments. It helps me ensure continuity with the brand identity of Unburdened (something I confess I am just getting to grips with after 6 years in operation), and retain control over design, structure, and context. But importantly it helps me avoid inheriting the reputational risks of platforms caught in absolutist cycles.
It’s a quieter, more intentional choice. But a meaningful one.
Professionally, ethically, and personally, I’m not willing to put my work into a system that mistakes having no rules for freedom. Ok, I might not gather quite so many internet points, but surely the content and messaging should matter more than likes?
Better advice, better communication, and better digital spaces all emerge from the same principle: freedom works best when handled with care.
Until next time.
Alan