How to Protect Freedom of Speech

Section 1 Top 35 Countries with the Highest Freedom of Speech

Source: Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index 2023; Freedom House Freedom of the World 2023.

Year of Data: 2023

United States Ranking and Analysis:

The United States is ranked 25th among the top 35 countries with populations over 5 million with the highest freedom of speech, with a score of 70/100. This ranking reflects several key factors.

Despite the First Amendment providing some of the strongest formal legal protections for free speech in the world, the United States has seen a decline in its press freedom ranking in recent years. Contributing factors include: increased political polarization leading to greater hostility toward journalists, growing media consolidation limiting diverse viewpoints, documented physical threats and violence against reporters, concerns over government surveillance of journalists and whistleblowers, and the use of legal mechanisms such as subpoenas to compel journalists to reveal sources.

In 2023, the United States ranked 45th globally on the RSF World Press Freedom Index, a decline from prior years. Domestically, the Freedom House score of 70/100 reflects these same tensions.

Sources and References:

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index: (rsf.org)

Freedom House - Freedom of the World: (freedomhouse.org)

Gallup World Poll (Free Expression data): (www.gallup.com)

Freedom of Speech by World Region

Section 2 What Other Countries Have Done to Increase Their Freedom of Speech

The 8 Top Rated Countries with the Highest Freedom of Speech

Norge (Norway)

Norge consistently ranks first in global press freedom and freedom of expression rankings.

Norge's Media Freedom Act (Mediefrihetsloven) and the Freedom of Information Act (Offentlighetsloven) provide robust legal frameworks.

The Norge Press Complaints Commission (PFU) (pfu.no) independently adjudicates press conduct.

The Norge Media Authority (medietilsynet.no) regulates broadcasting with a mandate to protect editorial independence.

Public broadcasting through NRK (nrk.no) operates at arm's length from government.

State subsidies for independent newspapers ensure media pluralism without editorial control.

Norge has strong whistleblower protections under the Working Environment Act, and the government actively engages in international press freedom advocacy through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (www.regjeringen.no).

Suomi (Finland)

Suomi's constitution (Section 12) explicitly guarantees freedom of expression and access to information.

The Act on the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media governs media operations.

The Council for Mass Media (JSN) (jsn.fi) functions as a self-regulatory body.

Suomi has invested heavily in media literacy education, integrating it into the national school curriculum through the Suomi National Agency for Education (oph.fi). The Suomi Ministry of Transport and Communications (oph.fi) regularly reviews and updates digital media policies. (lvm.fi)

Suomi has resisted censorship pressures in digital spaces, maintaining open internet policies.

The Suomi Broadcasting Company YLE (yle.fi) is publicly funded but independently operated.

Sverige (Sweden)

Sverige has one of the world's oldest press freedom laws, the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766, which is enshrined as a constitutional instrument.

Sverige's Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen) also guarantees freedom of expression.

The Sverige Press and Broadcasting Authority (mprt.se) oversees broadcasting and promotes media diversity.

Sverige's Source Protection Laws (Meddelarskyddet) grant exceptionally strong protections to whistleblowers and anonymous sources, allowing journalists to protect identities even under legal duress.

The Sverige Newspaper Publishers' Association (tu.se) actively lobbies for press freedom. Sverige has strong anti-SLAPP protections that deter abusive litigation intended to silence journalists and activists.

Danmark (Denmark)

Danmark protects freedom of expression under Section 77 of its Constitution (Danmarks Riges Grundlov).

The Danmark Press Council (Pressenævnet) (pressenaevnet.dk) adjudicates complaints and upholds journalistic standards independently of government.

Danmark regularly updates its Freedom of Information legislation. The Danmark Broadcasting Corporation DR (dr.dk) operates as a public service entity with editorial independence guaranteed by charter. Danmark has implemented extensive defamation law reforms to prevent their misuse against journalists. The Danish Union of Journalists (dr.dk) provides legal defense resources to journalists facing intimidation. (journalistforbundet.dk)

New Zealand

New Zealand protects freedom of expression under Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The Broadcasting Act 1989 and the Media Council of New Zealand (mediacouncil.org.nz) ensure editorial independence and public accountability.

New Zealand's Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) ensures broad public access to government-held information.

The New Zealand On Air (nzonair.govt.nz) public media funding body provides financial support to independent journalism without editorial conditions.

New Zealand's Human Rights Commission (hrc.co.nz) actively monitors and reports on freedom of expression.

The NZ government has introduced strengthened digital safety legislation while explicitly preserving free speech principles.

Nederland (Netherlands)

The Nederland guarantees freedom of expression under Article 7 of its Constitution (Grondwet).

The Dutch Media Authority (Commissariaat voor de Media) (cvdm.nl) regulates public and commercial broadcasting with strict independence from government. The Nederland Press Fund (Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek) (cvdm.nl) provides financial support to independent and local journalism. The Nederland has a long tradition of strong source protection laws. The Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ) (cvdm.nl) provides legal resources and advocates for journalists' rights. (svdj.nl) (nvj.nl)

The Nederland actively promotes press freedom internationally through its foreign policy agenda and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (government.nl).

Canada

Canada's Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 2(b)) guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) (crtc.gc.ca) regulates broadcasting with provisions for editorial independence. The Federal Access to Information Act provides broad rights to government-held information. Canada's CBC/Radio-Canada (crtc.gc.ca) operates as an independent public broadcaster under a mandate free from direct government editorial control. The Canadian Association of Journalists (crtc.gc.ca) provides legal resources and advocates against SLAPP suits. (cbc.ca) (caj.ca)

Canada's Department of Justice has invested in strengthening anti-SLAPP legislation (justice.gc.ca).

Australia

Australia has an implied constitutional right to political communication derived from the Constitution's provisions for representative government (established in Nationwide News v Wills 1992 and Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth 1992).

The Australian Press Council (presscouncil.org.au) serves as the self-regulatory body for print and online media. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) (presscouncil.org.au) regulates broadcasting. The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (presscouncil.org.au) operates as an independent public broadcaster. (acma.gov.au) (abc.net.au)

Australia has enacted shield laws protecting journalist sources in federal jurisdiction under the Evidence Amendment (Journalist Privilege) Act 2011. The Reporters Without Borders Australia chapter (rsf.org) advocates for stronger explicit constitutional speech protections.

Section 3 What the U.S. Could Do to Increase Its Freedom of Speech

Although the United States possesses the First Amendment, widely considered the most explicit legal protection for free speech in the world, structural, political, economic, and cultural factors continue to erode its practical effectiveness. To genuinely increase and protect freedom of speech, action is required across multiple sectors of society.

Government Agencies

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (fcc.gov) could revise and modernize media ownership rules to prevent excessive consolidation that limits diverse viewpoints.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) (justice.gov) could review and reform the Espionage Act to eliminate its misuse against journalists and whistleblowers.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) (dni.gov) could implement clearer and narrower policies on surveillance of journalists.

Congress could pass a comprehensive federal shield law protecting journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources.

The National Endowment for Democracy (ned.org) could expand grants supporting independent domestic journalism. USAID (ned.org) and the State Department (ned.org) could include domestic press freedom metrics alongside international advocacy programs. (usaid.gov) (state.gov)

Government Officials

Members of Congress could enact anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation at the federal level to prevent wealthy individuals and corporations from using litigation to silence journalists, activists, and private citizens.

Congressional committees such as the House Judiciary Committee (judiciary.house.gov) and the Senate Judiciary Committee (judiciary.house.gov) could hold regular oversight hearings on the status of press freedom and free expression in the United States. (judiciary.senate.gov)

Federal judges could consistently apply strict scrutiny to laws that restrict speech. State legislators could repeal or reform criminal defamation statutes that are inconsistently enforced and chilling to free expression.

The President and executive branch leaders could publicly and consistently affirm the importance of press freedom and refrain from rhetoric that delegitimizes journalism.

Corporations

Technology companies including Google (google.com), Meta (google.com), Apple (google.com), and X Corp (google.com) could adopt transparent, consistently applied content moderation policies and provide meaningful appeals processes for users whose content is removed. (meta.com) (apple.com) (x.com)

Corporations could cease using non-disclosure agreements and legal threats to suppress whistleblowing.

Major media corporations including Comcast (comcast.com), Warner Bros. Discovery (comcast.com), and News Corp (comcast.com) could implement editorial independence policies that insulate news divisions from commercial and ownership pressures. (wbd.com) (newscorp.com)

Social media platforms could publish regular transparency reports detailing government requests for content removal.

Corporations could fund independent journalism nonprofits such as the Pulitzer Center (pulitzercenter.org) and the Solutions Journalism Network (pulitzercenter.org). (solutionsjournalism.org)

Organizations and Private Individuals

Organizations such as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (rcfp.org), the Freedom of the Press Foundation (rcfp.org), the Committee to Protect Journalists (rcfp.org), the ACLU (rcfp.org), and PEN America (rcfp.org) could continue and expand their legal defense, advocacy, and public education programs. (freedom.press) (cpj.org) (aclu.org) (pen.org)

Universities and educational institutions could reinforce free speech principles in classrooms and campus policies, avoiding compelled speech or viewpoint discrimination.

Private citizens can support free speech by participating in public comment processes, financially supporting independent journalism, contacting elected officials, and understanding their rights under the First Amendment. Communities could support the establishment of local, independent news organizations to counter media deserts created by consolidation.

Section 4 References

Section 2 References:

Reporters Without Borders (RSF): (rsf.org)

Freedom House: (freedomhouse.org)

Norwegian Press Complaints Commission (PFU): (pfu.no)

Norwegian Media Authority: (medietilsynet.no)

Finnish National Agency for Education: (oph.fi)

Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority: (mprt.se)

Danish Press Council: (pressenaevnet.dk)

Media Council of New Zealand: (mediacouncil.org.nz)

Dutch Media Authority: (cvdm.nl)

Nederland Press Fund: (svdj.nl)

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): (crtc.gc.ca)

Canadian Association of Journalists: (caj.ca)

Australian Press Council: (presscouncil.org.au)

Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA): (acma.gov.au)

Section 3 References:

Federal Communications Commission (FCC): (fcc.gov)

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ): (justice.gov)

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI): (dni.gov)

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: (rcfp.org)

Freedom of the Press Foundation: (freedom.press)

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ): (cpj.org)

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): (aclu.org)

PEN America: (pen.org)

Pulitzer Center: (pulitzercenter.org)

Solutions Journalism Network: (solutionsjournalism.org)

National Endowment for Democracy: (ned.org)

Section 5: U.S. Organizations Advocating to Improve Freedom of Speech

Section 6: Individuals Advocating to Improve Freedom of Speech

Frequently Asked Questions

How does the United States rank in global freedom of speech?

The United States ranks 25th among countries with populations over 5 million on a combined index, with a Freedom House score of 70/100. On the RSF World Press Freedom Index specifically, the U.S. ranked 45th globally in 2023, reflecting a notable decline in recent years.

Why has U.S. press freedom declined in recent years?

Key contributing factors include increased political polarization and hostility toward journalists, growing media consolidation, documented physical threats against reporters, and government surveillance of journalists and whistleblowers. Legal mechanisms such as subpoenas to compel journalists to reveal sources have also raised concerns.

Which country ranks highest for freedom of speech and why?

Norway consistently ranks first globally in press freedom and freedom of expression. It achieves this through robust legal frameworks like the Media Freedom Act, an independent press complaints commission, strong whistleblower protections, and state subsidies for independent newspapers that ensure media pluralism without editorial control.

How do top-ranked countries protect whistleblowers and anonymous sources?

Sweden's Source Protection Laws grant exceptionally strong protections to whistleblowers and anonymous sources, enshrined in its constitutional Freedom of the Press Act of 1766. Norway similarly protects whistleblowers through its Working Environment Act, setting a high legal standard for source confidentiality.

What role does media literacy play in protecting freedom of speech?

Finland has integrated media literacy education directly into its national school curriculum through the Finnish National Agency for Education. This approach helps citizens critically evaluate information, resist misinformation, and understand their rights, making media literacy a foundational tool for sustaining a free press.

How do top-ranked countries fund public broadcasting without compromising independence?

Norway's NRK and Finland's YLE are both publicly funded but operate independently at arm's length from government, insulating editorial decisions from political interference. This model demonstrates that public funding and editorial independence can coexist when strong governance structures are in place.

About the Author

Ronald Bonfilio has devoted his career to public service spanning more than five decades. His service began with the U.S. Army from 1966 to 1968, where he conducted medical laboratory research at Fort Detrick and at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. He subsequently held a distinguished series of federal positions, including roles with the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Agency for International Development (Vietnam), the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, and the U.S. State Department (Iraq), where he served as a Senior Economic Advisor and Agricultural Advisor. He also served 15 years with the U.S. Government Accountability Office as a Program Analyst and Auditor.

Ronald Bonfilio holds a degree in Economics from the University of Maryland, and degrees in Chemistry and a Master of Business Administration from the University of Massachusetts. He is a former Certified Public Accountant.