Freedom of Expression vs Freedom of Harm

Disclaimer: This article discusses media ethics, online harm, and sensitive subject matter. Reader discretion is advised.

Why We Need Stronger Safeguards in Media and Online Spaces

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of any democratic society. It allows debate, accountability, creativity, and progress. However, in today’s digital-first world, that freedom is increasingly being weaponised, amplified through algorithms, sensational headlines, and comment sections that often lack empathy or restraint.

Too often, deeply sensitive topics are published without disclaimers, trigger warnings, or editorial care. Graphic details are normalised. Victims are dehumanised. And online audiences are invited, sometimes implicitly, to become judge, jury, and executioner.

This is not freedom of expression in its healthiest form. This is harm at scale.

The Problem With Unfiltered Publishing

Modern media ecosystems move fast. Social platforms reward outrage. Headlines are optimised for clicks. Context is lost. Compassion becomes optional.

The result?

Sensitive material appears without warning
Tragedies become entertainment
Comment sections devolve into mockery or cruelty
People affected by trauma are retraumatised simply by scrolling

When public figures or large platforms share distressing content without forewarning, they set the tone for how audiences respond. Without guardrails, this creates an environment where empathy is eroded, and abuse becomes normalised.

Respect costs nothing, yet it is often the first thing to disappear online.

Why Disclaimers and Trigger Warnings Should Be Standard Practice

A simple banner stating “Sensitive content ahead” gives readers the option to continue reading. It allows people to choose when, or whether, they engage.

This isn’t censorship. It’s informed consent.

Disclaimers:

Protect vulnerable audiences
Encourage responsible consumption of news
Promote ethical publishing standards
Reduce the risk of retraumatisation

They are already used in broadcasting and film. There is no reason they should not be mandatory across digital journalism and social media.

The Case for an Editorial Code of Conduct, Online and Offline

Traditional journalism operates under regulatory frameworks, but social media has outpaced meaningful enforcement.

In the UK, organisations such as Ofcom and Independent Press Standards Organisation provide oversight for broadcasters and much of the press, yet vast areas of online content fall into grey zones.

Meanwhile, global platforms like Meta Platforms and X effectively act as publishers, moderators, and amplifiers, while largely setting their own rules.

This raises serious questions:

Who decides what is acceptable?
Why are laughing reactions allowed on posts involving fatalities?
Why are vile comments often left standing while victims are expected to “just scroll on”?

There is a growing need for:

A unified digital editorial code of conduct
Mandatory trigger warnings for sensitive subjects
Stricter moderation around deaths, violence, and abuse
Clear penalties for platforms that repeatedly fail to protect users

Social media should not be a free-for-all. With influence comes responsibility.

Public Interest vs Sensationalism

Not everything that can be published should be published.

True public-interest reporting informs, protects, or holds power to account. Sensationalism simply provokes emotion for clicks.

Legislation should draw a clearer line between:

Necessary reporting
Gratuitous detail
Harmful speculation
Comment-driven pile-ons

People should not be tried in comment sections. And victims should not become collateral damage in the race for engagement.

Freedom of Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Accountability

Freedom of expression was never intended to justify cruelty.

It does not grant a licence to humiliate, mock, or retraumatise others. Nor does it absolve platforms or publishers from their duty of care.

When influential voices share sensitive material, they should lead by example, using disclaimers, measured language, and respect for those affected.

A civil society depends not only on rights, but on responsibility.

Conclusion

We urgently need stronger digital standards: clearer laws, better moderation, mandatory trigger warnings, and an enforceable editorial framework that extends into social media. But legislation alone is not enough. Every individual also carries responsibility. People should be mindful of what they write in comment sections. You never know who is reading; it could be a friend, family member, or acquaintance of the person involved, or someone who has lived through something similar. Insensitive remarks can reopen wounds, force others to relive trauma, and cause harm far beyond what the commenter ever intended. Words matter. Compassion matters. Freedom of expression must never become freedom to harm. Before posting, pause and consider the wider audience. Respect costs nothing, and empathy can make all the difference.