It’s easy to imagine that rights disappear through dramatic events, but history suggests something rather different.

More often, our rights are eroded gradually.

A book is quietly removed from a library. A play is cancelled because it feels too controversial. A topic becomes something people avoid discussing rather than exploring.

These decisions are often made with good intentions. They may be driven by concerns about offence, conflict or public reaction, but they raise an important question:

     Who gets to decide which ideas people are allowed to explore or encounter?

The arts have long represented something powerful. Not agreement with every idea they contain, but confidence that people can think critically, question, challenge and learn.

The same principle applies to social media, journalism and education.

Of course, this doesn't mean every viewpoint should go unchallenged. Tolerance is not the same as passivity. Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance reminds us that “A tolerant society doesn’t tolerate intolerance”.

We can defend free expression while also challenging speech and behaviour that incite hatred, violence, or the removal of other people's rights or safety. The aim is neither censorship nor unchecked licence, but to preserve a society in which everyone can participate safely in open debate.

Protecting access to ideas doesn't mean endorsing every viewpoint. It means recognising that open discussion is one of the foundations of a healthy democratic society.

History also reminds us that rights are interconnected. When one group's rights are weakened, the consequences rarely stop there. The freedom that protects one person's voice today may be needed to protect ours tomorrow.

Perhaps that's why conversations about free expression shouldn't be viewed as benefiting any one group or political perspective. They matter because they affect all of us.

How does your organisation protect freedom of expression while responding appropriately to ideas that threaten the rights and safety of others?

The question isn't whether we'll always agree with what's being said. It's whether we're comfortable with someone else deciding what and who are no longer allowed to be heard.

Rights are rarely lost all at once.

They disappear one small decision at a time.

‍