Legal protections for free expression are widespread, but in professional life many still stay silent. At WEXFO 2025, a panel representing legal expertise, advocacy and journalism explored why rights on paper don’t always translate into real freedom.
This article is based on a breakout session at WEXFO 2025. Watch the full video to hear directly from the panelists: Ingrid Sandberg (opening speaker and moderator), Saurav Das, Adele Matheson Mestad, Sarah McLaughlin, Denise Roche.
“Freedom of expression is a term commonly used but not necessarily given the same or the correct legal content,” said moderator Ingrid Sandberg in her opening of the session. Sandberg, partner at Thallaug Law Firm, reminded the audience that every legal rule has a rationale, and that revisiting the basics can reveal important nuances.
Sandberg outlined the legal foundations of free speech, emphasizing that freedom of expression includes not only the right to speak, but also the right to remain silent, express oneself through art, and receive information. But she also underlined:
“As an employee, colleague and professional, the freedom of expression is still the same. But the perceived room for expression is often smaller than the actual legal one.”
This gap between legal protection and lived experience was a recurring theme throughout the session.
The implementation gap
Adele Matheson Mestad, lawyer and former director of the Norwegian Human Rights Institution, described how formal protections often fail to translate into real freedom:
“The freedom is not felt by the people who are protected by it.”
She emphasized that public debate suffers when professionals – like teachers or healthcare workers – don’t feel safe sharing their insights:
“If the doctors were communicating more freely, it would provide us as general citizens with better knowledge.”
Academic freedom vs. free speech
Academia faces similar challenges. However, Denise Roche from Scholars at Risk reminded the audience that academic freedom is not just about individual rights – it’s about the quality of public knowledge:
“Academic freedom is synonymous with critical thinking. We’re talking about the ability to reason, to have rational debate, to form evidence-based opinions – all the things we need as a society, as a democracy, to survive and thrive.”
Roche distinguished academic freedom from general free speech, noting that while anyone can claim the earth is flat under freedom of expression, an astrophysicist cannot do so under academic freedom without violating disciplinary standards.
Roche also warned that temporary contracts and lack of institutional support leave many academics vulnerable:
“You can easily diminish academic freedom by just removing a term from a contract or by not offering tenured positions.”
Global contrasts
The session also highlighted global contrasts. In India, journalist Saurav Das described how private sector employees face termination for expressing political views, with few legal protections:
“There’s an absolute vacuum when it comes to private sectors. What fills that vacuum is the contractual obligations between employer and employee.”
In the U.S., Sarah McLaughlin from Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) explained how private universities can restrict speech based on institutional values, even while claiming to uphold academic freedom:
“Some of these private colleges kind of want it both ways. They want to be able to say: We’re a religious institution. These are our values. But they also want to say: We support free speech and academic freedom, and we protect our academic rights.”
McLaughlin also highlighted the vulnerability of part-time and untenured faculty, who often lack the resources to challenge censorship or sanctions.
Culture matters
Across contexts, one message was clear: Culture matters. Legal protections are essential, but without a workplace or institutional culture that supports open dialogue, those protections may remain unused.
As Adele Matheson Mestad put it:
“Any kind of restriction on freedom of speech – even if it’s not directed at you – will always have a chilling effect.”
This chilling effect doesn’t just silence individuals; it weakens public debate, academic integrity, and democratic development.
