Daily Brief — September 13, 2026

By

·

September 13, 2026

·

2–3 minutes

Quote of the Day

“Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.”
— Rosa Luxemburg

The line comes from Luxemburg’s The Russian Revolution, written in 1918, where she argued against political freedom becoming a privilege reserved for people who already agree with those in power.

There is a difficult test hidden inside that sentence.

Most of us are comfortable with freedom when it protects our own voice. We want to speak. We want to criticise. We want our political choices, beliefs and grievances to be respected.

Then someone we strongly disagree with begins to speak.

That is where the principle becomes harder.

A democracy does not prove its strength by allowing praise. Praise rarely threatens anybody. The harder question is what happens to criticism, uncomfortable questions and unpopular opinions.

This does not mean that every statement is true, kind or beyond consequence. It means that disagreement itself cannot become a reason to silence someone.

Perhaps freedom of expression matters most precisely when we would rather not hear what the other person has to say.

Quote source: Rosa Luxemburg Foundation — Between Love and Anger: Rosa Luxemburg

Did You Know?

Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are related rights—but international human-rights law does not treat them exactly the same way.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and share information and ideas.

The distinction becomes even clearer in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the right to hold an opinion is absolute. Governments cannot legitimately restrict what someone thinks.

Expression is different.

International law recognises that what we say or publish can sometimes affect other people’s rights or public safety. Restrictions may therefore be permitted—but only under narrow conditions. They must be provided by law, pursue a legitimate purpose such as protecting another person’s rights or reputation, and be necessary and proportionate.

That distinction matters far beyond a courtroom.

Imagine criticising a mayor at a community meeting. Questioning a government policy on Facebook. A journalist investigating public spending. A student disagreeing with a lecturer.

People do not have to agree with what is being said.

But disagreement alone is not enough to justify shutting the speaker down.

And this is why freedom of expression is not simply about being allowed to talk. It is also about creating enough space for citizens to question the people and institutions that exercise power over their lives.

A society where everyone is free to agree is not much of a test.