During the Cold War, freedom was more than a political slogan, it was an ideological weapon. U.S. President Harry Truman’s 1947 address framed communism as bondage and Western democracy as the path to liberation and prosperity (Department of State, n.d). For newly decolonising nations like Ghana, this vision was irresistible: freedom meant rejecting colonial domination and asserting autonomy over governance, speech as well as identity. But freedom has always been a paradox. The Frankfurt School’s critical theorists argued that modernity’s promise of liberation often produced new forms of control. Horkheimer & Adorno (1944) observed that rationalization and uniformity reduced individuality, producing what Marcuse (1964) called the “one-dimensional man.” In other words, freedom was not absolute, it was structured, channeled, and regulated, often to preserve the very order it claimed to free people from.
This paradox deepens in the digital era. Social media has expanded the space for expression, giving ordinary citizens a voice, yet it also subjects them to algorithmic control, data surveillance, and commodification (Foucault, 1980; Zuboff, 2019). In Ghana, this creates a powerful but dangerous combination: a public sphere where grievances are aired freely but where harmful speech, misinformation, and radical calls to action can spread unchecked. This article critically interrogates the meaning of freedom in the digital age, drawing on critical theory, constitutional principles, and contemporary Ghanaian cases to explore where freedom begins and ends. The paper argues that Ghana’s democratic gains require a recalibration of freedom, one that balances rights with responsibility and security imperatives.
Digital Ghana: Freedom Meets Disorder
In Ghana’s fluid digital space, Habermas’s (1989) concept of the public sphere is evident. Habermas, who is a key theorist in participatory democracy, envisioned a space for rational-critical debate, where citizens deliberate on common concerns. Ghana’s media environment partially fulfills this ideal. Hashtags like #FixTheCountry mobilised youth to demand accountability, using digital platforms as arenas for democratic participation. But Habermas also warned that the public sphere could be distorted by commercialization and power interests, a warning that resonates today. Viral content is driven by clicks, not reason, amplifying outrage over dialogue. Consider the case of David Kwodow Prah Afful, who appeared in a viral video inciting violence against public officials and calling on “street boys” to join a “revolution.” His arrest shows the state’s attempt to protect public order, but some online comments supporting him and framing his arrest as a political intimidation reveal a counter-public that feels alienated from formal politics. Here, Habermas helps us see that the problem is not just bad speech but a fragmented public sphere where rational deliberation is replaced by emotional and public outbursts. In addition, Foucault’s (1980) notion of power as dispersed and productive, sheds light on why digital freedom is so complex. Social media platforms are not neutral spaces, they govern what users see through algorithms, privileging sensational or divisive content because it drives engagement. Thus, even as Ghanaians celebrate freedom of speech, they are subtly shaped by digital architectures that encourage virality, outrage, and spectacle. This can have dangerous consequences. When online threats circulate such as the August 2025 video in which two individuals threatened to kill the President and First Lady, they are not just idle speech acts. They are amplified by algorithms, reaching wide audiences and potentially normalising extremism.
The Frankfurt School’s critique of modern culture is also relevant for Ghana’s rising digital moral crises. The proliferation of nudity, sex leaks, and explicit “content creation” on TikTok and Facebook reflects what Adorno might call the culture industry’s commodification of the body (Luo, & Luo, 2023). These trends challenge Ghanaian cultural norms and expose younger audiences (despite TikTok being rated 12+) to harmful and exploitative material. The problem, therefore, is not freedom per se but the industrialisation of freedom, the way speech, sexuality, and outrage are packaged for consumption. Ghana now faces what Karl Popper (1945) famously called the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance may enable intolerant forces to destroy tolerance itself. If threats, defamation, and incitement are allowed to flourish unchecked, they can destabilise democratic institutions and encourage violence (Laumond, 2022). This creates a freedom–security dilemma: regulate too strictly and risk authoritarianism; regulate too loosely and risk violent extremism. The state’s response must therefore be calibrated, using proportionate legal tools while protecting legitimate dissent.
Rethinking Freedom: Responsible Digital Citizenship
Ghana’s 1992 Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and free press under Article 21(1)(a), and explicitly protects the right to information under Article 21(1)(f). These provisions form the backbone of Ghana’s democratic culture, enabling a vibrant media landscape and robust political discourse. Yet these freedoms are not unlimited. Article 164 of the Constitution allows restrictions where speech threatens public morality, public order, or national security. This constitutional balancing act is crucial in the digital age, where harmful content can spread faster than authorities can respond. Freedom in the digital age cannot be treated as a blank cheque. It must be reframed as responsible freedom, a shared social contract balancing individual rights with collective safety. This requires:
- Digital Literacy Campaigns: Teaching citizens, especially the youth, to critically evaluate online content, identify disinformation, and avoid radicalisation pathways.
- Early Warning Systems: Using comment analysis, trending hashtags, and sentiment analysis to detect emerging extremist rhetoric before it spills into offline violence.
- Legal Reform: Updating Ghana’s Criminal and Other Offences Act and Cybersecurity Act to clearly define online incitement and hate speech, with proportionate penalties.
- Structural Interventions: Addressing unemployment, inequality, and political alienation that make radical messages appealing.
The digital age has made freedom easier to access but harder to manage. Ghana’s democratic journey illustrates that freedom is not simply the absence of control, it is the presence of conditions that allow for safe, meaningful participation. Habermas helps us see the need to restore rational debate; Foucault reminds us that power is already at work in digital spaces; the Frankfurt School warns of cultural commodification; and Popper reminds us that tolerance has limits. To preserve democracy, Ghana must invest in digital governance, civic education, and social cohesion. Freedom, if left unexamined, can become the very weapon that undermines the society it was meant to liberate. The challenge is to ensure that freedom does not simply mean “anything goes” but that it creates a space where all citizens can flourish without fear or harm.
Reference
Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (2000). The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception (1944). Dialectic of Enlightenment, 94-136.
Department of State ,. The Truman Doctrine, 1947. history.state.gov. September 16, 2025. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/truman-doctrine
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-79, (Ed. Colin Gordon). New York: Pantheon.
Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Trans. by Burger T. with the Assistance of Lawrence F.). Polity Press, Cambridge, 161.
Laumond, B. (2022). Addressing the paradox of tolerance in liberal democracies: why do France and Germany respond differently to right-wing radicalism? Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 31(2), 556–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2021.2024429
Luo, Z., & Luo, W. (2023). Adorno. Journal of Education and Educational Research, 6(2), 71-73. https://doi.org/10.54097/jeer.v6i2.14962Marcuse, H. (1964). One-Dimensional Man. Beacon Press.
Popper, K. R. (1945). The Paradox of Tolerance.
Republic of Ghana (1992). Constitution of Ghana. Article 21.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Profile Books.
