Please tell us about a specific situation from your own life where freedom of expression was important to you.

– Most people think that what made freedom of expression important to me was the experience of having it restricted when I was a young woman growing up in Norway. While that is partly true, it’s only part of the story.
The most defining moment came later, when I decided to start making films. I realized that in public discourse, many perspectives were either ignored or presented in ways that stripped them of their humanity. Instead of exploring the deeper, underlying dynamics of societal issues, these stories were often framed to serve political agendas, reinforcing stereotypes and perpetuating divisions.
This realization became the driving force behind my decision to become a filmmaker. I wanted to explore the complexities of human experience, particularly those of marginalized communities, ensuring that these stories were told with integrity and humanity. I came to understand that, far too often, we encounter people who are different from ourselves only through the lens of the media. And when those stories are oversimplified, sensationalized, or mainly framed negatively—focusing on violence or conflict without addressing the emotional, cultural, and human contexts—it’s no wonder that fear and xenophobia grow between communities.

One of the first stories I chose to tell was that of Banaz Mahmod. Though her story was already well-known, it had often been reduced to a symbol of tragedy, rather than a reflection of her full humanity. Her death was frequently used to reinforce negative stereotypes about men from her culture, turning her life into a political tool rather than an opportunity for genuine reflection. I felt it was crucial to approach her story from a more nuanced and compassionate perspective—one that acknowledged both the struggles within her community and the prejudices and “othering” present in the wider society. Both ideas could—and do—exist within the same experience, resisting the “either/or” or “us vs. them” framing.

This decision—to engage with difficult, uncomfortable subjects while honoring the humanity of those involved—became a pivotal moment for me. I realized that the answer to harmful or negative speech is not less speech, but more speech—more honest, open-hearted storytelling that reflects the full complexity of human lives. We need stories that don’t just highlight our differences in ways that deepen divisions, but also bring attention to our shared experiences and commonalities, while still being unafraid to address the differences as well.
I learned that in storytelling, we must illuminate both our differences and our similarities—not one at the expense of the other. The goal was to add depth and nuance to the conversations that matter most. I wanted to complicate these narratives, showing the layers of emotion, struggle, and resilience that define people’s lives—even the lives of people we may not like or agree with. Through this, I hope to foster a greater understanding of how, despite our differences, we are all deeply interconnected in the human experience.
When Fritt Ord decided to believe in me and support the making of the Banaz film, it gave me the opportunity to begin my journey as a filmmaker. That moment became a defining turning point in my life, marking when freedom of expression truly became front and center in all the work I’ve done as a filmmaker and activist since then.

What would you say are the strengths of the freedom of expression situation in Norway today?

– One of the most important strengths of freedom of expression in Norway is the explicit legal protection it enjoys. This legal framework is crucial because it not only guarantees the right to free speech but also sets the cultural and social tone for how freedom of expression is regarded within the country. By enshrining this right in the Constitution, Norway underscores its foundational importance and demonstrates its commitment to maintaining an open and democratic society. The legal protection of free speech shapes the broader societal understanding that open discourse is an essential part of Norwegian life.

In addition to national protections, Norway’s adherence to international conventions further strengthens its commitment to freedom of expression. As a signatory to agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights, Norway is bound by international standards that promote free speech and protect individuals from censorship or persecution for expressing their views. This alignment with global human rights principles reinforces Norway’s role as a leader in defending civil liberties and contributes to its reputation as a nation that values open dialogue.
Another critical strength is Norway’s free and independent media, which plays a central role in ensuring that freedom of expression is upheld in practice. The Norwegian media operates with a high degree of autonomy, enabling journalists to report freely on a broad range of topics—sometimes even controversial or uncomfortable issues—without fear of state, corporate, religious or political interference. This free press serves as a cornerstone of democracy.

What sets Norway apart from many other countries is its ability to engage in constructive public dialogue around difficult and often polarizing topics. Whether it’s discussions about immigration, climate change, gender equality, or other societal challenges, Norway in principle fosters an open space for debate where multiple perspectives are welcome, however we can do better at being more invective of more diverse and minority voices.

I also believe that Fritt Ord plays a vital role in encouraging public discourse, supporting journalists, filmmakers and other creative voices as well as civil society ensuring that critical voices are heard. Its work underscores the importance of protecting the freedom to express challenging or unpopular ideas strengthening the conditions for a pluralistic public sphere.

What are the biggest obstacles to freedom of expression internationally?

– In Norway, I feel there is a need for greater inclusivity in public discourse, particularly for socioeconomic, minority, and neurodiverse voices. While Norway is generally inclusive, these groups are still at risk of underrepresentation in mainstream media and public dialogue. Additionally, like many other countries, Norway faces the challenge of echo chambers, where people engage only with those who share similar views. This can deepen division and polarization, as people become more disconnected from each other’s realities. We need more expression, not less. Norway must foster a culture of open, honest conversations, where diverse viewpoints are included, and freedom of speech is used to unite, not exclude.

Internationally, we are seeing an increasing number of journalists, artists, and activists face violence, with many being targeted for reporting on sensitive issues or speaking out against governments. Women journalists, in particular, are especially vulnerable to harassment and threats. Social media platforms, while promoting free speech, have become hotspots for hate speech, violent rhetoric, and misinformation, contributing to social fragmentation and real-world harm. Many journalists, activists, and artists also face censorship, surveillance, and self-censorship due to fear of retaliation, political pressure, or losing funding. This limits the free exchange of ideas and silences critical voices.

Moreover, the growing concentration of media ownership threatens the diversity of thought, as a few corporations or individuals control the flow of information, often shaping public discourse to their advantage. We are also witnessing more authoritarian governments using state power to suppress free speech and control the media, targeting journalists, activists, and dissenting voices. Misinformation and disinformation spread rapidly online, distorting public understanding and undermining trust in media and democratic institutions. Lastly, rising populist movements often use dehumanizing rhetoric to target vulnerable groups for political gain, further polarizing societies and eroding freedoms.

Which struggle for freedom of expression would you say is partially forgotten today?

– Freedom of expression struggles that often go overlooked include the challenges faced by refugees and migrants, who are frequently restricted from protesting or sharing their stories. Their voices are marginalized, and migration issues are often framed through a security or economic lens, which obscures their fundamental human rights. In a similar vein, digital surveillance increasingly limits free speech, as people avoid discussing sensitive issues when they know they’re being watched. The impact of surveillance on privacy and expression is frequently sidelined in favor of national security concerns.

Environmental activists also face severe consequences for speaking out, including legal action, violence, and even anti-terrorism charges, especially in countries where corporate interests hold significant power. Their efforts are often overshadowed by political and corporate agendas. Additionally, the concentration of media ownership limits access to diverse viewpoints, undermining press freedom. This problem is often ignored, even in democracies where media pluralism is seen as a given. In many parts of the world, blasphemy laws criminalize speech that challenges religious ideologies, leading to imprisonment or violence, yet these concerns are often downplayed to avoid offending cultural or religious sensibilities.

Artistic expression is also under increasing threat, with governments and powerful institutions censoring or restricting art that challenges political or social norms. Artists, musicians, and filmmakers often face repression, censorship, or punishment for their work, particularly in authoritarian regimes or in societies where art is seen as a tool for political control. Lastly, academic freedom is increasingly under threat, with scholars facing pressure to censor research or avoid controversial topics, such as climate change or gender issues, due to political or financial influence.

What role do you think Fritt Ord ought to play from now on in the future?

– If it weren’t for Fritt Ord, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to begin my career as a filmmaker. Their willingness to take a chance on someone with no prior filmmaking experience and give me the freedom to create the film I envisioned made it possible for me to pursue the work I’ve done over the past decade. I hope Fritt Ord will continue to take risks and support individuals who have something meaningful to say or offer a unique perspective.

I also believe it would be incredibly valuable for both those within and outside of Norway to have access to a Fritt Ord community—an international network of creators, thinkers, activists, artists, and journalists, all united by the shared mission of fostering and defending a vibrant, inclusive, and free space for expression.
Solidarity among these diverse voices — whether advocating for social change, pushing creative boundaries, or defending human rights—could strengthen our collective efforts to uphold freedom of expression in our different fields and corners of the world.