Citizens' support for democracy is crucial to the stability and legitimacy of contemporary liberal democracies. While declared endorsement of democratic principles is widespread, we know less about how conditional that support may be. Recent literature mainly examines the conditionality of democratic support through the lens of willingness to back undemocratic politicians (e.g., Graham and Svolik 2020; Frederiksen 2022), but less is known about how this conditionality manifests beyond voting behavior. To address this gap, this paper examines whether citizens see free speech as equally important for democracy when it is applied to individuals they disagree with as when it is applied to those they agree with. Through a survey experiment conducted in seven European countries, Study 1 examines this mechanism in the context of abortion. Study 2, conducted in Germany and the U.S., broadens the scope by exploring whether the type of issue influences citizens’ willingness to extend freedom of speech to those they disagree with. I find that citizens view free speech as more important for democracy when they agree with the content of the speech, compared to when they disagree. This confirms that support for democracy is not unconditional and that citizens can employ double standards when it comes to whom they grant democratic rights. This has implications for the inclusiveness of contemporary democracies, as it implies the lack of universal application of democratic principles, and is especially concerning in increasingly polarized societies.