Learn Hardcore Spanish (Spain): En una sociedad democrática, la igualdad y la libertad de expresión son más fuertes cuando todas las personas pueden opinar sin miedo. - In a democratic society, equality and freedom of expression are stronger when everyone can give their opinion without fear.

En una sociedad democrática = In a democratic society (in general)
En la sociedad democrática would sound like:
- you are talking about a specific society that is democratic (maybe one already mentioned), or
- you are treating “the democratic society” as a unique, defined model.

In this sentence, the idea is universal and generic: in any democratic society, these principles are stronger. That’s why una is used.

Why is it “sociedad democrática” (feminine) and not “sociedad democrático”?

In Spanish, adjectives must agree in gender and number with the noun they describe.

sociedad is feminine and singular: la sociedad
democrático/democrática must match:
- masculine singular: democrático
- feminine singular: democrática

So you need democrática:

una sociedad democrática ✅
una sociedad democrático ❌ (wrong gender agreement)

Why does it say “la igualdad y la libertad de expresión son” with a plural verb “son”?

The subject of the verb is two things joined by y:

la igualdad
la libertad de expresión

When you have a compound subject (X y Y), Spanish normally uses a plural verb:

La igualdad y la libertad de expresión son… ✅
La igualdad y la libertad de expresión es… ❌

So son is plural because the subject is “igualdad + libertad de expresión” (two separate nouns).

Why is it “más fuertes” and not just “más fuerte”?

The adjective fuerte has to agree with the subject of the verb:
la igualdad y la libertad de expresión

That subject is:

plural (two things: equality + freedom of expression)
feminine (both igualdad and libertad are feminine)

Adjectives ending in -e have:

singular: fuerte (same for masculine and feminine)
plural: fuertes

So:

Singular: La igualdad es más fuerte.
Plural: La igualdad y la libertad de expresión son más fuertes. ✅

The form fuertes is plural; gender is not visible because fuerte/fuertes is the same for masculine and feminine.

Why is “cuando todas las personas pueden opinar” using pueden (indicative) and not the subjunctive puedan?

In Spanish, cuando + indicative is used for things that are:

habitual
considered real or factual
generally true

Here, the idea is a general fact: > In a democratic society, equality and freedom of expression are stronger when everyone can give their opinion without fear (in general, as a real condition).

So we use indicative:
cuando todas las personas pueden opinar ✅

We would use subjunctive (puedan) if we were talking about:

a future event in a more specific sequence, or
something hypothetical/uncertain.

For example:

Cuando todas las personas puedan opinar, la sociedad será más justa.
(When everyone is finally able to give an opinion, society will become more just. – future, not yet real)

Why “todas las personas” and not “todo el mundo” or just “todos”?

All are possible, but they differ in tone and clarity:

todas las personas
- very clear and inclusive
- neutral, slightly more formal
- literally “all the people (all persons)”
todo el mundo
- very common in speech
- literally “the whole world,” but usually means “everyone”
- slightly more informal / conversational
todos
- can mean “everyone,” but on its own it can be ambiguous without context (everyone who?)
- often used when the group is already clear.

In this sentence, todas las personas emphasizes every person in society, is gender-inclusive, and sounds appropriate for a formal / political statement.

Why do we say “pueden opinar” instead of something like “pueden tener opinión” or “pueden opinarse”?

The verb opinar in Spanish means: > to express an opinion, to give your opinion

It is used without a reflexive pronoun when you mean “to express an opinion”:

Las personas pueden opinar. = People can give their opinion / can speak their mind.

Some notes:

opinarse exists, but is rare and has a different nuance (more like “to have an opinion about oneself” or in some fixed expressions).
tener opinión is grammatically correct, but less natural in this context. It focuses more on simply “having” an opinion, not necessarily on expressing it publicly.

Here the idea is freedom to express opinions, so pueden opinar is the most natural choice.

What exactly does “libertad de expresión” mean, and why is it “de” and not “para”?

Libertad de expresión is a fixed legal/political term meaning freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

The structure sustantivo + de + sustantivo (noun + de + noun) is very common in Spanish to show:

type
content
function

Examples:

libertad de prensa = freedom of the press
derecho de reunión = right of assembly
tarjeta de crédito = credit card

So:

libertad de expresión = a type of liberty related to expression.

You can also say libertad para expresarse, which is grammatically fine and means:

freedom to express oneself

But:

libertad de expresión is the standard fixed phrase for the legal/political concept, so that’s what is used here.

Why is it “sin miedo” and not “sin miedos”?

In Spanish, miedo is usually used in the singular to express the general idea of fear:

sin miedo = without fear
con miedo = with fear / afraid

The plural miedos tends to appear when you talk about different specific fears:

Venció todos sus miedos. = He/She overcame all his/her fears.

In this sentence we mean fear in general, not a list of specific fears, so sin miedo (singular) is the natural form.

Why is the preposition “En” used in “En una sociedad democrática” and not something like “Dentro de” or “A”?

En is the normal preposition to say “in” a place, context, or environment:

en la ciudad = in the city
en la familia = in the family
en la sociedad = in society

Here, en una sociedad democrática means: > in the context of / within a democratic society

Dentro de una sociedad democrática would emphasize “inside a democratic society” more physically or more literally. It’s possible, but less idiomatic here.
A is not used with sociedad in this sense.

So en is the standard and most natural choice.

Why is there a comma after “En una sociedad democrática,”?

The phrase En una sociedad democrática is an introductory adverbial phrase that sets the context (where/when/under what conditions) for the main clause.

Spanish commonly uses a comma after such introductory elements, especially when they’re not very short:

En una sociedad democrática, la igualdad…
En invierno, hace frío.
En mi país, la educación es gratuita.

So the comma separates the context phrase from the main statement for clarity and rhythm.

Could we say “la libertad de expresión y la igualdad son más fuertes…” instead of “la igualdad y la libertad de expresión son más fuertes…”? Does the order matter?

Yes, you can say:

La igualdad y la libertad de expresión son más fuertes…
La libertad de expresión y la igualdad son más fuertes…

Grammatically, both are correct, and the meaning is the same: both concepts are stronger.

Changing the order may slightly change the emphasis:

First version might feel like it emphasizes equality first.
Second version might feel like it emphasizes freedom of expression first.

But this is a stylistic, not a grammatical, difference.

Why do we need the article “las” in “todas las personas”? Could we just say “todas personas”?

In Spanish, when you use todo/todos/toda/todas before a countable noun, you almost always need the definite article:

todas las personas ✅
todos los estudiantes ✅
toda la gente ✅

Without the article it sounds incorrect or at least very unnatural:

todas personas ❌
todos estudiantes ❌

So the correct form is todas las personas:

todas agrees with personas (feminine plural)
las is the normal definite article for plural feminine nouns.