freedom of speech writing prompts

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

107 Freedom of Speech Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that is enshrined in many democratic societies around the world. It allows individuals to express their opinions, beliefs, and ideas without fear of censorship or retaliation. However, with this freedom comes great responsibility. In order to ensure that freedom of speech is protected and preserved, it is important to engage in thoughtful and respectful discourse.

To help spark ideas for essays on freedom of speech, here are 107 topic ideas and examples to consider:

• The importance of freedom of speech in a democratic society
• The role of social media in shaping contemporary debates on freedom of speech
• The limits of freedom of speech in cases of hate speech
• The impact of political correctness on freedom of speech
• The role of universities in protecting freedom of speech on campus
• The tension between freedom of speech and national security concerns
• The relationship between freedom of speech and freedom of the press
• The impact of cancel culture on freedom of speech
• The role of technology in expanding the reach of freedom of speech
• The history of freedom of speech in the United States
• The role of the Supreme Court in defining the boundaries of freedom of speech
• The impact of social movements on expanding freedom of speech rights
• The relationship between freedom of speech and intellectual diversity
• The role of satire in challenging societal norms and promoting freedom of speech
• The impact of laws restricting freedom of speech in authoritarian regimes
• The role of public opinion in shaping debates on freedom of speech
• The impact of hate speech laws on freedom of speech
• The relationship between freedom of speech and artistic expression
• The role of whistleblowers in challenging government censorship and promoting freedom of speech
• The impact of corporate censorship on freedom of speech
• The relationship between freedom of speech and academic freedom
• The impact of online harassment on freedom of speech
• The role of the media in promoting freedom of speech
• The impact of government surveillance on freedom of speech
• The relationship between freedom of speech and privacy rights
• The impact of social media algorithms on freedom of speech
• The role of public protests in advocating for freedom of speech rights
• The impact of defamation laws on freedom of speech
• The relationship between freedom of speech and religious freedom
• The role of international organizations in promoting freedom of speech rights
• The impact of corporate influence on freedom of speech
• The role of whistleblowers in challenging

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2023 Pitchgrade

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Human Rights — Freedom of Speech

Argumentative Essays on Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech essay topic examples, argumentative essays.

Argumentative essays on freedom of speech require you to take a stance on a specific aspect of this topic and provide evidence to support your viewpoint. Consider these topic examples:

• 1. Argue for the importance of protecting hate speech as a form of free expression, emphasizing the principles of free speech and the potential consequences of limiting it.
• 2. Debate the ethical implications of social media platforms censoring or moderating content, exploring the balance between maintaining a safe online environment and upholding free speech rights.

Example Introduction Paragraph for an Argumentative Freedom of Speech Essay: Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies, but it often challenges our notions of what should be protected. In this argumentative essay, we will examine the importance of safeguarding hate speech as a form of free expression, exploring the principles of free speech and the potential ramifications of its restriction.

Example Conclusion Paragraph for an Argumentative Freedom of Speech Essay: In conclusion, the argument for protecting hate speech within the bounds of free expression highlights the enduring principles of democracy and free speech. As we navigate these complex debates, we must remain committed to preserving the foundations of our democratic society.

Compare and Contrast Essays

Compare and contrast essays on freedom of speech involve analyzing the similarities and differences between various aspects of free speech laws, practices, or the historical development of free speech rights in different countries. Consider these topics:

• 1. Compare and contrast the approach to freedom of speech in the United States and European Union, examining the legal frameworks, historical context, and key differences in their protection of free expression.
• 2. Analyze the evolution of freedom of speech in the digital age, comparing the challenges and opportunities presented by online platforms and the traditional forms of free expression.

Example Introduction Paragraph for a Compare and Contrast Freedom of Speech Essay: Freedom of speech varies across different countries and contexts, raising questions about the boundaries of this fundamental right. In this compare and contrast essay, we will explore the approaches to freedom of speech in the United States and the European Union, shedding light on their legal frameworks, historical backgrounds, and notable distinctions.

Example Conclusion Paragraph for a Compare and Contrast Freedom of Speech Essay: In conclusion, the comparison and contrast of freedom of speech in the United States and the European Union reveal the multifaceted nature of this fundamental right. As we examine these diverse perspectives, we gain a deeper appreciation for the complexities surrounding free expression in our globalized world.

Descriptive Essays

Descriptive essays on freedom of speech allow you to provide detailed accounts and analysis of specific instances, historical events, or contemporary debates related to free speech. Here are some topic ideas:

• 1. Describe a landmark Supreme Court case related to freedom of speech, such as the "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District" case, and its significance in shaping free speech rights for students.
• 2. Paint a vivid picture of a recent protest or demonstration where freedom of speech played a central role, discussing the motivations of the protesters, the public's response, and the outcomes of the event.

Example Introduction Paragraph for a Descriptive Freedom of Speech Essay: Freedom of speech is often tested and defined in the courtroom and in the streets. In this descriptive essay, we will delve into the landmark Supreme Court case "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District" and its profound impact on the free speech rights of students within the educational system.

Example Conclusion Paragraph for a Descriptive Freedom of Speech Essay: In conclusion, the descriptive exploration of the "Tinker" case illustrates the enduring struggle to balance students' free speech rights with the need for a productive educational environment. As we reflect on this historical event, we are reminded of the ongoing challenges in preserving and defining freedom of speech in schools.

Persuasive Essays

Persuasive essays on freedom of speech involve advocating for specific actions, policies, or changes related to the protection or limitations of free speech rights. Consider these persuasive topics:

• 1. Persuade your audience of the importance of enacting legislation to combat "cancel culture" and protect individuals' right to express unpopular opinions without fear of social or professional consequences.
• 2. Advocate for greater transparency and accountability in social media content moderation practices, highlighting the potential impact on free speech and the public's right to access diverse information.

Example Introduction Paragraph for a Persuasive Freedom of Speech Essay: The boundaries of free speech are continually tested in our rapidly changing society. In this persuasive essay, I will make a compelling case for the necessity of legislation to combat "cancel culture" and preserve individuals' right to express dissenting views without facing severe social or professional repercussions.

Example Conclusion Paragraph for a Persuasive Freedom of Speech Essay: In conclusion, the persuasive argument for legislation against "cancel culture" underscores the importance of safeguarding free speech in the face of societal pressures. As we advocate for change, we contribute to the preservation of a diverse and inclusive marketplace of ideas.

Narrative Essays

Narrative essays on freedom of speech allow you to share personal stories, experiences, or observations related to free speech, your encounters with debates or controversies, or the impact of free expression on your life. Explore these narrative essay topics:

• 1. Narrate a personal experience where you exercised your right to free speech, detailing the circumstances, motivations, and reactions from others, and reflecting on the significance of your actions.
• 2. Share a story of your involvement in a community or online discussion where freedom of speech played a central role, emphasizing the challenges and rewards of engaging in open dialogue.

Example Introduction Paragraph for a Narrative Freedom of Speech Essay: Freedom of speech is not just an abstract concept; it is a lived experience. In this narrative essay, I will take you through a personal journey where I exercised my right to free speech, recounting the circumstances, motivations, and the impact of my actions on those around me.

Example Conclusion Paragraph for a Narrative Freedom of Speech Essay: In conclusion, the narrative of my personal experience with free speech highlights the transformative power of open dialogue and individual expression. As we share our stories, we contribute to the rich tapestry of voices that define our commitment to this essential democratic principle.

Rights to Freedom of Speech and Expression

The role of the freedom of speech, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Abuse of The Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press by The Media in The United States

The meaning of the freedom of speech, protection of the freedom of speech and the freedom of press in usa, the significance of putting limitation and prohibition to the expression of personal opinion, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Controversial Points of Free Speech

A study of the true meaning of free speech in today's society, the misconception of hate speech and its connection with the freedom of speech, the link between freedom of speech and hate speech, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Issue of Free Speech and Hate Speech on Campus

Freedom of speech and social media, the violation of freedom of speech in north korea, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of speech and censorship in social media, freedom of speech at college campuses, freedom of speech can cause harm onto others, my case for freedom of speech, the significance of the expression of personal opinion and governance, the results of restrictions of speech freedom and expression at college campuses, pros and cons of internet censorship, an examination of the first amendment: the freedom of speech, freedom of speech: challenges with defining and regulation, the main aspects of the right to free speech, a research on the censorship of popular music, the expression of personal opinion in universities as a solution to contentious issues, the issues of internet censorship in australia, big companies versus freedom of speech, rhetorical analysis of identity speech by andrew solomon, a research of censorship in china.

Freedom of speech is the right to express one’s opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. This fundamental human right is protected under various laws and constitutions worldwide, including the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

• The right to seek information and ideas.
• The right to receive information and ideas.
• The right to impart information and ideas.

The concept of freedom of speech has deep historical roots, originating in ancient civilizations like Greece and Rome, where free expression was valued for democratic governance. During the Enlightenment, thinkers like John Locke and Voltaire advocated for free speech, influencing modern democratic societies. Key historical moments, such as the American and French Revolutions, further solidified free speech protections. Today, it is enshrined in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

• Thomas Jefferson: As one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, Jefferson was a staunch advocate for freedom of speech. He believed that a free exchange of ideas was vital for a democratic society and emphasized its protection in the First Amendment.
• Voltaire: A French philosopher and writer, Voltaire championed the principles of free expression and tolerance. His writings challenged oppressive regimes and promoted the idea that individuals should have the right to speak their minds without fear of persecution.
• Martin Luther King Jr.: Known for his leadership in the American civil rights movement, King passionately defended free speech as a means to advocate for social justice. His powerful speeches and peaceful protests were instrumental in promoting equality and challenging systemic racism.
• John Stuart Mill: An influential philosopher and political economist, Mill articulated the concept of the "marketplace of ideas" and argued for unrestricted freedom of speech. He believed that through open and robust debate, society could discover the truth and prevent the suppression of minority viewpoints.

Public opinion on freedom of speech varies widely due to diverse cultural, societal, and legal factors. While many uphold free speech as a fundamental right, others worry about its boundaries and consequences. Cultural norms and historical experiences shape these perspectives, influencing the balance between individual freedoms and collective well-being. Technological advancements and social media have further complicated views, raising concerns about online harassment, misinformation, and the regulation of speech. These dynamics highlight the ongoing debate over the responsible use of free speech in the digital age.

• Protection of democratic principles
• Advancement of knowledge and progress
• Promotion of individual autonomy
• Protection of minority rights
• Defense against tyranny
• Harmful and hateful speech
• Protection of vulnerable groups
• Misinformation and propaganda
• Privacy and dignity
• Societal stability and public safety
• The recognition of speech protection can be traced back to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, marking an early milestone in safeguarding the freedom of expression.
• In 399 BC, the renowned Greek philosopher Socrates faced persecution for his advocacy of unrestricted speech, showcasing the historical roots of the ongoing struggle for free speech rights.
• A significant majority, approximately 70% of Americans, believe in the importance of granting individuals the right to free speech, even if their words are deemed highly offensive or controversial.
• A pivotal moment for student rights came in 1969 with the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, which affirmed that students maintain their right to free speech even within the confines of school hours.

The topic of freedom of speech is crucial because it underpins democratic societies, allowing for open dialogue, dissent, and the exchange of ideas. Exploring freedom of speech essay topics helps understand its role in promoting individual rights and societal progress. These topics encourage critical thinking about the balance between free expression and protecting against harm, highlighting the importance of preserving this fundamental right in diverse contexts.

1. Sullivan, K. M. (2010). Two concepts of freedom of speech. Harvard Law Review, 124(1), 143-177. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20788316) 2. Van Mill, D. (2002). Freedom of speech. (https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/freedom-speech/) 3. Bogen, D. (1983). The origins of freedom of speech and press. Md. L. Rev., 42, 429. (https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mllr42&div=20&id=&page=) 4. Yong, C. (2011). Does freedom of speech include hate speech?. Res Publica, 17, 385-403. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11158-011-9158-y) 5. McHugh, M. R. (2004). Historiography and freedom of speech: the case of Cremutius Cordus. In Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (pp. 391-408). Brill. (https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789047405689/B9789047405689-s018.xml) 6. Milo, D. (2008). Defamation and freedom of speech. (https://academic.oup.com/book/2591) 7. Helwig, C. C. (1998). Children's conceptions of fair government and freedom of speech. Child Development, 69(2), 518-531. (https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06205.x) 8. Cheung, A. S. (2011). Exercising freedom of speech behind the great firewall: A study of judges’ and lawyers’ blogs in China. Harvard International Law Journal Online. (https://harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2011/04/HILJ-Online_52_Cheung1.pdf) 9. Nieuwenhuis, A. (2000). Freedom of speech: USA vs Germany and Europe. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 18(2), 195-214. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/092405190001800203)

Relevant topics

• Gun Control
• Death Penalty
• Police Brutality
• Human Trafficking
• Pro Choice (Abortion)
• Pro Life (Abortion)
• Gender Equality
• Animal Testing
• Women's Rights

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

27 Freedom of Speech Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Freedom of Speech refers to the right of any citizen to express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions without fear of government restraint or censorship (Legal Information Institute, 2020).

The notion of free speech extends beyond verbal communication. It can also defend our rights to use offensive sign language and body language, engage in symbolic and artistic expressions (e.g., flag burning), and even wear clothing that others may find offensive or revealing. Take, for example, the case of Cohen v. California, where the Supreme Court protected an individual’s right to wear a jacket with an expletive as a form of political protest.

Another practical example can be seen in newspapers or media outlets, who are often protected from government persecution by free speech laws. In liberal democracies like the USA and France, the free press are permitted to criticize the government openly.

Free speech helps defend our robust democracies, and makes our political systems more free, fair, and open than nations like Vietnam, China, Hungary, Turkey, and Cambodia whose governments largely control the media and therefore have a stronger monopoly over state power (Lidsky & Cotter, 2016).

Freedom of Speech Examples

• Peaceful protest signs: Peaceful protest signs are protected under free speech laws in most liberal democracies. They represent the direct expression of an individual’s or group’s thoughts and concerns on a political matter (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011). These signs serve as a non-violent way to demand action, raise awareness, or critique governmental or societal issues. Regardless of the message’s popularity, the freedom to publicly display such signs is protected under freedom of speech, as long, however, as they do not incite violence or unlawful actions.
• Expressing religious beliefs: Freedom of speech in most liberal-democratic nations covers the public expression of religious beliefs (Roth, 2015). This includes wearing religious symbols, discussing religious topics, or participating in religious rituals in public. Importantly, this freedom is granted equally to all religions and even no-religion atheists and agnostics, who have the freedom to promote their non-beliefs. Such a law allows for a diverse array of religious expressions in public forums such as online and in universities.
• Wearing symbolic clothing: The Supreme Court of the USA has upheld the right of individuals to wear expressive clothing as a form of symbolic speech (Cohen v. California, 1971). This can include everything from protest t-shirts to flag pins and allows individuals to wear their opinions literally on their sleeves.
• Artistic expressions of dissent: Artistic expressions, including painting, music, and theater, are vehicles to express dissenting ideas or critique societal norms (Reitman, 2014). These expressions allow for creative commentary on the prevailing cultural, political, or social climates , contributing to the diversity of discourse within society. However, this would not be protected if the art were painted onto other people’s or public property, such as in the case of graffiti art.
• Criticizing government actions: In most liberal democratic nations, freedom of speech also includes the right to voice dissent publicly and criticize government policies or actions (Stroud, 2011). This encourages transparency and accountability, empowering citizens to serve as a check on governmental power.
• Satirical commentary on society: Protected under freedom of speech in many nations, satirical commentary allows for a critique of individuals, groups, and societal norms through humor and irony (Stankiewicz, 2017). Satire plays a vital role in maintaining a healthy society by promoting dialogue about difficult issues in a manner that engages audiences and provokes thought. For example, Charlie Hebdo’s incendiary satirical pictures of Islamic figures was offensive, but allowed, under France’s robust free speech laws.
• Advocating for social change : One of the most potent uses of free speech is the ability to advocate for social change (Meyerson, 2010). This can occur in many ways, such as public speeches, organized protests, or social media campaigns, allowing individuals and groups to bring attention to societal issues and push for change.
• Publicly debating controversial topics: Freedom of speech upholds the right to participate in public debate on controversial topics (Fish, 2016). Such debates often expose varying viewpoints and challenge assumptions , (even if you’re ill-informed!).
• Sharing scientific theories: Academic freedom, a facet of freedom of speech, allows researchers to share scientific theories or findings even if they are controversial (Karran & Mallinson, 2017), without facing fear of being fired. This is a central concept in the tenure system in the USA. This openness promotes progress and innovation by enabling knowledge exchange and peer scrutiny.
• Blogging personal political views: Blogging platforms provide a space for individuals to express their political opinions freely and discuss matters of public concern (Sunstein, 2017). This democratizes access to political discourse and helps cultivate a more informed public, but may also unfortunately spread misinformation – which is a key downside of free speech.
• Writing a critical book review: Freedom of speech permits individuals to write and publish critical reviews of books (or other forms of media), helping to facilitate discourse and contribute to the literary or artistic community (D’Haen, 2012). Such reviews, positive or negative, aid in the critical reception and evaluation of the work, influencing its public reception, but, generally, if not slanderous, cannot be censored.
• Political campaign speeches: When politicians deliver speeches during their campaign, they practice their freedom of speech (Kenski & Stroud, 2016). Their speeches allow voters to understand their stances on various issues, crucial for informed voting. They’re often critical of the government, but yet are allowed, in order to sustain a robust democratic society.
• Publishing an investigative article: Investigative journalism, protected by freedom of speech, involves in-depth reporting to uncover hidden issues in society or government (Tumber & Waisbord, 2019). It serves as a watchdog, promoting transparency , and accountability. This allows papers like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal to release cutting-edge investigative journalistic pieces.
• Whistleblowing on corporate wrongdoing: Freedom of speech protects whistleblowers who expose unethical practices within corporations, serving as a fundamental check on corruption and wrongdoing (Kohn, 2010). This form of expression is critical for maintaining trust and integrity within industries.
• The right to offend: Freedom of speech includes the right to offend, meaning individuals are allowed to voice opinions or ideas, however, potentially offensive they may be to some (Strossen, 2018). This freedom allows for a wide range of expressions, fostering diverse and dynamic dialogue within society.
• The right to silence: Often conceptualized as “the right to remain silent,” this right protects individuals from self-incrimination and stands as an integral aspect of free speech (Franks, 2014). This guarantees individuals’ liberty to choose when and how they express themselves. In the USA, this is protected under the 5th amendment.
• Social media activism: Activism through social media platforms falls under the umbrella of freedom of speech (Loader & Mercea, 2011). This allows individuals to raise awareness, mobilize supporters, and campaign for change at unprecedented speeds and scales.
• Public speaking at a rally: Individuals addressing a crowd at a public rally exercise their freedom of speech by expressing their beliefs and advocating for causes they support (Tufekci, 2017). Public speeches can rally support, influence opinions, and draw attention to essential issues.

See Also: 40 Types of Freedom

Free Speech and the US Constitution (First Amendment)

While encased in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, freedom of speech was originally designed to maintain civil liberties an open, democratic society whereby all individuals could express their comments and opinions freely (Stroud, 2011).

The framers believed that unchecked and unrestricted discussion would lead to the truth, and bad ideas would be debunked by the good ideas. This idea is often described in the metaphor ‘sunshine is the best disinfectant’.

The USA has one of the most libertarian readings of free speech, and while other liberal democracies protect speech, none are quite as robust in their protections than the USA.

Interestingly, freedom of speech also covers the right to be silent. For instance, the Fifth Amendment of the United States constitution protects an individual’s right not to make self-incriminating statements under interrogation, often conceptualized as “the right to remain silent” (Franks, 2014).

The Constitutional Limits of Free Speech

Freedom of speech does not mean absolute freedom . Contrary to some misconceptions, this right is not without its boundaries (Smith & Kavanagh, 2015).

There are indeed restrictions that one must adhere to, such as libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, and incitement, to name a few.

For instance, hate speech that incites violence or harm towards a specific group is typically not protected by the right to free speech in the USA (Brimelow v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 2012).

Famous Freedom of Speech Cases in the United States

Tinker v. des moines (1969): student vietnam war protests.

This landmark case marked a significant decision protecting students’ rights to free speech (Abernathy, 2007). John Tinker and his fellow anti-war agitators were suspended from their Des Moines school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States argued that their actions we free speech. Being non-disruptive of minimally disruptive, are protected. The court stated, “students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” establishing a precedent for future freedom of speech cases in education settings, such as the freedom to wear political slogans on your clothing at public schools.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): Defending Press Freedom

In this case, better known as the “ Pentagon Papers Case ,” the government tried to prevent the New York Times from publishing classified documents containing information that the US government was trying to hide because it demonstrated unfavorable information about the USA’s role in the Vietnam War (Rudenstine, 2014). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. It affirmed the principle of no prior restraint, which means that the government cannot stop the publication of a news story pro-actively, except in extremely rare circumstances. This case reaffirmed the robustness of press freedom in the USA.

Texas v. Johnson (1989): The Right to Flag Burning

This case involved Gregory Lee Johnson who burned an American flag as a form of political protest. This led to his arrest under a now-defunct Texas law banning “flag desecration” (Goldstein, 2016). The Supreme Court overturned his conviction stating that Johnson’s act was symbolic speech and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment. Here, we can see that ‘speech’ isn’t just about speaking but also symbolism . This decision significantly reinforced the idea of protection for symbolic speech under the freedom of speech.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Money is Speech

This case addressed the issue of campaign financing, where the court found that giving money to a political candidate was seen as ‘political speech’ and therefore protected by the first amendment (Magarian, 2010). Citizens United, a non-profit organization, challenged a regulation barring corporations and unions from funding political campaign ads. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United . This, in turn, allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections, asserting that such “political speech” was protected under the First Amendment. Detractors – including myself – think this case essentially positioned corporations as people, which is ridiculous, and led to the devastating hyper-politicization of elections we see to this day.

Snyder v. Phelps (2011): The Right to Offend

This case involved the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to picket military funerals with fundamentalist anti-military sentiments, resulting in an emotional distress lawsuit from the father of a fallen marine (Carpenter, 2011). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church . The justices argued that the expression represented matters of public concern, thus protected under the First Amendment, no matter how offensive this behavior truly was.

Schenck v. United States (1919): The Limitations of Free Speech

Charles Schenck, Secretary of the Socialist Party, was arrested for distributing leaflets opposing the draft during World War I (Lewis, 2008). The Supreme Court upheld his conviction under the Espionage Act, ruling that Schenck’s actions posed a “clear and present danger” to national security. This case is important as it established the “clear and present danger” standard for limiting freedom of speech. Although, in my opinion, this ruling was counter to many other Supreme Court findings that held very absolutist perspectives toward free speech, and demonstrated the constant right-wing leanings of US supreme courts over the years.

While “freedom of speech” can often seem like an expansive term, understanding its roots in the democratic principles of open discussion and societal checks and balances can offer some enlightening contexts. However, as discussed above, there are indeed certain conditions and restrictions and, like any freedom, it necessitates responsible handling. Interestingly, strong free speech laws in the USA have led to many perverse outcomes which demonstrates that they may be too lenient; while in my home country of Australia, free speech is often protected, but the laws are much more strict. Finding the right balance is extremely difficult.

Abernathy, M. (2007). First Amendment Law Handbook . Thomson/West.

Brimelow v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 132 S. Ct. 2681 (2012).

Carpenter, D. H. (2011). Westboro Church’s Funeral Picketing is Free Speech . Supreme Court Debates.

Franks, D. D. (2014). The Fifth Amendment: Double Jeopardy, Due Process , and the Nature of the Interrogation Process. Routledge.

Goldstein, R. (2016). Flag Burning and Free Speech: The Case of Texas v. Johnson. University Press Of Kansas.

Legal Information Institute. (2020). Freedom of Speech. Cornell Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/freedom_of_speech

Lewis, A. (2008). Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment. Basic Books.

Lidsky, L. B. & Cotter, R. T. (2016 ). Freedom of the Press: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution . Greenwood.

Magarian, G. P. (2010). The Democracy of Direct Speech. Wm. & Mary Law Review, 97.

Rudenstine, D. (2014). The Day the Presses Stopped: A History of the Pentagon Papers Case. University of California Press.

Smith, K. E., & Kavanagh, D. (2015). Freedom of Speech: The History of an Idea . Penn State University Press.

Stroud, N. J. (2011). Niche News: The Politics of News Choice . Oxford University Press.

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 101 Class Group Name Ideas (for School Students)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 19 Top Cognitive Psychology Theories (Explained)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 119 Bloom’s Taxonomy Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ All 6 Levels of Understanding (on Bloom’s Taxonomy)

2 thoughts on “27 Freedom of Speech Examples”

Hi Professor Drew: I am so-o-o-o enjoying your site. I am an ESL teacher, and I use it extensively to introduce the students to American culture. I really like the deep dives into specific topics, like The American Dream, and Freedom of Speech. A fantastic resource! Thank you!

Hi Jane, thanks so much for reaching out and I’m so glad my website is a useful resource for you. All the best with your teaching!

Regards, Chris.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Freedom Of Speech - Essay Examples And Topic Ideas For Free

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community to articulate their opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Essays could explore the various interpretations of freedom of speech, its limitations, and its impact on democracy and societal harmony. A vast selection of complimentary essay illustrations pertaining to Freedom Of Speech you can find at Papersowl. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Freedom of Speech and Censorship

The government needs to also look at the First amendment that gives Americans the freedom of speech. Although freedom of speech gave the Americans an opportunity to express themselves, it came with some disadvantages. Some individuals used this freedom to propagate hatred especially racism. Individuals who had something against the blacks would use the freedom of expression clause to protect themselves before making hateful remarks. They would propagate hate between the African Americans and the whites. Some leaders were known […]

Freedom of Speech should not be Limited

Literature has always been tricky. At times, people find certain books to be offensive or inappropriate. People will even go to great lengths to challenge or ban books just because of differing opinions. Limiting free speech has been a constant and continuous argument throughout history. One side argues that certain pieces of writing should be banned or censored due to words, content and themes that are either viewed as inappropriate, controversial or contain language that is no longer acceptable. Violence, […]

First Amendment Values

Americans value the First Amendment as much as a teenage girl values her cell phone. Life just wouldn't be the same without it. Thanks to the authors of the Constitution America has established the fundamental laws, government, and basic rights for American citizens. The document was signed on September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia. Later, Madison introduced 19 amendments, 12 of which were adopted. Ten of them were ratified and became the Bill of Rights on December 10, 1791. The First […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Freedom of Speech on Social Media

Social media and freedom of speech have taken over the world. People read on the news every day about people being punished for what they post on social media. To what limit should people be punished for what they post? When people post online, everyone can see the material. It does not matter if the account is private. People should face consequences for their actions on social media if their post is offensive, containing work information, or includes a provocative […]

Importance of Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech Taken from People Many people around the world are forced to live without a voice for themselves. These people live in constant fear of the consequences they may face if they do voice their opinions. This lack of a voice goes against the inalienable right that is known as freedom of speech, which is defined as “the legal right to express one’s opinion freely” (Merriam-Webster, 2020). These restrictions of free speech can be countered through the use […]

What Freedom Means to me

There are millions of people around the world that live under conditions where the government withholds their human freedoms from them. Some people can not practice the religion they truly believe in, and others are scared for their lives on a daily basis. No matter how many restrictions citizens of different countries must abide by, nobody should be forced into silence. To “be free” means that everybody has the right to raise up their voice, and act for what they […]

Justice Freedom of Speech

With the popularity of the Internet, the network media has broken the limitation of the traditional media in the freedom of speech, and people can enjoy expressing opinions and spreading information. The infinity of the Internet brings many benefits to people, such as searching for information and watching videos. At the same time, the virtual nature of the network also brings hidden dangers for people, such as spreading false information, human flesh search, and so on. One of the reasons […]

Should Freedom of Speech be Limited

In this paper each author reflects their own moral opinion on hate speech shared with freedom of speech and the results from it containing negative content. There are several authors who discuss hate speech in considerations of freedom of speech. Despite strong objections I trust that society is obligated to protect its citizens and prevent any harm done in relation to hate speech under freedom of speech law. First, In “Freedom of Speech” David van Mill argues freedom of speech […]

Negative Side-Effects of Free Speech

Since the beginning of our country, one of our founding principles has been the right to express yourself through speech, media, or any other means of communication. For a long time those that founded our country were under the control of the British, and the lack of freedom to do and say what was on your mind was very constrained. With the American Revolution, we fought for the right to convey our beliefs without fear of another governing force taking […]

What is Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is the right of ones' right to express and communicate their ideas, opinion, and beliefs. As a result, nobody should fear being reprimanded, punished, or expurgated by society and perhaps the government at large. In most cases, it is done to attract mass attention from the community. It is entirely synonymous to seeking freedom of denied privileges such as an inappropriate distribution of public resources and side-lining of the minority among others. It is a universal right […]

Freedom of Speech in the United States

Freedom of speech has been protected in The United States by the First Amendment since 1791. For over 100 years, this right, though symbolically important, has sat dormant. However today, freedom of speech has been in the headlines due to its involvement in controversial topics surrounding the media, political correctness, and “hate speech”. Hateful beliefs and intolerance towards those with different characteristics exist throughout society and results in an environment of hate. Americans now have a hard choice to make […]

Internet Censorship Laws in Saudi Arabia

"The thought of not being able to express oneself through the internet without repercussions might seem implausible; however, it is an ongoing problem in countries like Saudi Arabia. Currently, Saudi Arabia holds a score of 73 out of 100 for its Internet Freedom Score, which sets it as “not free” (“Saudi Arabia Internet Score”). Citizens are prohibited from visiting and accessing many parts of the web due to governmental restrictions based on immoral and “radically” opinionated content. This limits their […]

On Freedom of Speech and Expression

Privacy is an essential right that every citizen of the United States is granted. Under the first amendment of the constitution rights such as freedom of press, speech, and privacy are protected. The first amendment separates the United States’ constitution from many other countries for a simple reason, the freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of speech and expression is the right to speak freely without fear of repercussion from the government simply because it doesn’t like the content of […]

Freedom of Speech Today

The citizens of the United States of America exercise their First Amendment right, freedom of speech in their day to day lives. Being able to voice their opinion and speak up for what they believe in is what gives our country its degree of autonomy. Having the freedom of speech is a blissful thing that people in other countries long for; such lack of censorship. Despite this freedom, it is not a free for all and has to be regulated […]

On Freedom of Speech in School

What is personal liberty? Liberty is being free to do whatever the individual may want to do without restrictions. This can include things such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion and the freedom to bear arms. Anyone living in the United States are actually guaranteed these rights, right from birth. We also live in a society where these rights are given, but are also restricted or limited to a certain extent. We live in a country where anything […]

First Amendment Freedom of Speech

The 2017 Berkeley protests organized by different groups including By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) were an abject violation of the freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment of the American constitution. The protests successfully stopped a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, a controversial Breitbart editor and a self-declared Trump supporter. The protests turned violent and led to the destruction of the property thus posing significant harm to the society. In defending the protests, Yvette Felarca, BAMN’s spokesperson argued that […]

News and Democracy in Different Media Systems

Many decades ago, Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm (1959) posed a question related to the concepts of the press and its role in society, “Why is the press as it is? Why does it apparently serve different purposes and appear in widely different forms in different countries?” The answers to these questions led the authors to present the Authoritarian, the Soviet communist, the Libertarian, and the Social Responsibility models, which explain what the press should be and do in different countries. […]

Hatred under the Freedom of Speech

There is a thin line between an open expression of plain hatred and the expression of opinion. It is safe to assume that every person at some point of his or her life, either witnessed or experienced a bias from bigots based on race, nationality, sex, or other characteristics. People interpret “hate speech” differently; some compare it to the crime; others see it as practicing the First Amendment. Both groups can bring a lot of arguments to support their point […]

Gender Identity and Freedom of Speech

The views of professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson at the University of Toronto on the issue of gender identity and his beliefs, position and refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns has sparked debates. The arguments by the professor have arisen a lot of objective and subjective intuition on his stand that his freedom of speech and need to become politically correct cannot determine by use of pronouns. Discussions are presented in different articles by Ellen Brait, a staff reporter for the […]

Pros and Cons of Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech stands tall in the vast expanse of human rights, often seen as the mighty guardian of democracy. Imagine a world where voices are muzzled, opinions censored, and thoughts shackled. Sounds dystopian, right? But pivot the lens and consider the flip side: a world where every whisper is amplified, hate finds as much space as love, and cacophony reigns. This is the double-edged nature of free speech. As we unravel this complex tapestry, we'll delve into the undeniably […]

Freedom of Speech Boundaries: Exploring Prior Restraint from a Free Speech Perspective

Freedom of speech, enshrined in countless legal traditions, remains a fundamental human right recognized globally. However, like all rights, it faces certain limitations, particularly when governments or legal bodies attempt to curb speech before it is expressed—a concept legally known as "prior restraint." This term, seemingly benign in its legalese, carries profound implications for the dynamics of free expression and the dissemination of information. At its core, prior restraint refers to government actions that prevent communication before it takes place. […]

Hate Speech Debate and Discussion

In the wake of technological advancement immorality in college campus have increased. For instance, parents are sending their girls in all-girls boarding schools, and they are coming home emotionally traumatized and with low self-esteem because of sexual abuse by the older same sex. Indeed, sexual harassment and discrimination have increased in schools which are stimulating hatred and school dropouts following the progress of technology in the community. Although the immoralities are punishable and illegal in the country, they have continually […]

1st Amendment and Congress

David Thuita I Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The beginning of the second amendment finds its root in Athens, Greece during the 400s B.C., where free men were allowed to freely speak. Athen theaters, writings, and educational institutions all […]

Question of Womens Educational Rights

What if you were not allowed to have a voice and share what you think just because of your gender? How would that make you feel? Well, this is a common thing that happens in our country and across the world. That is why I am focusing on Women's Rights as my Exhibition topic. I want this to stop. Our class Central Idea is, "Global opportunities may create conflict between people and other living things." Our groups Central Idea had […]

Modern Day Censorship: Syria

How much do we value our freedom of speech as citizens of the United States of America? Would you risk your life to report news that might make an impact in the lives of many? Many countries around the world maintain very strict guidelines in what can be reported and broadcasted. In many countries this amount of strict censorship could even lead to you getting either tortured or killed. One modern day censored country would be the Middle Eastern country […]

Defining Censorship

Censorship is the restriction of speech, communication or other information. Censorship affects our society in different ways. Censorship is usually determined by the government or a private foundation. It influences the music we tune in to, news articles, films, and the books we read. Censorship is a widely debated topic, and can be either harmful or protective to a society. It is possible to argue that censorship has no place in a nation that focuses on freedom of expression, because […]

What does the Constitution Mean to Me? a Deep Dive into its Complex Tapestry

The Constitution - those words etched upon the pages of history, a beacon of governance transcending time and guiding nations. In my contemplation, I invite you to delve into the intricate corridors of this foundational document. Throughout this journey, we'll ponder its nuances and decipher the threads of thought it weaves across the tapestry of our society. As I traverse its provisions, I invite you to join me in solving the echoes of the Constitution's wisdom, as its words, like […]

A Comparison of Free Speech and Hate Speech in France, Citing Charlie Hebdo Shootings as the Biggest Threat to Free Speech this Year

The line between free speech and hate speech is constantly debated. When does one cross the line from expressing an opinion to openly encouraging hatred of a group? Ridiculing a belief system is protected under free speech, as long as one is not inciting hate or violence against the followers of that belief system. Free speech exists to allow us to openly express our beliefs and argue with others about theirs. France has, for a long time, separated church and […]

The Need for the Restrictions of Hate Speech in America

Recently, the Westboro Baptist Church has been quite often in the headlines. The Anti-Defamation League's website calls the church "a small virulently homophobic, anti-Semitic hate group" based in Topeka, Kansas ("About WBC"). Since 2005, Westboro has often picketed the funerals of homosexual soldiers with signs that say "God Hates Fags" or "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" ("Pickets inspire legislation and legal action"). This behavior is offensive to the grieving families, and many states have tried to enact legislation that limits […]

Countries that Ban Same-sex Intercourse is this a Violation of International Law?

Is against the law to murder a person based up on their sexual preference? Would you take away a Civil Liberty? This But is a question you should pounder as you read my paper. But we are going to look at the international aspect. There are many countries where same-sex intercourse and or marriage is against the law. Imagine this being your reality. Having to hide from your family and friend and pretend to be someone else. You wonder should […]

Related topic

Additional example essays.

• Why Abortion Should be Illegal
• Death Penalty Should be Abolished
• Dogs Are Better Than Cats Essay
• Analysis of Letter from Birmingham Jail
• Personal Philosophy of Leadership
• Gender Roles in the Great Gatsby
• Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation in the Workplace
• Interpersonal Communication and Cultural Stereotypes
• Homelessness in America
• The Oppression And Privilege
• Is Social Media Bad for Relationships Argumentative Essay
• Solutions to Gun Violence

How To Write an Essay About Freedom Of Speech

Understanding the concept of freedom of speech.

Before you start writing an essay about freedom of speech, it is important to understand what the concept entails. Freedom of speech, often considered a fundamental human right, is the ability to express one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. Begin your essay by defining freedom of speech and its importance in a democratic society. You might also want to explore its historical origins, how it has evolved over time, and how it is implemented in different countries. This foundational understanding sets the stage for a more in-depth exploration of the topic.

Developing a Thesis Statement

A compelling essay on freedom of speech should have a clear and concise thesis statement. This statement should present your unique perspective or argument about freedom of speech. For instance, you might argue that freedom of speech is essential for democracy, or that there should be limitations to freedom of speech to prevent hate speech and misinformation. Your thesis will guide the direction of your essay and provide a central argument for your readers to consider.

Gathering Supporting Evidence

To support your thesis, gather relevant evidence and examples. This might include legal cases, historical examples, current events, or academic research. For example, if you are discussing the limitations of freedom of speech, you might examine specific legal cases that demonstrate the consequences of unchecked speech. This evidence is crucial as it backs up your argument and provides a solid foundation for your essay.

Analyzing Different Perspectives

An essay about freedom of speech should also consider different perspectives and counterarguments. This could include examining arguments for and against limitations on speech, such as national security concerns, hate speech laws, or the right to protest. Discussing these different viewpoints shows a comprehensive understanding of the topic and can strengthen your argument by demonstrating that you have considered various angles.

Concluding Your Essay

Your conclusion should summarize the main points of your essay and restate your thesis in light of the evidence and discussion provided. It's an opportunity to emphasize the importance of freedom of speech and its impact on society. You might also want to highlight any areas where further research or discussion is needed, or the potential future challenges to freedom of speech.

Final Review and Editing

After writing your essay, review and edit it for clarity, coherence, and accuracy. Ensure that your arguments are well-structured and supported by evidence. Pay attention to grammar and syntax to ensure your writing is clear and professional. Seeking feedback from others can also provide new insights and help polish your essay. A well-written essay on freedom of speech not only reflects your understanding of the topic but also your ability to engage critically with complex societal issues.

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Project Types We Cover

• Admissions Essay
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Research Paper
• Book Reviews
• Personal Statement
• Ph.D Dissertation
• Proofreading

Academic Fields & Subjects

• Programming
• Computer Science
• Other projects we help with
• Our Experts
• Plagiarism Checker
• Writing Tips

What Is Freedom of Speech and Why Is It Important?

By: Henrique Bertulino

As part of American history and the United States constitution, people live in a diverse society in which people have the right to speech and express their opinions in their own way. Many human beings believe that people should have the freedom of speech without any restrictions, including hate speech, but others believe differently. Some people feel that freedom of speech just protects speaking, while others feel that it also covers art, literature, and other forms of expression.

Freedom of Speech Essay Topic Ideas

Essay example: social distancing is important during the coronavirus pandemic, it supports the title, it’s written in standard english, it exudes authority, it has too much information included, it’s using redundant information, it’s not written in a simple language, sources of information.

Many of the 1689 Bill of Rights provisions were ultimately included in the First Amendment Right. The Declaration of Independence is a part of it. The US Constitution, which contains several amendments known as the Bill of Rights, is the highest legislation in Congress. According to the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights ensures that the federal government can never deprive American citizens in the United States of America of their fundamental rights, such as freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free expression, and due process of law. Americans also have basic rights and extra civil rights under several federal and state laws.

The American constitution interprets freedom of expression as the definition of freedom, tending to play a massive role for the students and social media as it allows different points of view in both education and politics. Some students believe that we are free to speak whatever we want, regardless of how contentious it may be. Students can broaden their perspectives on a subject by having the opportunity to share their thoughts.

• How Slavery Affects Personal Freedom
• The Benefits and Disadvantages of Unlimited Freedom
• Freedom and Equality in North Korea
• Controversies over Freedom of Speech and Internet Postings
• Gender and the Black Americans Freedom Movement
• Modern Racism Against African Americans
• Human Freedom During the Civil War
• How the Law Limits Academic Freedom?
• Speech Rights and the Modern Media
• The Real Meaning of Redress of Grievances or Right to Petition
• Open Government and Coronavirus
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Needs Amendments
• Covid-19 and Human Rights
• Freedom of Expression and the Right to Education

Coronavirus is one of the most severe crises that our country and the whole nation are now experiencing. Since the start of this global pandemic, many lives have been taken away. Not only the lives of those who have been afflicted but also the living circumstances and economic position of our economy.

Beyond the urgent and challenging work at hand, the topic of how to reopen our society in the aftermath of the epidemic produced by the new coronavirus raises significant difficulties for social researchers.

As the worldwide epidemic continues to spread, we must safeguard ourselves and others around us by considering what measures we should take now that we are living in a new normal.

Wearing a face mask is one of the main lessons for preventing the transmission of coronavirus, and it should be accompanied by physical distance and hand cleanliness. Most people think about these things, but when the economy slowly reopened and individuals move around for a livelihood, they tend to overlook the relevance of social distance.

What is social distancing? Keeping a secure barrier between oneself and others who aren't from your home is known as social distance, sometimes known as "physical distancing." To practice social or physical distancing in both indoor and outdoor places, keep a distance of at least 6 feet (approximately two arm lengths) from anyone who isn't a member of your family.

Why practice social distancing? COVID-19 is disseminated mostly among persons who are in close proximity (within 6 feet) over an extended length of time. Droplets from an infected person's mouth or nose fly into the air and land in the mouths or noses of those who are nearby when they sneeze, cough, or talk. Because individuals can spread the virus before they even realize they're sick, it's vital to keep at least 6 feet away from others at all times, even if you - or they - don't show any symptoms. For persons who are at a higher risk of severe disease from COVID-19, social separation is very crucial.

Many people's personal circumstances or conditions make social distance difficult to practice in order to avoid the development of COVID-19. Still, people should also know that essential practices today have a significant effect on our society and the future.

Essay Analysis

Why is it a good essay?

An excellent essay is a piece of writing intended to convince or educate the audience about the subject. Each paragraph essay should include a different core concept or topic sentence. An essay or paper that is properly organized should flow smoothly and support the topic together. This way, the reader will be able to understand your point of view better.

The sample essay did just that, even providing various information in support of the subject.

The essay generally correctly uses English. It has complete and comprehensible sentences. It also followed the basic structure of introduction, body, and conclusion.

If you're not confident with your English usage, there are many online sources like Studybay that can assist you in your essay writing . There is no need to stress over your assignments anymore.

One way to make your readers interested in how the essay will flow is to infuse authoritarianism. It doesn't mean that you should be using aggressive words. It only means that your points are specific and undeniable.

The writer presented facts on why social distancing is important. These facts are irrefutable because legal institutions already disseminate the same information with research backing their claims.

What parts need improvements?

Instead of talking about the obvious effects of the pandemic, the writer could have focused more on why they support social distancing. As a freedom of speech essay, they could have talked about their whys without hindrances, even persuading the reader to open an argument or side with their point of view.

How to avoid: Make a draft before writing your essay. Write down points you want to include, and make sure that they all support your topic. You can also take into consideration counterarguments and answer them in the essay. In writing an essay, the more information, the more confusing it’ll be. So only take what you need and use them appropriately.

For example, there are better ways than to keep repeating “within 6 feet,” it may even be better to remove it completely so there will be more space for other information. An essay should be compact yet filled with important information.

How to avoid: Use synonyms or altogether remove the repeating information in exchange for a new one that also supports your topic of free speech.

Especially if you expect your readers to be the general population, who are not experts in any field, using simple language is the best. This way, your essay won't be confusing, and your essay's ideas won't be lost in a sea of words. You might think that using complex and complicated words may make you look smart, but in reality, it will only make your paper look superficial.

How to avoid: Explain your points in the simplest way possible. Take into account who your readers will be and pretend to be them. To see if it's simple enough, read through the sections of your essay. If you understand it with just one read, then you’re good to go. You can also ask your friends to read your essay and ask them for inputs.

There are many sources of information that you can find offline and online. However, you need to be careful about what you pick, as your essay's arguments will depend on their relevance.

When searching online, look for credible sites such as official government pages, quality journals, and credible news sources. Here are some trusted online sources you can use, no matter what your subject is:

• Science.gov
• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Oxford Academics
• The New York Times
• Foreign Affairs
• Smithsonian Magazine
• National Bureau of Economic Research
• The Economist

Without national security, we are all responsible for our own words and deeds, and what we do may have a significant impact on others. As we interact in this ever-changing society, whatever culture or race we belong in, we must accept everyone's distinct cultures and beliefs. We may as well safeguard the harmony that binds us all by having respect for each other.

In writing your freedom of speech essay, we must be clear about why someone's safety is more significant than free expression and why a boundary must be drawn. The inability of censorship across lines of communication such as the Internet may lead to tolerance of free expression, although this is not assured.

User ratings:

User ratings is 4.6 stars.

4.6 /5 ( 6 Votes)

Head of Customer Success

I'm a medical doctor and brand manager. The process of getting into Med school and studying at it made me learn and apply many strategies to keep my productivity high while spending less time and effort. As a working student, I had to figure out how to study smarter, not harder. During this period, my interest in neurology and psychiatry, as well as my aspiration to help others, intensified. At Studybay, I use my knowledge, skills, and experience to develop helpful solutions for students and make their study paths more productive and fun.

Add Your Comment

We are very interested to know your opinion

Thank you for a good information on freedom of speech. It's an important and relevant topic and there is a lot unpack in an argumentative essay of sorts.

Upgrade your writing skills!

Try our AI essay writer from Studybay today!

Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech

• 🗃️ Essay topics
• ❓ Research questions
• 📝 Topic sentences
• 🪝 Essay hooks
• 📑 Thesis statements
• 🔀 Hypothesis examples
• 🧐 Personal statements

🔗 References

🗃️ freedom of speech essay topics.

• The importance of freedom of speech in a democratic society.
• The role of the First Amendment in protecting freedom of speech.
• The limits of free speech in society.
• The impact of social media on freedom of speech.
• The relationship between hate speech and freedom of speech.
• The impact of political correctness on freedom of speech.
• Analysis of freedom of speech in the US.
• The role of censorship in limiting freedom of speech.
• The impact of technology on freedom of speech.
• The impact of commercial interests on freedom of speech.
• The role of universities in protecting freedom of speech.
• The impact of fake news on freedom of speech.
• The impact of hate speech on marginalized communities.
• The role of satire in freedom of speech.
• American citizens’ protests to federal government.
• The relationship between freedom of speech and academic freedom.
• The impact of the government on freedom of speech.
• The importance of protecting whistleblowers in freedom of speech.
• The role of journalists in protecting freedom of speech.
• The impact of the internet on freedom of speech.
• The relationship between freedom of speech and intellectual property rights.
• The impact of cancel culture on freedom of speech.

❓ Freedom of Speech Essay Questions

• What is the historical origin of the concept of freedom of speech, and how has it evolved over time?
• How do different legal systems around the world approach freedom of speech?
• What are the main arguments for and against limitations on freedom of speech, such as hate speech, libel, and obscenity?
• What is the impact of social media on freedom of speech?
• How does freedom of speech intersect with other fundamental human rights?
• What is the relationship between freedom of speech and democracy?
• What is the role of education in promoting responsible free speech?
• What are the most common forms of censorship around the world?
• How has the internet and social media affected the ability of individuals and groups to express themselves freely?
• What are the key ethical considerations surrounding freedom of speech, and how can these be addressed in practice?
• How do different cultural and religious traditions approach freedom of speech?
• What is the impact of commercial interests, such as advertising and corporate influence, on freedom of speech in the media?
• How does the exercise of free speech differ between online and offline contexts?
• What are the key legal and ethical issues surrounding the use of encryption technology to protect freedom of speech?
• How can freedom of speech be balanced with the need for national security and public safety?

📝 Freedom of Speech Topic Sentence Examples

• Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that should be protected at all costs, as it enables individuals to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship or persecution.
• Despite its importance, freedom of speech remains a contested issue in many societies, with some arguing that it should be limited to prevent harm or offense to others.
• The digital age has brought about new challenges for freedom of speech, with social media platforms facing increasing pressure to balance the right to free expression with the need to combat hate speech and misinformation.

🪝 Top Hooks for Freedom of Speech Paper

📍 definition hooks for essay about freedom of speech.

• At its core, freedom of speech is the right to communicate one’s thoughts and ideas, whether through written or spoken word, without interference from government or other authorities.
• Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to express their ideas and opinions freely and openly without fear of retribution or censorship.

📍 Statistical Hooks about Freedom of Speech for Essa

• According to a recent survey, over 70% of Americans believe that freedom of speech is under threat in today’s society, with concerns about censorship and cancel culture on the rise.
• According to a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists, 274 journalists were imprisoned worldwide in 2020 for their work, with freedom of speech violations reaching a 12-year high.

📍 Quotation Hooks

• “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” – Benjamin Franklin
• “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often attributed to Voltaire)

📑 Top Freedom of Speech Thesis Statements

✔️ argumentative thesis samples on freedom of speech.

• While some argue that freedom of speech should be absolute, the reality is that certain forms of speech, such as hate speech and incitement to violence, can have damaging and dangerous consequences, and therefore limited restrictions on speech are necessary to protect individuals and society as a whole.
• The increasing prevalence of social media has created a complex landscape for freedom of speech, where online platforms must balance the competing values of free expression and responsible content moderation, and where the power dynamics between individuals, governments, and corporations play a crucial role in shaping the boundaries of acceptable speech.

✔️ Analytical Thesis Examples about Freedom of Speech

• The debate surrounding freedom of speech is not simply a matter of protecting individual rights but also involves the complex interplay between the individual and society, including the role of power dynamics, cultural norms, and the impact of technology.
• The concept of freedom of speech is not absolute, as it intersects with other rights such as privacy and the prevention of harm, and thus requires a nuanced analysis of the specific contexts and implications of speech acts in order to strike a balance between individual liberty and the common good.

✔️ Informative Thesis on Freedom of Speech

• Freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by many international and national laws, allowing individuals to express themselves without fear of censorship or retaliation, but its boundaries are constantly debated and contested in society.
• While freedom of speech is a vital component of a democratic society, it also comes with ethical and moral responsibilities, as the unchecked expression of hate speech and misinformation can have harmful consequences on individuals and communities.

🔀 Freedom of Speech Hypothesis Examples

• Increased protection of freedom of speech leads to a more diverse and inclusive society, where marginalized groups are better able to express their opinions and have their voices heard.
• The rise of social media has led to an erosion of traditional norms around freedom of speech, with individuals feeling more empowered to express extreme and hateful views online, leading to an increase in polarization and division within society.

🔂 Null & Alternative Hypothesis on Freedom of Speech

• Null hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between freedom of speech and the ability of individuals to express their opinions freely without fear of censorship or retaliation.
• Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between freedom of speech and the ability of individuals to express their opinions freely without fear of censorship or retaliation.

🧐 Examples of Personal Statement about Freedom of Speech

• As a student, I believe that freedom of speech is one of the most important principles in a democratic society. The ability to express our thoughts and ideas without fear of censorship or retaliation is essential to promoting dialogue and progress. Through my experiences as a student journalist and activist, I have come to understand the power of free speech in creating social change and advocating for marginalized communities.
• As a student, I recognize the challenges and complexities that come with protecting freedom of speech. While it is essential to uphold this fundamental right, it is also important to recognize the potential harm that hate speech and misinformation can cause. Through my involvement in student organizations and community activism, I have worked to create spaces where diverse perspectives can be heard and respected.
• Motivated moral judgments about freedom of speech are constrained by a need to maintain consistency
• Predictors of the importance of freedom of speech
• Freedom of Speech and Democracy
• Freedom of Speech and Media
• Intellectual Freedom and Freedom of Speech: Three Theoretical Perspectives

Cite this page

Select a referencing style

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

AssignZen. (2023, June 9). Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech. https://assignzen.com/writing-prompts/freedom-of-speech-essay-ideas/

"Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech." AssignZen , 9 June 2023, assignzen.com/writing-prompts/freedom-of-speech-essay-ideas/.

1. AssignZen . "Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech." June 9, 2023. https://assignzen.com/writing-prompts/freedom-of-speech-essay-ideas/.

Bibliography

AssignZen . "Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech." June 9, 2023. https://assignzen.com/writing-prompts/freedom-of-speech-essay-ideas/.

AssignZen . 2023. "Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech." June 9, 2023. https://assignzen.com/writing-prompts/freedom-of-speech-essay-ideas/.

AssignZen . (2023) 'Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech'. 9 June.

Essays About Freedom: 5 Helpful Examples and 7 Prompts

Freedom seems simple at first; however, it is quite a nuanced topic at a closer glance. If you are writing essays about freedom , read our guide of essay examples and writing prompts.

In a world where we constantly hear about violence, oppression, and war, few things are more important than freedom . It is the ability to act, speak, or think what we want without being controlled or subjected. It can be considered the gateway to achieving our goals , as we can take the necessary steps. 

However, freedom is not always “doing whatever we want.” True freedom means to do what is righteous and reasonable, even if there is the option to do otherwise. Moreover, freedom must come with responsibility ; this is why laws are in place to keep society orderly but not too micro-managed, to an extent.

5 Examples of Essays About Freedom

1. essay on “freedom” by pragati ghosh, 2. acceptance is freedom by edmund perry, 3. reflecting on the meaning of freedom by marquita herald.

• 4.  Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

5. What are freedom and liberty? by Yasmin Youssef

1. what is freedom, 2. freedom in the contemporary world, 3. is freedom “not free”, 4. moral and ethical issues concerning freedom, 5. freedom vs. security, 6. free speech and hate speech, 7. an experience of freedom.

“Freedom is non denial of our basic rights as humans. Some freedom is specific to the age group that we fall into. A child is free to be loved and cared by parents and other members of family and play around. So this nurturing may be the idea of freedom to a child. Living in a crime free society in safe surroundings may mean freedom to a bit grown up child.”

In her essay, Ghosh briefly describes what freedom means to her. It is the ability to live your life doing what you want. However, she writes that we must keep in mind the dignity and freedom of others. One cannot simply kill and steal from people in the name of freedom ; it is not absolute. She also notes that different cultures and age groups have different notions of freedom . Freedom is a beautiful thing, but it must be exercised in moderation. 

“They demonstrate that true freedom is about being accepted, through the scenarios that Ambrose Flack has written for them to endure. In The Strangers That Came to Town, the Duvitches become truly free at the finale of the story. In our own lives, we must ask: what can we do to help others become truly free?”

Perry’s essay discusses freedom in the context of Ambrose Flack’s short story The Strangers That Came to Town : acceptance is the key to being free. When the immigrant Duvitch family moved into a new town, they were not accepted by the community and were deprived of the freedom to live without shame and ridicule. However, when some townspeople reach out, the Duvitches feel empowered and relieved and are no longer afraid to go out and be themselves. 

“Freedom is many things, but those issues that are often in the forefront of conversations these days include the freedom to choose, to be who you truly are, to express yourself and to live your life as you desire so long as you do not hurt or restrict the personal freedom of others. I’ve compiled a collection of powerful quotations on the meaning of freedom to share with you, and if there is a single unifying theme it is that we must remember at all times that, regardless of where you live, freedom is not carved in stone, nor does it come without a price.”

In her short essay, Herald contemplates on freedom and what it truly means. She embraces her freedom and uses it to live her life to the fullest and to teach those around her. She values freedom and closes her essay with a list of quotations on the meaning of freedom , all with something in common: freedom has a price. With our freedom , we must be responsible . You might also be interested in these essays about consumerism .

4.   Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

“Freedom demands of one, or rather obligates one to concern ourselves with the affairs of the world around us. If you look at the world around a human being, countries where freedom is lacking, the overall population is less concerned with their fellow man, then in a freer society . The same can be said of individuals, the more freedom a human being has, and the more responsible one acts to other, on the whole.”

Carlson writes about freedom from a more religious perspective, saying that it is a right given to us by God. However, authentic freedom is doing what is right and what will help others rather than simply doing what one wants. If freedom were exercised with “doing what we want” in mind, the world would be disorderly. True freedom requires us to care for others and work together to better society . 

“In my opinion, the concepts of freedom and liberty are what makes us moral human beings. They include individual capacities to think, reason, choose and value different situations. It also means taking individual responsibility for ourselves, our decisions and actions. It includes self-governance and self-determination in combination with critical thinking, respect, transparency and tolerance. We should let no stone unturned in the attempt to reach a state of full freedom and liberty, even if it seems unrealistic and utopic.”

Youssef’s essay describes the concepts of freedom and liberty and how they allow us to do what we want without harming others. She notes that respect for others does not always mean agreeing with them. We can disagree, but we should not use our freedom to infringe on that of the people around us. To her, freedom allows us to choose what is good, think critically, and innovate. 

7 Prompts for Essays About Freedom

Freedom is quite a broad topic and can mean different things to different people. For your essay, define freedom and explain what it means to you. For example, freedom could mean having the right to vote, the right to work, or the right to choose your path in life. Then, discuss how you exercise your freedom based on these definitions and views. 

The world as we know it is constantly changing, and so is the entire concept of freedom . Research the state of freedom in the world today and center your essay on the topic of modern freedom . For example, discuss freedom while still needing to work to pay bills and ask, “Can we truly be free when we cannot choose with the constraints of social norms?” You may compare your situation to the state of freedom in other countries and in the past if you wish. 

A common saying goes like this: “Freedom is not free.” Reflect on this quote and write your essay about what it means to you: how do you understand it? In addition, explain whether you believe it to be true or not, depending on your interpretation. 

Many contemporary issues exemplify both the pros and cons of freedom ; for example, slavery shows the worst when freedom is taken away, while gun violence exposes the disadvantages of too much freedom . First, discuss one issue regarding freedom and briefly touch on its causes and effects. Then, be sure to explain how it relates to freedom . 

Some believe that more laws curtail the right to freedom and liberty. In contrast, others believe that freedom and regulation can coexist, saying that freedom must come with the responsibility to ensure a safe and orderly society . Take a stand on this issue and argue for your position, supporting your response with adequate details and credible sources. 

Many people, especially online, have used their freedom of speech to attack others based on race and gender, among other things. Many argue that hate speech is still free and should be protected, while others want it regulated. Is it infringing on freedom ? You decide and be sure to support your answer adequately. Include a rebuttal of the opposing viewpoint for a more credible argumentative essay. 

For your essay, you can also reflect on a time you felt free. It could be your first time going out alone, moving into a new house, or even going to another country. How did it make you feel? Reflect on your feelings, particularly your sense of freedom , and explain them in detail. 

Check out our guide packed full of transition words for essays .If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Freedom of Speech

[ Editor’s Note: The following new entry by Jeffrey W. Howard replaces the former entry on this topic by the previous author. ]

Human beings have significant interests in communicating what they think to others, and in listening to what others have to say. These interests make it difficult to justify coercive restrictions on people’s communications, plausibly grounding a moral right to speak (and listen) to others that is properly protected by law. That there ought to be such legal protections for speech is uncontroversial among political and legal philosophers. But disagreement arises when we turn to the details. What are the interests or values that justify this presumption against restricting speech? And what, if anything, counts as an adequate justification for overcoming the presumption? This entry is chiefly concerned with exploring the philosophical literature on these questions.

The entry begins by distinguishing different ideas to which the term “freedom of speech” can refer. It then reviews the variety of concerns taken to justify freedom of speech. Next, the entry considers the proper limits of freedom of speech, cataloging different views on when and why restrictions on communication can be morally justified, and what considerations are relevant when evaluating restrictions. Finally, it considers the role of speech intermediaries in a philosophical analysis of freedom of speech, with special attention to internet platforms.

1. What is Freedom of Speech?

2.1 listener theories, 2.2 speaker theories, 2.3 democracy theories, 2.4 thinker theories, 2.5 toleration theories, 2.6 instrumental theories: political abuse and slippery slopes, 2.7 free speech skepticism, 3.1 absoluteness, coverage, and protection, 3.2 the limits of free speech: external constraints, 3.3 the limits of free speech: internal constraints, 3.4 proportionality: chilling effects and political abuse, 3.5 necessity: the counter-speech alternative, 4. the future of free speech theory: platform ethics, other internet resources, related entries.

In the philosophical literature, the terms “freedom of speech”, “free speech”, “freedom of expression”, and “freedom of communication” are mostly used equivalently. This entry will follow that convention, notwithstanding the fact that these formulations evoke subtly different phenomena. For example, it is widely understood that artistic expressions, such as dancing and painting, fall within the ambit of this freedom, even though they don’t straightforwardly seem to qualify as speech , which intuitively connotes some kind of linguistic utterance (see Tushnet, Chen, & Blocher 2017 for discussion). Still, they plainly qualify as communicative activity, conveying some kind of message, however vague or open to interpretation it may be.

Yet the extension of “free speech” is not fruitfully specified through conceptual analysis alone. The quest to distinguish speech from conduct, for the purpose of excluding the latter from protection, is notoriously thorny (Fish 1994: 106), despite some notable attempts (such as Greenawalt 1989: 58ff). As John Hart Ely writes concerning Vietnam War protesters who incinerated their draft cards, such activity is “100% action and 100% expression” (1975: 1495). It is only once we understand why we should care about free speech in the first place—the values it instantiates or serves—that we can evaluate whether a law banning the burning of draft cards (or whatever else) violates free speech. It is the task of a normative conception of free speech to offer an account of the values at stake, which in turn can illuminate the kinds of activities wherein those values are realized, and the kinds of restrictions that manifest hostility to those values. For example, if free speech is justified by the value of respecting citizens’ prerogative to hear many points of view and to make up their own minds, then banning the burning of draft cards to limit the views to which citizens will be exposed is manifestly incompatible with that purpose. If, in contrast, such activity is banned as part of a generally applied ordinance restricting fires in public, it would likely raise no free-speech concerns. (For a recent analysis of this issue, see Kramer 2021: 25ff).

Accordingly, the next section discusses different conceptions of free speech that arise in the philosophical literature, each oriented to some underlying moral or political value. Before turning to the discussion of those conceptions, some further preliminary distinctions will be useful.

First, we can distinguish between the morality of free speech and the law of free speech. In political philosophy, one standard approach is to theorize free speech as a requirement of morality, tracing the implications of such a theory for law and policy. Note that while this is the order of justification, it need not be the order of investigation; it is perfectly sensible to begin by studying an existing legal protection for speech (such as the First Amendment in the U.S.) and then asking what could justify such a protection (or something like it).

But of course morality and law can diverge. The most obvious way they can diverge is when the law is unjust. Existing legal protections for speech, embodied in the positive law of particular jurisdictions, may be misguided in various ways. In other words, a justified legal right to free speech, and the actual legal right to free speech in the positive law of a particular jurisdiction, can come apart. In some cases, positive legal rights might protect too little speech. For example, some jurisdictions’ speech laws make exceptions for blasphemy, such that criminalizing blasphemy does not breach the legal right to free speech within that legal system. But clearly one could argue that a justified legal right to free speech would not include any such exception. In other cases, positive legal rights might perhaps protect too much speech. Consider the fact that, as a matter of U.S. constitutional precedent, the First Amendment broadly protects speech that expresses or incites racial or religious hatred. Plainly we could agree that this is so as a matter of positive law while disagreeing about whether it ought to be so. (This is most straightforwardly true if we are legal positivists. These distinctions are muddied by moralistic theories of constitutional interpretation, which enjoin us to interpret positive legal rights in a constitutional text partly through the prism of our favorite normative political theory; see Dworkin 1996.)

Second, we can distinguish rights-based theories of free speech from non-rights-based theories. For many liberals, the legal right to free speech is justified by appealing to an underlying moral right to free speech, understood as a natural right held by all persons. (Some use the term human right equivalently—e.g., Alexander 2005—though the appropriate usage of that term is contested.) The operative notion of a moral right here is that of a claim-right (to invoke the influential analysis of Hohfeld 1917); it thereby correlates to moral duties held by others (paradigmatically, the state) to respect or protect the right. Such a right is natural in that it exerts normative force independently of whether anyone thinks it does, and regardless of whether it is codified into the law. A tyrannical state that imprisons dissidents acts unjustly, violating moral rights, even if there is no legal right to freedom of expression in its legal system.

For others, the underlying moral justification for free speech law need not come in the form of a natural moral right. For example, consequentialists might favor a legal right to free speech (on, e.g., welfare-maximizing grounds) without thinking that it tracks any underlying natural right. Or consider democratic theorists who have defended legal protections for free speech as central to democracy. Such theorists may think there is an underlying natural moral right to free speech, but they need not (especially if they hold an instrumental justification for democracy). Or consider deontologists who have argued that free speech functions as a kind of side-constraint on legitimate state action, requiring that the state always justify its decisions in a manner that respects citizens’ autonomy (Scanlon 1972). This theory does not cast free speech as a right, but rather as a principle that forbids the creation of laws that restrict speech on certain grounds. In the Hohfeldian analysis (Hohfeld 1917), such a principle may be understood as an immunity rather than a claim-right (Scanlon 2013: 402). Finally, some “minimalists” (to use a designation in Cohen 1993) favor legal protection for speech principally in response to government malice, corruption, and incompetence (see Schauer 1982; Epstein 1992; Leiter 2016). Such theorists need not recognize any fundamental moral right, either.

Third, among those who do ground free speech in a natural moral right, there is scope for disagreement about how tightly the law should mirror that right (as with any right; see Buchanan 2013). It is an open question what the precise legal codification of the moral right to free speech should involve. A justified legal right to freedom of speech may not mirror the precise contours of the natural moral right to freedom of speech. A raft of instrumental concerns enters the downstream analysis of what any justified legal right should look like; hence a defensible legal right to free speech may protect more speech (or indeed less speech) than the underlying moral right that justifies it. For example, even if the moral right to free speech does not protect so-called hate speech, such speech may still merit legal protection in the final analysis (say, because it would be too risky to entrust states with the power to limit those communications).

2. Justifying Free Speech

I will now examine several of the morally significant considerations taken to justify freedom of expression. Note that while many theorists have built whole conceptions of free speech out of a single interest or value alone, pluralism in this domain remains an option. It may well be that a plurality of interests serves to justify freedom of expression, properly understood (see, influentially, Emerson 1970 and Cohen 1993).

Suppose a state bans certain books on the grounds that it does not want us to hear the messages or arguments contained within them. Such censorship seems to involve some kind of insult or disrespect to citizens—treating us like children instead of adults who have a right to make up our own minds. This insight is fundamental in the free speech tradition. On this view, the state wrongs citizens by arrogating to itself the authority to decide what messages they ought to hear. That is so even if the state thinks that the speech will cause harm. As one author puts it,

the government may not suppress speech on the ground that the speech is likely to persuade people to do something that the government considers harmful. (Strauss 1991: 335)

Why are restrictions on persuasive speech objectionable? For some scholars, the relevant wrong here is a form of disrespect for citizens’ basic capacities (Dworkin 1996: 200; Nagel 2002: 44). For others, the wrong here inheres in a violation of the kind of relationship the state should have with its people: namely, that it should always act from a view of them as autonomous, and so entitled to make up their own minds (Scanlon 1972). It would simply be incompatible with a view of ourselves as autonomous—as authors of our own lives and choices—to grant the state the authority to pre-screen which opinions, arguments, and perspectives we should be allowed to think through, allowing us access only to those of which it approves.

This position is especially well-suited to justify some central doctrines of First Amendment jurisprudence. First, it justifies the claim that freedom of expression especially implicates the purposes with which the state acts. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why the state might restrict speech (so-called “time, place, and manner” restrictions)—for example, noise curfews in residential neighborhoods, which do not raise serious free speech concerns. Yet when the state restricts speech with the purpose of manipulating the communicative environment and controlling the views to which citizens are exposed, free speech is directly affronted (Rubenfeld 2001; Alexander 2005; Kramer 2021). To be sure, purposes are not all that matter for free speech theory. For example, the chilling effects of otherwise justified speech regulations (discussed below) are seldom intended. But they undoubtedly matter.

Second, this view justifies the related doctrines of content neutrality and viewpoint neutrality (see G. Stone 1983 and 1987) . Content neutrality is violated when the state bans discussion of certain topics (“no discussion of abortion”), whereas viewpoint neutrality is violated when the state bans advocacy of certain views (“no pro-choice views may be expressed”). Both affront free speech, though viewpoint-discrimination is especially egregious and so even harder to justify. While listener autonomy theories are not the only theories that can ground these commitments, they are in a strong position to account for their plausibility. Note that while these doctrines are central to the American approach to free speech, they are less central to other states’ jurisprudence (see A. Stone 2017).

Third, this approach helps us see that free speech is potentially implicated whenever the state seeks to control our thoughts and the processes through which we form beliefs. Consider an attempt to ban Marx’s Capital . As Marx is deceased, he is probably not wronged through such censorship. But even if one held idiosyncratic views about posthumous rights, such that Marx were wronged, it would be curious to think this was the central objection to such censorship. Those with the gravest complaint would be the living adults who have the prerogative to read the book and make up their own minds about it. Indeed free speech may even be implicated if the state banned watching sunsets or playing video games on the grounds that is disapproved of the thoughts to which such experiences might give rise (Alexander 2005: 8–9; Kramer 2021: 22).

These arguments emphasize the noninstrumental imperative of respecting listener autonomy. But there is an instrumental version of the view. Our autonomy interests are not merely respected by free speech; they are promoted by an environment in which we learn what others have to say. Our interests in access to information is served by exposure to a wide range of viewpoints about both empirical and normative issues (Cohen 1993: 229), which help us reflect on what goals to choose and how best to pursue them. These informational interests are monumental. As Raz suggests, if we had to choose whether to express our own views on some question, or listen to the rest of humanity’s views on that question, we would choose the latter; it is our interest as listeners in the public good of a vibrant public discourse that, he thinks, centrally justifies free speech (1991).

Such an interest in acquiring justified beliefs, or in accessing truth, can be defended as part of a fully consequentialist political philosophy. J.S. Mill famously defends free speech instrumentally, appealing to its epistemic benefits in On Liberty . Mill believes that, given our fallibility, we should routinely keep an open mind as to whether a seemingly false view may actually be true, or at least contain some valuable grain of truth. And even where a proposition is manifestly false, there is value in allowing its expression so that we can better apprehend why we take it to be false (1859: chapter 2), enabled through discursive conflict (cf. Simpson 2021). Mill’s argument focuses especially on the benefits to audiences:

It is is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect. (1859: chapter 2, p. 94)

These views are sometimes associated with the idea of a “marketplace of ideas”, whereby the open clash of views inevitably leads to the correct ones winning out in debate. Few in the contemporary literature holds such a strong teleological thesis about the consequences of unrestricted debate (e.g., see Brietzke 1997; cf. Volokh 2011). Much evidence from behavioral economics and social psychology, as well as insights about epistemic injustice from feminist epistemology, strongly suggest that human beings’ rational powers are seriously limited. Smug confidence in the marketplace of ideas belies this. Yet it is doubtful that Mill held such a strong teleological thesis (Gordon 1997). Mill’s point was not that unrestricted discussion necessarily leads people to acquire the truth. Rather, it is simply the best mechanism available for ascertaining the truth, relative to alternatives in which some arbiter declares what he sees as true and suppresses what he sees as false (see also Leiter 2016).

Note that Mill’s views on free speech in chapter 2 in On Liberty are not simply the application of the general liberty principle defended in chapter 1 of that work; his view is not that speech is anodyne and therefore seldom runs afoul of the harm principle. The reason a separate argument is necessary in chapter 2 is precisely that he is carving out a partial qualification of the harm principle for speech (on this issue see Jacobson 2000, Schauer 2011b, and Turner 2014). On Mill’s view, plenty of harmful speech should still be allowed. Imminently dangerous speech, where there is no time for discussion before harm eventuates, may be restricted; but where there is time for discussion, it must be allowed. Hence Mill’s famous example that vociferous criticism of corn dealers as

starvers of the poor…ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer. (1859: chapter 3, p. 100)

The point is not that such speech is harmless; it’s that the instrumental benefits of permitting its expressions—and exposing its falsehood through public argument—justify the (remaining) costs.

Many authors have unsurprisingly argued that free speech is justified by our interests as speakers . This family of arguments emphasizes the role of speech in the development and exercise of our personal autonomy—our capacity to be the reflective authors of our own lives (Baker 1989; Redish 1982; Rawls 2005). Here an emphasis on freedom of expression is apt; we have an “expressive interest” (Cohen 1993: 224) in declaring our views—about the good life, about justice, about our identity, and about other aspects of the truth as we see it.

Our interests in self-expression may not always depend on the availability of a willing audience; we may have interests simply in shouting from the rooftops to declare who we are and what we believe, regardless of who else hears us. Hence communications to oneself—for example, in a diary or journal—are plausibly protected from interference (Redish 1992: 30–1; Shiffrin 2014: 83, 93; Kramer 2021: 23).

Yet we also have distinctive interests in sharing what we think with others. Part of how we develop our conceptions of the good life, forming judgments about how to live, is precisely through talking through the matter with others. This “deliberative interest” in directly served through opportunities to tell others what we think, so that we can learn from their feedback (Cohen 1993). Such encounters also offer opportunities to persuade others to adopt our views, and indeed to learn through such discussions who else already shares our views (Raz 1991).

Speech also seems like a central way in which we develop our capacities. This, too, is central to J.S. Mill’s defense of free speech, enabling people to explore different perspectives and points of view (1859). Hence it seems that when children engage in speech, to figure out what they think and to use their imagination to try out different ways of being in the world, they are directly engaging this interest. That explains the intuition that children, and not just adults, merit at least some protection under a principle of freedom of speech.

Note that while it is common to refer to speaker autonomy , we could simply refer to speakers’ capacities. Some political liberals hold that an emphasis on autonomy is objectionably Kantian or otherwise perfectionist, valorizing autonomy as a comprehensive moral ideal in a manner that is inappropriate for a liberal state (Cohen 1993: 229; Quong 2011). For such theorists, an undue emphasis on autonomy is incompatible with ideals of liberal neutrality toward different comprehensive conceptions of the good life (though cf. Shiffrin 2014: 81).

If free speech is justified by the importance of our interests in expressing ourselves, this justifies negative duties to refrain from interfering with speakers without adequate justification. Just as with listener theories, a strong presumption against content-based restrictions, and especially against viewpoint discrimination, is a clear requirement of the view. For the state to restrict citizens’ speech on the grounds that it disfavors what they have to say would affront the equal freedom of citizens. Imagine the state were to disallow the expression of Muslim or Jewish views, but allow the expression of Christian views. This would plainly transgress the right to freedom of expression, by valuing certain speakers’ interests in expressing themselves over others.

Many arguments for the right to free speech center on its special significance for democracy (Cohen 1993; Heinze 2016: Heyman 2009; Sunstein 1993; Weinstein 2011; Post 1991, 2009, 2011). It is possible to defend free speech on the noninstrumental ground that it is necessary to respect agents as democratic citizens. To restrict citizens’ speech is to disrespect their status as free and equal moral agents, who have a moral right to debate and decide the law for themselves (Rawls 2005).

Alternatively (or additionally), one can defend free speech on the instrumental ground that free speech promotes democracy, or whatever values democracy is meant to serve. So, for example, suppose the purpose of democracy is the republican one of establishing a state of non-domination between relationally egalitarian citizens; free speech can be defended as promoting that relation (Whitten 2022; Bonotti & Seglow 2022). Or suppose that democracy is valuable because of its role in promoting just outcomes (Arneson 2009) or tending to track those outcomes in a manner than is publicly justifiable (Estlund 2008) or is otherwise epistemically valuable (Landemore 2013).

Perhaps free speech doesn’t merely respect or promote democracy; another framing is that it is constitutive of it (Meiklejohn 1948, 1960; Heinze 2016). As Rawls says: “to restrict or suppress free political speech…always implies at least a partial suspension of democracy” (2005: 254). On this view, to be committed to democracy just is , in part, to be committed to free speech. Deliberative democrats famously contend that voting merely punctuates a larger process defined by a commitment to open deliberation among free and equal citizens (Gutmann & Thompson 2008). Such an unrestricted discussion is marked not by considerations of instrumental rationality and market forces, but rather, as Habermas puts it, “the unforced force of the better argument” (1992 [1996: 37]). One crucial way in which free speech might be constitutive of democracy is if it serves as a legitimation condition . On this view, without a process of open public discourse, the outcomes of the democratic decision-making process lack legitimacy (Dworkin 2009, Brettschneider 2012: 75–78, Cohen 1997, and Heinze 2016).

Those who justify free speech on democratic grounds may view this as a special application of a more general insight. For example, Scanlon’s listener theory (discussed above) contends that the state must always respect its citizens as capable of making up their own minds (1972)—a position with clear democratic implications. Likewise, Baker is adamant that both free speech and democracy are justified by the same underlying value of autonomy (2009). And while Rawls sees the democratic role of free speech as worthy of emphasis, he is clear that free speech is one of several basic liberties that enable the development and exercise of our moral powers: our capacities for a sense of justice and for the rational pursuit a lifeplan (2005). In this way, many theorists see the continuity between free speech and our broader interests as moral agents as a virtue, not a drawback (e.g., Kendrick 2017).

Even so, some democracy theorists hold that democracy has a special role in a theory of free speech, such that political speech in particular merits special protection (for an overview, see Barendt 2005: 154ff). One consequence of such views is that contributions to public discourse on political questions merit greater protection under the law (Sunstein 1993; cf. Cohen 1993: 227; Alexander 2005: 137–8). For some scholars, this may reflect instrumental anxieties about the special danger that the state will restrict the political speech of opponents and dissenters. But for others, an emphasis on political speech seems to reflect a normative claim that such speech is genuinely of greater significance, meriting greater protection, than other kinds of speech.

While conventional in the free speech literature, it is artificial to separate out our interests as speakers, listeners, and democratic citizens. Communication, and the thinking that feeds into it and that it enables, invariably engages our interests and activities across all these capacities. This insight is central to Seana Shiffrin’s groundbreaking thinker-based theory of freedom of speech, which seeks to unify the range of considerations that have informed the traditional theories (2014). Like other theories (e.g., Scanlon 1978, Cohen 1993), Shiffrin’s theory is pluralist in the range of interests it appeals to. But it offers a unifying framework that explains why this range of interests merits protection together.

On Shiffrin’s view, freedom of speech is best understood as encompassing both freedom of communication and freedom of thought, which while logically distinct are mutually reinforcing and interdependent (Shiffrin 2014: 79). Shiffrin’s account involves several profound claims about the relation between communication and thought. A central contention is that “free speech is essential to the development, functioning, and operation of thinkers” (2014: 91). This is, in part, because we must often externalize our ideas to articulate them precisely and hold them at a distance where we can evaluate them (p. 89). It is also because we work out what we think largely by talking it through with others. Such communicative processes may be monological, but they are typically dialogical; speaker and listener interests are thereby mutually engaged in an ongoing manner that cannot be neatly disentangled, as ideas are ping-ponged back and forth. Moreover, such discussions may concern democratic politics—engaging our interests as democratic citizens—but of course they need not. Aesthetics, music, local sports, the existence of God—these all are encompassed (2014: 92–93). Pace prevailing democratic theories,

One’s thoughts about political affairs are intrinsically and ex ante no more and no less central to the human self than thoughts about one’s mortality or one’s friends. (Shiffrin 2014: 93)

The other central aspect of Shiffrin’s view appeals to the necessity of communication for successfully exercising our moral agency. Sincere communication enables us

to share needs, emotions, intentions, convictions, ambitions, desires, fantasies, disappointments, and judgments. Thereby, we are enabled to form and execute complex cooperative plans, to understand one another, to appreciate and negotiate around our differences. (2014: 1)

Without clear and precise communication of the sort that only speech can provide, we cannot cooperate to discharge our collective obligations. Nor can we exercise our normative powers (such as consenting, waiving, or promising). Our moral agency thus depends upon protected channels through which we can relay our sincere thoughts to one another. The central role of free speech is to protect those channels, by ensuring agents are free to share what they are thinking without fear of sanction.

The thinker-based view has wide-ranging normative implications. For example, by emphasizing the continuity of speech and thought (a connection also noted in Macklem 2006 and Gilmore 2011), Shiffrin’s view powerfully explains the First Amendment doctrine that compelled speech also constitutes a violation of freedom of expression. Traditional listener- and speaker-focused theories seemingly cannot explain what is fundamentally objectionable with forcing someone to declare a commitment to something, as with children compelled to pledge allegiance to the American flag ( West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943). “What seems most troubling about the compelled pledge”, Shiffrin writes,

is that the motive behind the regulation, and its possible effect, is to interfere with the autonomous thought processes of the compelled speaker. (2014: 94)

Further, Shiffrin’s view explains why a concern for free speech does not merely correlate to negative duties not to interfere with expression; it also supports positive responsibilities on the part of the state to educate citizens, encouraging and supporting their development and exercise as thinking beings (2014: 107).

Consider briefly one final family of free speech theories, which appeal to the role of toleration or self-restraint. On one argument, freedom of speech is important because it develops our character as liberal citizens, helping us tame our illiberal impulses. The underlying idea of Lee Bollinger’s view is that liberalism is difficult; we recurrently face temptation to punish those who hold contrary views. Freedom of speech helps us to practice the general ethos of toleration in a manner than fortifies our liberal convictions (1986). Deeply offensive speech, like pro-Nazi speech, is protected precisely because toleration in these enormously difficult cases promotes “a general social ethic” of toleration more generally (1986: 248), thereby restraining unjust exercises of state power overall. This consequentialist argument treats the protection of offensive speech not as a tricky borderline case, but as “integral to the central functions of the principle of free speech” (1986: 133). It is precisely because tolerating evil speech involves “extraordinary self-restraint” (1986: 10) that it works its salutary effects on society generally.

The idea of self-restraint arises, too, in Matthew Kramer’s recent defense of free speech. Like listener theories, Kramer’s strongly deontological theory condemns censorship aimed at protecting audiences from exposure to misguided views. At the core of his theory is the thesis that the state’s paramount moral responsibility is to furnish the social conditions that serve the development and maintenance of citizens’ self-respect and respect for others. The achievement of such an ethically resilient citizenry, on Kramer’s view, has the effect of neutering the harmfulness of countless harmful communications. “Securely in a position of ethical strength”, the state “can treat the wares of pornographers and the maunderings of bigots as execrable chirps that are to be endured with contempt” (Kramer 2021: 147). In contrast, in a society where the state has failed to do its duty of inculcating a robust liberal-egalitarian ethos, the communication of illiberal creeds may well pose a substantial threat. Yet for the state then to react by banning such speech is

overweening because with them the system’s officials take control of communications that should have been defused (through the system’s fulfillment of its moral obligations) without prohibitory or preventative impositions. (2021: 147)

(One might agree with Kramer that this is so, but diverge by arguing that the state—having failed in its initial duty—ought to take measures to prevent the harms that flow from that failure.)

These theories are striking in that they assume that a chief task of free speech theory is to explain why harmful speech ought to be protected. This is in contrast to those who think that the chief task of free speech theory is to explain our interests in communicating with others, treating the further issue of whether (wrongfully) harmful communications should be protected as an open question, with different reasonable answers available (Kendrick 2017). In this way, toleration theories—alongside a lot of philosophical work on free speech—seem designed to vindicate the demanding American legal position on free speech, one unshared by virtually all other liberal democracies.

One final family of arguments for free speech appeals to the danger of granting the state powers it may abuse. On this view, we protect free speech chiefly because if we didn’t, it would be far easier for the state to silence its political opponents and enact unjust policies. On this view, a state with censorial powers is likely to abuse them. As Richard Epstein notes, focusing on the American case,

the entire structure of federalism, divided government, and the system of checks and balances at the federal level shows that the theme of distrust has worked itself into the warp and woof of our constitutional structure.

“The protection of speech”, he writes, “…should be read in light of these political concerns” (Epstein 1992: 49).

This view is not merely a restatement of the democracy theory; it does not affirm free speech as an element of valuable self-governance. Nor does it reduce to the uncontroversial thought that citizens need freedom of speech to check the behavior of fallible government agents (Blasi 1977). One need not imagine human beings to be particularly sinister to insist (as democracy theorists do) that the decisions of those entrusted with great power be subject to public discussion and scrutiny. The argument under consideration here is more pessimistic about human nature. It is an argument about the slippery slope that we create even when enacting (otherwise justified) speech restrictions; we set an unacceptable precedent for future conduct by the state (see Schauer 1985). While this argument is theoretical, there is clearly historical evidence for it, as in the manifold cases in which bans on dangerous sedition were used to suppress legitimate war protest. (For a sweeping canonical study of the uses and abuses of speech regulations during wartime, with a focus on U.S. history, see G. Stone 2004.)

These instrumental concerns could potentially justify the legal protection for free speech. But they do not to attempt to justify why we should care about free speech as a positive moral ideal (Shiffrin 2014: 83n); they are, in Cohen’s helpful terminology, “minimalist” rather than “maximalist” (Cohen 1993: 210). Accordingly, they cannot explain why free speech is something that even the most trustworthy, morally competent administrations, with little risk of corruption or degeneration, ought to respect. Of course, minimalists will deny that accounting for speech’s positive value is a requirement of a theory of free speech, and that critiquing them for this omission begs the question.

Pluralists may see instrumental concerns as valuably supplementing or qualifying noninstrumental views. For example, instrumental concerns may play a role in justifying deviations between the moral right to free communication, on the one hand, and a properly specified legal right to free communication, on the other. Suppose that there is no moral right to engage in certain forms of harmful expression (such as hate speech), and that there is in fact a moral duty to refrain from such expression. Even so, it does not follow automatically that such a right ought to be legally enforced. Concerns about the dangers of granting the state such power plausibly militate against the enforcement of at least some of our communicative duties—at least in those jurisdictions that lack robust and competently administered liberal-democratic safeguards.

This entry has canvassed a range of views about what justifies freedom of expression, with particular attention to theories that conceive free speech as a natural moral right. Clearly, the proponents of such views believe that they succeed in this justificatory effort. But others dissent, doubting that the case for a bona fide moral right to free speech comes through. Let us briefly note the nature of this challenge from free speech skeptics , exploring a prominent line of reply.

The challenge from skeptics is generally understood as that of showing that free speech is a special right . As Leslie Kendrick notes,

the term “special right” generally requires that a special right be entirely distinct from other rights and activities and that it receive a very high degree of protection. (2017: 90)

(Note that this usage is not to be confused from the alternative usage of “special right”, referring to conditional rights arising out of particular relationships; see Hart 1955.)

Take each aspect in turn. First, to vindicate free speech as a special right, it must serve some distinctive value or interest (Schauer 2015). Suppose free speech were just an implication of a general principle not to interfere in people’s liberty without justification. As Joel Feinberg puts it, “Liberty should be the norm; coercion always needs some special justification” (1984: 9). In such a case, then while there still might be contingent, historical reasons to single speech out in law as worthy of protection (Alexander 2005: 186), such reasons would not track anything especially distinctive about speech as an underlying moral matter. Second, to count as a special right, free speech must be robust in what it protects, such that only a compelling justification can override it (Dworkin 2013: 131). This captures the conviction, prominent among American constitutional theorists, that “any robust free speech principle must protect at least some harmful speech despite the harm it may cause” (Schauer 2011b: 81; see also Schauer 1982).

If the task of justifying a moral right to free speech requires surmounting both hurdles, it is a tall order. Skeptics about a special right to free speech doubt that the order can be met, and so deny that a natural moral right to freedom of expression can be justified (Schauer 2015; Alexander & Horton 1983; Alexander 2005; Husak 1985). But these theorists may be demanding too much (Kendrick 2017). Start with the claim that free speech must be distinctive. We can accept that free speech be more than simply one implication of a general presumption of liberty. But need it be wholly distinctive? Consider the thesis that free speech is justified by our autonomy interests—interests that justify other rights such as freedom of religion and association. Is it a problem if free speech is justified by interests that are continuous with, or overlap with, interests that justify other rights? Pace the free speech skeptics, maybe not. So long as such claims deserve special recognition, and are worth distinguishing by name, this may be enough (Kendrick 2017: 101). Many of the views canvassed above share normative bases with other important rights. For example, Rawls is clear that he thinks all the basic liberties constitute

essential social conditions for the adequate development and full exercise of the two powers of moral personality over a complete life. (Rawls 2005: 293)

The debate, then, is whether such a shared basis is a theoretical virtue (or at least theoretically unproblematic) or whether it is a theoretical vice, as the skeptics avow.

As for the claim that free speech must be robust, protecting harmful speech, “it is not necessary for a free speech right to protect harmful speech in order for it to be called a free speech right” (Kendrick 2017: 102). We do not tend to think that religious liberty must protect harmful religious activities for it to count as a special right. So it would be strange to insist that the right to free speech must meet this burden to count as a special right. Most of the theorists mentioned above take themselves to be offering views that protect quite a lot of harmful speech. Yet we can question whether this feature is a necessary component of their views, or whether we could imagine variations without this result.

3. Justifying Speech Restrictions

When, and why, can restrictions on speech be justified? It is common in public debate on free speech to hear the provocative claim that free speech is absolute . But the plausibility of such a claim depends on what is exactly meant by it. If understood to mean that no communications between humans can ever be restricted, such a view is held by no one in the philosophical debate. When I threaten to kill you unless you hand me your money; when I offer to bribe the security guard to let me access the bank vault; when I disclose insider information that the company in which you’re heavily invested is about to go bust; when I defame you by falsely posting online that you’re a child abuser; when I endanger you by labeling a drug as safe despite its potentially fatal side-effects; when I reveal your whereabouts to assist a murderer intent on killing you—across all these cases, communications may be uncontroversially restricted. But there are different views as to why.

To help organize such views, consider a set of distinctions influentially defended by Schauer (from 1982 onward). The first category involves uncovered speech : speech that does not even presumptively fall within the scope of a principle of free expression. Many of the speech-acts just canvassed, such as the speech involved in making a threat or insider training, plausibly count as uncovered speech. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said of fighting words (e.g., insults calculated to provoke a street fight),

such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. ( Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942)

The general idea here is that some speech simply has negligible—and often no —value as free speech, in light of its utter disconnection from the values that justify free speech in the first place. (For discussion of so-called “low-value speech” in the U.S. context, see Sunstein 1989 and Lakier 2015.) Accordingly, when such low-value speech is harmful, it is particularly easy to justify its curtailment. Hence the Court’s view that “the prevention and punishment of [this speech] have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem”. For legislation restricting such speech, the U.S. Supreme Court applies a “rational basis” test, which is very easy to meet, as it simply asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. (Note that it is widely held that it would still be impermissible to selectively ban low-value speech on a viewpoint-discriminatory basis—e.g., if a state only banned fighting words from left-wing activists while allowing them from right-wing activists.)

Schauer’s next category concerns speech that is covered but unprotected . This is speech that engages the values that underpin free speech; yet the countervailing harm of the speech justifies its restriction. In such cases, while there is real value in such expression as free speech, that value is outweighed by competing normative concerns (or even, as we will see below, on behalf of the very values that underpin free speech). In U.S. constitutional jurisprudence, this category encompasses those extremely rare cases in which restrictions on political speech pass the “strict scrutiny” test, whereby narrow restrictions on high-value speech can be justified due to the compelling state interests thereby served. Consider Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 2010, in which the Court held that an NGO’s legal advice to a terrorist organization on how to pursue peaceful legal channels were legitimately criminalized under a counter-terrorism statute. While such speech had value as free speech (at least on one interpretation of this contested ruling), the imperative of counter-terrorism justified its restriction. (Arguably, commercial speech, while sometimes called low-value speech by scholars, falls into the covered but unprotected category. Under U.S. law, legislation restricting it receives “intermediate scrutiny” by courts—requiring restrictions to be narrowly drawn to advance a substantial government interest. Such a test suggests that commercial speech has bona fide free-speech value, making it harder to justify regulations on it than regulations on genuinely low-value speech like fighting words. It simply doesn’t have as much free-speech value as categories like political speech, religious speech, or press speech, all of which trigger the strict scrutiny test when restricted.)

As a philosophical matter, we can reasonably disagree about what speech qualifies as covered but unprotected (and need not treat the verdicts of the U.S. Supreme Court as philosophically decisive). For example, consider politically-inflected hate speech, which advances repugnant ideas about the inferior status of certain groups. One could concur that there is substantial free-speech value in such expression, just because it involves the sincere expression of views about central questions of politics and justice (however misguided the views doubtlessly are). Yet one could nevertheless hold that such speech should not be protected in virtue of the substantial harms to which it can lead. In such cases, the free-speech value is outweighed. Many scholars who defend the permissibility of legal restrictions on hate speech hold such a view (e.g., Parekh 2012; Waldron 2012). (More radically, one could hold that such speech’s value is corrupted by its evil, such that it qualifies as genuinely low-value; Howard 2019a.)

The final category of speech encompasses expression that is covered and protected . To declare that speech is protected just is to conclude that it is immune from restriction. A preponderance of human communications fall into this category. This does not mean that such speech can never be regulated ; content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations (e.g., prohibiting loud nighttime protests) can certainly be justified (G. Stone 1987). But such regulations must not be viewpoint discriminatory; they must apply even-handedly across all forms of protected speech.

Schauer’s taxonomy offers a useful organizing framework for how we should think about different forms of speech. Where does it leave the claim that free speech is absolute? The possibility of speech that is covered but unprotected suggests that free speech should sometimes be restricted on account of rival normative concerns. Of course, one could contend that such a category, while logically possible, is substantively an empty set; such a position would involve some kind of absoluteness about free speech (holding that where free-speech values are engaged by expression, no countervailing values can ever be weighty enough to override them). Such a position would be absolutist in a certain sense while granting the permissibility of restrictions on speech that do not engage the free-speech values. (For a recent critique of Schauer’s framework, arguing that governmental designation of some speech as low-value is incompatible with the very ideal of free speech, see Kramer 2021: 31.)

In what follows, this entry will focus on Schauer’s second category: speech that is covered by a free speech principle, but is nevertheless unprotected because of the harms it causes. How do we determine what speech falls into this category? How, in other words, do we determine the limits of free speech? Unsurprisingly, this is where most of the controversy lies.

Most legal systems that protect free speech recognize that the right has limits. Consider, for example, international human rights law, which emphatically protects the freedom of speech as a fundamental human right while also affirming specific restrictions on certain seriously harmful speech. Article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights declares that “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”—but then immediately notes that this right “carries with it special duties and responsibilities”. The subsequent ICCPR article proceeds to endorse legal restrictions on “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, as well as speech constituting “propaganda for war” (ICCPR). While such restrictions would plainly be struck down as unconstitutional affronts to free speech in the U.S., this more restrictive approach prevails in most liberal democracies’ treatment of harmful speech.

Set aside the legal issue for now. How should we think about how to determine the limits of the moral right free speech? Those seeking to justify limits on speech tend to appeal to one of two strategies (Howard and Simpson forthcoming). The first strategy appeals to the importance of balancing free speech against other moral values when they come into conflict. This strategy involves external limits on free speech. (The next strategy, discussed below, invokes free speech itself, or the values that justify it, as limit-setting rationales; it thus involves internal limits on free speech.)

A balancing approach recognizes a moral conflict between unfettered communication and external values. Consider again the case of hate speech, understood as expression that attacks members of socially vulnerable groups as inferior or dangerous. On all of the theories canvassed above, there are grounds for thinking that restrictions on hate speech are prima facie in violation of the moral right to free speech. Banning hate speech to prevent people from hearing ideas that might incline them to bigotry plainly seems to disrespect listener autonomy. Further, even when speakers are expressing prejudiced views, they are still engaging their autonomous faculties. Certainly, they are expressing views on questions of public political concern, even false ones. And as thinkers they are engaged in the communication of sincere testimony to others. On many of the leading theories, the values underpinning free speech seem to be militate against bans on hate speech.

Even so, other values matter. Consider, for example, the value of upholding the equal dignity of all citizens. A central insight of critical race theory is that public expressions of white supremacy, for example, attack and undermine that equal dignity (Matsuda, Lawrence, Delgado, & Crenshaw 1993). On Jeremy Waldron’s view (2012), hate speech is best understood as a form of group defamation, launching spurious attacks on others’ reputations and thereby undermining their standing as respected equals in their own community (relatedly, see Beauharnais v. Illinois 1952).

Countries that ban hate speech, accordingly, are plausibly understood not as opposed to free speech, but as recognizing the importance that it be balanced when conflicting with other values. Such balancing can be understood in different ways. In European human rights law, for example, the relevant idea is that the right to free speech is balanced against other rights ; the relevant task, accordingly, is to specify what counts as a proportionate balance between these rights (see Alexy 2003; J. Greene 2021).

For others, the very idea of balancing rights undermines their deontic character. This alternative framing holds that the balancing occurs before we specify what rights are; on this view, we balance interests against each other, and only once we’ve undertaken that balancing do we proceed to define what our rights protect. As Scanlon puts it,

The only balancing is balancing of interests. Rights are not balanced, but are defined, or redefined, in the light of the balance of interests and of empirical facts about how these interests can best be protected. (2008: 78)

This balancing need not come in the form of some crude consequentialism; otherwise it would be acceptable to limit the rights of the few to secure trivial benefits for the many. On a contractualist moral theory such as Scanlon’s, the test is to assess the strength of any given individual’s reason to engage in (or access) the speech, against the strength of any given individual’s reason to oppose it.

Note that those who engage in balancing need not give up on the idea of viewpoint neutrality; they can accept that, as a general principle, the state should not restrict speech on the grounds that it disapproves of its message and dislikes that others will hear it. The point, instead, is that this commitment is defeasible; it is possible to be overridden.

One final comment is apt. Those who are keen to balance free speech against other values tend to be motivated by the concern that speech can cause harm, either directly or indirectly (on this distinction, see Schauer 1993). But to justify restrictions on speech, it is not sufficient (and perhaps not even necessary) to show that such speech imposes or risks imposing harm. The crucial point is that the speech is wrongful (or, perhaps, wrongfully harmful or risky) , breaching a moral duty that speakers owe to others. Yet very few in the free speech literature think that the mere offensiveness of speech is sufficient to justify restrictions on it. Even Joel Feinberg, who thinks offensiveness can sometimes be grounds for restricting conduct, makes a sweeping exception for

[e]xpressions of opinion, especially about matters of public policy, but also about matters of empirical fact, and about historical, scientific, theological, philosophical, political, and moral questions. (1985: 44)

And in many cases, offensive speech may be actively salutary, as when racists are offended by defenses of racial equality (Waldron 1987). Accordingly, despite how large it looms in public debate, discussion of offensive speech will not play a major role in the discussion here.

We saw that one way to justify limits on free speech is to balance it against other values. On that approach, free speech is externally constrained. A second approach, in contrast, is internally constrained. On this approach, the very values that justify free speech themselves determine its own limits. This is a revisionist approach to free speech since, unlike orthodox thinking, it contends that a commitment to free speech values can counterintuitively support the restriction of speech—a surprising inversion of traditional thinking on the topic (see Howard and Simpson forthcoming). This move—justifying restrictions on speech by appealing to the values that underpin free speech—is now prevalent in the philosophical literature (for an overview, see Barendt 2005: 1ff).

Consider, for example, the claim that free speech is justified by concerns of listener autonomy. On such a view, as we saw above, autonomous citizens have interests in exposure to a wide range of viewpoints, so that they can decide for themselves what to believe. But many have pointed out that this is not autonomous citizens’ only interest; they also have interests in not getting murdered by those incited by incendiary speakers (Amdur 1980). Likewise, insofar as being targeted by hate speech undermines the exercise of one’s autonomous capacities, appeal to the underlying value of autonomy could well support restrictions on such speech (Brison 1998; see also Brink 2001). What’s more, if our interests as listeners in acquiring accurate information is undermined by fraudulent information, then restrictions on such information could well be compatible with our status as autonomous; this was one of the insights that led Scanlon to complicate his theory of free speech (1978).

Or consider the theory that free speech is justified because of its role in enabling autonomous speakers to express themselves. But as Japa Pallikkathayil has argued, some speech can intimidate its audiences into staying silent (as with some hate speech), out of fear for what will happen if they speak up (Pallikkathayil 2020). In principle, then, restrictions on hate speech may serve to support the value of speaker expression, rather than undermine it (see also Langton 2018; Maitra 2009; Maitra & McGowan 2007; and Matsuda 1989: 2337). Indeed, among the most prominent claims in feminist critiques of pornography is precisely that it silences women—not merely through its (perlocutionary) effects in inspiring rape, but more insidiously through its (illocutionary) effects in altering the force of the word “no” (see MacKinnon 1984; Langton 1993; and West 204 [2022]; McGowan 2003 and 2019; cf. Kramer 2021, pp. 160ff).

Now consider democracy theories. On the one hand, democracy theorists are adamant that citizens should be free to discuss any proposals, even the destruction of democracy itself (e.g., Meiklejohn 1948: 65–66). On the other hand, it isn’t obvious why citizens’ duties as democratic citizens could not set a limit to their democratic speech rights (Howard 2019a). The Nazi propagandist Goebbels is said to have remarked:

This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed. (as quoted in Fox & Nolte 1995: 1)

But it is not clear why this is necessarily so. Why should we insist on a conception of democracy that contains a self-destruct mechanism? Merely stipulating that democracy requires this is not enough (see A. Greene and Simpson 2017).

Finally, consider Shiffrin’s thinker-based theory. Shiffrin’s view is especially well-placed to explain why varieties of harmful communications are protected speech; what the theory values is the sincere transmission of veridical testimony, whereby speakers disclose what they genuinely believe to others, even if what they believe is wrongheaded and dangerous. Yet because the sincere testimony of thinkers is what qualifies some communication for protection, Shiffrin is adamant that lying falls outside the protective ambit of freedom of expression (2014) This, then, sets an internal limit on her own theory (even if she herself disfavors all lies’ outright prohibition for reasons of tolerance). The claim that lying falls outside the protective ambit of free speech is itself a recurrent suggestion in the literature (Strauss 1991: 355; Brown 2023). In an era of rampant disinformation, this internal limit is of substantial practical significance.

Suppose the moral right (or principle) of free speech is limited, as most think, such that not all communications fall within its protective ambit (either for external reasons, internal reasons, or both). Even so, it does not follow that laws banning such unprotected speech can be justified all-things-considered. Further moral tests must be passed before any particular policy restricting speech can be justified. This sub-section focuses on the requirement that speech restrictions be proportionate .

The idea that laws implicating fundamental rights must be proportionate is central in many jurisdictions’ constitutional law, as well as in the international law of human rights. As a representative example, consider the specification of proportionality offered by the Supreme Court of Canada:

First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair, or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair “as little as possible” the right or freedom in question[…] Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of “sufficient importance” ( R v. Oakes 1986).

It is this third element (often called “proportionality stricto sensu ”) on which we will concentrate here; this is the focused sense of proportionality that roughly tracks how the term is used in the philosophical literatures on defensive harm and war, as well as (with some relevant differences) criminal punishment. (The strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny tests of U.S. constitutional law are arguably variations of the proportionality test; but set aside this complication for now as it distracts from the core philosophical issues. For relevant legal discussion, see Tsesis 2020.)

Proportionality, in the strict sense, concerns the relation between the costs or harms imposed by some measure and the benefits that the measure is designed to secure. The organizing distinction in recent philosophical literature (albeit largely missing in the literature on free speech) is one between narrow proportionality and wide proportionality . While there are different ways to cut up the terrain between these terms, let us stipulatively define them as follows. An interference is narrowly proportionate just in case the intended target of the interference is liable to bear the costs of that interference. An interference is widely proportionate just in case the collateral costs that the interference unintentionally imposes on others can be justified. (This distinction largely follows the literature in just war theory and the ethics of defensive force; see McMahan 2009.) While the distinction is historically absent from free speech theory, it has powerful payoffs in helping to structure this chaotic debate (as argued in Howard 2019a).

So start with the idea that restrictions on communication must be narrowly proportionate . For a restriction to be narrowly proportionate, those whose communications are restricted must be liable to bear their costs, such that they are not wronged by their imposition. One standard way to be liable to bear certain costs is to have a moral duty to bear them (Tadros 2012). So, for example, if speakers have a moral duty to refrain from libel, hate speech, or some other form of harmful speech, they are liable to bear at least some costs involved in the enforcement of that duty. Those costs cannot be unlimited; a policy of executing hate speakers could not plausibly be justified. Typically, in both defensive and punitive contexts, wrongdoers’ liability is determined by their culpability, the severity of their wrong, or some combination of the two. While it is difficult to say in the abstract what the precise maximal cost ceiling is for any given restriction, as it depends hugely on the details, the point is simply that there is some ceiling above which a speech restriction (like any restriction) imposes unacceptably high costs, even on wrongdoers.

Second, for a speech restriction to be justified, we must also show that it would be widely proportionate . Suppose a speaker is liable to bear the costs of some policy restricting her communication, such that she is not wronged by its imposition. It may be that the collateral costs of such a policy would render it unacceptable. One set of costs is chilling effects , the “overdeterrence of benign conduct that occurs incidentally to a law’s legitimate purpose or scope” (Kendrick 2013: 1649). The core idea is that laws targeting unprotected, legitimately proscribed expression may nevertheless end up having a deleterious impact on protected expression. This is because laws are often vague, overbroad, and in any case are likely to be misapplied by fallible officials (Schauer 1978: 699).

Note that if a speech restriction produces chilling effects, it does not follow that the restriction should not exist at all. Rather, concern about chilling effects instead suggests that speech restrictions should be under-inclusive—restricting less speech than is actually harmful—in order to create “breathing space”, or “a buffer zone of strategic protection” (Schauer 1978: 710) for legitimate expression and so reduce unwanted self-censorship. For example, some have argued that even though speech can cause harm recklessly or negligently, we should insist on specific intent as the mens rea of speech crimes in order to reduce any chilling effects that could follow (Alexander 1995: 21–128; Schauer 1978: 707; cf. Kendrick 2013).

But chilling effects are not the only sort of collateral effects to which speech restrictions could lead. Earlier we noted the risk that states might abuse their censorial powers. This, too, could militate in favor of underinclusive speech restrictions. Or the implication could be more radical. Consider the problem that it is difficult to author restrictions on hate speech in a tightly specified way; the language involved is open-ended in a manner that enables states to exercise considerable judgment in deciding what speech-acts, in fact, count as violations (see Strossen 2018). Given the danger that the state will misuse or abuse these laws to punish legitimate speech, some might think this renders their enactment widely disproportionate. Indeed, even if the law were well-crafted and would be judiciously applied by current officials, the point is that those in the future may not be so trustworthy.

Those inclined to accept such a position might simply draw the conclusion that legislatures ought to refrain from enacting laws against hate speech. A more radical conclusion is that the legal right to free speech ought to be specified so that hate speech is constitutionally protected. In other words, we ought to give speakers a legal right to violate their moral duties, since enforcing those moral duties through law is simply too risky. By appealing to this logic, it is conceivable that the First Amendment position on hate speech could be justified all-things-considered—not because the underlying moral right to free speech protects hate speech, but because hate speech must be protected for instrumental reasons of preventing future abuses of power (Howard 2019a).

Suppose certain restrictions on harmful speech can be justified as proportionate, in both the narrow and wide senses. This is still not sufficient to justify them all-things-considered. Additionally, they must be justified as necessary . (Note that some conceptions of proportionality in human rights law encompass the necessity requirement, but this entry follows the prevailing philosophical convention by treating them as distinct.)

Why might restrictions on harmful speech be unnecessary? One of the standard claims in the free speech literature is that we should respond to harmful speech not by banning it, but by arguing back against it. Counter-speech—not censorship—is the appropriate solution. This line of reasoning is old. As John Milton put it in 1644: “Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” The insistence on counter-speech as the remedy for harmful speech is similarly found, as noted above, throughout chapter 2 of Mill’s On Liberty .

For many scholars, this line of reply is justified by the fact that they think the harmful speech in question is protected by the moral right to free speech. For such scholars, counter-speech is the right response because censorship is morally off the table. For other scholars, the recourse to counter-speech has a plausible distinct rationale (although it is seldom articulated): its possibility renders legal restrictions unnecessary. And because it is objectionable to use gratuitous coercion, legal restrictions are therefore impermissible (Howard 2019a). Such a view could plausibly justify Mill’s aforementioned analysis in the corn dealer example, whereby censorship is permissible but only when there’s no time for counter-speech—a view that is also endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

Whether this argument succeeds depends upon a wide range of further assumptions—about the comparable effectiveness of counter-speech relative to law; about the burdens that counter-speech imposes on prospective counter-speakers. Supposing that the argument succeeds, it invites a range of further normative questions about the ethics of counter-speech. For example, it is important who has the duty to engage in counter-speech, who its intended audience is, and what specific forms the counter-speech ought to take—especially in order to maximize its persuasive effectiveness (Brettschneider 2012; Cepollaro, Lepoutre, & Simpson 2023; Howard 2021b; Lepoutre 2021; Badano & Nuti 2017). It is also important to ask questions about the moral limits of counter-speech. For example, insofar as publicly shaming wrongful speakers has become a prominent form of counter-speech, it is crucial to interrogate its permissibility (e.g., Billingham and Parr 2020).

This final section canvasses the young philosophical debate concerning freedom of speech on the internet. With some important exceptions (e.g., Barendt 2005: 451ff), this issue has only recently accelerated (for an excellent edited collection, see Brison & Gelber 2019). There are many normative questions to be asked about the moral rights and obligations of internet platforms. Here are three. First, do internet platforms have moral duties to respect the free speech of their users? Second, do internet platforms have moral duties to restrict (or at least refrain from amplifying) harmful speech posted by their users? And finally, if platforms do indeed have moral duties to restrict harmful speech, should those duties be legally enforced?

The reference to internet platforms , is a deliberate focus on large-scale social media platforms, through which people can discover and publicly share user-generated content. We set aside other entities such as search engines (Whitney & Simpson 2019), important though they are. That is simply because the central political controversies, on which philosophical input is most urgent, concern the large social-media platforms.

Consider the question of whether internet platforms have moral duties to respect the free speech of their users. One dominant view in the public discourse holds that the answer is no . On this view, platforms are private entities, and as such enjoy the prerogative to host whatever speech they like. This would arguably be a function of them having free speech rights themselves. Just as the free speech rights of the New York Times give it the authority to publish whatever op-eds it sees fit, the free speech rights of platforms give them the authority to exercise editorial or curatorial judgment about what speech to allow. On this view, if Facebook were to decide to become a Buddhist forum, amplifying the speech of Buddhist users and promoting Buddhist perspectives and ideas, and banning speech promoting other religions, it would be entirely within its moral (and thus proper legal) rights to do so. So, too, if it were to decide to become an atheist forum.

A radical alternative view holds that internet platforms constitute a public forum , a term of art from U.S. free speech jurisprudence used to designate spaces “designed for and dedicated to expressive activities” ( Southeastern Promotions Ltd., v. Conrad 1975). As Kramer has argued:

social-media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and YouTube have become public fora. Although the companies that create and run those platforms are not morally obligated to sustain them in existence at all, the role of controlling a public forum morally obligates each such company to comply with the principle of freedom of expression while performing that role. No constraints that deviate from the kinds of neutrality required under that principle are morally legitimate. (Kramer 2021: 58–59)

On this demanding view, platforms’ duties to respect speech are (roughly) identical to the duties of states. Accordingly, if efforts by the state to restrict hate speech, pornography, and public health misinformation (for example) are objectionable affronts to free speech, so too are platforms’ content moderation rules for such content. A more moderate view does not hold that platforms are public forums as such, but holds that government channels or pages qualify as public forums (the claim at issue in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2019).)

Even if we deny that platforms constitute public forums, it is plausible that they engage in a governance function of some kind (Klonick 2018). As Jack Balkin has argued, the traditional model of free speech, which sees it as a relation between speakers and the state, is today plausibly supplanted by a triadic model, involving a more complex relation between speakers, governments, and intermediaries (2004, 2009, 2018, 2021). If platforms do indeed have some kind of governance function, it may well trigger responsibilities for transparency and accountability (as with new legislation such as the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act).

Second, consider the question of whether platforms have a duty to remove harmful content posted by users. Even those who regard them as public forums could agree that platforms may have a moral responsibility to remove illegal unprotected speech. Yet a dominant view in the public debate has historically defended platforms’ place as mere conduits for others’ speech. This is the current position under U.S. law (as with 47 U.S. Code §230), which broadly exempts platforms from liability for much illegal speech, such as defamation. On this view, we should view platforms as akin to bulletin boards: blame whoever posts wrongful content, but don’t hold the owner of the board responsible.

This view is under strain. Even under current U.S. law, platforms are liable for removing some content, such as child sexual abuse material and copyright infringements, suggesting that it is appropriate to demand some accountability for the wrongful content posted by others. An increasing body of philosophical work explores the idea that platforms are indeed morally responsible for removing extreme content. For example, some have argued that platforms have a special responsibility to prevent the radicalization that occurs on their networks, given the ways in which extreme content is amplified to susceptible users (Barnes 2022). Without engaging in moderation (i.e., removal) of harmful content, platforms are plausibly complicit with the wrongful harms perpetrated by users (Howard forthcoming).

Yet it remains an open question what a responsible content moderation policy ought to involve. Many are tempted by a juridical model, whereby platforms remove speech in accordance with clearly announced rules, with user appeals mechanisms in place for individual speech decisions to ensure they are correctly made (critiqued in Douek 2022b). Yet platforms have billions of users and remove millions of pieces of content per week. Accordingly, perfection is not possible. Moving quickly to remove harmful content during a crisis—e.g., Covid misinformation—will inevitably increase the number of false positives (i.e., legitimate speech taken down as collateral damage). It is plausible that the individualistic model of speech decisions adopted by courts is decidedly implausible to help us govern online content moderation; as noted in Douek 2021 and 2022a, what is needed is analysis of how the overall system should operate at scale, with a focus on achieving proportionality between benefits and costs. Alternatively, one might double down and insist that the juridical model is appropriate, given the normative significance of speech. And if it is infeasible for social-media companies to meet its demands given their size, then all the worse for social-media companies. On this view, it is they who must bend to meet the moral demands of free speech theory, not the other way around.

Substantial philosophical work needs to be done to deliver on this goal. The work is complicated by the fact that artificial intelligence (AI) is central to the processes of content moderation; human moderators, themselves subjected to terrible working conditions at long hours, work in conjunction with machine learning tools to identify and remove content that platforms have restricted. Yet AI systems notoriously are as biased as their training data. Further, their “black box” decisions are cryptic and cannot be easily understood. Given that countless speech decisions will necessarily be made without human involvement, it is right to ask whether it is reasonable to expect users to accept the deliverances of machines (e.g., see Vredenburgh 2022; Lazar forthcoming a). Note that machine intelligence is used not merely for content moderation, narrowly understood as the enforcement of rules about what speech is allowed. It is also deployed for the broader practice of content curation, determining what speech gets amplified — raising the question of what normative principles should govern such amplification; see Lazar forthcoming b).

Finally, there is the question of legal enforcement. Showing that platforms have the moral responsibility to engage in content moderation is necessary to justifying its codification into a legal responsibility. Yet it is not sufficient; one could accept that platforms have moral duties to moderate (some) harmful speech while also denying that those moral duties ought to be legally enforced. A strong, noninstrumental version of such a view would hold that while speakers have moral duties to refrain from wrongful speech, and platforms have duties not to platform or amplify it, the coercive enforcement of such duties would violate the moral right to freedom of expression. A more contingent, instrumental version of the view would hold that legal enforcement is not in principle impermissible; but in practice, it is simply too risky to grant the state the authority to enforce platforms’ and speakers’ moral duties, given the potential for abuse and overreach.

Liberals who champion the orthodox interpretation of the First Amendment, yet insist on robust content moderation, likely hold one or both of these views. Yet globally such views seem to be in the minority. Serious legislation is imminent that will subject social-media companies to burdensome regulation, in the form of such laws as the Digital Services Act in the European Union and the Online Safety Bill in the UK. Normatively evaluating such legislation is a pressing task. So, too, is the task of designing normative theories to guide the design of content moderation systems, and the wider governance of the digital public sphere. On both fronts, political philosophers should get back to work.

• Alexander, Larry [Lawrence], 1995, “Free Speech and Speaker’s Intent”, Constitutional Commentary , 12(1): 21–28.
• –––, 2005, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? , (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Alexander, Lawrence and Paul Horton, 1983, “The Impossibility of a Free Speech Principle Review Essay”, Northwestern University Law Review , 78(5): 1319–1358.
• Alexy, Robert, 2003, “Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality”, Ratio Juris , 16(2): 131–140. doi:10.1111/1467-9337.00228
• Amdur, Robert, 1980, “Scanlon on Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 9(3): 287–300.
• Arneson, Richard, 2009, “Democracy is Not Intrinsically Just”, in Justice and Democracy , Keith Dowding, Robert E. Goodin, and Carole Pateman (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–58.
• Baker, C. Edwin, 1989, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2009, “Autonomy and Hate Speech”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 139–157 (ch. 8). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0009
• Balkin, Jack M., 2004, “Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society”, New York University Law Review , 79(1): 1–55.
• –––, 2009, “The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age Free Speech and Press in the Digital Age”, Pepperdine Law Review , 36(2): 427–444.
• –––, 2018, “Free Speech Is a Triangle Essays”, Columbia Law Review , 118(7): 2011–2056.
• –––, 2021, “How to Regulate (and Not Regulate) Social Media”, Journal of Free Speech Law , 1(1): 71–96. [ Balkin 2021 available online (pdf) ]
• Barendt, Eric M., 2005, Freedom of Speech , second edition, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225811.001.0001
• Barnes, Michael Randall, 2022, “Online Extremism, AI, and (Human) Content Moderation”, Feminist Philosophy Quarterly , 8(3/4): article 6. [ Barnes 2022 available online ]
• Beauharnais v. Illinois 343 U.S. 250 (1952).
• Billingham, Paul and Tom Parr, 2020, “Enforcing Social Norms: The Morality of Public Shaming”, European Journal of Philosophy , 28(4): 997–1016. doi:10.1111/ejop.12543
• Blasi, Vincent, 1977, “The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory”, American Bar Foundation Research Journal 3: 521–649.
• –––, 2004, “Holmes and the Marketplace of Ideas”, The Supreme Court Review , 2004: 1–46.
• Brettschneider, Corey Lang, 2012, When the State Speaks, What Should It Say? How Democracies Can Protect Expression and Promote Equality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Brietzke, Paul H., 1997, “How and Why the Marketplace of Ideas Fails”, Valparaiso University Law Review , 31(3): 951–970.
• Bollinger, Lee C., 1986, The Tolerant Society: Free Speech and Extremist Speech in America , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bonotti, Matteo and Jonathan Seglow, 2022, “Freedom of Speech: A Relational Defence”, Philosophy & Social Criticism , 48(4): 515–529.
• Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• Brink, David O., 2001, “Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech”, Legal Theory , 7(2): 119–157. doi:10.1017/S1352325201072019
• Brison, Susan J., 1998, “The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech”, Ethics , 108(2): 312–339. doi:10.1086/233807
• Brison, Susan J. and Katharine Gelber (eds), 2019, Free Speech in the Digital Age , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190883591.001.0001
• Brown, Étienne, 2023, “Free Speech and the Legal Prohibition of Fake News”, Social Theory and Practice , 49(1): 29–55. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract202333179
• Buchanan, Allen E., 2013, The Heart of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199325382.001.0001
• Cepollaro, Bianca, Maxime Lepoutre, and Robert Mark Simpson, 2023, “Counterspeech”, Philosophy Compass , 18(1): e12890. doi:10.1111/phc3.12890
• Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
• Cohen, Joshua, 1993, “Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 22(3): 207–263.
• –––, 1997, “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy”, in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics , James Bohman and William Rehg (eds), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 67–92.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1981, “Is There a Right to Pornography?”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 1(2): 177–212. doi:10.1093/ojls/1.2.177
• –––, 1996, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2006, “A New Map of Censorship”, Index on Censorship , 35(1): 130–133. doi:10.1080/03064220500532412
• –––, 2009, “Forward.” In Extreme Speech and Democracy , ed. J. Weinstein and I. Hare, pp. v-ix. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013, Religion without God , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Douek, Evelyn, 2021, “Governing Online Speech: From ‘Posts-as-Trumps’ to Proportionality and Probability”, Columbia Law Review , 121(3): 759–834.
• –––, 2022a, “Content Moderation as Systems Thinking”, Harvard Law Review , 136(2): 526–607.
• –––, 2022b, “The Siren Call of Content Moderation Formalism”, in Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of Our Democracy , Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 139–156 (ch. 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780197621080.003.0009
• Ely, John Hart, 1975, “Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment Analysis”, Harvard Law Review , 88: 1482–1508.
• Emerson, Thomas I., 1970, The System of Freedom of Expression , New York: Random House.
• Epstein, Richard A., 1992, “Property, Speech, and the Politics of Distrust”, University of Chicago Law Review , 59(1): 41–90.
• Estlund, David, 2008, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Feinberg, Joel, 1984, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Volume 1: Harm to Others , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195046641.001.0001
• –––, 1985, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Volume 2: Offense to Others , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195052153.001.0001
• Fish, Stanley Eugene, 1994, There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Fox, Gregory H. and Georg Nolte, 1995, “Intolerant Democracies”, Harvard International Law Journal , 36(1): 1–70.
• Gelber, Katharine, 2010, “Freedom of Political Speech, Hate Speech and the Argument from Democracy: The Transformative Contribution of Capabilities Theory”, Contemporary Political Theory , 9(3): 304–324. doi:10.1057/cpt.2009.8
• Gilmore, Jonathan, 2011, “Expression as Realization: Speakers’ Interests in Freedom of Speech”, Law and Philosophy , 30(5): 517–539. doi:10.1007/s10982-011-9096-z
• Gordon, Jill, 1997, “John Stuart Mill and the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’:”, Social Theory and Practice , 23(2): 235–249. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract199723210
• Greenawalt, Kent, 1989, Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Greene, Amanda R. and Robert Mark Simpson, 2017, “Tolerating Hate in the Name of Democracy”, The Modern Law Review , 80(4): 746–765. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12283
• Greene, Jamal, 2021, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession with Rights Is Tearing America Apart , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2008, Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
• Hare, Ivan and James Weinstein (eds), 2009, Extreme Speech and Democracy , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.001.0001
• Hart, H. L. A., 1955, “Are There Any Natural Rights?”, The Philosophical Review , 64(2): 175–191. doi:10.2307/2182586
• Heinze, Eric, 2016, Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759027.001.0001
• Heyman, Steven J., 2009, “Hate Speech, Public Discourse, and the First Amendment”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 158–181 (ch. 9). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0010
• Hohfeld, Wesley, 1917, “Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,” Yale Law Journal 26(8): 710–770.
• Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 561 U.S. 1 (2010).
• Hornsby, Jennifer, 1995, “Disempowered Speech”, Philosophical Topics , 23(2): 127–147. doi:10.5840/philtopics199523211
• Howard, Jeffrey W., 2019a, “Dangerous Speech”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 47(2): 208–254. doi:10.1111/papa.12145
• –––, 2019b, “Free Speech and Hate Speech”, Annual Review of Political Science , 22: 93–109. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343
• –––, 2021, “Terror, Hate and the Demands of Counter-Speech”, British Journal of Political Science , 51(3): 924–939. doi:10.1017/S000712341900053X
• –––, forthcoming a, “The Ethics of Social Media: Why Content Moderation is a Moral Duty”, Journal of Practical Ethics .
• Howard, Jeffrey W. and Robert Simpson, forthcoming b, “Freedom of Speech”, in Issues in Political Theory , fifth edition, Catriona McKinnon, Patrick Tomlin, and Robert Jubb (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Husak, Douglas N., 1985, “What Is so Special about [Free] Speech?”, Law and Philosophy , 4(1): 1–15. doi:10.1007/BF00208258
• Jacobson, Daniel, 2000, “Mill on Liberty, Speech, and the Free Society”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 29(3): 276–309. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00276.x
• Kendrick, Leslie, 2013, “Speech, Intent, and the Chilling Effect”, William & Mary Law Review , 54(5): 1633–1692.
• –––, 2017, “Free Speech as a Special Right”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 45(2): 87–117. doi:10.1111/papa.12087
• Klonick, Kate, 2018, “The New Governors”, Harvard Law Review 131: 1589–1670.
• Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump 928 F.3d 226 (2019).
• Kramer, Matthew H., 2021, Freedom of Expression as Self-Restraint , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lakier, Genevieve, 2015, “The Invention of Low-Value Speech”, Harvard Law Review , 128(8): 2166–2233.
• Landemore, Hélène, 2013, Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Langton, Rae, 1993, “Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 22(4): 293–330.
• –––, 2018, “The Authority of Hate Speech”, in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law (Volume 3), John Gardner, Leslie Green, and Brian Leiter (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: ch. 4. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198828174.003.0004
• Lazar, Seth, forthcoming, “Legitimacy, Authority, and the Public Value of Explanations”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 10), Steven Wall (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, forthcoming, Connected by Code: Algorithmic Intermediaries and Political Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Leiter, Brian, 2016, “The Case against Free Speech”, Sydney Law Review , 38(4): 407–439.
• Lepoutre, Maxime, 2021, Democratic Speech in Divided Times , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
• MacKinnon, Catharine A., 1984 [1987], “Not a Moral Issue”, Yale Law & Policy Review , 2(2): 321–345. Reprinted in her Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987, 146–162 (ch. 13).
• Macklem, Timothy, 2006, Independence of Mind , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535446.001.0001
• Maitra, Ishani, 2009, “Silencing Speech”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 39(2): 309–338. doi:10.1353/cjp.0.0050
• Maitra, Ishani and Mary Kate McGowan, 2007, “The Limits of Free Speech: Pornography and the Question of Coverage”, Legal Theory , 13(1): 41–68. doi:10.1017/S1352325207070024
• Matsuda, Mari J., 1989, “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story Legal Storytelling”, Michigan Law Review , 87(8): 2320–2381.
• Matsuda, Mari J., Charles R. Lawrence, Richard Delgado, and Kimberlè Williams Crenshaw, 1993, Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment (New Perspectives on Law, Culture, and Society), Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Reprinted 2018, Abingdon: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429502941
• McGowan, Mary Kate, 2003, “Conversational Exercitives and the Force of Pornography”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 31(2): 155–189. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00155.x
• –––, 2019, Just Words: On Speech and Hidden Harm , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829706.001.0001
• McMahan, Jeff, 2009, Killing in War , (Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics), Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548668.001.0001
• Milton, John, 1644, “Areopagitica”, London. [ Milton 1644 available online ]
• Meiklejohn, Alexander, 1948, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government , New York: Harper.
• –––, 1960, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People , New York: Harper.
• Mill, John Stuart, 1859, On Liberty , London: John W. Parker and Son. [ Mill 1859 available online ]
• Nagel, Thomas, 2002, Concealment and Exposure , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Pallikkathayil, Japa, 2020, “Free Speech and the Embodied Self”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 6), David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 61–84 (ch. 3). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198852636.003.0003
• Parekh, Bhikhu, 2012, “Is There a Case for Banning Hate Speech?”, in The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses , Michael Herz and Peter Molnar (eds.), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 37–56. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139042871.006
• Post, Robert C., 1991, “Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment Free Speech and Religious, Racial, and Sexual Harassment”, William and Mary Law Review , 32(2): 267–328.
• –––, 2000, “Reconciling Theory and Doctrine in First Amendment Jurisprudence Symposium of the Law in the Twentieth Century”, California Law Review , 88(6): 2353–2374.
• –––, 2009, “Hate Speech”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 123–138 (ch. 7). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0008
• –––, 2011, “Participatory Democracy as a Theory of Free Speech: A Reply Replies”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 617–632.
• Quong, Jonathan, 2011, Liberalism without Perfection , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199594870.001.0001
• R v. Oakes , 1 SCR 103 (1986).
• Rawls, John, 2005, Political Liberalism , expanded edition, (Columbia Classics in Philosophy), New York: Columbia University Press.
• Raz, Joseph, 1991 [1994], “Free Expression and Personal Identification”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 11(3): 303–324. Collected in his Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 146–169 (ch. 7).
• Redish, Martin H., 1982, “Value of Free Speech”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review , 130(3): 591–645.
• Rubenfeld, Jed, 2001, “The First Amendment’s Purpose”, Stanford Law Review , 53(4): 767–832.
• Scanlon, Thomas, 1972, “A Theory of Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 1(2): 204–226.
• –––, 1978, “Freedom of Expression and Categories of Expression ”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review , 40(4): 519–550.
• –––, 2008, “Rights and Interests”, in Arguments for a Better World: Essays in Honor of Amartya Sen , Kaushik Basu and Ravi Kanbur (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68–79 (ch. 5). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239115.003.0006
• –––, 2013, “Reply to Wenar”, Journal of Moral Philosophy 10: 400–406
• Schauer, Frederick, 1978, “Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the Chilling Effect”, Boston University Law Review , 58(5): 685–732.
• –––, 1982, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1985, “Slippery Slopes”, Harvard Law Review , 99(2): 361–383.
• –––, 1993, “The Phenomenology of Speech and Harm”, Ethics , 103(4): 635–653. doi:10.1086/293546
• –––, 2004, “The Boundaries of the First Amendment: A Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience”, Harvard Law Review , 117(6): 1765–1809.
• –––, 2009, “Is It Better to Be Safe than Sorry: Free Speech and the Precautionary Principle Free Speech in an Era of Terrorism”, Pepperdine Law Review , 36(2): 301–316.
• –––, 2010, “Facts and the First Amendment”, UCLA Law Review , 57(4): 897–920.
• –––, 2011a, “On the Relation between Chapters One and Two of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty ”, Capital University Law Review , 39(3): 571–592.
• –––, 2011b, “Harm(s) and the First Amendment”, The Supreme Court Review , 2011: 81–111. doi:10.1086/665583
• –––, 2015, “Free Speech on Tuesdays”, Law and Philosophy , 34(2): 119–140. doi:10.1007/s10982-014-9220-y
• Shiffrin, Seana Valentine, 2014, Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality, and the Law (Carl G. Hempel Lecture Series), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Simpson, Robert Mark, 2016, “Defining ‘Speech’: Subtraction, Addition, and Division”, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , 29(2): 457–494. doi:10.1017/cjlj.2016.20
• –––, 2021, “‘Lost, Enfeebled, and Deprived of Its Vital Effect’: Mill’s Exaggerated View of the Relation Between Conflict and Vitality”, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume , 95: 97–114. doi:10.1093/arisup/akab006
• Southeastern Promotions Ltd., v. Conrad , 420 U.S. 546 (1975).
• Sparrow, Robert and Robert E. Goodin, 2001, “The Competition of Ideas: Market or Garden?”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 4(2): 45–58. doi:10.1080/13698230108403349
• Stone, Adrienne, 2017, “Viewpoint Discrimination, Hate Speech Laws, and the Double-Sided Nature of Freedom of Speech”, Constitutional Commentary , 32(3): 687–696.
• Stone, Geoffrey R., 1983, “Content Regulation and the First Amendment”, William and Mary Law Review , 25(2): 189–252.
• –––, 1987, “Content-Neutral Restrictions”, University of Chicago Law Review , 54(1): 46–118.
• –––, 2004, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism , New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Strauss, David A., 1991, “Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression”, Columbia Law Review , 91(2): 334–371.
• Strossen, Nadine, 2018, Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship , New York: Oxford University Press
• Sunstein, Cass R., 1986, “Pornography and the First Amendment”, Duke Law Journal , 1986(4): 589–627.
• –––, 1989, “Low Value Speech Revisited Commentaries”, Northwestern University Law Review , 83(3): 555–561.
• –––, 1993, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech , New York: The Free Press.
• –––, 2017, #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Tadros, Victor, 2012, “Duty and Liability”, Utilitas , 24(2): 259–277.
• Turner, Piers Norris, 2014, “‘Harm’ and Mill’s Harm Principle”, Ethics , 124(2): 299–326. doi:10.1086/673436
• Tushnet, Mark, Alan Chen, and Joseph Blocher, 2017, Free Speech beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment , New York: New York University Press.
• Volokh, Eugene, 2011, “In Defense of the Marketplace of Ideas/Search for Truth as a Theory of Free Speech Protection Responses”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 595–602.
• Vredenburgh, Kate, 2022, “The Right to Explanation”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 30(2): 209–229. doi:10.1111/jopp.12262
• Waldron, Jeremy, 1987, “Mill and the Value of Moral Distress”, Political Studies , 35(3): 410–423. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1987.tb00197.x
• –––, 2012, The Harm in Hate Speech (The Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures, 2009), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Weinstein, James, 2011, “Participatory Democracy as the Central Value of American Free Speech Doctrine”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 491–514.
• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Whitten, Suzanne, 2022, A Republican Theory of Free Speech: Critical Civility , Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78631-1
• Whitney, Heather M. and Robert Mark Simpson, 2019, “Search Engines and Free Speech Coverage”, in Free Speech in the Digital Age , Susan J. Brison and Katharine Gelber (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33–51 (ch. 2). doi:10.1093/oso/9780190883591.003.0003
• West, Caroline, 2004 [2022], “Pornography and Censorship”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 edition), Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/pornography-censorship/ >.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) , adopted: 16 December 1966; Entry into force: 23 March 1976.
• Free Speech Debate
• Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
• van Mill, David, “Freedom of Speech”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/freedom-speech/ >. [This was the previous entry on this topic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – see the version history .]

ethics: search engines and | hate speech | legal rights | liberalism | Mill, John Stuart | Mill, John Stuart: moral and political philosophy | pornography: and censorship | rights | social networking and ethics | toleration

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the editors and anonymous referees of this Encyclopedia for helpful feedback. I am greatly indebted to Robert Mark Simpson for many incisive suggestions, which substantially improved the entry. This entry was written while on a fellowship funded by UK Research & Innovation (grant reference MR/V025600/1); I am thankful to UKRI for the support.

Copyright © 2024 by Jeffrey W. Howard < jeffrey . howard @ ucl . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Example Essay Prompt

• Introduction to the essay prompt, breaking it down into four parts: introduction to the issue, three perspectives on the issue, the essay task, and planning your essay advice.
• Detailed analysis of the essay task, emphasizing the importance of stating and defending one's own perspective while analyzing its relationship with at least one other perspective.
• Advice on ignoring the planning your essay section during the exam as it is not scored, but highlighting its utility for brainstorming and organizing thoughts.
• Explanation of how the essay task aligns with the rubric's four domains: ideas, development, organization, and language.
• Presentation of the Magoosh sample essay prompt on censorship and society, outlining the perspectives to consider when writing the essay.

Link to pdf of prompt  

Almost since human beings first began sharing ideas, the issue of censorship (officially suppressing ideas or writing) has been debated. Proponents of censorship argue, for example, that offensive material might morally corrupt children or that governments have the right to protect their national secrets. Opponents argue that censorship infringes on individual freedom and hinders progress. Censorship has long been an issue regarding books and papers; now, it has become a critical issue concerning the great amount of information on the Internet. Given the continued impact of censorship on various aspects of our lives, it is an issue worth examining.

Read and carefully consider these perspectives. Each suggests a particular way of thinking about the impact of censorship.

Perspective One

Selective censorship prevents children from being exposed to offensive material. It allows parents and caretakers to determine what material children are ready for and when they are ready based on their maturity level.

Perspective Two

Censorship intrudes upon freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Individuals have the right to learn about their world, both its positive and negative aspects, and express their ideas on it.

Perspective Three

Censorship places too much power in the hands of a few: no government should be allowed to decide what information should reach the public.

Write a unified, coherent essay about the impact of censorship on society. In your essay, be sure to:

clearly state your own perspective on the issue and analyze the relationship between your perspective and at least one other perspective

develop and support your ideas with reasoning and examples

organize your ideas clearly and logically

communicate your ideas effectively in standard written English

Your perspective may be in full agreement with any of those given, in partial agreement, or completely different.

Next Lesson

Time Management

Introduction to the Essay

Planning the Essay

How to Wow the Graders

Coming Up With Examples

Structuring the Essay

The Introduction

The Body Paragraphs

The Conclusion

The Importance of Style

Top Grammar Rules for the Essay

Proofreading Your Essay

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Student Opinion

Why Is Freedom of Speech an Important Right? When, if Ever, Can It Be Limited?

By Michael Gonchar

• Sept. 12, 2018

This extended Student Opinion question and a related lesson plan were created in partnership with the National Constitution Center in advance of Constitution Day on Sept. 17. For information about a cross-classroom “Constitutional Exchange,” see The Lauder Project .

One of the founding principles of the United States that Americans cherish is the right to freedom of speech. Enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, freedom of speech grants all Americans the liberty to criticize the government and speak their minds without fear of being censored or persecuted.

Even though the concept of freedom of speech on its face seems quite simple, in reality there are complex lines that can be drawn around what kinds of speech are protected and in what setting.

The Supreme Court declared in the case Schenck v. United States in 1919 that individuals are not entitled to speech that presents a “clear and present danger” to society. For example, a person cannot falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater because that speech doesn’t contribute to the range of ideas being discussed in society, yet the risk of someone getting injured is high. On the other hand, in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, the court declared that even inflammatory speech, such as racist language by a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, should generally be protected unless it is likely to cause imminent violence.

While the text and principle of the First Amendment have stayed the same, the court’s interpretation has indeed changed over time . Judges, lawmakers and scholars continue to struggle with balancing strong speech protections with the necessity of maintaining a peaceful society.

What do you think? Why is the freedom of speech an important right? Why might it be important to protect even unpopular or hurtful speech? And yet, when might the government draw reasonable limits on speech, and why?

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Join for Free

• Back to Listing
• Current: Social Studies
• Current: Democratic Values
• Current: U.S. Charters of Freedom

Writing Prompt: Freedom of Speech 1 (upper elem/middle)

What are the advantages and disadvantages of freedom of speech what do you think of this right in terms of its importance, resource tags, similar resources.

Comprehension: The U.S. Constitution (upper elem/ middle)

/ U.S. Charters of Freedom

Media Type PDF

Writing Prompt: We the Students…

/ Constitution Day

Word Game: Government

New to abcteach?

Sign up to Download From 49,000+ Resources

TERMS OF SERVICE

1.1. The abcteach.com public and membership websites have been in operation since about 2000, providing access to downloadable materials for educators and parents.

1.2. The abcteach.com website is owned and operated by ABCTEACH LLC, a Michigan limited liability company. The names "abcteach" and "abctools" are registered trademarks. As used in this Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, "We" and "abcteach" and "Site" refer to all websites and services, whether public or membership, operated or offered by abcteach. Currently we operate under the following base urls: abcteach.com, and members.abcteach.com.

1.3. abcteach is for use by parents, educators, and others over the age of 18. The materials made available by abcteach are intended to be used with and for children and students, among others, at the discretion and under the control, supervision, and direction of the parents, educators, and other adults who are visitors, members, or subscribers to the Site. As used in this Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, "you" refers to such visitors, members, or subscribers.

1.4. By using the Site, you accept and agree to be bound by the following terms. We may, solely at our discretion, modify or revise these terms and conditions at any time by updating this web page, and you agree to be bound by these modifications or revisions. You should visit this page periodically to review the terms. From time to time, we will require that you confirm your agreement to the terms.

2.1. Sharing of password or login information is strictly prohibited. Suspension of account access may result from sharing of this information.

2.2. Worksheets and other materials available on abcteach, including clip art, may be printed or otherwise duplicated for use in your home or your classroom(s). Clip art on abcteach is intended as a resource for you in creating lessons and teaching materials and the like within your permitted usage of the Site. If you are a paid member, our clip art may be: placed on another publication as clip art, or distributed individually on a third-party authorship site, if you as a member give abcteach credit for any clip art intended to be redistributed. Giving credit to abcteach requires you to mention our name and website on any publications in which you use our clip art for redistribution. You may not use our clip art in the design or content of another website; or distribute our clip art electronically or by email or text or by any other media or social media. Furthermore, Members are prohibited from packaging our clip art into their own collections for sale, each clip art illustration used for resale, must be used individually, again giving credit to abcteach.com.

2.3. The abcteach copyright appears on every page; we require that this copyright remain in place on all reproductions.

2.4. Except as provided in section 2.7 below, all of the worksheets and other materials available on abcteach are intended for non-commercial educational purposes.

2.5. You may place links to abcteach from your own education website; however, copying or uploading abcteach resources and documents to your own site is a copyright violation and will be treated as such. Deep linking is not permitted. (A "deep link" is a hyperlink that bypasses a website's home page and takes the user directly to an internal page. For example, instead of linking to the home page of a newspaper, a deep link might take the user directly to a newspaper article within the site.) At abcteach, linking directly to a content page rather than the home page or a directory page is considered deep linking and is not permitted.

2.6. Under no circumstances may any of the documents, resources, clip art, worksheets, or other materials (including text, images, or website design) on abcteach be re-sold or re-distributed without the express permission of abcteach.

2.7. We may permit you to use abcteach materials in your creation and sale of educational materials produced by you individually, on sites such as Teachers Pay Teachers, upon your payment of a separate additional fee and your submission of an executed agreement as stated elsewhere on the Site. This would offer you a limited non-exclusive license to use abcteach materials within the scope of the separate agreement; such permission being terminable at any time by abcteach in our sole discretion; you agree that you will immediately cease the use, or offering for sale, or sale, of any such educational materials in the event we take such action. By using any materials, you acknowledge that other members may be acting under similar permissions and creating similar materials.

2.8. If you desire to use abcteach materials in any other manner, or if you have any questions about permissible uses that are not specifically addressed here, you should address your inquiry to support@abcteach.

3. Responsibility for User-Created Content

3.1. The Site has tools and other features, including but not limited to abctools, the abcWorkshop, and other applications, that facilitate the creation of user-generated word lists, puzzles, worksheets, and other resources. The user-selected content of such user-generated materials is your sole responsibility and not that of abcteach. If any other person, including children or students, uses your member account to access or use abctools or abcWorkshop or any other abcteach application, you agree to and assume responsibility for any such materials.

3.2. You are responsible for assuring that any materials, lists, documents or other documents created with this abcteach tools, resources, and applications, are appropriate, and you will not cause or permit the tool to be used to create harmful, vulgar, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate content.

3.3. If you share an abcteach document or user-generated document, by any means including any of the sharing features or applications or tools found on the Site, you are solely responsible for the content of the transmitted materials or documents.

3.4. If any sensitive materials or information or documents from the Site, or user-generated materials, are shared or provided to a child under the age of 13, you agree that you will first obtain express consent from the child’s parent or guardian(s) to share such documents with the child, and obtain permission and/or releases for the use of any user-generated information concerning the child or the child’s family that may be contained in such documents.

4. License Grant to abcteach

By posting information on or through our Sites, you automatically grant abcteach a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, edit, translate, distribute, perform, and display the information, alone or as part of other works, in any form, media, or technology, whether now known or hereafter developed, and to sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of sub-licensees.

5. Charges, Payments, and Subscription Charges and Cancellation

5.1. We currently offer one-year and two-year individual memberships for single payment, and a monthly plan with payment of an initial setup charge followed by monthly payments. We also offer group memberships to schools, districts, and groups, the details of which are described separately. The terms and prices of individual memberships as they may exist from time to time are stated on the Site. We may choose to offer different membership plans. By becoming an abcteach member, you agree that we may renew your subscription automatically for the same subscription terms on the day your previous subscription ends, and you authorize us to charge you for the subscription term, unless you cancel your account prior to its renewal date through the cancellation process, as provided in sections 5.4 – 5.6 below.

5.2. We use third-party payment providers (such as CyberSource and other providers) for all credit and debit card and PayPal and similar transactions. We do not collect or retain information about user’s credit or debit cards or PayPal accounts or other payment mechanism, all of which information is retained and used according to secure procedures of the third-party payment providers.

5.3. Depending on the plan you choose, you will be charged a fee automatically through our renewal system. By becoming an abcteach member, you are agreeing that we are authorized to charge you the membership fee associated with the type of membership (monthly, yearly, or bi-yearly) that you chose during registration. You agree that we are authorized to charge you the membership fee at the then-current rate to the payment method you provided during registration. Please note that prices and charges are subject to change without notice. Fees each month may be modified using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or other payment methods available through your account. This includes: promotional discounts advertised in our weekly member newsletters, or on-brand promotional ads. Each renewal payment will take place on or about the anniversary of the original date of account registration. If all eligible payments methods we have on file for you are declined, you must provide us a new payment method promptly or your membership will be canceled. If the renewal of your membership fails for any reason, we will attempt to process your renewal for a period up to thirty (10) days.

5.4. Membership Cancellation. You may cancel your membership any time by visiting Your Account and adjusting your settings. If you choose to cancel your subscription or fail to pay any fees, we may stop your membership. If you cancel your membership or are no longer a paid user, you have the option to continue use as a free user.

5.5. UNLESS YOU NOTIFY US BEFORE A SUBSCRIPTION PAYMENT THAT YOU WANT TO CANCEL OR DO NOT WANT TO AUTO RENEW, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR ABCTEACH MEMBERSHIP WILL AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUE AND YOU AUTHORIZE US TO COLLECT THE THEN-APPLICABLE MEMBERSHIP FEE AND ANY APPLICABLE TAXES, USING ANY/ ALL ELIGIBLE PAYMENT METHODS WE HAVE ON RECORD FOR YOUR ACCOUNT.

5.6. ALL FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLE. Termination of your account may include removal of your access to all offerings of the website; including password, information, files, and user content associated with your account, and barring any further use of abcteach membership services and tools.

5.7. We may terminate your membership at our discretion without notice. If we do so, we will provide a prorated refund based on the number of days/months remaining in your membership. However, we will not give any refund for termination related to conduct that we determine, in our discretion, violates these terms or any applicable law, involves fraud or misuse of the membership agreement, or is harmful to our interests or another use.

5.8. By applying for membership, you represent that: you are over the age of 18; that you are competent to enter into a contract; that you are the owner of, or authorized by the owner, to utilize the credit or debit card or other payment mechanism used for the payments; that the information you submit about your location and contact information is correct; that you will promptly notify us of any change in your email address or payment mechanism; and that you have read and agree with the provision of these Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. We reserve the right to decline any application for membership, or to change the terms and/or conditions of any account at any time, for any reason or no reason.

5.9. We may offer, on the Site or through other means, and broadly or to limited groups of potential members, promotional prices, seasonal pricing, free trial memberships, or other special prices and terms. Such promotional activities do not affect existing memberships, and abcteach will not provide or offer such promotional prices to existing members or users, and will not provide refunds or rebates or other price protections.

PRIVACY POLICY

• This Privacy Policy applies to all websites, public and membership, operated by abcteach. By providing information to us or using the Site, you agree to the terms and conditions of this Privacy Policy.
• abcteach will not knowingly send marketing or other messages to children. Nor does abcteach knowingly permit children to communicate through the Site or to provide personal information to us.
• Member Registration Information. abcteach collects and stores certain information that members, subscribers, and users of the Site are required to provide in registering for or subscribing to the Site. Such information can vary depending on the nature of the account, and may include personal identifying information such as name, email address, school or district information, physical address, etc.
• Electronic Payment and Credit Card Information. abcteach currently utilizes third party providers to handle electronic and credit card payment transactions, and abcteach does not itself collect or store information concerning such payments. If you want to review the privacy policies of such third party service providers, please request contact information for those providers by contacting abcteach at the one of the addresses given below.
• Payments by Check or Bank Transfers. When abcteach receives payments by check or bank transfers, most often from schools and districts, we collect and maintain information about such payments.
• Information about Usage of the Site. We collect information on usage of the Site, which may include pages visited, and downloaded, time on site, identifying information about the uses, etc.
• "Cookies" and other Tracking and Technology Information. abcteach and our third party service providers may use cookies and other technologies to retrieve and store information about Site usage, browser type, IP addresses, pages visited, date and time of usage, etc.
• Information derived from use of ABCTOOLS and abcWorkshop and other abcteach services and products. If a member or others introduce information into the system by utilizing any of abcteach's services or products including ABCTOOLS or abcWorkshop, it is possible such information will be gathered or stored. You represent, by using or permitting such use of the Site by yourself or by others or by children, that any personal information that may be included in such usage is used with permission and authority, including parental consent, and that you represent to us and our service providers that we are permitted to use the information.
• Registration and use of the Site.
• Payment for membership or subscriptions or products or services.
• Internal business purposes.
• Newsletters distribution.
• Special offers and marketing relating to abcteach.
• Customer service and problem resolution.
• Enforcement of abcteach intellectual property rights and membership terms and conditions.
• Responding to legal process or governmental requests for information.
• As required under applicable law or regulations.
• In connection with possible future transactions affecting abcteach, such as the sale of the Site, or mergers, sales of assets, reorganizations, etc. , in which event all or a part of stored information including member and user information may be transferred to a successor business or website operator.
• As we may require in connection with specific services and products, current or future.
• Children's Privacy Notice Usage of the Site is limited to adults and children are not permitted to use the Site. Nor do we request that any personal information be provided by or about children including those in your family or classroom. Children under the age of 13 are not requested to provide any personal information while using the Site. However, to comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, if it is brought to our attention that children under 13 years of age intend to use the Site, we reserve the right to require you to seek the consent of Parents in order for children under 13 years of age to use the Site in any manner that could result in the submission of personal information, and to terminate your access to the Site if such consent(s) is not obtained or submitted timely. If a member, teacher, or parent uses the Site or any of its tools or products in a manner by which a child could disclose personal information to others, it shall be a representation by that member, teacher or parent that the child's parent has expressly authorized such use and has expressly authorized abcteach to collect, store, and distribute the child's personal information to other users of the Site. Additionally, such personal information may be collected or stored by the cookies and other technologies described above. Parents may contact abcteach at the addresses provided below.
• Security abcteach attempts to secure its information and that of others by using reasonable safeguards and procedures. However, no internet or electronic data communication, transmission or storage system can be guaranteed to be completely secure. For that reason, abcteach cannot and does not guaranty the security of information transmitted to or shared with us. You use the Site and provide and share information at your own risk. If you have questions or concerns, you should not submit or share personal information or other sensitive information.
• Links to Other Sites abcteach does not ordinarily link to other websites. If such links are used, those websites or applications will be not be covered by this Privacy Policy. Users should review privacy policies of such sites and applications.
• Consent to Transfer of Information to the United States and to the Application of U.S. Law and Jurisdiction. abcteach is operated and managed by ABCTEACH LLC from within the United States. Neither the Site nor its staff nor its owner intend to be governed or subjected to the laws or jurisdiction of any other country other than the United States. Information provided to abcteach or to its third party service providers will be processed, stored, and used in the United States and other countries where the service providers or abcteach or affiliates may have operations. By using the Site, you irrevocably consent to the transfer of information to the United States, or to other countries other than your country of residence, and to the storage and use of the information in the United States. You acknowledge and agree that, to the extent that the laws of the United States differ from those of your country of residence, you consent to the application of the laws of the United States to your information and to the relationship between yourself and us, and you covenant and agree that you will not assert that other law is applicable. Any litigation or court proceedings of any nature concerning the relationship between you and abcteach, or to these terms and conditions, or to the Privacy Policy, or to any other matter relating to abcteach, shall be only and exclusively in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and you irrevocably consent to personal jurisdiction in such forums for any such litigation or proceedings.
• Indemnification and Hold Harmless You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless abcteach, and all related parties and services, from any and all liability, penalties, losses, damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, causes of action, or claims caused by or resulting indirectly from your use of our Sites.
• No Warranties Use of this service is on an "as-is" basis. ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND MERCHANTABILITY, ARE SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED. Any contact with any agents of this service, either in person or through electronic means does not create a warranty.
• Changes to Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy We may change these Terms of Service and Privacy Policy at any time and such changes will become effective when posted to the Site. Your use of the Site following such the posting of any revised Terms of Service and Privacy Policy means that you accept the revised terms and policy.
• Contact Information Regarding Terms of Service and Privacy Policy Legal questions and concerns should be directed to our General Counsel, whose email address is [email protected] . Alternatively, first class mail addressed to General Counsel, ABCTEACH LLC, c/o Bodman PLC, 1901 St. Antoine Street, Detroit, Michigan 48226. Other questions should be directed to Customer Support, whose email address is [email protected] .

REVISION DATE: August 1, 2017

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom of Speech

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: December 4, 2017

Freedom of speech—the right to express opinions without government restraint—is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are—and aren’t—protected under U.S. law.

The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word “parrhesia” means “free speech,” or “to speak candidly.” The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution . The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

Flag Burning

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court , in 1990, reversed a Texas court’s conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

When Isn’t Speech Protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that aren’t protected include:

• Obscene material such as child pornography
• Plagiarism of copyrighted material
• Defamation (libel and slander)
• True threats

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren’t protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I . The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the “clear and present danger” standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called “content neutrality.” Content neutrality means the government can’t censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free Speech in Schools

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa , organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didn’t bite—they ruled in favor of the students’ right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District . The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don’t apply in private schools.

What does free speech mean?; United States Courts . Tinker v. Des Moines; United States Courts . Freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment; ACLU .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

freedom of speech

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Business LibreTexts - Freedom of Speech
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Freedom of Speech
• University of Washington Pressbooks - Media and Society: Critical Approaches - Censorship and Freedom of Speech
• Cornell Law Scholl - Legal Information Institute - Freedom of Speech: Historical Background

Recent News

freedom of speech , right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States , to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent . Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation , obscenity , and prior restraint ( see Pentagon Papers ). See also censorship .

Freedom of Expression Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Searching for freedom of expression essay? Look no further! This argumentative essay about freedom of expression, thought, & speech, will inspire you to write your own piece.

Introduction

• The Key Concepts

Freedom of expression refers to the right to express one’s opinions or thoughts freely by utilizing any of the different modes of communication available. The ideas aired should, however, not cause any intentional harm to other personality or status through false or ambiguous statements. Communication of ideas can be achieved through speech, writing or art. Freedom of expression, unlike freedom of thought, may be regulated by the appropriate authorities in any society in order to avoid controversies between different individuals.

The extent to which this limitation or censorship is done varies from nation to nation and is dependent on the government of the day. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every individual has the right to search for information, access and impart variety of ideas irrespective of the frontiers.

Freedom of Expression: The Key Concepts

The subject of freedom of expression has always been controversial, especially when considering political aspects. A state is perceived to have the mandate to impede people from convening groups in which they air their opinions if those views can result in direct harm to other people.

However, the interference would only be an exception if doing so results in more beneficial outcomes than standing aside. For one to be in a position to gauge the eventuality of a gain or a loss, then there should be absolute freedom of expression on all matters irrespective of the nature of the sentiments made.

Arguments for absolute freedom of expression can be a made by evaluating the purpose for which the ideas are expressed and the manner in which we evaluate what is true or false. According to Mill (Eisenach, 2004), the right to express one’s opinions offers humanity a rare chance to switch over an error for the truth if the idea expressed happens to be true.

In case the opinion happens to be wrong, mankind stands a chance of getting a clearer picture of the known truth through collusion with a mistake. Therefore, freedom of expression acts in the best interests of mankind as it endeavors to progress and its limitation deprives people of the prospects of growth.

Whether we let expression of an opinion to be limited or censored, whereas it could be true, then we present ourselves as beyond reproach. We consider all that we know to be the truth and therefore dispel all opinions that question this truth. It is possible for people or authorities to be in fault. For instance, what we consider to be morally right or wrong may not be so.

The lines that define moral rights and wrongs were set by people who could possibly have mistaken. In order to draw the limit, one must differentiate between sureness and the truth. Our certainty that a particular idea is false does not in any way excuse its expression. Suppressing such an idea would not only justify our confidence of the opinion being wrong, but also proves that we are flawless.

If limitation of people’s freedom of expression in matters such as racism is based on certainty that mankind does not stand to lose any benefit, then this sureness should be founded in the freedom itself. We can only consider ourselves to be certain when there have been no opinions raised to question the truths we hold. Therefore, in order to boost our certainty, we have to leave room for the opposing beliefs.

There are governments that censor the expression of certain ideas not because they are false, but because they are considered to be hazardous to the society. Mill argues that in such a situation, the hazard in the expressed opinions is questionable. The only way to ascertain that the opinion is in fact dangerous is not to suppress its expression but to allow its free discussion.

Secondly, if the opinion that is being limited is true, then the alternative view held by the government must be false. Experience has shown that all beliefs that are false are never constructive in the long run. Therefore, the government that prefers to hold a false conviction in place of a hazardous truth does not act in the best interests of its people.

In many instances, the silenced view may be a mistake. However, most of these mistakes do carry with them a scrap of truth. On the other hand, the existing view on each of the different topics often does not contain the entire truth. By listening to the opinions of others on the matter, an opportunity to learn the rest of the uncovered truths presents itself.

For instance in politics, we could have two political parties with different agendas. One wants to institute reforms while another desires to ensure stability. People may not be in a position to discern what should be retained or altered, but ensuring the parties at opposing ends ensures each party checks on the performance of the other. In the long run, we strike for a beneficial balance between their supposed agendas (Bhargava, 2008).

Moreover, if the opinion being expressed is entirely true, it may not be considered so with certainty. For confidence to feature, these views must be contested against other rational opinions of others in order to single out the supporting arguments. It is expected that those who believe in their opinions will place strong arguments in their favor (Matravers, 2001).

If an authority believes in the rationality of its ideas, then it should leave room for the expression of opposing ideas. For instance, if any reigning political party has faith in the views it has concerning the development of the country’s economy, it should not be wary of an opposition party with contradicting views. After all what they stand for has factual backing (O’Rourke, 2001).

Lastly, the battle for supremacy between different opinions opens up a more comprehensive understanding of our beliefs. We begin to comprehend what is required of us and are, thus, in a position to act on them. Human beliefs do not exhibit any motivation and the debates that arise are what add fuel to the fire.

Holding beliefs with a conservative mindset only serves to hinder our acceptance of the possible alternatives (Jones, 2001). Therefore, opposition exhibited in the freedom of speech opens up a lee way for open-mindedness besides posing a challenge to hypocrisy and logical sluggishness.

The absence of restrictions on people’s freedom of oppression allows for the exchange of error for truth or the clarification of the existing truth. It also reinforces our certainty in the opinions we consider true besides increasing our open-mindedness and thoughtfulness. For governments, it ensures those entrusted with the leadership of the country have reasonable opinions that work for the common good of the country’s citizens.

Free discussion and analysis of different ideas will, thus, result in the prosperity of mankind rather than the detrimental effects it is assumed to bring.

Freedom of Expression FAQ

• What Is Freedom of Expression? Freedom of expression is the ability of individual people and groups to express their thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and ideas without any restrictions or censorship from the government. This freedom is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
• How Does Freedom of Expression Protect Individual Liberty? The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of expression to all citizens. This means that the US Congress does not have the right to restrict the media or people from speaking freely. People also have the right to peaceful assemblies and petitions to the government.
• Why Is Freedom of Expression Important for Democracy? Freedom of expression is an essential human right. It guarantees the free exchange of information, opinions, and ideas in the public space, allowing people to independently form their own views on all the essential issues.

Bhargava, H. (2008). Political Theory: An Introduction . Delhi: Pearson Education.

Eisenach, E. (2004). Mill and Moral Character . New York: Penn State Press.

Jones, T. (2001). Modern Political Thinkers and Ideas: An Historical Introduction . New York: Routledge.

Matravers, D. (2001) Reading Political Philosophy: Machiavelli to Mill . New York: Routledge.

O’Rourke, K. (2001). John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Expression: The Genesis of a Theory . Connecticut: Taylor & Francis.

• The Importance of Freedom of Speech
• Knowledge of the External World
• Prometheus: The Protector and Benefactor of Mankind
• Universal Moral and Legal Codes
• Animal Cruelty as an Ethical and Moral Problem
• Death Penalty and Ethics
• Attorney Client Privilege: Alton Logan’s Law Case
• Safety at the Construction Sites
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, November 6). Freedom of Expression Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-expression/

"Freedom of Expression Essay." IvyPanda , 6 Nov. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-expression/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Freedom of Expression Essay'. 6 November.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Freedom of Expression Essay." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-expression/.

1. IvyPanda . "Freedom of Expression Essay." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-expression/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Freedom of Expression Essay." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-of-expression/.

Free Speech

Protecting free speech means protecting a free press, the democratic process, diversity of thought, and so much more. The ACLU has worked since 1920 to ensure that freedom of speech is protected for everyone.

What you need to know

10 Advocates on Why They Won’t Stand for Classroom Censorship

People across the country shared their thoughts about why inclusive education is crucial for students.

Ask an Expert: Is My Tweet Protected Speech?

Ask an expert: what are my speech rights at school.

10 Books Politicians Don’t Want You to Read

Defending Our Right to Learn

Explore more, what we're focused on.

Artistic Expression

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

Campaign Finance Reform

Employee speech and whistleblowers, freedom of the press, intellectual property, internet speech, photographers' rights, rights of protesters, student speech and privacy, what's at stake.

“Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.”

—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut

Freedom of speech, the press, association, assembly, and petition: This set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. It is the foundation of a vibrant democracy, and without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither away.

The fight for freedom of speech has been a bedrock of the ACLU’s mission since the organization was founded in 1920, driven by the need to protect the constitutional rights of conscientious objectors and anti-war protesters. The organization’s work quickly spread to combating censorship, securing the right to assembly, and promoting free speech in schools.

Almost a century later, these battles have taken on new forms, but they persist. The ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project continues to champion freedom of expression in its myriad forms — whether through protest, media, online speech, or the arts — in the face of new threats. For example, new avenues for censorship have arisen alongside the wealth of opportunities for speech afforded by the Internet. The threat of mass government surveillance chills the free expression of ordinary citizens, legislators routinely attempt to place new restrictions on online activity, and journalism is criminalized in the name of national security. The ACLU is always on guard to ensure that the First Amendment’s protections remain robust — in times of war or peace, for bloggers or the institutional press, online or off.

Over the years, the ACLU has represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone.

Some examples of our free speech work from recent years include:

• In 2019, we filed a petition of certiorari on behalf of DeRay Mckesson, a prominent civil rights activist and Black Lives Matter movement organizer, urging the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that, if left standing, would dismantle civil rights era speech protections safeguarding the First Amendment right to protest.
• In 2019, we successfully challenged a spate of state anti-protest laws aimed at Indigenous and climate activists opposing pipeline construction.
• We’ve called on big social media companies to resist calls for censorship.
• We’re representing five former intelligence agency employees and military personnel in a lawsuit challenging the government’s pre-publication review system, which prohibits millions of former intelligence agency employees and military personnel from writing or speaking about topics related to their government service without first obtaining government approval.
• In 2018, we filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the NRA’s lawsuit alleging that the state of New York violated its First Amendment rights should be allowed to proceed.
• In 2016, the we defended the First Amendment rights of environmental and racial justice activists in Uniontown, Alabama, who were sued for defamation after they organized against the town’s hazardous coal ash landfill.
• In 2014, the ACLU of Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that the police violated the First Amendment by ejecting an anti-Muslim group called Bible Believers from a street festival based on others’ violent reactions to their speech.

Today, years of hard-fought civil liberty protections are under threat.

To influence lawmakers, we need everyone to get involved. Here is 1 action you can take today:

• Washington State University
• Freedom of Speech at WSU
• WSU Speech-related Policies and Resources
• Controversial speakers and events
• Hate speech and harassment
• Digital and Online Speech
• Student Speech Guide

Faculty Speech Guide

• Employee speech activity

At Washington State University (WSU), protected speech rights play a crucial role in upholding the principles of academic freedom and fostering an environment where open inquiry, robust debate, and intellectual freedom can thrive. Faculty members, as scholars and educators, rely on that freedom to express their ideas, engage in research, and teach controversial or challenging topics without fear of censorship or retaliation from the institution. This academic freedom not only ensure the integrity and autonomy of scholarly inquiry but also enriches the educational experience for students by exposing them to a diversity of perspectives and ideas. Moreover, protected speech rights extend beyond faculty members to encompass the academic freedom of students in the classroom, empowering them to express their viewpoints, engage critically with course material, and participate actively in the learning process. By safeguarding these fundamental rights, educational institutions uphold their commitment to fostering a vibrant intellectual community.

Academic freedom

Faculty members and students enjoy academic freedom, which includes the freedom to discuss relevant subjects in the classroom and to pursue research, provided it does not interfere with the rights of others or the mission of the institution.

For faculty, WSU subscribes to the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments of the American Association of University Professors with the 1987-1990 revisions . This statement is incorporated into the WSU Faculty Manual. Of particular note:

Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other duties… Teachers are entitled to freedom in their classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations on academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profsesion and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments of the American Association of University Professors with the 1989-1990 revisions.

Teaching challenging or controversial topics

Some educational topics have provoked strong reactions from students or community members who hold opposing views, or where political polarization or inflammatory misinformation have created public mistrust. Faculty teaching controversial topics are in a challenging position and can be the subject of public harassment. WSU supports our faculty and supports academic freedom as outlined in the Faculty Manual. However, WSU also acknowledges that some faculty members may be confronted by students or the public about their courses or speech, and need additional support and guidance from the institution.

In order to best support faculty and to support student academic freedom, the following strategies are recommended for classroom related disruptions:

• Senior Faculty, Department Chairs, Associate Deans, Deans, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, or the Office of the Provost: Many senior faculty and campus leaders have experienced disruptions in their classroom space and can help guide you through these challenging situations. Seek their support and guidance. It may also be helpful to have another faculty member sit in on a class to intervene as appropriate.
• Center for Community Standards: Disruptive students can be reported to the Center for Community Standards for consideration under the WSU Standards of Conduct for Students. Please note, engaging in offensive, dissent, or protest in itself is not considered disruptive, but substantial disruptions or material interferences may be in violation of university policy.
• Compliance and Civil Rights: Concerns of discrimination and discriminatory harassment can be reported to Compliance and Civil Rights for review under the WSU Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment .
• Establish Ground Rules: Set clear expectations for classroom discussions at the beginning of the course. Emphasize the importance of respectful dialogue, listening to diverse perspectives, and disagreeing constructively. Encourage students to express their opinions in a manner that respects others.
• Recognize your authority to control the classroom: Faculty work hard to ensure course objectives are met and students receive rigorous education. If individuals are being disruptive to those goals and demonstrating repetitive, egregious, or reckless behavior, they can be asked to leave the classroom. If the situation escalates to an unsafe or unmanageable space, the instructor may choose to stop the class, ask all individuals to leave, and/or call campus security or law enforcement. If there is an emergency situation, call 9-1-1.
• Listen: When faced with opposition, listen to the student’s concerns. Even if you disagree with their perspective, showing empathy, rather than dismissing them, will demonstrate civility and your willing to engage in meaningful dialogue, while deescalating tensions.
• Stay calm: Inflammatory speech is often designed to get a reaction or create distress. Staying calm and composed, rather than getting defensive or emotional, helps deescalate the situation and model professionalism, and sets the tone for a more productive discussion.
• Respectful Disagreement: Teach students how to to respectfully disagree with one another by emphasizing the importance of acknowledging different viewpoint while maintaining civility and respect. Encourage students to articulate their opinion using reasoned arguments and evidence rather than resorting to personal attacks or hostility. Acknowledge that students do not need to agree with the material but need to be able to demonstrate understanding.
• Encourage critical thinking: Emphasize the importance of critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning in evaluating controversial topics. Encourage students to critically evaluate sources of information, examine underlying assumptions, and consider multiple perspectives before forming their opinions.
• Address misconceptions: Take the opportunity to address any misconceptions or misinformation that may contribute to students’ opposition to the course content. Provide factual information, clarify key concepts, and address common myths or misunderstanding related to the topic. Encourage students to approach the material with an open mind and a willingness to learn.
• Redirect the discussion: If a discussion becomes overly contentious or unproductive, it is okay to communicate that the conversation is no longer productive and end it or redirect to your course materials. It is often helpful to focus on empirical evidence or scholarly analysis, to shift away from personal opinions.
• Share consequences: If you have tried to redirect or return to the course materials, but a student continues to be disruptive, inform the class what your expectations are. Let students know that disruptive outbursts will be referred to the Center for Community Standards for review under the Standards of Conduct for Students and/or that you will ask a student to leave if their disruptions impede your ability to teach the course materials.
• Consider alternatives: Even the best faculty sometimes have students who are not responsive to learning how to civilly debate and who continue to be disruptive. Although faculty have the right to follow through with the consequences outlined above, sometimes, depending on course objectives, there may be alternative options that faculty can offer at their discretion. Faculty can communicate their concerns about the student’s behavior and/or success in the course and brainstorm alternative options. For example, if a student shares that they are emotionally impacted by a specific chapter and just cannot control their emotions in the classroom space, the faculty can ask the student if they want to propose another way to participate and demonstrate their knowledge of the course material for that specific section.
• Recognize impact and seek support: Discussing controversial topics and leading such a discussion can be emotionally taxing for faculty and students. Connect with your campus resources (senior faculty and leadership, the Office of the Provost, the Center for Community Standards, Compliance and Civil Rights, and campus police or security, if needed), and access counseling and workplace consultation through the Employee Assistance Program. Consider offering support and resources to students who may be impacted, especially if they have deeply held beliefs or identities that are directly affected by the topic. Student support could include: holding additional office hours and referrals to counseling, Student Affairs, the Office of the Dean of Students, the Student Care Network, or an academic support center or advisor.
• Safety concerns: If you have an immediate physical threat, call 9-1-1. If you have not had an immediate physical threat, but are generally feeling unsafe or scared, contact your department chair, consider reporting and consulting with the Center for Community Standards or Compliance and Civil Rights, and consider consulting with campus police or security.

Attacks against faculty may also occur outside the course space. Community members, online trolls, and even politicians may attack faculty. Remember, your academic freedom is protected, and WSU also cares about your personal safety. If you are experiencing external attacks, it is important to consider the safety options listed above and contact your resources right away.

Special Considerations for Online Disruptions

Disruptive speech in an online conferencing tool, such as Zoom, or within educational software, such as Canvas, may be addressed in a similar fashion as described above. However, the speech may come in unexpected forms, such as “Zoombombing,” or appear on message boards that an instructor is not monitoring. The anonymity or ability to speak remotely may embolden individuals who engage in disruptive speech, and the speech may impact other students in a class. It is important to seek support for yourself and to communicate support to students who have been affected and to connect them with university resources.

To address disruptions in online spaces, there are some additional steps instructors may take:

• Mute participants
• Limit which participants can share their screen
• Control entry into the meeting/class
• In rare cases, remove message board/online discussion posts (in consultation with campus administration)
• Set clear expectations regarding what types of message board/online discussion posts are appropriate

Instructors can access resources to familiarize themselves with software controls here:

• Training contacts
• Workshops and tutorials

Faculty personal speech

Faculty have the freedom to speak as citizens. Most personal speech is protected and faculty members are typically protected from adverse employment action for off-duty speech on matters of public concern. However, the university is not obligated to defend personal speech and may disagree publicly with that speech.

As citizens, faculty may also engage in political and ideological speech, except when doing so results in disruption or obstruction to normal university operations or when the speech constitutes prohibited speech. All University employees and volunteers are subject to the Ethics in Public Service Act, which limits the use of university resources for personal and political activities (see the University Ethics Policy, Executive Policy 45 ). In addition, employees making political statements or engaging in political activities on their personal time should take steps to ensure it is clear they are not speaking on behalf of WSU.

Finally, engaging in online harassment, cyberbullying, vandalism, or other prohibited forms of speech may result in university discipline.

• Not the Mother I Remember
• Accidental Jesus Freak
• Journaling for Dummies
• Week by Week: A Year’s Worth of Journaling Prompts
• Journaling the Chakras
• Journaling Through Relationships
• Times They Were A-Changing
• All Blog Posts
• Journaling Through Grief
• Read Like a Writer
• The Business of Being an Author
• Word for Writers
• Writing Through Change
• Your Best Writing Year Yet
• Memoir & Legacy
• Writing Tips
• Writing Tools
• A Writer’s Life

A Week’s Worth of Journaling Prompts: On Freedom 2

I recently posted an article at womensmemoirs.com about journaling on the concepts of freedom, peace, and happiness . Since then, I’ve continued to think about the topic: what freedom has meant to me in the past and what it means to me now; how my desire for freedom has, in many ways, shaped my desires and many of my decisions; and how it may influence my future.

Before we get into this week’s journaling prompts, let’s take a look at the dictionary definition of freedom as excerpted from dictionary.com (I’ve included only those definitions that refer to personal freedom):

• the state of being at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint;
• exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.;
• exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually followed by from): freedom from fear;
• the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.;
• ease or facility of movement or action;
• the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like;
• the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will;
• the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.

As you can see, personal freedom is a many-faceted concept we can explore from different points of view.

This week’s journaling prompts are designed to help you delve more deeply into your understanding of personal freedom and its influence in your life.

• Write about a past moment in your life when you felt most free. What was it about that event/time/activity that gave you such a sense of freedom? What were its qualities? What were you free from , and what were you free to do ? –
• Thinking about that past moment of freedom, how do you experience (or not experience) that freedom in your life now? –
• On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is completely constrained and 10 is completely free, where do you place yourself today? Write about the reasons you place yourself in that part of the scale. –
• List the qualities of freedom you wrote about in #1 (feel free to add to that list) and prioritize them. Which qualities are most important to you? For example, if my list includes autonomy (not having to answer to anyone else), freedom of movement, and freedom from worry, I might place autonomy first, freedom of movement second, and freedom from worry third. –
• Have you ever had a time in your life where you felt constrained, trapped, or imprisoned in some way? Freewrite about that time and how it affected (and/or continues to affect) your subsequent life decisions. –
• Do you believe that freedom is given to you by others, or made by you? Explain. –
• Finally, how important is freedom to you today? What do you give up for personal freedom, if anything (security, safety, relationships, etc.)? And, what do you think has most influenced your attitudes and beliefs regarding personal freedom?

Can you think of some other ways to write about freedom? We’d love to hear from you — please leave a comment.

________________________________

Image Credit: Baltasar Vischi –

Related Posts:

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

2 thoughts on “ A Week’s Worth of Journaling Prompts: On Freedom ”

Amber, this is such an important topic–personal freedom. I can’t help but refer to the recent interview by Diane Sawyer with Jaycee Lee Dugard who spend eighteen years imprisoned–both physically and mentally–though apparently not spiritually. So many people are imprisoned every day–either through abuse, injustice or illness. Our society does not seem to want to look too deeply into this–as evidenced by the parole officers who didn’t notice anything for all those years, to a society governed by a lot of people who want to remove the support from those in need. As a child, I was imprisoned in a house with my grandmother who wouldn’t let me out, or open the door. I learned how to escape into the moon which I could see in the window. Though I became free eventually as I grew up, the sense of being imprisoned took a long time to heal, because it was embedded in my mind and heart too. As you do, I believe that writing can help us free ourselves from our prisons, once we are physically free. Taking down the story, as Jaycee has done in her brave memoir, and telling our truths open the doors to the light. I have found that to be so in journaling and memoir writing. Thank you for your thoughtful writing prompts! I wrote about Jaycee and her story in my own blog today too. –Linda Joy

Linda Joy, thank you for such a thoughtful response. Your story is poignant and heartrending. And how grateful I am that you found your way to both freedom and healing.

To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.

How Congress Could Protect Free Speech on Campus

Shielding students from discrimination matters. So does preserving academic freedom.

Last year at Harvard, three Israeli Jews took a course at the Kennedy School of Government. They say that because of their ethnicity, ancestry, and national origin, their professor subjected them to unequal treatment, trying to suppress their speech in class and allowing teaching assistants and classmates to create a hostile climate for Jews.

Afterward, they filed a complaint with Harvard alleging a violation of their civil rights. In May, their allegations appeared in a federal civil-rights lawsuit. It cites their claims as evidence that Harvard “ignores and tolerates” anti-Semitism. Their professor, who is also Jewish, rejects that narrative and maintains that he taught the class appropriately.

What do colleges owe their Jewish students? Administrators, faculty, and members of Congress have debated that polarizing question in recent months. Soon, judges and juries may impose some answers. At least 19 lawsuits pending against institutions of higher education allege anti-Semitism that violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which mandates that no person shall, on grounds of race or national origin, “be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under” a program that receives federal funds.

Dara Horn: Why the most educated people in America fall for anti-Semitic lies

If you had to choose just one of these cases to illustrate their fraught implications, you couldn’t do better than the dispute at Harvard. The students make a strong case that they were subject to discrimination, strong enough that an outside attorney hired by Harvard to investigate agreed. At a minimum, I think they were treated unfairly.

Yet validating their claims would also mean rejecting their professor’s plausible defense of his pedagogical judgments, despite his indisputable expertise, undermining academic freedom.

More worryingly, Title VI doesn’t just guarantee equal treatment. It has been interpreted to mandate that colleges stop and remedy harassing behavior and prevent a persistently hostile climate. The lawsuit defines those concepts so expansively that, should all its arguments prevail, Title VI will conflict with free-speech protections more than it already does––and in doing so, the suit underscores the problem with Title VI, because its interpretation of the statute is plausibly consistent with the law’s vague and malleable text.

The way forward is to reaffirm equal treatment for Jewish students without undermining free speech or academic freedom. But we cannot rely on the justice system to achieve that balance. Congress should intervene, amending Title VI to add robust free-speech protections for all.

The course the lawsuit focuses on, “Organizing: People, Power, Change,” teaches graduate students how to be community organizers. Students form small groups and are asked to decide “Who are my people, what is our challenge, and how can we turn resources we have into the power we need to meet that challenge?” Then each group conceives an organizing campaign and shares it with classmates.

In the spring of 2023, the Israeli students, all mid-career professionals, teamed up in the 116-person class and proposed this plan: “Organizing a growing majority of Israelis, that act in harmony, building on a shared ethos of Israel as a liberal-Jewish-democracy, based on our mixed heritage and identities, being a cultural, economical, and security lighthouse.”

That idea drew complaints from Muslim and Arab students, according to Professor Marshall Ganz, who ordered it altered. Many “find the term ‘Jewish democracy’ deeply offensive because it limits membership in a political community to those who share a specific ethno-religious identity,” Ganz emailed one student, “whereas democracy is based on the equal worth of each person, regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion.”

The three countered that the idea of Jewish democracy is “woven within our identities as Israelis and as Jews.” In a class on learning how to mobilize others around ideas, they argued, “academic freedom is not served by silencing ideas” or “people from unpopular countries.” They refused to alter their campaign.

Later, two teaching assistants did a role-playing presentation for the class to illustrate how to recruit for a cause. They used “Palestinian solidarity” as their example––a choice the Israeli students felt was aimed at them––and, according to the lawsuit, the presentation included “a litany of aggressively anti-Israeli diatribes,” prompting other anti-Israel remarks from one student.

The Israeli students asked to respond with a different perspective. But Ganz rejected the request, the lawsuit states, saying they had “caused enough problems already.” Then the teaching assistants “organized a class photo wherein students posed wearing keffiyehs to demonstrate Palestinian solidarity.” This made the students feel “that they were not welcome” in the photo, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also alleges that the Israelis received lower grades than their classmates as punishment––grade inflation is so comically extreme in the Ivy League that they are pressing that claim even after receiving grades of a B+, a B+, and an A-. Ganz has contested the Israeli students’ narrative in an outside investigation, a Nation essay, and an interview with me.

By biography, Ganz, 81, seems an unlikely target of an anti-Semitism lawsuit. His father was a conservative rabbi. His grandparents fled pogroms. His great-uncle was murdered at Auschwitz. He dropped out of Harvard to volunteer with the 1964 Mississippi Summer Project, then became an organizer for United Farm Workers, helping Cesar Chavez unionize farm labor. At 49, he returned to Harvard, finished his degree, then completed a master of public affairs and a Ph.D. in sociology, and became a professor. “My life has been deeply rooted in Jewish values and traditions,” he wrote in his February essay for The Nation , which cast Exodus as the inspiration for his life’s work. “Each generation had to decide: Who are you with?” he wrote. “Pharaoh’s warriors trying to return the people to slavery? Or people trying to break free?”

Ganz was surprised, then angry, when a Title VI complaint, a precursor to the lawsuit, was filed with Harvard. “In my organizing years in the 1960s and ’70s in Mississippi and rural California, I was routinely called out as a Jew Communist outside agitator ,” he wrote in The Nation . “But now, I was being investigated at the Kennedy School? As an antisemite?!” He believes that he taught not just lawfully, but with sound pedagogy informed by decades of experience as an organizer and a teacher.

The outside investigator Harvard hired, an attorney named Allyson Kurker, reached a different conclusion. Her June 2023 report sided with the students in significant respects, finding that their free speech was stymied and that they faced a hostile learning environment based on their Jewish ethnicity. When Ganz rejected their campaign, he was motivated by “real concern” for “students and teaching fellows he viewed as members of a group oppressed by Israel,” she wrote, but the Kennedy School’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities emphasizes that the school should expose students to “even unpopular and controversial” ideas and encourage them to “talk openly” about “highly charged issues.”

Her report acknowledged that the First Amendment, a lodestar for Harvard free-speech policies, does give professors latitude to restrict speech to avoid controversy, if the restriction is limited to “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” So Ganz “could, perhaps, limit students from making hateful or inflammatory statements about Israel or Palestine that are unsupported by authoritative sources,” Kurker wrote. Still, she found “no pedagogical support” for forbidding the trio from calling Israel “a Jewish democracy,” because that is not a merely provocative, unsupportable view––it is a common, if contested, view held by some experts.

The investigation validated Ganz’s decision to allow Palestine-aligned students to express their views. Only the fact that Ganz passively permitted the exercise about Palestinian solidarity to go forward after “seeking to silence the voices of the Students who sought to organize ways to improve Israel as a liberal Jewish democracy” was deemed discriminatory.

In this telling, Ganz could have avoided trouble by letting everyone air their views, even when controversial, rather than hold students to different standards.

Overall, the investigation found that “Ganz treated the Students differently on the basis of their Israeli national origin and Jewish ethnicity,” limiting their ability to participate in the class. But Ganz called the investigation a “kangaroo court.” He told me that neither the investigator nor the lawsuit understands his class and its purpose. “The point of this assignment was for students to learn how to create an organizing space that welcomed others in to build social movements,” he said. “Using contested and inflammatory language conflicted with the purpose of the assignment.”

I asked if he would have objected to an organizing campaign on “Palestinian solidarity.” He answered no, because “creating solidarity as a goal is consistent with the goals of our course.” He added that “a project on advancing a certain state as a ‘Muslim democracy’ (or ‘Christian democracy’)” would have had the same issues as the Israeli students’ project.

Although I don’t think Ganz’s behavior was motivated by anti-Semitism, I do think everyone in the class would’ve been better served by airing and discussing controversial campaign ideas. The attempt to suppress controversial ideas to avoid distraction clearly failed. And if the Israeli students’ framing hurt their ability to organize, surely that taught them something.

That doesn’t mean that whatever ideas a student brings to a class must go unchallenged. I’d defend Ganz had he told the Israeli students, “The phrase ‘Jewish democracy’ will alienate some of your classmates. I need you to understand why, and then to consider: Are you needlessly alienating people? Or is this framing so intrinsic to your cause that you can’t alter it, because to do so would alter the core of your campaign?” But ordering them to change their campaign, having allowed other students to proceed with controversial subjects, makes me suspect that ideological bias distorts Ganz’s sense of what is framing versus substance, what constitutes an unacceptable distraction, and when it is necessary to tell offended students that they will face consequences if they derail a class, rather than preempting ideas.

Of course, that’s just my opinion. Ganz himself raised the important question of who decides when I asked him about the finding that he tried to suppress a contested idea rather than an unsupportable provocation.

“As a scholar in this field,” he wrote, “I have significantly more background and expertise on this matter than a lawyer,” and because the class taught how to organize by way of actually organizing other Harvard students, he reasoned that the three students’ framing “would not only be divisive, but isolate themselves from engagement with others, making it far harder for them to realize the learning the class had to offer.”

Though I question his approach, I am hesitant to advocate for federal courts or bureaucrats to second-guess the judgments of a longtime professor who has expertise in the field in a dispute where the ostensibly wronged students got good grades and course credit.

Title VI allows students who feel they’ve experienced unequal treatment to appeal to civil-rights bureaucrats and the courts for a remedy. Yet the mere possibility of Title VI complaints creates an incentive for colleges to maintain costly, invariably biased speech-policing bureaucracies. Most monitor and micromanage interactions among faculty, teaching assistants, and students, chilling pedagogy and speech that should be protected.

This particular lawsuit is a major clash that highlights and could exacerbate this broken approach. Harvard has more resources than any other university to defend itself, if it decides that publicly litigating the case is preferable to settling it. The nonprofit that filed the lawsuit, the Brandeis Center , is formidable too: It was founded and is led by Kenneth Marcus , a former Department of Education official who helped ensure that Jews were considered a protected class under Title VI. The lawsuit is likely to benefit from his expertise at spotting fact patterns that help expand protections of Jews.

Conor Friedersdorf: The wrong way to fight anti-Semitism on campus

The Brandeis Center does important work to challenge discriminatory double standards that disadvantage Jewish and Israeli students. “Harvard’s permissive posture towards antisemitism is the opposite of its aggressive enforcement of the same anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies to protect other minorities,” its lawsuit persuasively argues. If the courts follow the lead of Kurker’s report and resolve double standards by protecting everyone’s expressive rights, the precedent could help protect Jews from discrimination without restricting anyone’s speech.

But its lawsuit doesn’t merely argue for resolving double standards, like the one the students allegedly faced, by emphasizing everyone’s free-speech rights. It argues that some of the protected speech of their professor and of their Palestine-aligned classmates was unlawfully harassing.

And policing more speech on behalf of any group sets a community standard on campus. Colleges must then regulate all speech just as vigorously, or else deploy a double standard that invites lawsuits from members of groups who correctly see that they are treated unequally. Harvard’s past policing of microaggressions informs today’s anti-Semitism complaints. What will Palestinian students be owed in the future?

Rather than risk policing everyone’s speech more intensely, Americans should demand a reaffirmation of that most foundational civil right: the ability of everyone to speak freely. Safeguarding this right requires Congress to act. It should not repeal Title VI—the prohibition on discriminatory double standards should stand. Instead it should amend the statute to clarify that nothing in the law requires policing speech protected by academic freedom or the First Amendment.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states

FILE - The Meta logo is seen at the Vivatech show in Paris, France, Wednesday, June 14, 2023. Meta said Monday, June 10, 2024, it wants to use data from users in privacy-conscious Europe to train its artificial intelligence models. It’s facing concerns about data protection while battling to keep up with rivals like OpenAI and Google. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus, File)

The Supreme Court building is seen, Wednesday, June 26, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Journalists await the Court’s decisions outside the Supreme Court, Wednesday, June 26, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices threw out lower-court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their claims that federal officials leaned on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision should not affect typical social media users or their posts.

AP AUDIO: The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports the Biden administration has scored a Supreme Court win in a social media dispute with conservative states.

The case is among several before the court this term that affect social media companies in the context of free speech. In February, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express. In March, the court laid out standards for when public officials can block their social media followers .

The cases over state laws and the one that was decided Wednesday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.

The states had argued that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who applied “unrelenting pressure” to coerce changes in online content on social media platforms.

The justices appeared broadly skeptical of those claims during arguments in March and several worried that common interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a ruling for the states.

The Biden administration underscored those concerns when it noted that the government would lose its ability to communicate with the social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the court reached the right outcome because “it helps ensure the Biden Administration can continue our important work with technology companies to protect the safety and security of the American people, after years of extreme and unfounded Republican attacks on public officials who engaged in critical work to keep Americans safe.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called the decision “unfortunate and disappointing.” The court majority, Murrill said in a statement, “gives a free pass to the federal government to threaten tech platforms into censorship and suppression of speech that is indisputably protected by the First Amendment. The majority waves off the worst government coercion scheme in history.”

The justices did not weigh in on the substance of the states’ claims or the administration’s response in their decision Wednesday.

“We begin — and end — with standing,” Barrett wrote. “At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.”

In dissent, Alito wrote that the states amply demonstrated their right to sue. “For months, high-ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote for the three justices in the minority.

Jen Easterly, director of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said she was pleased with the decision and reiterated the agency “does not and has never censored speech.”

“Every day, the men and women of CISA execute the agency’s mission of reducing risk to U.S. critical infrastructure in a way that protects Americans’ freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy,” Easterly said in a statement.

Some free speech advocates praised the result, but lamented how little guidance the court provided.

“The platforms are attractive targets for official pressure, and so it’s crucial that the Supreme Court clarify the line between permissible attempts to persuade and impermissible attempts to coerce,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. “This guidance would have been especially valuable in the months leading up to the election.”

Nina Jankowicz was named in the original lawsuit after being appointed in 2022 to lead a new board within the Department of Homeland Security to tackle disinformation. The board was dissolved within weeks amid conspiracy theories and criticism from Republicans and conservative activists who saw the effort as a political tool to regulate free speech.

Jankowicz, an expert in disinformation, said the Supreme Court had done what she had expected. But she said the damage from the lawsuit is not easily fixed.

“Unfortunately, there is an entire class of people that now believes the government, in coordination with independent researchers, is censoring some part of the American population,” she said. “I don’t think that’s going to go away anytime soon.”

The court’s ruling comes as many social media companies have removed guardrails against hate and disinformation.

The social media platform X, under the leadership of owner Elon Musk, has restored the accounts of conspiracy theorists and extremists who were previously banned. It also has gutted teams that once fought misinformation on the platform, leaving the community of users to moderate itself.

Experts say the shrinking of such teams, a development that many blame on political pressure, could make election-related disinformation across social media worse in 2024 than it was in 2020.

Meanwhile, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, has pivoted away from emphasizing news and political content on its platforms after facing years of accusations that it mishandles misinformation and contributes to political polarization .

A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to “coerce or significantly encourage” changes in online content.

The decision was the sixth this term in which the court threw out rulings by the 5th Circuit, one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts. Last week, the court upheld a gun restriction aimed at protecting domestic violence victims, overturning a 5th Circuit panel.

Earlier in June, the court unanimously ruled that anti-abortion doctors lacked standing to challenge Food and Drug Administration decisions to ease access to the abortion drug mifepristone.

The case is Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411.

Associated Press writers Christina A. Cassidy in Atlanta and Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court