Free Speech

Free speech encompasses the right to express opinions without censorship or restraint. This foundational principle of democratic societies raises complex questions about the limits of expression, the role of government in regulating speech, and the balance between freedom and potential harm. Free speech primarily relates to the Authority Axis (government regulation vs. individual liberty), though it also intersects with the Social Values Axis (traditional vs. progressive views on offensive content).

Key Positions Overview

Progressive/Left Position

Those with progressive views on free speech often support broad protections for expression while recognizing that speech can cause harm, particularly to marginalized groups. They may advocate for restrictions on hate speech, harassment, and misinformation, emphasizing that unregulated speech can reinforce power imbalances and undermine equality.

Conservative/Right Position

Those with conservative views on free speech typically favor strong, nearly absolute protections for expression with minimal government interference. They often emphasize that unpopular, controversial, or even offensive speech requires the strongest protection, and are generally skeptical of attempts to regulate speech based on subjective determinations of harm.

Progressive/Left-Leaning Perspective

Key Arguments

Progressive approaches to free speech emphasize its value while acknowledging its potential to cause harm, especially to vulnerable groups, and the reality that not all voices have equal access to platforms.

  • Speech can cause real harm: Hate speech, harassment, and certain types of misinformation can cause tangible harm to individuals and groups, particularly those who are already marginalized. In some cases, these harms may justify reasonable limitations on expression. [1] Matsuda, M. J., Lawrence, C. R., Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Westview Press.
  • Free speech requires equal access: True freedom of expression requires addressing power imbalances that give some voices more reach and influence than others. When powerful entities dominate discourse, this effectively silences marginalized perspectives. [2] Fiss, O. M. (1996). The Irony of Free Speech. Harvard University Press.
  • Online platforms require moderation: Digital platforms have created new challenges for free expression, including viral spread of harmful content. Responsible content moderation by platforms is not censorship but a necessary form of governance in digital spaces. [3] Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press.

Supporting Evidence

Research on Hate Speech Effects

Studies have documented that exposure to hate speech can cause psychological harm, including stress, anxiety, and reduced sense of belonging for targeted groups. Research also links online hate speech to offline violence and discrimination, suggesting tangible consequences beyond emotional harm.

[4] Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. (2020). From Hashtag to Hate Crime: Twitter and Anti-Minority Sentiment. Working Paper.

International Approaches

Many democratic countries have hate speech laws that restrict certain forms of expression while maintaining strong free speech protections overall. Countries like Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom have implemented such restrictions without sliding into broader censorship, suggesting balanced approaches are possible.

[5] Rosenfeld, M. (2012). Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis. Cardozo Law Review, 24, 1523-1567.

Think Tank Perspective: Center for Democracy & Technology

The Center for Democracy & Technology advocates for a nuanced approach to free expression online that balances free speech with other human rights considerations. They support transparent content moderation by platforms, algorithmic accountability, and policies that address power imbalances in speech while minimizing government censorship.

[6] Llanso, E. (2020). Content Moderation Knowledge Sharing. Center for Democracy & Technology.

Conservative/Right-Leaning Perspective

Key Arguments

Conservative approaches to free speech emphasize broad protection for all expression with minimal government interference, viewing restrictions as dangerous precedents that inevitably expand beyond their original purpose.

  • Free society requires open discourse: Democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas, including controversial or offensive ones. The marketplace of ideas, not government or institutional censorship, should determine which speech prevails through debate and counter-speech. [7] Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Penguin Press.
  • Speech restrictions are prone to abuse: Powers to restrict "harmful" speech invariably expand beyond their original purpose and are often weaponized against political opponents or unpopular minorities. Even well-intentioned restrictions create slippery slopes toward broader censorship. [8] Strossen, N. (2018). Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship. Oxford University Press.
  • Platform bias threatens discourse: Major tech platforms have too much power over public discourse and often apply content policies inconsistently, typically in ways that disadvantage conservative viewpoints. This corporate control threatens meaningful free expression. [9] Epstein, R. (2018). Why Google Poses a Serious Threat to Democracy, and How to End That Threat. Testimony before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Supporting Evidence

Historical Censorship Patterns

Throughout history, speech restrictions intended to protect vulnerable groups have often been used against those groups themselves. In the United States, obscenity laws were used against birth control advocates, and anti-hate laws in other countries have sometimes been applied against minority activists criticizing the majority.

[10] Strossen, N. (2000). Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights. NYU Press.

Benefits of Open Discourse

Research suggests that open debate of even offensive ideas leads to better outcomes than suppression. When ideas are debated openly, their flaws can be exposed, and society can develop stronger arguments against harmful ideologies rather than driving them underground where they may fester without challenge.

[11] Mill, J. S. (1859/1978). On Liberty. Hackett Publishing Company.

Think Tank Perspective: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) defends free speech regardless of viewpoint, opposing campus speech codes, government censorship, and restrictive content policies on digital platforms. They argue that free speech is essential for intellectual growth, scientific progress, and a functioning democracy, even when that speech may be offensive to some.

[12] FIRE. (2021). Spotlight on Speech Codes. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Common Ground & Key Disagreements

Shared Values

Despite deep differences, there are some areas where progressive and conservative perspectives on free speech overlap:

  • Agreement that government should not censor speech based on political viewpoint
  • Recognition that some narrow categories of speech (direct incitement to imminent violence, true threats) may be restricted
  • Concern about concentrated corporate power over speech platforms
  • Support for transparency in how speech rules are created and enforced

Core Disagreements

The fundamental disagreements on free speech stem from different values and assessments of risk:

  • Whether hate speech causes harm sufficient to justify restrictions
  • The relative dangers of government censorship versus unregulated harmful speech
  • Whether large platforms should moderate content beyond what the law requires
  • The extent to which power imbalances should be considered in free speech protections

Multimedia & Further Resources

Video Perspectives

Progressive Perspective Video

This video from Crash Course explores how unregulated harmful speech can impact vulnerable groups and examines the case for reasonable speech limitations in certain contexts while still valuing free expression.

Conservative Perspective Video

This video from Reason TV presents the case for strong free speech protections without exceptions for hate speech or offensive content, emphasizing the dangers of allowing government or institutions to determine what speech is acceptable.

Further Reading

Progressive Perspective Resources

Conservative Perspective Resources

References

  1. [1] Matsuda, M. J., Lawrence, C. R., Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Westview Press.
  2. [2] Fiss, O. M. (1996). The Irony of Free Speech. Harvard University Press.
  3. [3] Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press.
  4. [4] Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. (2020). From Hashtag to Hate Crime: Twitter and Anti-Minority Sentiment. Working Paper.
  5. [5] Rosenfeld, M. (2012). Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis. Cardozo Law Review, 24, 1523-1567.
  6. [6] Llanso, E. (2020). Content Moderation Knowledge Sharing. Center for Democracy & Technology.
  7. [7] Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Penguin Press.
  8. [8] Strossen, N. (2018). Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship. Oxford University Press.
  9. [9] Epstein, R. (2018). Why Google Poses a Serious Threat to Democracy, and How to End That Threat. Testimony before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.
  10. [10] Strossen, N. (2000). Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights. NYU Press.
  11. [11] Mill, J. S. (1859/1978). On Liberty. Hackett Publishing Company.
  12. [12] FIRE. (2021). Spotlight on Speech Codes. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.