Freedom of speech is the right to express one's opinions and ideas without fear of government censorship or punishment. In around 150 nations, freedom of speech is protected and legally binding as a political right. In America, this right is often taken for granted and misunderstood. Knowing what freedom of speech is is imperative to understanding what it actually means. 

What Is Freedom of Speech? 

Freedom of speech, at its core, means being able to express one’s ideas without retaliation or punishment from the government. Freedom of speech allows the exchange of diverse perspectives, and supports democratic processes by enabling informed public discourse and holding those in power accountable. It also fosters creativity and innovation by encouraging open dialogue and debate. Despite its centrality, freedom of speech is subject to legal and ethical considerations, balancing the need for robust public discourse with protections against harm and misinformation. Its preservation remains a cornerstone in ensuring democratic participation and individual freedoms globally.

Freedom of speech does not only refer to what you say; it encompasses various rights, including the use of provocative language for political expression (Cohen v. California, 1971). In this court case, Paul Cohen was convicted for wearing a jacket with the phrase "F*** the Draft" in a courthouse, which was deemed offensive. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction, ruling that the First Amendment protects the use of provocative and offensive language as a form of political expression. The Court emphasized that the government cannot ban speech simply because it is offensive, as free speech includes the right to express unpopular and controversial views, thereby ensuring robust and open public discourse. This information is obtained from the United States Courts, where more information can be found on what freedom of speech encompasses. 

What Isn’t Freedom of Speech?

Although freedom of speech allows people to express themselves, it doesn’t mean you can simply say anything you desire. Defamation intersects with freedom of speech as it involves the balance between the right to express opinions and the responsibility not to spread false information that harms someone's reputation. In legal terms, defamation refers to false statements presented as facts that injure someone's reputation. While Freedom of Speech protects opinions and factual statements that are true or made without malice, it does not shield knowingly false statements. Courts often weigh the harm caused by defamation against the public interest in free expression, seeking to uphold both rights while minimizing undue harm. Thus, defamation laws aim to strike a delicate balance between protecting reputation and allowing healthy debate and expression.

Freedom of speech also does not cover inciting immediate unlawful actions, as established in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating illegal activities is protected under the First Amendment unless directed to incite imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. This case established the "Brandenburg test," which requires both intent and likelihood of inciting immediate illegal activities for speech to be unprotected. This ruling significantly narrowed the scope of incitement, ensuring broad protection for free speech while setting clear limits to prevent direct and immediate threats to public order.

Controversies Surrounding Free Speech

"If the First Amendment is intended to protect anything, it's intended to protect offensive speech. If you're not going to offend anyone, you don't need protection." ― Larry Flynt

Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine, was controversial primarily due to his outspoken advocacy for free speech and his provocative and explicit content. He gained notoriety for pushing boundaries with his publications, often featuring explicit material that challenged societal norms and conservative values. Politically, Larry Flynt identified as a libertarian, but conservatives and far-right Republicans often refer to him when getting backlash for saying something controversial.

Another controversial aspect of freedom of speech is cancel culture –the online practice of criticizing or ostracizing individuals for statements or actions perceived as offensive or objectionable by others– is a tool of freedom of speech, but many on the far right see it as the opposite. Some see it as an infringement on freedom of speech as if they aren’t allowed to say anything without backlash, but this is a misunderstanding of what this backlash is. Freedom of speech means you can express your opinion without legal repercussions, which is why you can say such controversial things; however, others are allowed to express their anger and disagreement in an equally contentious way.

A recent example of such an outright misunderstanding is a response to the backlash of a now-deleted TikTok by user @llddis, she is a white, “trad wife” influencer and uses the n-word in the video.  In the video, she is expressing her opinion on how people view all women as gold diggers due to some women seen on social media(who she refers to as “whores”)  that do not represent all women. She explains how she and her friends do not care about money and that everyone she knows that is married are with “broke ass n****s.” She said the word comfortably while looking at the camera.

Once faced with backlash, she responded in a video in which she starts by saying, “A recent video of mine seems to have upset members of a certain community” and that she “couldn’t find a care” which shows that she is stagnant in her opinion. In her first response, she referred to the quote stated earlier by Larry Flynt. She received many angry messages and comments, which fueled her to make more responses filled with anger. It can be shown clearly in the way she handles the backlash that she doesn’t understand the common concept in freedom of speech means that people are allowed to offend you as much as you offend them. Yes, the way she chooses to speak publicly may be disturbing and outlandish, but she has faced no legal repercussions, and neither will those who anger her in her comment section. She gained popularity for this incident and continues using the word unapologetically. Even if she is facing no legal repercussions for her bigotry, we can exercise our right to disagree and that is why cancel culture is an important aspect of freedom of speech. She posted this tweet as a response to her newfound fame. 

“Thanks black community for helping to launch my new career in conservative media! You all played your role well like the puppets you are❤️”; Lilly (@llddiiss)

This isn’t the first time people misunderstood the right to freedom of speech. Following the events of January 6th, there was significant controversy surrounding former President Donald Trump's role in the Capitol riot. Many critics argued that his rhetoric, including claims of election fraud and urging supporters to "fight like hell," directly contributed to inciting the violence. As a result, social media platforms suspended his accounts, and he faced impeachment proceedings for allegedly encouraging an insurrection.

Some of Trump's supporters and conservative commentators viewed these actions as an infringement of his freedom of speech. They argued that Trump was expressing his opinions and engaging in political speech protected under the First Amendment. They believed that censoring or punishing him for his statements set a dangerous precedent for silencing dissenting viewpoints and restricting political discourse.

However, opponents and legal experts countered that freedom of speech does not protect speech that incites violence or poses a clear and present danger to public safety. They argued that Trump's remarks went beyond mere political disagreement and played a direct role in the violent attack on the Capitol, making consequences justified under the law.

The ongoing debate over freedom of speech highlights its profound significance in democratic societies. In considering the essence of freedom of speech, it's important to grasp its profound implications and its nuanced responsibilities. This foundational right grants individuals the liberty to express opinions and ideas without fear of government punishment, fostering vibrant discourse essential for democratic societies. However, crucial to this freedom is the understanding that speech can provoke discomfort, disagreement, or offense among listeners. While individuals have the right to express themselves openly, they must also recognize the reciprocal nature of free speech—where others may critique, challenge, or even condemn those expressions.