freedom of speech vocabulary words

• 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

Censorship vocabulary

censorship (uncountable noun): the banning, suppression or prohibition of speech, writing or images that are deemed obscene, politically or religiously "unacceptable", or a threat to security. It can be applied to (parts of) articles, books, films, art, letters, news, internet or virtually any form of communication. Censorship may be carried out by government, by private organizations or even by individuals. – Totalitarian states are characterised by strict censorship laws. | Social media sites sometimes subject their own users to censorship.

censor (countable noun): a person whose job is to examine a book, film, internet page etc and remove or delete "unacceptable" parts – During the War, most of the letters she received from her husband in the Army had sensitive information deleted by the censor’s blue pen.

censor (transitive verb): examine a book, film, internet page etc and remove or delete "unacceptable" parts – Some social media companies have taken it upon themselves to censor their users’ content.

Freedom of speech is the flip side of censorship. It is the right for every man and woman to express their opinion freely, without fear of retribution, censorship or legal redress. This is a concept that is fundamental to English-speaking countries and much of the world. Indeed, in the USA this freedom is in theory guaranteed by the US Constitution. Many other countries have similar protections. In practice, however, this freedom does not provide carte blanche to say or write anything you wish. Most countries have laws that forbid the incitement of violence, for example. Racist or hate speech is also usually disallowed. Nevertheless, because of this concept, freedom of speech has, by and large, a "good name" and censorship has a "dirty name". Terms such as free speech , freedom of opinion and free expression are often also used to mean freedom of speech.

Censorship is not new. Over the centuries the vilest authoritarian and totalitarian states have censored people’s thoughts and expression whenever the state felt threatened by the people. Even the spoken word has been censored, with parents for example in Nazi Germany afraid to speak in front of their own children (who had been brainwashed at school by the state).

Many books have famously been censored or banned (and sometimes burned ), both in the West and the East. The same is true of certain films .

What is new in the twenty-first century is the application of censorship to the internet , ranging from the wholesale banning of (for example) Facebook.com in China (by the Chinese government) to (for example) the selective banning of users on Facebook (by Facebook).

Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech. Albert Einstein

Below are listed words related to censorship , with definitions/explanations and sample sentences showing the words used in context. (Some words may have additional meanings unrelated to censorship.)

anonymous (adjective): unidentified by name; of unknown name – The college received an anonymous donation.

authoritarian (adjective): expecting strict obedience to (state) authority at the cost of personal freedom; with little or no concern for the wishes or desires of other people – Under the new party the government is becoming increasingly authoritarian.

ban (verb): officially prevent someone from doing something – Many users have been banned from Facebook for posts that Facebook doesn’t like. | Russian dissident Alexey Navalny claimed that the banning of Donald Trump on Twitter was an "unacceptable act of censorship".

bias ed (adjective): unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something – This channel's news reporting is biased because it is part-owned by the opposition party .

Big Tech (noun): a nickname for the largest and most dominant companies in the information technology industry of the USA, mainly Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft – Some people claim that Big Tech has become Big Brother.

blacklist (noun, also verb): a list of people or groups that are banned from something – You may be backlisted from Facebook if you post unorthodox material.

blue-pencil (verb): to censor or make cuts in text – In both world wars, letters sent home from the front were systematically blue-pencilled by military censors to avoid giving away locations and other secrets.

blur out (verb): to make an area of a photo fuzzy and unclear – Luckily they blurred out our faces before publication so no-one knew it was us.

book burning (noun): the deliberate destruction by fire of books (and other paper-based publications) – Under Hitler, the Nazis famously held book burning campaigns in the 1930s, destroying large quantities of publications that they considered subversive or opposed to Nazism.

brainwash (verb): to indoctrinate; to make someone change their beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure – The government tried to brainwash people into thinking that war was essential.

cancel culture (noun): a way of behaving where you completely reject and stop supporting someone because they have said or done something that offends you; a modern form of ostracism, especially on social media; exclusion of someone from a society or group – In a cancel culture we appoint ourselves the arbiters of right and wrong and also the judge and jury. | Many people are finding themselves cancelled because of something they have posted on the internet many years ago.

chilling effect (noun): a discouraging effect; the concept that people may limit what they say publicly because they fear specific government laws or social repercussions – There are fears the new state-backed legislation will have a chilling effect on journalism in general.

classified (adjective): officially categorized as secret or top secret and open only to authorized people – I noticed a file he had carelessly left on his desk that was marked "Classified: TOP SECRET".

controversial (adjective): likely to cause public argument – Religion and politics are usually considered controversial topics for discussion.

deny (verb): refuse to give to someone – Visitors were denied access to the site because it had been hacked.

deplatform (verb): prevent a person from contributing to a discussion or forum, especially on social media – For telling the truth as she saw it she was deplatformed from Facebook, Twitter, the App Store and Play Store.

dictatorship (noun): government with a single ruler who has absolute power (dictator), usually obtained by force – There are still a few dictatorships left in the world.

dictator (noun): a ruler who has absolute power over a country – If you asked people to name the most famous dictator in history, most would probably say Adolf Hitler.

disinformation (noun): misinformation that is deliberately misleading and intended to deceive. See misinformation – Nuclear weapons are often shrouded in a cloud of secrecy and disinformation.

domain name (noun): in simple terms, a domain name is a website name, such as facebook.com or twitter.com. Domain names are recorded in a central registry. – How many domain names have you registered?

extremist content (noun): (usually political or religious) ideas considered far from the mainstream way of thinking – Because of the extremist content on his website, it was feared he might become violent.

filter (verb): to process and remove unwanted content – ISPs began filtering websites for offensive material.

fact-check (verb): to check that all the facts in a newspaper article, TV programme etc are accurate – Did anybody bother to fact-check CNN’s covid program last night? It was peppered with inaccuracies.

fact-checker (verb): a person employed to factcheck – I wonder how you get a job as a fact-checker?

fake news (uncountable noun): false or misleading information presented as news, usually aiming to damage somebody's reputation or make money. It is found in newspapers, magazines, TV, the spoken word, and increasingly the internet especially on social media such as Facebook (itself sometimes scathingly referred to as Fakebook). The British government avoids the term on the grounds that is is "poorly-defined" and "conflates a variety of false information, from genuine error through to foreign interference". – She claims that fake news, long a feature of social media, is growing in mainstream media.

First Amendment (noun): an amendment (modification) to the US Constitution that guarantees several freedoms especially with respect to expression and religion – The poet argued in court that her work was protected by the First Amendment.

free speech (noun): the right to express any opinions without censorship or punishment – In fact free speech is never 100% free since all countries have specific laws that limit such things as incitement to violence or slander.

freedom of the press (noun): the right of the press/media to publish legal information and opinions without government interference – In many countries, freedom of the press was achieved only after periods of rebellion.

freedom of expression (noun): the right to express any opinions without censorship or punishment – According to the Global Expression Report by Article19, freedom of expression around the world has been declining and in 2020 was at its lowest score for a decade.

hate speech (noun): threatening and abusive speech or writing that expresses extreme prejudice on the basis of race, gender, religion and so on – Many countries have laws that ban hate speech in any form.

heresy (noun): opinion contrary to orthodox (normally Christian) religion, and by extension any prevailing view – The bishop was burned at the stake for heresy. | In 1633 the astronomer Galileo was charged with heresy for claiming that the sun did not revolve around the earth. His writings were banned and he was imprisoned for life.

heretic (noun): a person practising religious heresy ; a person who has opinions that are not generally accepted – He became the ultimate heretic by not accepting their political viewpoint.

the Inquisition (proper noun, capital I): a powerful 13th-century court set up by the Catholic Church in Europe to root out and punish heresy - notorious for the use of torture to extract confessions. – The Mexican president condemned Facebook and Twitter as "a court of censorship like the Inquisition to manage public opinion."

inquisition (noun): prolonged and intensive questioning – He had to face a two-hour inquisition from his wife about the woman in the restaurant.

IP address (noun): an “Internet Protocol” address is a special set of numbers that identifies a device (computer, phone, server etc) on the internet – The authorities can often trace the location of a computer through its IP address.

ISP (internet service provider) (noun): a communications company that supplies internet access to individuals or businesses – The local ISPs charge $30 a month for unlimited internet access.

leak, news leak (noun): an intentional disclosure of something secret or private – An employee with a grudge was responsible for the leak to several newspapers.

liable (adjective): responsible in law; legally responsible – People may be liable if they cause injury to another person.

manipulation (noun): controlling or influencing (a person or situation), usually get what one wants – There was obvious manipulation of the crowds by the media.

misinformation (noun): false, untrue, inaccurate and misleading information. See disinformation – The newspaper editor acknowledged her mistake and apologised for spreading misinformation.

news blackout (noun): a period of time during which news about a particular event is not allowed to be reported – During the crisis the government imposed a news blackout on all media.

orthodox (adjective): conforming to the generally-accepted views of the time – He promoted the benefits of both orthodox medicine and alternative medicine.

perspective (noun): point of view; a particular way of looking at some issue – It is important to listen to the perspectives of others before making decisions.

police (verb): maintain law and order; enforce regulations, enforce an agreement; monitor and enforce the provisions of a law, agreement etc – Many governments have woken up to the need to police social media.

political correctness (noun): the practice of avoiding language that might be offensive to certain groups of people, especially in relation to gender and race – For reasons of political correctness they were forced to withdraw their advertisement from television.

political movement (noun): a group of people working together to promote their shared political ideas – The Middle East saw the growth of numerous political movements during the so-called Arab Spring of 2010-2012.

political uprising (noun): an act of rebellion against a government or other political authority or organization – Many governments censor the internet to disrupt coordination of political uprisings.

pornography (noun): explicit display or description of sexual activity or sexual organs, intended to arouse sexual desire – Some countries have strict laws banning pornography.

politicized (adjective): made political in character – The issue has been increasingly politicized and has divided the country.

propaganda (noun): information, especially biased or misleading information, used to promote a political cause or other point of view – The government promoted constant propaganda in the news to maintain power.

precedent (noun): an earlier event that is seen as an example or guide in managing a similar subsequent event – The precedents of the 1994 case helped the judge arrive at a verdict.

riot, riots (noun): a public and violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd – Following the announcement, riots broke out in the streets.

riot (verb): to take part in a violent disturbance of the peace – When people are unhappy about some government actions, they may riot in protest.

Section 230 (proper noun): a controversial part of the American Communications Decency Act (1996) that essentially provides immunity for websites from content posted by users – Without Section 230, social media sites like Facebook could not have grown into the giants they are today.

shadow ban (verb): to block a user on a website or chatroom without their knowledge, so that they continue to see their own posts and comments but nobody else does – He was angry when he realised he’d been shadow banned for the last four weeks and had been wasting his time making hundreds of posts that no-one could see.

social unrest (noun): a state of dissatisfaction and disturbance among ordinary people, often involving public demonstrations or disorder – Some governments try to control the internet in their country as they fear social unrest.

subjectivity (noun): the quality of being based on or influenced by personal opinions or feelings – The subjectivity of each researcher creates a degree of bias.

suppression (noun): the prevention or stopping (of something) – The government relies on censorship for its suppression of political dissent.

The Thought Police (noun): in George Orwell's dystopian novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four", the secret police of the superstate who discover and punish wrongthink . – It’s not 1984 anymore but The Thought Police are everywhere .

throttle (verb): to limit a social media user’s reach so that whatever they post goes to fewer people than before – Most people don’t realise that their posts are being throttled by Facebook and they just keep posting regardless.

top secret (adjective): highly classified ; of the highest secrecy – The experiments were top secret so the media didn't even know of their existence.

totalitarian (adjective): relating to a centralised system of government that demands total subservience to the state – The citizens were happy to see the end of the old totalitarian regime.

Wikileaks (proper noun): international non-profit website founded by Julian Assange that publishes news leaks and classified media provided by anonymous sources – Wikileaks is probably most famous for publishing a video showing the crew of a US military helicopter deliberately killing civilians in Baghdad, Iraq.

whistle-blower (noun): a person who informs on an organization (or another person) considered to be acting against the law or immorally – For leaking highly classified US Government information, Edward Snowden has been variously called a traitor, a hero, a whistleblower, a dissident and a patriot.

wrongthink (noun): opinions and beliefs that do not follow orthodox or mainstream thinking – The term "wrongthink" is probably modelled on "crimethink" from George Orwell's dystopian novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four" published in 1949.

Contributors: Armando Panacci and Josef Essberger

Reference and Further Reading

• What is censorship? American Civil Liberties Union
• What is Censorship? National Coalition Against Censorship
• Britannica on Censorship
• Wikipedia on Censorship
• SimpleWiki on Censorship
• Wikipedia on Freedom of Speech
• Courage Foundation The world needs truthtellers. They need Courage
• Deadly Censorship
• The First Amendment, Censorship and Private Companies Julie Allegheny - Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
• Cancel Culture, Chinese Cultural Revolution or Stasi Disintegrative Directive?
• A Brief Overview of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Kathleen Ann Ruane - Federation of American Scientists
• World freedom of expression rankings- Article19
• Free Speech Threatened by Censorship Extremists Dr Joseph Mercola
• How Facebook censored the lab leak theory - UnHerd
• @BillMaher rails against Facebook for censoring content about lab leak
• A Brief History of Book Burning, From the Printing Press to Internet Archives Smithsonian Magazine
• Uncontrolled Information: Critical Evaluation versus Automatic Acceptance
• Peter Thiel Speaks Out Against the Ruling Class’s Spread of Misinformation

Further Educational Resources

• Censorship in the 21st Century. Do we need it? EnglishClub discussion for forum members
• Vocabulary Censorship Lesson With video

First Amendment – Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment allows citizens to express and to be exposed to a wide range of opinions and views. It was intended to ensure a free exchange of ideas even if the ideas are unpopular. Freedom of speech encompasses not only the spoken and written word, but also all kinds of expression (including non-verbal communications, such as sit-ins, art, photographs, films and advertisements).

1735 Truth Is A Defense Against Libel Charge

New York printer John Peter Zenger is tried on charges of seditious libel for publishing criticism of the royal governor. English law – asserting that the greater the truth, the greater the libel – prohibits any published criticism of the government that would incite public dissatisfaction with it. Zenger’s lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, convinces the jury that Zenger should be acquitted because the articles were, in fact, true, and that New York libel law should not be the same as English law. The Zenger case is a landmark in the development of protection of freedom of speech and the press.

1787 Federalist Papers’ Publication Starts

The first of 85 essays written under the pen name Publius by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay begin to appear in the New York Independent Journal. The essays, called the Federalist Papers, support ratification of the Constitution approved by the Constitutional Convention on Sept. 17, 1787. In Federalist Paper No. 84, Hamilton discusses “liberty of the press.”

1791 First Amendment Is Ratified

The First Amendment is ratified when Virginia becomes the 11th state to approve the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. The amendment, drafted primarily by James Madison, guarantees basic freedoms for citizens: freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

1798 Alien And Sedition Acts Signed Into Law

While the nation’s leaders believe an outspoken press was justified during the war for independence, they take a different view when they are in power. The Federalist-controlled Congress passes the Alien and Sedition Acts. Aimed at quashing criticism of Federalists, the Sedition Act makes it illegal for anyone to express “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against Congress or the president.

The United States is in an undeclared war with France, and Federalists say the law is necessary to protect the nation from attacks and to protect the government from false and malicious words. Republicans argue for a free flow of information and the right to publicly examine officials’ conduct.

1836 Efforts To Stifle Debate About Slavery Unsuccessful

As abolitionists develop the tactic of submitting many antislavery petitions to Congress, proslavery members of the U.S. House of Representatives adopt “gag” rules that bar such petitions from being introduced and debated. In 1844, former President John Quincy Adams, then a representative from Massachusetts, leads the effort to repeal these rules.

1859 ‘On Liberty’ Is Published

British philosopher John Stuart Mill publishes the essay On Liberty , arguing that only through the free exchange of ideas, even offensive ones or ones held by a minority of individuals, can society find “truth.”

1864 Lincoln Orders Two Newspapers Shut

President Abraham Lincoln orders Union Gen. John Dix to stop publication of the New York Journal of Commerce and the New York World after they publish a forged presidential proclamation calling for another military draft. The editors also are arrested. After the authors of the forgery are arrested, the newspapers are allowed to resume publication.

1873 Circulation Of Birth Control Information Outlawed

An “Act of the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use” is passed by Congress. The act, more commonly known as the Comstock Act – after anti-obscenity activist Anthony Comstock – makes it a crime to publish, distribute or possess information about contraception or abortion, or to distribute or possess devices or medications used for those purposes.

Lawmakers were responding to increasing concern about abortion, the institution of marriage, and the changing role of women in society.

1917 Congress Passes Espionage Act Of 1917

With World War I being fought, President Woodrow Wilson proposes the Espionage Act of 1917 to protect the country from internal warfare propaganda. Congress passes the act, which makes it a crime to intentionally interfere with military forces, recruiting or enlistment or “cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States.” Punishment is a maximum fine of $10,000, a maximum jail term of 20 years, or both. The act also bans any mailings urging treason.

1918 Sedition Act Of 1918 Punishes Critics Of WWI

An amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act is passed by Congress. It goes much further than its predecessor, imposing severe criminal penalties on all forms of expression that are critical of the government, its symbols, or its mobilization of resources for World War I. Ultimately, about 900 people will be convicted under the law. Hundreds of noncitizens will be deported without a trial; 249 of them, including anarchist Emma Goldman, will be sent to the Soviet Union.

1919 ‘Clear And Present Danger’ Exception Established

In Schenck v. United States , the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, upholds the conviction of Socialist Charles Schenck for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to distribute thousands of antiwar leaflets to U.S. servicemen. While acknowledging that the First Amendment under normal circumstances might protect Schenck’s activities, the Court holds that in special circumstances, such as wartime, speech that poses a “clear and present danger” can be restricted. The Court likens the ideas expressed in Schenck’s leaflets to “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

A few days later, in another opinion by Holmes, the Court will uphold Socialist Eugene V. Debs’ conviction, finding that his speech also poses a “clear and present danger” of undermining war recruitment and is not protected by the First Amendment.

1919 ‘Marketplace Of Ideas’ Concept Defined

In his dissent from the majority opinion in Abrams v. United States (upholding the Espionage Act convictions of a group of antiwar activists), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes coins his famous “marketplace of ideas” phrase to explain the value of freedom of speech. He said that “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas … the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

Over the years, Holmes’ “marketplace” concept, and the idea that more is better when it comes to competing ideas, has been a consistent theme in First Amendment cases.

1925 Court: First Amendment Applies To States’ Laws

In Gitlow v. New York , the U.S. Supreme Court concludes that the free speech clause of the First Amendment applies not just to laws passed by Congress, but also to those passed by the states.

1926 Mencken Arrested For ‘Indecent Literature’

H.L. Mencken is arrested in Boston for distributing copies of his American Mercury magazine, which contains a story with a prostitute as a central character. Censorship groups in Boston say the magazine is obscene and order Mencken’s arrest for selling “indecent literature.”

1927 Criminal Syndicalism Law Constitutional

In Whitney v. California , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that California’s criminal syndicalism law is constitutional. A member of the state’s Communist Labor Party was prosecuted under the law, which barred advocating, teaching or aiding the commission of a crime, including “terrorism” as a way to achieve change in industrial ownership or political change. The Court says that freedom of speech is not an absolute right.

1931 Court: Symbolic Expression Of Ideas Also Protected

In Stromberg v. California , the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates the state court conviction of a 19-year-old member of the Young Communist League for displaying a red flag as “an emblem of opposition to the United States government.” The Court rules that the woman’s nonverbal, symbolic expression of her antigovernment opinions is protected just as are any words that she might write or speak to express those opinions.

1931 Prior Restraint Ruled Unconstitutional

Near v. Minnesota is the first U.S. Supreme Court decision to invoke the First Amendment’s press clause. A Minnesota law prohibited the publication of “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory” newspapers. It was aimed at the Saturday Press, which had run a series of articles about corrupt practices by local politicians and business leaders. The justices rule that prior restraints against publication violate the First Amendment, meaning that once the press possesses information that it deems newsworthy, the government can seldom prevent its publication. The Court also says the protection is not absolute, suggesting that information during wartime or obscenity or incitement to acts of violence may be restricted.

1937 Court: First Amendment Protects ‘Peaceable Assembly’

In De Jonge v. Oregon , the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the conviction of Dirk De Jonge for participating in a Communist Party political meeting, holding that “peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime.” That right, the Court finds, is not dependent upon whether one agrees with the ideas being discussed by the people assembled.

1940 Ban On Religious Solicitation Struck Down

In Cantwell v. Connecticut , the U.S. Supreme Court holds that two Jehovah Witnesses’ rights of free speech and free exercise of religion were violated when they were arrested for proselytizing in a Catholic neighborhood. The Court says the solicitation law, which allows a state official to refuse a permit based on religious grounds, is unconstitutional. The Court also overturns a breach of peace conviction, saying the pair’s message was protected religious speech. The case is the first to extend the free exercise of religion clause to the states and to establish the ‘time, manner and place’ rule, which says the state can regulate the free exercise right to ensure it is practiced in a reasonable time, manner and place.

1940 Flag Salute Requirement Is Upheld

In Minersville School District v. Gobitis , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a Pennsylvania flag-salute law after a challenge by a Jehovah’s Witness family whose two children were expelled for refusing to salute the flag. They believe the salute is forbidden by biblical commands. The Court says the flag is a symbol of national unity, which is the “basis of national security.”

1942 ‘Fighting Words’ Exception Established

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the conviction of a Jehovah’s Witness who had called a police officer a “damned fascist.” The Court rules that there are certain words that “by their very utterance inflict injury” and are of “such slight social value” that they are not welcome in the marketplace of ideas. This category of speech, named “fighting words” by the Court, is not protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, the speaker may be prosecuted.

1943 Court: Required Flag Salute Violates First Amendment

In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette , the U.S. Supreme Court overrules its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and decides that a West Virginia law requiring students to salute the American flag violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. “Compulsory unification of opinion,” the Court says, is “antithetical to First Amendment values.”

1947 Hatch Act Upheld; Dissent Says It Violates 17th Amendment

In United Public Workers v. Mitchell , the U.S. Supreme Court finds that the Hatch Act, a federal law that prohibits federal employees from participating in many electoral activities does not violate the First Amendment. In a strong dissent, Justice Hugo Black argues that the law muzzles several million citizens and threatens popular government, because it deprives citizens of the right to participate in the political process.

Such limitations, he argues, would be inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition. Moreover, Black finds that the Hatch Act would violate, or come dangerously close to violating, Article I and the 17th Amendment, which protect the right of the people to vote for their representatives in the House and Senate and to have their votes counted.

1949 Scope Of ‘Fighting Words’ Doctrine Limited

In Terminiello v. Chicago , the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the conviction of Father Arthur Terminiello for disturbing the peace. He was convicted after giving a controversial speech that criticized various racial and political groups. Several disturbances by protesters occurred after the speech. The Court says “fighting words” can be restricted only when they are “likely to produce a clear and present danger.” Justice William O. Douglas writes that free speech may “best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”

1952 Justices Uphold Group Libel Law

In Beauharnais v. Illinois , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the conviction of a white supremacist for passing out leaflets that characterized African Americans as dangerous criminals. The “group libel” law under which Joseph Beauharnais was prosecuted makes it a crime to make false statements about people of a particular “race, color, creed or religion” for no other reason than to harm that group. The Court rules that libel against groups, like libel against individuals, has no place in the marketplace of ideas.

1957 Obscenity Exception To First Amendment Established

In Roth v. United States , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that it is not a violation of the First Amendment for the government to regulate, or even criminalize, speech that is “obscene,” because, just like libel and “fighting words,” obscene speech is “utterly without redeeming social importance.” The Court says that in defining obscenity, the government must consider “contemporary community standards.” What was “obscene” 50 years ago may not be in today’s society.

1958 Court Protects ‘Free Association’ In NAACP Case

In NAACP v. Alabama , the U.S. Supreme Court holds that when Alabama state officials demanded that the NAACP hand over its membership list, the members’ right of “free association” was violated. Although no such right is specifically included in the First Amendment, the Court says it is a necessary extension of the rights to free speech and free assembly: “It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.”

1959 No Protection From Congressional Inquiry

The U.S. Supreme Court finds professor Lloyd Barenblatt’s First Amendment rights were not violated when he was convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about his religious and political beliefs before the House Un-American Activities Committee. In Barenblatt v. United States , the Court says that such questions are legitimate when the investigation’s goal is to “aid the legislative process” and to protect important government interests.

1961 Symbolic Speech Of Civil Rights Protesters Protected

In Garner v. Louisiana , the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the convictions of 16 African American demonstrators for disturbing the peace in three lunch counter sit-ins at all-white restaurants in Baton Rouge, La., to protest segregation. The cases were consolidated under Garner v. Louisiana. Referring to earlier court opinions protecting symbolic speech, Justice John Harlan explains that a sit-in demonstration “is as much a part of the free trade of ideas as is verbal expression.”

1964 Court Establishes ‘Actual Malice’ Standard

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , the U.S. Supreme Court establishes the “actual malice” standard when it reverses a civil libel judgment against the New York Times. The newspaper was sued for libel by Montgomery, Ala.’s police commissioner after it published a full-page ad that criticized anti-civil rights activities in Montgomery. The court rules that debate about public issues and officials is central to the First Amendment. Consequently, public officials cannot sue for libel unless they prove that a statement was made with “actual malice,” meaning it was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

1966 Loyalty Oath Is Struck Down

In Elfbrandt v. Russell , the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates an Arizona law requiring state employees to take a loyalty oath. Anyone who took the oath and then became a member of the Communist Party or any other group that advocated the violent overthrow of the government could be prosecuted for perjury and fired. The Court says the law violates the due process clause by infringing on the right of free association. The Court holds that the law is too broad by punishing a person who joins a group that has both legal and illegal purposes but does not subscribe to the illegal purpose.

1966 Smith Act Is Found Constitutional

In Dennis v. United States , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the convictions of 12 Communist Party leaders who were convicted under the Smith Act of 1940, formally known as the Alien Registration Act. The law makes it illegal to teach or advocate the overthrow or destruction of the U.S. government, or publish any materials or organize a group that endorses such action. The majority writes that the “existence of the conspiracy” creates “a clear and present danger.”

1968 Limits Placed On Symbolic Speech Right

In United States v. O’Brien , the U.S. Supreme Court lets stand the conviction of an activist who burned his draft card to protest the Vietnam War. Although the Court admits that the law against destroying a draft card does limit speech, it rules that the limit is acceptable because it serves an important government interest (i.e., the smooth operation of the draft during wartime) and is “content-neutral,” meaning that it is not meant to punish any particular point of view or opinion.

1968 Teacher’s Free Speech Right Upheld

The U.S. Supreme Court decides that a public school teacher’s free speech right was violated when he was fired for writing a letter to the newspaper criticizing how money was divided between athletics and academics. The justices say in Pickering v. Board of Education that public school teachers are entitled to some First Amendment protection and that the teacher was speaking out more as a citizen than as a public employee when he wrote the letter.

1969 Students’ Right To Symbolic Speech Upheld

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the school board was wrong to suspend three students who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The Court finds that the students’ passive protest posed no risk of disrupting school activities. “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” the Court’s opinion says.

1969 Private Ownership Of Obscene Material Protected

In Stanley v. Georgia , the U.S. Supreme Court finds unconstitutional a Georgia obscenity law that prohibits the possession of such material. The Court rules that the Constitution “protects the right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, and to be generally free from governmental intrusions into one’s privacy and control of one’s thoughts.”

1969 Advocacy Of Violence Is Protected Speech Except In Rare Circumstances

In Brandenburg v. Ohio , the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader under an Ohio law prohibiting speech that calls for crime or violence as a way of winning political change. The Court holds that unless the speaker incites his listeners to “imminent lawless action,” the speech is protected by the First Amendment.

1971 Antiwar Expression Is Ruled Protected Speech

In Cohen v. California , the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the conviction of a man convicted of disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket bearing a vulgarism about the draft. The Court concludes that the expression, however crude, did not pose enough of a risk of inciting disobedience to override his First Amendment right to express his opposition to the Vietnam War.

1971 Newspapers Win Pentagon Papers Case

The New York Times and the Washington Post obtain secret Defense Department documents that detail U.S. involvement in Vietnam in the years leading up to the Vietnam War. Citing national security, the U.S. government gets temporary restraining orders to halt publication of the documents, known as the Pentagon Papers. But, acting with unusual haste, the U.S. Supreme Court finds in New York Times v. United States that prior restraint on the documents’ publication violates the First Amendment. National security concerns are too speculative to overcome the “heavy presumption” in favor of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press, the Court says.

1972 Court: No Reporter’s Privilege Before Grand Juries

Branzburg v. Hayes is a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court rejects First Amendment protection for reporters called before a grand jury to reveal confidential information or sources. Reporters argued that if they were forced to identify their sources, their informants would be reluctant to provide information in the future. The Court decides reporters are obliged to cooperate with grand juries just as average citizens are. The justices do allow a small exception for grand jury investigations that are not conducted or initiated in good faith.

1973 Court: States Can Regulate Obscene Exhibits

In Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a Georgia injunction against the showing of allegedly obscene films at an adult movie theater that allowed only patrons at least 21 years old. The Court finds that “legitimate state interests,” such as preserving quality of life and public safety, are at stake in regulating commercialized obscenity even if the exhibits are limited to consenting adults.

1973 Definition Of Obscenity Is Clarified

In Miller v. California , the U.S. Supreme Court establishes a new definition of obscenity, setting out a three-part test for judging whether material is obscene: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

1976 Money Spent In Political Campaigns Considered Speech

When Congress tries to limit expenditures in political campaigns, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo , invalidates provisions that restrict candidates’ ability to spend their own money on a campaign, limit campaign expenditures by an outside group, and limit total campaign spending. The Court compares spending restrictions with restrictions on “political speech.” The majority reasons that discussion of public issues and political candidates are integral to the U.S. political system under the Constitution. The Court says government-imposed limits on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication reduces “the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.”

1976 Justices Protect Commercial Speech

In Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council , the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a state law that forbids pharmacists from including the prices of prescription drugs in their ads because it is unprofessional conduct. Although such information does not convey an idea other than proposing that a purchase be made, the Court finds that commercial speech enjoys the same First Amendment protection as noncommercial speech.

1977 Court Allows Publication Of Juvenile’s Identity

In Oklahoma Publishing Company v. District Court , the U.S. Supreme Court finds that when a newspaper obtains the name and photograph of a juvenile involved in a juvenile court proceeding, it is unconstitutional to prevent publication of the information, even though the juvenile has a right to confidentiality in such proceedings. A similar ruling will be made by the court two years later, in Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Company , when the Court finds that a newspaper’s First Amendment right takes precedence over a juvenile’s right to anonymity.

1978 Nazis Permitted To March In Skokie, Ill.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidates a city law passed in Skokie, Ill., home to 5,000 Holocaust survivors, to prevent a neo-Nazi group from holding a march there. The Court rules in Collin v. Smith that the group should be permitted to march in their uniforms, distribute anti-Semitic leaflets and display swastikas. The court does not deny the group’s symbols are offensive to many observers, but concludes that “public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.” The U.S. Supreme Court will refuse to review the case.

1978 FCC Can Regulate Indecent Speech

The U.S. Supreme Court, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation , allows the Federal Communications Commission to regulate indecent speech broadcast over the air. The Court says the FCC can channel broadcasts that contain indecent language to late-night hours, when children are less likely to be listening.

1980 Court Establishes Commercial Speech Test

In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that a state ban on promotional advertising by the electric utility is unconstitutional. The ruling sets up a four-part test to decide when commercial speech can or cannot be regulated: (1) It must not be misleading or involve illegal activity (2) The government interest advanced by the regulation must be significant (3) The regulation must directly advance the government interest (4) The regulation must be limited to serving the asserted government interest.

1982 School Board Cannot Ban Library Books

In Board of Education v. Pico , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a school board’s decision to remove books from the school library based simply on their content violates the First Amendment’s free speech right. The Court says the First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas. The justices allow that books that are “pervasively vulgar” or educationally unsuitable can be removed.

1982 Justices Rule Child Porn Not Protected

In New York v. Ferber , the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the First Amendment does not protect child pornography. Child pornography joins certain categories of speech – libel, “fighting words,” words that present a “clear and present danger” of violence, and obscene material – that are considered to have such negative consequences that it is acceptable for the government to restrict them.

1983 Public Employees’ Free Speech Right Defined

In Connick v. Myers , a landmark free-speech ruling for public employees, the U.S. Supreme Court says that an assistant district attorney’s free speech right was not violated when she was fired for distributing a questionnaire about internal office practices to fellow prosecutors. At least one of Myers’ questions related to a matter of public concern: whether assistant prosecutors felt pressured to work in political campaigns. But, relying on its 1968 Pickering ruling, the Court decides that the employer’s interest in a disruption-free workplace outweighs the employee’s right to comment on an issue of public concern.

1985 Anti-Pornography Law Is Struck Down

In American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut , the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down an Indianapolis anti-pornography law. The law had not used the court’s guidelines for deciding what is “obscene” material. The court finds that the law unconstitutionally targeted a certain viewpoint and allowed the government to decide which ideas are good or bad.

1986 Court: Student’s Lewd Speech Not Protected

In Bethel School District v. Fraser , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that a high school senior’s free speech right was not violated when he was disciplined for making a lewd speech at an assembly. Previously, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , the justices had said students do not “shed their constitutional rights” at the schoolhouse door. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger writes that schools can prohibit lewd speech because it is inconsistent with the “fundamental values of public school education.”

1988 Court Allows Censorship Of School Publications

In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that public school administrators can censor speech by students in publications (or activities) that are funded by the school – such as a yearbook, newspaper, play, or art exhibit – if they have a valid educational reason for doing so.

1989 Court: Flag Burning Is Protected Symbolic Speech

In Texas v. Johnson , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that burning an American flag is protected symbolic speech. Gregory Lee Johnson burned the flag outside Dallas City Hall to protest Reagan administration policies. The justices find that his actions fall into the category of expressive conduct and have a political nature. Speech cannot be prohibited simply because an audience takes offense to certain ideas, the Court says.

1990 Flag Protection Act Ruled Unconstitutional

In U.S. v. Eichman , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that the 1989 Flag Protection Act is unconstitutional. The law provided penalties of up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for anyone who “knowingly mutilates, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon” any U.S. flag. The justices rule that the right to free expression supersedes protection of the flag as a national symbol. Justice William J. Brennan writes: “Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.”

1991 Media Coverage Limited In Gulf War

The Pentagon imposes rules for media coverage of the war in the Persian Gulf, citing the possibility that some news – including information on downed aircrafts, specific troop numbers, and names of operations – may endanger lives or jeopardize U.S. military strategy. Nine news organizations file a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of limiting media access to the battleground. But a court rules the question moot when the war ends before the case is decided.

1991 Son Of Sam Law Is Struck Down

The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down New York’s Son of Sam law aimed at preventing convicted criminals or those accused of crimes from profiting from the sale of any work discussing their crimes. In Simon & Schuster Inc. v. New York State Crime Victims Board , the Court says the law violates the First Amendment because it singles out earnings from speech or writing.

1992 Court Strikes Down Hate Crime Law

In R.A.V. v. The City of St. Paul , the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the juvenile conviction of a 14-year-old white boy who burned a cross on the lawn of an African American family. The boy was prosecuted under a law prohibiting the placement of certain symbols that were “likely to arouse anger, alarm, or resentment on the basis of race, religion, or gender.” The Court finds that because the law punishes certain conduct only because of the ideas behind it – however offensive those ideas may be – it violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

1993 Justices Allow Tougher Hate Crime Penalties

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a Wisconsin law that increases the penalty for assault if the offender purposely picks his victim “because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation or national origin or ancestry of that person.” The Court rules that the increased penalty does not violate the offender’s free speech rights because the Wisconsin law is aimed at the offender’s actions.

1994 Justices Uphold Buffer Zones At Abortion Clinics

In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center , the U.S. Supreme Court affirms a Florida court’s ruling that abortion protesters could not demonstrate within 36 feet of an abortion clinic, make loud noises within earshot of the clinic, or make loud noises within 300 feet of a clinic employee’s home. (These distance requirements are known as buffer zones.) Although the Court acknowledges that the ruling restricts the protesters’ speech, it finds the restrictions “necessary to serve a significant government interest” of providing needed health care.

1995 Communications Decency Act Passed

As part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress enacts the Communications Decency Act. The law is intended primarily to protect minors using the internet by criminalizing the placement of “obscene” and “patently offensive” material on the Web. The Communications Decency Act is almost immediately challenged by a diverse coalition of health-care providers, sex educators and pornographers on the grounds that the law violates the right to free speech.

1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act Passed

The Child Pornography Prevention Act expands the definition of child pornography – which, unlike most pornography involving adult subjects, does not enjoy First Amendment protection and can be criminalized – to include computer-generated depictions of children engaging in sexual activity. The act is challenged on First Amendment grounds by a variety of civil liberties and artistic groups.

1997 ‘Floating’ Buffer Zones At Clinics Struck Down

In Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a 15-foot buffer zone around an abortion clinic’s entrances and driveways, but strikes down a “floating” buffer zone that requires protesters to stay 15 feet away from all cars and patients as they enter and exit the clinic. The Court finds that, in contrast to the “fixed” buffer zone around the clinic, the “floating” zone risks silencing protesters: “Leafletting and commenting on matters of public concern are classic forms of speech that lie at the heart of the First Amendment, and speech in public areas is at its most protected on public sidewalks, a prototypical example of a traditional public forum.”

1997 Equal Access For Military Recruiters Is Upheld

The Solomon Amendment requires institutions of higher education to provide military recruiters with the same access to students as other potential employers. If the school does not, it loses certain federal funds. Members of an association of law schools and law faculties wanted to restrict military recruiting because they objected to the military’s policy on LGBT+ recruits. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously says that the Solomon Amendment does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds. The Court says the First Amendment does not prevent Congress from directly imposing the equal access requirement because the Solomon Amendment limits conduct, not speech.

1997 Court Ruling Backs Free Speech On Internet

In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union , the U.S. Supreme Court gives broad support to free speech on the Internet. The justices rule that the Communications Decency Act violates the First Amendment by criminalizing many kinds of material on the internet that are not obscene or offensive, such as medical information or artistic depictions of the human body.

1998 Court: Public TV Can Exclude Candidates

The U.S. Supreme Court decides that public television stations can exclude minor-party candidates from their debates as long as the decision is not based on the candidates’ views and the debates are not designed as public forums. The decision, in Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes , strikes down an appeals court ruling that a state-owned TV network is obliged under the First Amendment to allow any candidate who has qualified for the ballot access to a debate.

1998 Decency Test On Arts Grants Is Upheld

In National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the NEA, the government’s art-funding agency, can include “decency” standards among its criteria for awarding government grants for artists’ work without violating the First Amendment.

1999 Giuliani Targets Publicly Funded Art

Infuriated by a planned exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art that features an image of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani threatens to cut all city funding to the museum, evict the museum from its building, and remove the Board of Directors. A subsequent First Amendment lawsuit between the museum and the city will be settled the following year, with the city agreeing to pay an additional $5.8 million in repairs to the museum over the next two years.

2000 Boy Scouts Can Bar LGBT+ Leaders

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale , the U.S. Supreme Court says the Boy Scouts organization has the right to bar gay people from serving as troop leaders. Assistant scoutmaster James Dale contended that the Boy Scouts had violated a New Jersey statute banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The justices said the law violated the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right to expressive association.

2000 Court Revisits ‘Floating’ Buffer Zones At Clinics

In Hill v. Colorado , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a Colorado law that prohibits abortion protesters from “knowingly approaching” within eight feet of a person entering or exiting an abortion clinic. The Court says that, unlike the “floating” 15-foot buffer zone that it struck down in Schenck , the buffer zone in the Colorado law is small, so protesters are still able to exercise their free speech right.

2000 Children’s Internet Protection Act Passed

Congress passes the Children’s Internet Protection Act. The law requires public libraries that receive certain federal funds to use a portion of those funds to buy internet programs for their computer terminals to filter out material that is “harmful to minors.” The American Library Association and the ACLU both bring lawsuits challenging the law on First Amendment grounds.

2002 Ban On ‘Virtual’ Child Porn Struck Down

In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Child Pornography Prevention Act’s criminalization of computer-generated depictions of children engaging in sexual activity violates the First Amendment. The Court finds that the law goes further than existing child pornography laws (which ban material involving actual children) to potentially cover many kinds of images that are not pornographic.

2003 Law To Protect Children Passed

The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act, or the PROTECT Act, includes numerous provisions intended to protect children from exploitation, kidnapping, and other crimes. It increases penalties for creating child pornography and strengthens penalties for “virtual” child pornography. Modern technology makes it easier for individuals to produce child pornography without involving “real” children. This law takes steps to prevent that practice. The law also encourages increased cooperation of internet service providers to report suspected child pornography.

2003 Court Rules On Cross-Burning Law

In Virginia v. Black , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a law prohibiting cross burning could, in theory, be allowed under the First Amendment if it targets only cross burnings that are specifically “intended to intimidate.” Nevertheless, the Court strikes down the Virginia law because it outlaws all cross burnings, including those intended to express a political view.

2003 Law On Library Internet Filters Upheld

In United States v. American Library Association , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000, requiring public libraries that receive certain federal funds to buy internet filters for their computers to weed out material that is “harmful to minors,” does not violate the First Amendment. The Court says that Congress has broad authority to attach restrictions to its funding, and that the CIPA restrictions are consistent with library rules that limit children’s access to only age-appropriate materials. The Court says that libraries are allowed to disable the “blocking” software for adults.

2003 Justices Uphold Campaign Finance Law

The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold Bill, is an effort to change the way money is raised and spent by political campaigns. Key parts are a ban on unrestricted (“soft money”) donations to political parties (often by corporations and unions) and restrictions on TV ads sponsored by unions, corporations and nonprofit groups up to 60 days before elections. The plaintiffs, including unlikely allies such as the National Rifle Association and the ACLU, say these provisions violate their rights to free speech and association. The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the provisions, finding that they are justified by the government’s interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption that might result.

2004 Child Online Protection Act Struck Down

After the Child Online Protection Act became law, the ACLU sued to stop its enforcement, saying the law violated the right to free speech. The U.S. District Court and the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both agree with the ACLU. In 2002, however, the U.S. Supreme Court orders the Third Circuit to reevaluate the case, saying the decision was based on insufficient reasoning.

In 2003, the appeals court again finds the law unconstitutional, based on different grounds from the first ruling. The justices agree to rehear the case and, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , strike down the law. Justice Anthony Kennedy writes that children can be protected from inappropriate material by other, less restrictive ways and that the law could prevent adults from accessing information they have a right to view.

2004 Patriot Act Provision Ruled Unconstitutional

A federal judge for the Southern District of New York rules unconstitutional a Patriot Act provision that allows the FBI to demand information about internet users but does not hold the FBI subject to public review or judicial oversight for its actions. The provision also forbids internet service providers from revealing that such information has been requested. Judge Victor Marrero rules that this provision violates the free speech right by prohibiting internet service providers from ever speaking about such FBI requests.

2006 Court Rejects Vermont Campaign Finance Law

Vermont’s Act 64 stringently limits the amounts that candidates for state office may spend on their campaigns and the amounts that individuals, organizations, and political parties may contribute. In Randall v. Sorrell , the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirms its 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo that rejected limits on how much candidates could spend on their own campaigns. Regarding Vermont’s contribution limits, the Court says they are so low that they pose a constitutional risk to the electoral process. Challengers may be unable to mount an effective challenge to better-financed incumbents.

2007 Court Strikes Down Ad Limits In Campaign Law

The U.S. Supreme Court creates an exemption to advertisement restrictions set out in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life , Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writes that only ads that make specific appeals to vote for or against a candidate can be prohibited in the period covered by the law – 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election. The Court says limits on TV ads sponsored by corporations or unions in that period amount to censorship of political speech, which is protected under the First Amendment.

2007 Justices Restrict Students’ Free Speech Right

In Morse v. Frederick , the U.S. Supreme Court affirms that free speech rights for public school students are not as extensive as those for adults. In this case, a student held up a banner with the message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” a slang reference to marijuana use, at a school-supervised event across from the campus. The principal removed the banner and suspended the student for 10 days. The majority opinion says that although students have some right to political speech, it does not include pro-drug messages that may undermine the school’s mission to educate against illegal drug use.

2009 City’s Refusal Of Religious Monument Upheld

The U.S. Supreme Court decides unanimously in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum that a Utah city did not violate the Summum church’s free speech right by refusing a donation of a monument reflecting its beliefs. The church argued that the park, which had a Ten Commandments monument, was a public forum and that the city could not discriminate among speakers. The Court said permanent monuments were government speech and did not have the same free speech protection as speakers or leaflets in a public forum.

2010 Court Lifts Limits On Corporate Election Spending

In Citizens United v. FEC , the U.S. Supreme Court rules, 5-4, to remove limits on corporate spending on elections. Corporations and unions still cannot directly give money to federal candidates or national party committees. The majority opinion says the First Amendment right of free speech extended to corporations. The landmark decision overturns decades of rules that governed the campaign finance and sparked fears that a flood of money into politics would dramatically alter campaigns.

2010 Corporate Spending Limit Rejected

The U.S. Supreme Court decides, 5-4, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , that the government cannot regulate political speech — political spending — by corporations in elections. “If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writes for the majority, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” The dissenters warn of the consequences if a flood of corporate money is unleashed in elections. Justice John Paul Stevens says corporate speech should not be treated the same as that of people. The ruling overturns two precedents about the free speech rights of corporations: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , a 1990 ruling that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission , a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

2011 First Amendment Protects Funeral Protests

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.” Those are Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s words when the Supreme Court rules in Snyder v. Phelps that the First Amendment’s right to free speech protects hateful protests at military funerals. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church — which believes God is punishing the U.S. for its tolerance of homosexuality — had appeared at the funeral of a Marine who died in Iraq. Albert Snyder, the Marine’s father, sued the protesters for, among other things, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Roberts suggests that laws creating buffer zones around funerals would be a better response than punishing unpopular speech. He says that the nation’s commitment to free speech demands protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

2012 Person’s Right To Lie Is Protected

The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Stolen Valor Act, a federal law that made it illegal for individuals to claim to have won or to wear military medals or ribbons that they didn’t earn. The Court, in a 6-3 ruling, says that the First Amendment protects the right to lie about medals and military service. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy says freedom of speech “protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.” The government had argued that such lies “inhibit the government’s efforts to ensure that the armed services and the public perceive awards as going only to the most deserving few.”

2012 U.S. Can’t Require Graphic Warnings On Cigarette Packs

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rules that the federal Food and Drug Administration cannot require tobacco companies to place large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages to show the effects of smoking. The appeals court upholds a lower court’s decision that the requirement violates the First Amendment’s free speech right. Some of the largest tobacco companies sued the government, arguing that the warnings were not just factual information but advocated against smoking.

2015 States May Limit Judicial Candidates’ Fund-Raising Requests

The U.S. Supreme Court rules, 5-4, in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar , No. 13-1499 that states may ban judicial candidates from personally asking their supporters for money. Twenty-nine other states also prohibit personal solicitations, which they say threaten the integrity of the judicial branch and public confidence in the system.

2015 Intent Cited in Online Threats Case

In a social media case, Elonis v. United States , the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who had used violent language against his wife on Facebook. The majority opinion says prosecutors failed to prove the defendant’s intent when he published threatening lyrics about his wife on Facebook. The decision makes it harder to prosecute people for threats made on social media.

2015 Court Says Texas May Reject License Plate Design

The U.S. Supreme Court decides in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. , 5-4, that Texas may refuse to make a specialty license plate with the Confederate flag. The Sons of Confederate Veterans sued the state when it refused to make such a plate. The group said its First Amendment right to free speech had been violated. The majority opinion says that because license plates “constitute government speech,” Texas could choose which designs to produce.

2015 Town Ordinance On Signs Struck Down

In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously strikes down a town law that treated a church’s signs differently from other signs, such as political ads. Unlike other signs, the church signs were limited in size and allowed to be in place for only a certain number of house. The majority opinion says that the town ordinance was based on the content of the sign’s message, which violates the First Amendment’s free speech right.

2019 Federal Ban on ‘Immoral,’ ‘Scandalous’ Trademarks Struck Down

The U.S. Supreme Court rules, 6-3, that the federal government’s ban on registering “immoral” and “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. The dissenters express concern that the majority opinion goes too far and that the trademark office would be forced to register trademarks containing “the most vulgar, profane, or obscene words and images imaginable.” In the case, Iancu v. Brunetti, a Los Angeles artist, Erik Brunetti, sued the government for refusing to register the trademark for his “subversive” clothing line.

2021 Court Backs Catholic Agency Over Refusal To Work With Same-Sex Couples

The U.S. Supreme Court sides with a Catholic foster care agency that was cut off by the City of Philadelphia from receiving foster care referrals because it refused to work with same-sex couples. The agency believes marriage is between a man and a woman. The Court unanimously rules in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia that the city was wrong to end its foster care contract with Catholic Social Services. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for six of the justices, said the city’s refusal to contract with the foster care agency unless it agreed to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violated the First Amendment.

2021 Court Sides With Cheerleader In Off-Campus Speech

The U.S. Supreme Court rules 8-1 in Mahony Area School District v. B.L. in favor of a Pennsylvania cheerleader who lost her place on the squad because of a profane off-campus rant posted on social media. Although the Court said the punishment violated her First Amendment right of free speech, it declined to say schools never have a role in disciplining students for off-campus speech.

2022 Censure of Politician Is Constitutional, High Court Says

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decides in House Community College System v. Wilson that elected bodies do not violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause when they censure a member. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote: “In this country, we expect elected representatives to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers — and to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes.”

2022 High Court Rules Against Boston On Christian Flag

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules in Shurtleff v. City of Boston that the City of Boston violated the First Amendment when it refused to let a private group raise a Christian flag in front of its City Hall. One of three flagpoles is occasionally made available to groups seeking to celebrate their backgrounds or to promote causes like gay pride. In a 12-year period, the city approved 284 requests to raise flags and rejected only one, from Camp Constitution, which says it seeks “to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage.” The city’s refusal to let the group fly its flag based on its religious viewpoint violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment, the majority opinion said.

Related Resources

• Book: First Amendment (1791)
• Handout: Freedom of Speech: Finding the Limits
• Book: Chapter 6: The Right to Freedom of Speech
• Video: A Conversation on the Constitution with Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor: Freedom of Speech
• Book: Chapter 8: The Latitude and Limits of Free Speech
• Book: Chapter 10: The Flag-Salute Cases
• Book: Chapter 18: Freedom of Speech in Public Schools

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:

• Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”). Tinker v. Des Moines , 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
• To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages. Cohen v. California , 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
• To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo , 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
• To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions). Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council , 425 U.S. 748 (1976);  Bates v. State Bar of Arizona , 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
• To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson , 491 U.S. 397 (1989);  United States v. Eichman , 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

• To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States , 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien , 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser , 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Disclaimer: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for use in educational activities only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on legislation. 

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous
• Next chapter >

Introduction

• Published: January 2021
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Freedom of speech is a central commitment of political liberalism, a principle of positive constitutional law in virtually all modern constitutions and a principle of international human rights law. 1 Close Although among the most widely agreed upon and celebrated legal and constitutional principles of modern times, it is also the source of enduring and intense disagreement. We cannot fail to notice, moreover, that this Handbook is to be published at a time of some controversy about the power of freedom of speech in the face of new threats to democracy 2 Close and the challenges of the digital economy. 3 Close At worst, freedom of speech might even be part of the problem—a principle weaponized against the ideals from which it sprang. 4 Close

In this tumultuous context, this Handbook provides a comprehensive exploration of freedom of speech both as a political idea and as a legal principle. It is arranged in three parts: The chapters in Part I focus on freedom of speech as a political idea and upon the ideas and rationales that underlie it; the chapters in Part II focus on distinctive features of freedom of speech as a legal principle. In Part III the Handbook, the chapters focus on a range of controversies that have arisen in constitutional systems throughout the world and which illustrate and elaborate upon the general themes of Parts I and II .

A. Fundamental Questions and Perspectives

Part I begins with the most fundamental questions about the nature of freedom of speech: its history and rationales. Although a form of freedom of speech was evident in ancient times, 5 Close it is Enlightenment thinking that is usually credited with the decisive influence on modern conceptions. 6 Close Its influence is especially well documented by scholars of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In Chapter 2 , Vincent Blasi, in a subtle exploration of the classic arguments for freedom of speech, traces the first comprehensive argument for freedom of speech as a limiting principle of government to John Milton’s Areopagitica , a polemic against censorship by a requirement of prior licensing in which Milton develops an argument for the pursuit of truth through exposure to false and heretical ideas rather than the passive reception of orthodoxy. 7 Close

Despite Milton’s belief in the advancement of understanding through free inquiry, he was far from liberal in the modern sense of that term and he did not, for instance, extend the tolerance he advocated to Catholic religious texts. The most famous and influential exposition of a liberal theory of freedom of speech is found in the work of John Stuart Mill. 8 Close Mill’s argument for freedom of speech, commonly understood as based on freedom of speech as a facilitator of the search for truth and knowledge, 9 Close is central to Chapters 1 and 3 . In Chapter 1 , Christopher Macleod reminds us of the precise nature of Mill’s claim. Three especially important points come to the fore. First, Mill’s argument turns on the fallibility of human knowledge and his belief in the consequent value in subjecting ideas to contradiction. Second, while in constitutional law the focus has been on interference with freedom of speech by the state, Mill was as much concerned with ‘moral reproach’ that arises from social intolerance and social pressure. Finally, by virtue of its focus on the pursuit of truth, the Millian argument is focused on discussion rather than expression more broadly and therefore has little obvious application to non-propositional expression found in instrumental music and abstract art. (A theme later taken up by others, 10 Close including Mark Tushnet who, in Chapter 23 , explores the problem of incorporating music and art into a theory of freedom of speech without also including a far wider range of human activities.)

The complexities of the truth justification for freedom of speech are further explored by William Marshall in Chapter 3 . Marshall identifies its many flaws: the implausibility of the claim that freedom of speech is a mechanism for producing truth; the problems of public irrationality and apathy in a ‘post-truth’ age; and, most fundamentally, the difficulties in identifying the normative appeal of truth itself, especially in circumstances in which it causes harm. Abandoning these traditional arguments for truth, Marshall appeals to truth as an ideal serving a narrative function ‘akin to the role played by myth in religion’. 11 Close

The argument from truth is one of three prominent lines of thought evident in an extensive philosophical literature on freedom of expression. Each of these lines of argument are explored in chapters in Part I . A second line of argument relies on the connection between freedom of speech and autonomy. Freedom of speech is said to protect (or to be integral to) individual autonomy by allowing individuals to form their own opinions about their beliefs and actions or by enabling ‘self-development’; or because respecting freedom of speech accords (or is constitutive of) dignity, equal concern and respect due to all individuals. In Chapter 4 , Catriona Mackenzie and Denise Meyerson explore the autonomy argument generally, and in Chapter 6 , Dieter Grimm explores the argument from dignity.

The third line of argument, perhaps the most widely influential in the constitutional law of freedom of speech, relies upon the connection between freedom of speech and democratic self-government. Ashutosh Bhagwat and James Weinstein explore the argument from democracy in Chapter 5 .

These three lines of argument—something of a ‘classic trio’ of justifications for freedom of speech—are the usual starting point of philosophical inquiry. But each gives rise to complex problems. Some are common to each rationale. In an echo of some arguments made against the truth rationale, arguments from autonomy are criticized for their failure to focus on the conditions necessary for the realization of autonomy. This line of thought has been especially prominent in feminist analysis of freedom of speech. In their chapter, Mackenzie and Meyerson explore a number of ways in which the problem has been addressed, from Susan Brison’s forthright critique of the autonomy justification for permitting hate speech 12 Close and for failing adequately to distinguish autonomous speech from non-speech forms of autonomy, 13 Close to Susan Williams’s idea of relational autonomy. 14 Close

Another kind of challenge for these arguments arises from the complexity of the ideas that underscore each rationale. This emerges clearly in Bhagwat and Weinstein’s chapter on the democracy justification. As they show, it is well recognized that freedom of speech performs an essential informing function, enabling the people to vote and participate in public discourse, and informs representatives of the views of the people. In addition, free speech also serves a legitimating function because law’s legitimacy requires that the people are free to take part in the public deliberations through which public opinion, and ultimately laws, are formed. Distinctively, Bhagwat and Weinstein take the legitimating function of freedom of speech to be crucial not just to the legal system as a whole but also to the legitimacy of individual laws and posit that laws banning hate speech may render other laws (such as anti-discrimination laws) illegitimate.

Equally, however, Bhagwat and Weinstein show that the nature of a right of freedom of speech will depend upon which conception of democracy, among the multiple and competing conceptions, dominates. For instance, where democracy is representative rather than direct, or where it prizes public deliberation over the aggregation of pre-existing interests, greater emphasis will be placed on public discourse. In such democracies, freedom of speech is likely to cover a broader range of public discussion beyond that required for the process of voting and law making. 15 Close

An important distinction, which illuminates matters taken up in later parts of the book, lies in the distinction between relatively thick (or substantive) understandings of democracies over relatively thin, proceduralist accounts. Of these two conceptions, the thicker idea of democracy provides a basis for more extensive limits on freedom of speech. Where democracy is taken to be instrumental to certain ends, freedom of speech can be limited where it makes little contribution to (or even frustrates) such ends. At this point, the long debate about the regulation of hate speech enters the picture again. Substantive conceptions of democracy (which usually entail that a democratic polity will ‘demonstrate tolerance, mutual respect, and an embrace of diversity’) provides a foundation for arguments that ‘the state not only need not tolerate, but to the contrary has a positive obligation to suppress hate speech’ 16 Close (a matter of which Weinstein and Bhagwat are evidently sceptical).

The idea that democracy is instrumental to a more fundamental value is evident in Dieter Grimm’s chapter ‘Freedom of Speech and Human Dignity’. Writing from within the German constitutional tradition, in which dignity is a foundational value receiving explicit constitutional protection, Grimm writes: 17 Close

We do not have freedom of speech for democracy’s sake, but we have democracy because it is the form of political rule best compatible with the dignity and autonomy of the individual.

The dignity-based conception of freedom of speech requires that the principle extends well beyond political speech. Speech is valuable because it allows humans to form social relationships and develop their personality—matters integral to human dignity. However, dignitarian arguments also justify limits on freedom of speech where that speech violates human dignity. Thus Grimm shows how dignity may furnish an argument for the regulation of hate speech where that speech: 18 Close

attempts to deny human beings individual personhood, to strip them from all rights (or from the right to have rights), to classify certain individuals as such or because of their group membership as life not being worth lived, to claim that by their behaviour they have forfeited any claim to respect.

Dignity’s role as both a justification for freedom of speech and for limiting it, points to a more general dynamic. Where freedom of speech is taken to be instrumental to a more fundamental value, it will usually be the case that the underlying value—equality, autonomy, dignity—will in some circumstances be deployed as an argument for freedom of speech and in others in support of a limitation. This ‘double-sidedness’ of freedom of speech is a particularly perplexing feature of free speech argumentation. 19 Close It means, as Alon Harel shows in his chapter on hate speech and as Gautam Bhatia shows in his chapter on religious speech, that many arguments about freedom of speech are not a defence of a liberal ideal against illiberalism. 20 Close Rather, many free speech arguments occur within liberalism and their resolution depends upon a quite precise rendering of the relationship between freedom of speech and its underlying values.

As the chapters so far mentioned demonstrate, there is a rich philosophical literature about freedom of speech. A final contribution in this vein from Wojciech Sadurski shows the power of philosophical argument to illuminate even most seemingly technical aspects of free speech. 21 Close The chapter explores the salience of the Rawlsian idea of public reason for freedom of speech. Sadurski argues that the idea helps explain the focus in free speech law in a number of countries on the distinction between content-based and content-neutral laws (and relatedly on viewpoint-based and viewpoint-neutral laws). Public reason analysis explains this focus, and reveals as potentially illegitimate laws based on reasons that are non-endorsable by reasonable persons to whom they apply.

Contributions from other disciplines to scholarship on freedom of speech have been more limited. In an important exception to this trend, Daniel Hemel, in Chapter 7 , explores the potential for economic analysis to illuminate freedom of speech. Information economics, he argues, has the potential to explain failures in the ‘marketplace of ideas’. Just as information asymmetry in the market for goods and services allows low-quality goods and services to drive high-quality goods and services out of the marketplace, there is reason to think that ‘bad speech’ will tend to drive out the ‘good’. For good information to compete in the market, readers and listeners must be able to tell the difference between good and bad information—an idea with particular resonance in the age of ‘fake news’, and with potential implications for the design of free speech laws. 22 Close

B. Freedom of Speech as a Legal Idea

Part II of the volume turns from general questions about the nature of and justifications for freedom of speech to an examination of pervasive issues that arise with particular clarity when freedom of speech is applied as a legal principle.

The focus of most of these chapters is on freedom of speech as a principle of constitutional law, which in turn provides the basis for an individual to challenge the law. However, there are many ways in which a free speech principle might operate in law: it may guide the interpretation of statutes and other instruments; in common law systems at least, it may influence the development of case law; and it is a principle of international law (as canvassed by Michael Hamilton in Chapter 11 ).

Conceived at a high level of generality, the framework for the determination of legal free speech claims is remarkably similar across a wide range of legal systems. As Stephen Gardbaum shows in his close but broadly comparative analysis in Chapter 12 , the nature and extent of a free speech right depends upon a number of legal components: (1) the legal source of the right (in common law, statute or a constitution) and the force of the right having regard to how it is enforced, and whether and how it can be superseded; (2) the subject of the right (citizens, natural or legal persons); (3) the scope of the right; (4) the kind of obligation it imposes on others (a negative prohibition or a positive obligation); (5) who is bound to respect a right of freedom of expression and against whom the right may be asserted; and (6) whether and how a free speech right might be limited. 23 Close

The first two chapters in Part II take up two of these elements in detail. Tracing the distinction in free speech law between ‘coverage’ and ‘protection’ influentially illuminated in his work, Schauer, in Chapter 9 , addresses the question acts or behaviour a principle of freedom of speech applies. 24 Close

This question of coverage (or in Gardbaum’s terms ‘scope’) can be invisible in legal analysis especially if it is abundantly clear that the activity concerned is ‘speech’ within the accepted meaning of the word or if techniques of legal interpretation (text, history, and precedent, for instance) provide a ready answer. But, as Schauer shows, in many cases neither speech nor the common alternative ‘expression’ adequately capture the activity to which the principle applies. The only coherent way to approach the question of coverage is by reference to the underlying rationale or rationales for freedom of speech. In this light, the question of ‘coverage’ turns out to be highly revealing of some fundamental features of freedom of speech, namely that it is a complex ideal resting on multiple justifications.

The question of ‘protection’ (which corresponds to Gardbaum’s final component, whether and to what extent the free speech right may be limited) goes to the weight or strength of the protection from regulation conferred on that which is covered. In the context of constitutional law, it is reflected in legal doctrines formulated by courts. The protection question brings to the fore the much-noted ‘US exceptionalism’ with respect to freedom of speech in constitutional law. As is well known, First Amendment law is characterized by a conceptual or categorial approach that applies relatively specific, rule-like limitations, as compared with the more flexible approach of ‘structured proportionality’ that dominates the rest of the world.

The relative merits of these approaches are the subject of an enormous literature in which proportionality analysis is usually lauded for its flexibility and context-sensitivity, as well as the transparency it purportedly brings to judicial reasoning. Some of its more influential expositions—including the seminal work of Robert Alexy—make the even more ambitious claim that proportionality is necessary or inevitable 25 Close or that it frees courts of difficult and contested decisions. 26 Close In Chapter 10 , ‘Proportionality and Limitations on Freedom of Speech’, Grégoire Webber mounts a critique of these claims on behalf of proportionality, and a defence of approaches that treat freedom of speech as absolute, at least in the sense as not subject to exception within its scope.

In Chapter 13 , ‘Positive Free Speech: A Democratic Freedom’, Andrew Kenyon then takes up Gardbaum’s fourth component, the kind of obligations imposed, arguing that an effective free speech right must necessarily be conceived as including positive obligations on the state.

The final chapter in Part II , ‘Speaking Back’, turns to the question of remedies and responses. In it, Katharine Gelber interrogates the common claim that the remedy for falsehoods and other forms of ‘bad speech’ is ‘more speech, not enforced silence’. 27 Close Applied indiscriminately, the idea of ‘speaking back’ is ‘fanciful at best and harmful at worst’ but Gelber defends it in some contexts, especially if—echoing Kenyon’s chapter—freedom of speech is conceived of as requiring the state to empower ‘speaking back’. 28 Close

The notion of state-backed ‘speaking back’ is picked up, again, in Caroline West’s chapter on pornography. If certain pornography perpetuates or legitimates harmful sexist messages, West sees a role for state-backed ‘speaking back’; specifically, public education aimed at countering harmful sexist messaging. But, she cautions, there are also reasons to doubt its likely effectiveness. Harmful effects of pornography on its consumers may not be fully ‘mentally intermediated’, and so not amenable to rational revision in response to counter-speech. 29 Close

C. Contexts and Controversies

The chapters in Part III focus on particular contexts and controversies that have proved especially important and interesting for the application of free speech principles. The chapters are all rich with insights on the particular controversies they cover, and the themes explored in the first two parts. For example, question of ‘coverage’ is addressed in particular contexts by Frederick Schauer’s chapter on commercial advertising, 30 Close Mark Tushnet’s chapter on art, 31 Close Caroline West’s chapter on pornography, 32 Close and Alon Harel’s chapter on hate speech. 33 Close

Similarly, the democracy justification is revisited and elaborated upon in chapters by Joo-Cheong Tham and Keith Ewing on elections, 34 Close Andrew Kenyon on defamation of public officials, 35 Close Christoph Bezemek on public insult, 36 Close and Timothy Zick on parades, picketing, and demonstrations. 37 Close It is also addressed in Cynthia Estlund’s chapter on the workplace, which explores the implications for democratic government of employment-based limitations on freedom of speech. 38 Close

These chapters are complemented by a pair of chapters that consider the challenges and complications arising from the nature of mass communication in the traditional media 39 Close and the digital economy. 40 Close

The ‘double-sidedness’ of freedom of speech is revisited in a group of chapters which focuses on the particular harms that may be caused by speech. Geoffrey Stone revisits the question of speech causing unlawful conduct, 41 Close a general theme picked upon in the contemporary context of terrorism by Eliza Bechtold and Gavin Phillipson. 42 Close Alon Harel’s chapter on hate speech, 43 Close Gautam Bhatia’s chapter on religious speech, 44 Close Caroline West’s chapter on pornography, 45 Close and Ioanna Tourkochoriti’s chapter on privacy 46 Close focus on harms of a different kind which implicate other fundamental rights like dignity, equality, religious freedom, and privacy.

Among these chapters, First Amendment exceptionalism is evident again. As these chapters show, First Amendment law has had enormous influence on the development of free speech law globally, reflecting the comparatively long history of judicial review of the First Amendment, and the volume of case law and secondary literature it has produced. But as these chapters also show, many substantive aspects of First Amendment law are unique and, on questions as diverse as electoral funding, advocacy of illegality, 47 Close commercial advertising, 48 Close defamation and hate speech, 49 Close most democracies have taken a different path. 50 Close

The intellectual influence but substantive exceptionalism of First Amendment law is especially evident in chapters by Andrew Kenyon, Christoph Bezemek, and Joo-Cheong Tham and Keith Ewing. Each of these chapters takes an iconic First Amendment case and shows both how it illuminates freedom of speech and how it has been departed from elsewhere. Andrew Kenyon places New York Times v Sullivan 51 Close in the context of defamation law generally, noting how courts in other countries have been influenced by and yet departed from its approach. The exceptionalism of Sullivan , he argues, depends both on a relatively thin conception of the value of reputation and on a particular understanding of the idea of public debate. Christoph Bezemek takes the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the US Supreme Court’s decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 52 Close as his centrepiece for a discussion of public insult. Chaplinsky is, of course, something of an ‘orphan’ in the First Amendment canon. 53 Close It is tempting to think that while its ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and in domestic jurisdictions. But Bezemek shows that the approach of the ECtHR is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Turning to the closely related question of insult to public officials (also discussed by Kenyon), Bezemek focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding his focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, he shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

Joo-Cheong Tham and Keith Ewing, in the most critical of these three chapters, take Citizens United v Federal Electoral Commission 54 Close as the centrepiece of their critique of First Amendment law. They identify the First Amendment’s core non-redistributive principle as based on a uniquely US mistrust of government regulation of speech and laissez-faire attitude to the distorting power of private wealth. The European social-democratic model, by contrast, is premised on equality as a foundation of a just electoral system and, because the state is viewed less negatively, permits more government intervention in pursuit of that equality.

Their critique introduces a second theme: the problems that that arise from the exercise of private power. Classically, freedom of speech is conceived of as a negative right that operates to restrain government power, leaving private relations untouched. But, as Cynthia Estlund shows, unrestrained power of employers to interfere with the speech rights of employees would make public discourse impossible. Similarly, an unrestrained power to regulate speech activity on private property would prevent the collective action necessary for civic engagement that is central to ‘cultural identification, acts of resistance, and … political contention in a democracy’. 55 Close In Estlund’s chapter on the workplace, and Zick’s chapter on parades, picketing, and demonstrations, the assessment of First Amendment law is somewhat hopeful. Estlund traces the way that US courts have, over the last century, carved out exceptions to the rights of employers to respect employees’ freedom of speech, and detects a strand of ‘neo-republican thought’ in First Amendment law, sensitive to the dominating power of employers. 56 Close Timothy Zick shows how the US Supreme Court, relying on the concept of the ‘public forum’, built an ‘expressive topography’, a doctrinal categorization of public places that limits powers of regulation in these spaces. 57 Close

Nonetheless, Estlund concludes that the protection of freedom of speech in the workplace remains normatively deficient. Indeed the ‘weaponization critique’ mentioned at the outset, and pervasive in the commentary on the protection of commercial advertising, is traceable, at least in that language, to Justice Kagan’s dissent in a labour law case, Janus v AFSCME, in which the majority held that requiring public sector employees to pay union dues was invalid on First Amendment ‘compelled speech’ grounds. 58 Close Turning to public forums, the exclusion of private property has always meant that some places (privately-owned airports, shopping centres, malls, and plazas) where citizens seek to gather for free speech purposes may be excluded from the public forum doctrine. But the problem is much exacerbated by the increasing privatization of public space.

Outside First Amendment law, attitudes towards private power are quite different and the problems posed by private actors restricting freedom of speech or distorting public discourse can be dealt with in a more straightforward fashion. Three features of free speech law are especially pertinent to this difference. First, as Ioanna Tourkochoriti explains in her chapter on privacy, other systems of law (in her chapter—Germany and France) allow for the ‘horizontal’ application of free speech rights against private individuals. 59 Close By comparison, the ‘verticalist’ position usually taken to be exemplified by the First Amendment, applies free speech rights only against the state, reflecting an assumption that threats to freedom of expression are characterized as arising principally or only from the state. The line between these two positions can be blurry and may be less important in practice if there is a sufficiently capacious ‘state action’ doctrine. 60 Close The distinction between horizontal and vertical applications of rights, however, is indicative of a markedly different understanding of the role of constitutional rights. Second, in most other legal systems, the mistrust of government that characterizes First Amendment law is moderated and the state is more likely to be regarded as a positive actor in pursuit of legitimate goals. 61 Close This moderation of mistrust of government gives governments greater scope to address harms caused by private actors, notably on matters like hate speech and electoral funding.

Finally, in some systems, the problem of private power is addressed through positive obligations imposed upon the state. In his chapter on media, 62 Close Dieter Grimm explains Germany’s broadcast jurisprudence as a means to address the problems of private power in public discourse. Under the German Basic Law, the German state is under a ‘double obligation’. It must not unduly interfere with the freedom of media, but it is also required to act to protect the media against attempts of private actors that may lead to distortion of public discourse or dysfunction within the media.

D. The Changing Context

Grimm’s chapter introduces our final theme: the changing nature and significance of the forums in which speech occurs. The most compelling development is the rise of the digital economy, which radically changes the dynamics of freedom of speech. The Internet is the subject of Gregory Magarian’s chapter, 63 Close although the many complications posed by the Internet as a speech forum are explored in other chapters, including those on pornography, hate speech, media freedom, and international law.

As Magarian shows, the Internet offers huge opportunities for realizing the social benefits of freedom of speech—making powerful contributions to political movements and promoting art, science, and commerce—but by the same token this new medium amplifies the possibilities for harm and poses a distinct set of challenges.

For example, the ease of communication and vast increase in the quantity of available information has led to the breakdown of the traditional media and the ‘gatekeeping’ function they performed. That, combined with anonymity and the highly manipulable nature of digital imagery, makes it very difficult to assess the credibility of information before us. Ordinary citizens can disguise themselves as credible news sources; political operatives and agents of foreign governments can be made to look like ordinary citizens; images and even video can be faked. The result is a torrent of low-quality information, much of it worthless or worse, deliberately spread to serve disruptive and nefarious interests, foreign and domestic. Such speech may proliferate more readily, rapidly, and to a wider audience, amplifying its potential harm.

These challenges run especially deep because the shape of a solution is very unclear. The devolved and transnational architecture of the Internet poses real barriers to regulation even pursuant to horizontal and positive conceptions of freedom of speech. The problem of the Internet will require creative regulatory solutions and to which constitutional rights of freedom of speech will need to adapt. 64 Close At the same time, creative and novel regulatory solutions to harmful online speech may also have unintended adverse consequences. As Bechtold and Phillipson observe in their chapter, there is a risk that regulations aimed at swiftly and cost-effectively stemming the proliferation of harmful material online can be excessively broad and speech-restrictive, shift the burden of regulation onto transnational corporations, and lack adequate safeguards, scrutiny, and attention to rights. 65 Close

This leads us to a closing reflection on the changing nature of the subject of this volume. It is barely more than a century since the US Supreme Court began seriously to expound free speech norms; only seventy years since the end of World War II inspired the global rise of human rights, and only thirty years since democratic constitutionalism—and with it constitutional rights of freedom of speech—became a truly global phenomenon. Yet in this time, the nature of public discourse has transformed radically. Today, vast swathes of ordinary human communication occur in previously unrecognizable ways.

Freedom of speech will be a treasured norm at least for as long as democracies persist, but beyond that simple fact, perhaps all that can be counted upon is that the fundamental and difficult questions which are the subject of this volume, and these chapters, will remain a source of contestation in law and politics.

E. With Thanks

Fittingly, given freedom of speech’s transnational reach, this volume was a transnational effort and was both enabled—and at times challenged—by communication across the Internet. As editors, we express our thanks to the authors for their commitment to this project; their willingness to revise chapters during the editing process and to keep to the necessary word limit. We are delighted to have brought such a talented group of scholars together in these pages.

Adrienne Stone wishes to thank colleagues at Melbourne Law School in the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies and the Laureate Program on Comparative Constitutional Law for their assistance. Aftab Hussain and Gabrielle Dalsasso in their respective roles as Centre Administrator and Project Manager for the Laureate Program ensured the smooth running of other aspects of academic life, freeing time to work on this volume. Four talented and hardworking research assistants—Joshua Quinn-Watson, Colette Mintz, Anne Carter, and Gary Hansell—performed important research and editorial tasks that greatly improved the Handbook. Their work and Adrienne Stone’s contribution was generously supported by the Australian Research Council through an Australian Laureate Fellowship.

We are finally very grateful to Oxford University Press and its editorial staff for initiating the project and for their expertise and patience through all stages of its production. We are proud and delighted to have made a contribution to the very fine Handbook series.

Freedom of speech is used here interchangeably with ‘freedom of expression’, though on the relationship between these concepts, see Frederick Schauer ‘What is Speech? The Question of Coverage’ Chapter 9 in this volume.

Mark Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, (eds), Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (OUP, 2018).

Tim Wu, ‘Is the First Amendment Obsolete?’ (2018) 117 Mich L Rev 547, 568.

Janus v AFSCME, Council 31 , 138 S Ct 2448, 3501 (2018). See also Cynthia Estlund, ‘Freedom of Expression in the Workplace’, Chapter 22 in this volume.

DM Carter, ‘Citizen Attribute, Negative Right: A Conceptual Difference between Ancient and Modern Ideas of Freedom of Speech’ in Ineke Sluiter and Ralph Rosen (eds), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (Brill 2004).

Elizabeth Powers (ed), Freedom of Speech: The History of an Idea (Bucknell UP 2011).

John Milton, Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, to the Parliament of England (JC Suffolk ed, University Tutorial P 1968).

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (David Spitz ed, WW Norton 1975).

An alternative understanding of Mill sees On Liberty as less about the search for truth and more about the development of certain virtues of intellectual character. See Vincent Blasi, ‘Shouting “Fire!” in a Theater and Vilifying Corn Dealers’ (2011) 39 Cap U L Rev 535.

See also Frederick Schauer, ‘What is “Speech”? The Question of Coverage’, Chapter 9 in this volume.

William P Marshall, ‘The Truth Justification for Freedom of Speech’, Chapter 3 in this volume, p. 57.

See Catriona Mackenzie and Denise Meyerson, ‘Autonomy and Free Speech’, Chapter 4 in this volume, p. 78.

Susan Brison, ‘The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech’ (1998) 108 Ethics 312.

See Catriona Mackenzie and Denise Meyerson, ‘Autonomy and Free Speech’, Chapter 4 in this volume, p. 74. See also Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar (eds), Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency and the Social Self (OUP 2000).

Ashutosh Bhagwat and James Weinstein, ‘Freedom of Expression and Democracy’, Chapter 5 in this volume.

Ibid p. 102.

Dieter Grimm, ‘Freedom of Speech and Human Dignity’, Chapter 6 in this volume, p. 110.

Ibid p. 114.

Adrienne Stone, ‘Viewpoint Discrimination, Hate Speech Laws, and the Double-Sided Nature of Freedom of Speech’ (2017) 32 Const Comment 687.

Alon Harel, ‘Hate Speech’, Chapter 25 in this volume; Gautam Bhatia ‘Religious Speech’, Chapter 27 in this volume.

Wojciech Sadurski, ‘Freedom of Speech and Public Reason’, Chapter 8 in this volume.

Daniel Hemel, ‘Economic Perspectives on Free Speech’, Chapter 7 in this volume.

Stephen Gardbaum, ‘The Structure of a Free Speech Right’, Chapter 12 in this volume.

Frederick Schauer, ‘What is “Speech”? The Question of Coverage’, Chapter 9 in this volume.

Robert Alexy, A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Julian Rivers tr, OUP 2002) 66–9.

David Beatty, The Ultimate Rule of Law (OUP 2004).

Whitney v California , 274 US 357 (1927) 377.

Katharine Gelber, ‘Speaking Back’, Chapter 14 in this volume, p. 262.

Caroline West, ‘Pornography’, Chapter 26 in this volume, p. 497.

Frederick Schauer, ‘Free Speech and Commercial Advertising’, Chapter 24 in this volume.

Mark Tushnet, ‘Music and Art’, Chapter 23 in this volume.

Caroline West, ‘Pornography’, Chapter 26 in this volume.

Alon Harel, ‘Hate Speech’, Chapter 25 in this volume.

Joo-Cheong Tham and Keith Ewing, ‘Free Speech and Elections’, Chapter 17 in this volume.

Andrew T Kenyon, ‘Defamation Law, Sullivan , and the Shape of Free Speech’, Chapter 15 in this volume.

Christoph Bezemek, ‘Insult of Public Officials, Chapter 21 in this volume.

Timothy Zick ‘Parades, Picketing, and Demonstrations’, Chapter 20 in this volume.

Cynthia Estlund ‘Freedom of Expression in the Workplace’, Chapter 22 in this volume.

Dieter Grimm, ‘Freedom of Media’, Chapter 29 in this volume.

Gregory P Magarian, ‘The Internet and Social Media’, Chapter 19 in this volume.

Geoffrey R Stone, ‘When is Speech That Causes Unlawful Conduct Protected byFreedom of Speech? The Case of the First Amendment’, Chapter 18 in this volume.

Eliza Bechtold and Gavin Phillipson, ‘Glorifying Censorship? Anti-Terror Law, Speech, and Online Regulation’, Chapter 28 in this volume.

Gautam Bhatia, ‘Religious Speech’, Chapter 27 in this volume.

Ioanna Tourkochoriti, ‘Privacy and Speech’, Chapter 16 in this volume.

Eliza Bechtold and Gavin Phillipson, ‘Glorifying Censorship? Anti-Terror Law, Speech and Online Regulation’, Chapter 28 in this volume.

Frederick Schauer, ‘The Exceptional First Amendment’ in Michael Ignatieff (ed), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Princeton UP 2005) 29.

New York Times v Sullivan , 376 US 254 (1964).

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire , 315 US 568, 570 (1942).

The Supreme Court has never since upheld a conviction on the basis of the ‘fighting words’ exception that Chaplinsky apparently establishes. See Erwin Chemerinsky, The First Amendment (Wolters Kluwer 2018) 159.

Citizens United v Federal Electoral Commission , 558 US 310 (2010).

Timothy Zick ‘Parades, Picketing, and Demonstrations’, Chapter 20 in this volume, p. 369.

Cynthia Estlund ‘Freedom of Expression in the Workplace’, Chapter 22 in this volume, p. 413.

Timothy Zick ‘Parades, Picketing and Demonstrations’, Chapter 20 in this volume, p. 376.

Janus v AFSCME, Council 31 , 138 S Ct 2448, 2501 (2018) (Kagan J, dissenting).

But see also Constitution of South Africa: 4 February 1997 (‘South African Constitution’), s 8(2); Constitution of Colombia: 4 July 1991 (‘Colombian Constitution’), art 86; Constitution of Ireland: 29 December 1937 (as amended to 4 October 2013) (‘Irish Constitution’), s 40(3), and Meskell v CIE [1973] IR 121.

There is also a third position—‘indirect horizontal action’—which allows for the invocation of constitutional rights in private actions under the general law, see Stephen Gardbaum, ‘The Structure of a Free Speech Right’, Chapter 12 in this volume, p. 224.

As in Canada, see Adrienne Stone, ‘Canadian Constitutional Law of Freedom of Expression’, in Richard Albert and David R Cameron (eds), Canada in the World: Comparative Perspectives on the Canadian Constitution (CUP 2017).

See Jack Balkin, ‘Free Speech Is a Triangle’ (2012) 118 Colum L Rev 2011; see also Tim Wu, ‘Is the First Amendment Obsolete?’ (2018) 117 Mich L Rev 547. 568.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

What free speech is, and isn't, protected under the First Amendment

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, and yet, what that means has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

According to the  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts , the court "has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech," but here are some of the things the court has ruled on.

Michigan indoor dining ban extended to Feb. 1, but some sports allowed

Automakers assure Mayor Duggan: Auto show won't ditch Detroit for good

What the First Amendment protects:

• The right not to speak, such as saluting the flag.
• To wear black armbands to school to protest a war.
• Using offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
• To contribute money, under certain circumstances, to political campaigns.
• To advertise commercial products and professional services.
• To burning the flag in protest.

What the First Amendment does not protect:

• The right to incite actions that would harm others.
• To make or distribute obscene materials.
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
• To print school newspaper articles over the administration's objections.
• To make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
• To advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.

Contact Frank Witsil: 313-222-5022 or [email protected].

First Amendment

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices . It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government .

Learn more...

Primary tabs

Amendment i.

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.

Wex Resources

The establishment clause.

Establishment Clause

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Van Orden v. Perry (2005 )

Free Exercise Clause

State Action Requirement

Free Speech

Captive Audience

Prior Restraint

Absolute Privilege

Advocacy of Illegal Action

Fighting Words

Commercial Speech

Government Speech

Brandenburg Test

Schenk v. United States (1919)

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Roth v. United States (1957)

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Peaceful Assembly

Unlawful Assembly

Redress of Grievances

• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

freedom of speech

noun phrase

Definition of freedom of speech, examples of freedom of speech in a sentence.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'freedom of speech.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Dictionary Entries Near freedom of speech

freedom of religion

freedom of the press

Cite this Entry

“Freedom of speech.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom%20of%20speech. Accessed 4 May. 2024.

Legal Definition

Legal definition of freedom of speech.

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

More commonly misspelled words, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, 12 star wars words, the words of the week - may 3, 9 superb owl words, 10 words for lesser-known games and sports, your favorite band is in the dictionary, games & quizzes.

Freedom of Speech and Automatic Language: Examining the Pledge of Allegiance

• Resources & Preparation
• Instructional Plan
• Related Resources

Most students in American classrooms know the words to the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. The words are a kind of automatic language. We say them easily—perhaps every day, but we may not think in detail about what we are saying. This lesson plan asks students to explore this rote learning and their own right to freedom of speech by examining the Pledge of Allegiance from a historical and personal perspective and in relationship to fictional situations in novels they have read. Using a novel such as Speak by Laurie Halse Andersen or Nothing But the Truth by Avi, students learn how the novel's protagonist and other characters in the story deal with free speech issues in varying ways and are invited to think about pledges that they are willing to make and how they express their freedom of speech.

Featured Resources

Interactive Venn Diagram : Students can use this online tool to compare the pledge of the United States to that of another country. It can also be used to organize ideas for a variety of comparison and contrast activities.

From Theory to Practice

In "By Design or By Habit," Frank Hubbard asks his students to think carefully about the words that we say as a result of rote memorization, such as the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance, the "Star-Spangled Banner," or a religious prayer or quotation. Hubbard calls such memorized pieces "automatic language." They are pieces "with language that has been so routinized or memorized that its user finds the language invisible, or nearly so" (4). By examining language word-by-word, students are challenged to "focus on the intention, the meaning behind the words, thus helping them reclaim something from its automatic status and restore it to a living and vital form" (4). Not internalizing such automatic language can have unexpected consequences. A recent Knight Foundation report "found that three out of four students say either that they do not think about the First Amendment or that they take its rights for granted." (Aronson, 2006) In this lesson, students think not only about the words they say when they recite the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance, but also the specific words of the First Amendment to the Constitution and what the right to freedom of speech means on a personal level. Further Reading

Common Core Standards

This resource has been aligned to the Common Core State Standards for states in which they have been adopted. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, CCSS alignments are forthcoming.

State Standards

This lesson has been aligned to standards in the following states. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, standard alignments are not currently available for that state.

NCTE/IRA National Standards for the English Language Arts

• 1. Students read a wide range of print and nonprint texts to build an understanding of texts, of themselves, and of the cultures of the United States and the world; to acquire new information; to respond to the needs and demands of society and the workplace; and for personal fulfillment. Among these texts are fiction and nonfiction, classic and contemporary works.
• 3. Students apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate texts. They draw on their prior experience, their interactions with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their word identification strategies, and their understanding of textual features (e.g., sound-letter correspondence, sentence structure, context, graphics).
• 8. Students use a variety of technological and information resources (e.g., libraries, databases, computer networks, video) to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge.
• 12. Students use spoken, written, and visual language to accomplish their own purposes (e.g., for learning, enjoyment, persuasion, and the exchange of information).

Materials and Technology

• Dictionaries for teams of students
• History of The Pledge of Allegiance (a text from your library or suggested Websites)
• Examining the U.S. Pledge
• Looking at Other People's Pledges
• Free Speech and Pledge
• Writing Your Own Pledge
• Pledge of Allegiance Rubric

Preparation

• Students should have read all or most of a novel that features free speech issues (e.g., Nothing But the Truth by Avi, Stargirl by Jerry Spinelli).
• Make copies or overhead transparencies of the handouts for the lesson: Examining the U.S. Pledge , Looking at Other People's Pledges , Free Speech and the Pledge background information, Writing Your Own Pledge , and Pledge of Allegiance Rubric .
• If desired, make copies of the history of The Pledge of Allegiance explained in the FOX news article , the Wikipedia entry , the American Legion Flag Code, or a text from your library. Alternatively, students can read the text online or in small groups.
• Test the ReadWriteThink Printing Press on your computers to familiarize yourself with the tools and ensure that you have the Flash plug-in installed. You can download the plug-in from the technical support page.

Student Objectives

Students will

• explore the history and meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance.
• define critical words in the Pledge, focusing on their intention and meaning.
• read the First Amendment and discuss the right of citizens to speak freely or to not speak, as they choose.
• make connections between the novel and fictional characters and their own free speech choices.
• write an original pledge that promises to be true or faithful to something important to them.

Session One

• Begin the session by inviting the students to share what they know about the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech.
• Ask them to make connections to the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Provide the students with an overview of the project—looking at First Amendment Rights and the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Read about the history of The Pledge of Allegiance in this FOX news article , the Wikipedia entry , the Explanation of the Pledge of Allegiance, or a text from your library. Students can read the text online or you can provide printouts.
• As the students read the article, ask them to answer questions from the Examining the U.S. Pledge .

Session Two

• As a class, examine the First Amendment . This can be done online or with a printed hard copy.
• What does the First Amendment mean?
• Why is it important?
• Ask students to talk about how the First Amendment plays a role in their lives. Encourage student participation.
• Examine the Free Speech and the Pledge background sheet.
• Discuss the role of the First Amendment in the novel that your class is reading. For instance, in Speak, Melinda chooses not to speak at all because she has something terrible that she cannot tell anyone else. The issue of free speech is brought out in Mr. Neck’s class when he refuses to listen to points of view that conflict with his own even though he opened a debate, which is intended to be a discussion of varying ideas, supported with evidence.

Session Three

• Examine the Supreme Court decision regarding a citizen’s right to choose whether or not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Invite the students to share their reactions to the court's decision.
• Discuss what making a pledge means (making a promise) and that promises are not to be taken lightly or offered frivolously.
• Review key definitions from the Pledge of Allegiance: pledge, allegiance, republic, indivisible, and liberty. If desired, share Pledge of Allegiance Explained by Red Skelton or the American Legion Flag Code .
• Discuss the Looking at Other Pledges handout: read the alternative pledge and show how it mirrors the national pledge. See the Websites in the Resources section for additional pledges and oaths that can be used to supplement your class discussion.

Session Four

• Examine the Pledge Writing Rubric with the students, so they know the expectations and targets for their own writing.
• Using the Writing Your Own Pledge handout, help students brainstorm ideas for their own pledges, each a personal promise to be true to something they believe in, following the style of the national pledge.
• (Optional) Refer to the Purdue Online Writing Lab exercise on parallel structure if students need to work on that skill before writing their own pledge.
• Students can publish their own pledges using the ReadWriteThink Printing Press , and create a flyer, brochure, booklet, or newspaper.
• Conduct ongoing class discussions about free speech and the First Amendment, which would enrich students’ understanding of the novel and of their rights and responsibilities as American citizens. Are the characters in the novel simply expressing their right to free speech or is the situation more complicated? How does peer pressure play into the situation?
• Discuss how students can respect other citizens’ right to free speech (staying quiet while others recite the pledge if they choose, disagree with ideas and not attacking a person, etc.)
• Research accounts of American citizens being shunned or harassed for expressing unpopular views. One example is when the Dixie Chicks’ Natalie Maines told her concert audience that they were ashamed of President Bush. Outraged fans have boycotted concerts and some radio stations have refused to play their music. Are there times to restrain from expressing opinions or is it always wrong to stifle views of citizens? Read about at least three different cases before you formulate your opinion.
• Think of other books, movies, songs, or other media that you remember having to do with free speech. What was the idea presented? How was it important? How has your perception of that book (etc.) changed now that you’ve reflected on free speech more specifically?
• Research pledges of other countries. Use the Venn Diagram to compare the two pledges.

Student Assessment / Reflections

• As students discuss free speech, the pledge, and their readings, listen for comments that indicate that students understand the specific meaning of the words and the underlying meaning of the pledge.
• Additionally, monitor student interaction and progress during class discussion to assess social skills and assist any students having problems with the exploration. Look for evidence in students’ contributions to the discussion as well as in their individual work in response to the Examining the U.S. Pledge , Looking at Other Pledges , and the Writing Your Own Pledge sheets that they have engaged in the process of moving from automatic language to deeper understanding and that they have explored the related ideas in their readings.
• For formal assessment, use the Pledge Rubric to shape your response and feedback.
• Calendar Activities
• Lesson Plans
• Student Interactives

This interactive tool allows students to create Venn diagrams that contain two or three overlapping circles, enabling them to organize their information logically.

Add new comment

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

Keyword: Freedom

Freedom is part of the inherited Old English vocabulary. It derives from free , and many of its most important uses are in compounds, collocations, phrases, and constructions determined by its relationship with this adjective. From its earliest his­tory it has defined the rights and privileges of a free individual, and the state of having such rights and privileges, in early use especially in contrast with slavery or serfdom, but increasingly seen as liberty from despotic or autocratic control. It is in­structive to compare freedom with the semantically close liberty. Liberty is a borrowing from French and in turn from Latin, and is first found in lC14. As a simple uncompounded word, its core meanings overlap almost completely with those of freedom . Both words are used to denote both “freedom to act” and “freedom from despotism.” This broad synonymy has held true from the early modern period onward.

Both words have singular and plural uses, although in the case of liberty these are usually more restricted semantically; compare, e.g., “hard-won freedoms” with “to take liberties.” Special countable uses of liberty also occur in legal usage, as e.g., with reference to a liberty granted by a sovereign.

In non-countable uses the two words overlap very considerably, although freedom is more frequent with reference to specific actions performed without (or only with legally or technically restricted) restraint, as in “freedom of speech,” “the freedom of his remarks,” “freedom of movement,” “the freedom of his brush strokes”; many such uses are clearly nominalizations of expressions with the adjective free , especially free speech . Similarly, free from is the model for freedom from (persecution, harm, taxes, etc.). In some cases, questions of alliteration and/ or prosody have clearly shaped choices between the two words. Hence liberation struggles are typically conducted by freedom fighters , probably on account of alliteration and prosody; hence also such collocations as the fight for freedom , those who are fighting for freedom , etc.

The relative frequency of the two words, however, has shifted dramatically, and this seems to hold true both for newspapers and for general corpora representing a wide range of different genres. In C16 and C17, in spite of being a relatively recent borrowing, liberty outnumbers freedom by approximately four to one; in C18 it continues to be more frequent, but by rather less than two to one. In C19 British newspapers, liberty remains approximately twice as frequent as freedom ; in C19 US sources, liberty only very slightly outnumbers freedom , if at all. This is in contrast to lC20 and eC21 sources, in which freedom is typically about three times more frequent than liberty , in both British and US sources. Corpus searches indicate no extremely frequent collocations or compound uses that alone can account for this shift (although, e.g., academic freedom , religious freedom , individual freedom , press freedom , freedom fighter , freedom of speech , freedom of expression are all very common, as is civil liberty ).

During the course of its history, liberty shows a complex set of relationships with a number of other words ultimately from the same derivational group, which characteristically have connections with aspects of radical politics in their early use. An interesting question is whether any of these associations have contributed to the decreasing frequency of liberty relative to freedom .

From the early modern period libertine (with its derivatives libertinism and libertinage ) is found in English as a borrowing from French and Latin, ultimately showing, like liberty , a derivative formation from Latin liber , “free.” As both noun and adjective the word has important early uses denoting a free-thinker , especially in religion, although in later use lack of restraint in moral life, especially with regard to sexual morality, becomes the dominant meaning. In early use, the relationship between the terms liberty and libertinism is ambiguous: sometimes liberty is identified as the aim of libertines , sometimes liberty is the ideal condition to be protected from the excesses of libertinism ; the latter seems to have become more dominant over time.

The positive connotations of liberty in C18 are reflected by the frequency of defense of liberty , which is found only sparingly in the early modern period (when defense of freedom is found hardly at all). Defense of liberty continues to be more common than defense of freedom in C19, although again this situation is reversed in contemporary usage. The range of conflicts in which both phrases have been employed for propaganda purposes is huge. In C20 the Cold War collocation the Free World (now frequently, albeit most often tacitly, redefined in the context of the “War on Terror”) may be a factor favoring defense of freedom , although this must be seen in the context of the general increase in frequency of freedom relative to liberty over time. The recent past has additionally seen, for example, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

In lC18 we find a very strong association of liberty ’s French equivalent liberté with the Revolutionary motto liberté, égalité, fraternité. Liberty also has a prominent use in the US Declaration of Independence (“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”), as well as the US Constitution. In C19 (and later) Anglophone discourse, freedom has at least the capacity for uses dissociated from the radical associations of liberty , however. Arguably these uses occur in the tradition of nationalistic accounts of early English history, in which the freedom of the Anglo-Saxon churl is stressed as an inherited fundamental aspect of English society stretching back into the mists of an early Germanic inheritance (following an analysis abandoned by more recent historians).

In C19 both liberalism and libertarianism take on political meanings starkly opposed to conservatism , although a “liberal” position is also eschewed by many on the more radical left. As Williams notes, association with the broader use of the word liberal, and hence connotations of “wishy-washiness” or excessive generosity, probably have a part to play here. The derivational relationship is clearest and strongest in the case of libertarianism , although this is also the term that has achieved much less extensive general currency.

In mC20 liberty shows a further derivational relationship with liberation , and is used in relation to post-colonialism, theology, and women’s and gay liberation. However, as noted, those engaged in such liberation struggles are typically freedom fighters . Further, close stylistic and linguistic analysis of the use of either liberty or freedom (or, as frequently today, liberty and freedom ) in different contexts may yield interesting insights into the influences and sympathies of particular individuals or groups.

Keywords Project

• What is a 'keyword'?
• Raymond Williams and Keywords
• Research and Discussion
• Project Essay Archive
• Resources and Methods
• Editorial Policies
• Keywords Seminar

Keywords for Today

• About the Book
• Buy the Book
• List of Entries
• History of Keywords Project
• Intro to Williams's Keywords

List of Keywords

• Enlightenment
• Environment
• Fundamentalism
• Gentrification
• Independent
• Information
• Responsibility

• Spoken English Course
• Professional English Course
• Live English Classes
• Personal Coaching Classes
• IELTS Course
• Telugu to English Course
• Bangla to English Course
• Learn English Through Blog
• Learn English Through Podcast
• Learn English Through Video
• Daily Vocabulary
• Daily Sentence
• Daily Idiom
• Awal’s Blog
• Awal's English Blog

Idioms, Vocabulary, and Phrases about Freedom with Meaning

“Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom.”

 – Jawaharlal Nehru

This quote is from the iconic speech delivered by Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, on the eve of India’s Independence Day, August 15, 1947. Nehru’s words resonated deeply with the nation, as they marked the dawn of a new era and the beginning of India’s tryst with destiny as a free and sovereign nation.

Independence Day is a significant national holiday celebrated on August 15th each year to commemorate the country’s freedom from British colonial rule. It marks the day when India gained its independence in 1947 after a prolonged struggle for self-determination and sovereignty. The occasion holds immense importance in the hearts of Indians, as it represents the culmination of decades of non-violent civil disobedience and the tireless efforts of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and numerous other freedom fighters. Independence Day is not just a time for celebration but also an occasion to remember and honour the sacrifices made by the freedom fighters to secure the nation’s liberty. It serves as a reminder of the values and principles on which the nation was founded; equality, justice, and democracy.

While celebrating the achievements of the past, Independence Day also prompts reflection on the challenges that lie ahead. It is an opportunity for the citizens to renew their commitment to building a progressive, inclusive, and harmonious society.

In this blog, you’ll learn about idioms, phrases, and words that are associated with Independence but can be used in various other contexts.

• Idioms and Phrases related to Independence

1. As free as a bird: 

English Meaning: To be completely unrestricted and liberated, like a bird flying in the open sky.

Hindi Meaning: एक पक्षी की तरह स्वतंत्र

Example : After quitting his job and starting his own business, Saransh felt as free as a bird , able to make his own decisions and follow his dreams.

2. Born free

English Meaning: Refers to someone who was never under the control or oppression of others, just like a nation born independent.

Hindi Meaning: जन्म से ही स्वतंत्र होना Example : He was born free and never let anyone dictate his choices or beliefs.

3. Break the chains

English Meaning: To free oneself from constraints or oppressive situations. Hindi Meaning: अपने आप को किसी से आज़ाद करना Example: Sarah decided to break the chains of her past and embrace a new, independent life after overcoming her struggles.

4. Wave the flag

English Meaning: To proudly display patriotism and national pride. Hindi Meaning: देशभक्ति और राष्ट्रीय गौरव को गर्व से प्रदर्शित करना। Example: On Independence Day, people gathered in the streets, waving the flag proudly and singing the national anthem.

5. Rise like a phoenix

English Meaning: To recover or emerge stronger from challenges and difficulties. Hindi Meaning: चुनौतियों और कठिनाइयों से उबरना या मजबूत होकर उभरना। Example: After the devastating war, the nation emerged from the rubble, rising like a phoenix and rebuilding itself stronger than ever before.

6. Independence in your blood

English Meaning: To have a strong desire for freedom and autonomy, as if it runs through your veins.

Hindi Meaning: आज़ादी के लिए तीव्र इच्छा होना 

Example: In her family, a spirit of independence ran deep in their blood, as they had a long history of fighting for freedom and justice.

7. Declare your independence

English Meaning: To take a stand for your rights and freedom.

Hindi Meaning: अपनी स्वतंत्रता की घोषणा करना 

Example: It’s time to declare your independence and stand up for what you believe in, just like our founding fathers did centuries ago.

8. Take the reins

English Meaning: To take control or leadership of a situation.

Hindi Meaning: बागडोर संभालना 

Example: Mahatma Gandhi encouraged his fellow countrymen to take the reins of their fate and steer India towards independence.

9. Walk the path of liberty

English Meaning: To live a life free from oppression and with personal independence.

Hindi Meaning: आज़ादी की राह पर चलना 

Example: As a country, we have been walking the path of liberty for over two centuries, cherishing our independence and safeguarding our rights.

10. Fireworks of freedom

English Meaning: Refers to the joyous celebrations and events that mark Independence Day.

Hindi Meaning: आज़ादी की आतिशबाजी 

Example: The city’s sky was filled with fireworks of freedom as people celebrated Independence Day with great enthusiasm.

• Independence Day Vocabulary

Here are the vocabulary words related to Independence Day, along with their meanings:

Independence:

English Meaning: The state of being free from the control, influence, or domination of others; self-reliance and autonomy.

Example : After years of struggle, the nation finally gained its independence from colonial rule.

English Meaning: The power or right to act, speak, or think without hindrance or restraint; liberty.

Example : The citizens rejoiced in the freedom to express their opinions and beliefs without fear of persecution.

English Meaning: The state of being free from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority; the right to make choices and act freely.

Example : The Statue of Liberty stands as a symbol of freedom and liberty for all those who seek a better life.

Patriotism:

English Meaning: Love, support, and devotion to one’s country; a strong sense of national pride and loyalty.

Example : On Independence Day, people across the country showed their patriotism by waving flags and singing the national anthem.

Revolution:

English Meaning: A fundamental and often rapid change in the political, social, or economic structure of a society, typically achieved by a large group of people.

Example : The American Revolution was a turning point in history, leading to the birth of a new nation.

Sovereignty:

English Meaning: The supreme authority and power of a state or nation to govern itself without interference from external sources.

Example : The country asserted its sovereignty , making decisions independently without interference from other nations.

Declaration:

English Meaning: A formal and public statement, often expressing a significant decision or purpose.

Example : The Declaration of Independence proclaimed the country’s intent to be free and self-governing.

English Meaning: A system of government where power is vested in the people, and decisions are made through elected representatives or direct participation.

Example : The country embraced democracy , allowing citizens to participate in the decision-making process through voting.

Constitution:

English Meaning: It is a document that contains a fundamental set of laws and principles that govern a nation, outlining the structure of the government and protecting the rights of citizens.

Example : The nation’s constitution serves as the supreme law, protecting the rights and freedom of its citizens.

Fundamental Rights:

English Meaning: Fundamental rights guarantee every citizen certain freedoms and safeguards against discrimination, ensuring their overall welfare and promoting equality.

Example : In India, Fundamental rights include the right to equality, the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to practice any religion and the right to education.

English Meaning: A republic is a form of Government in which a country leader is chosen by the citizens and the Head of State is usually the President.

Example : India is a prime example of a republic , where citizens elect their leaders and other officials through democratic processes.

English Meaning: In India, Preamble is the beginning of our Constitution, which is a set of rules that guide how the country works. The preamble tells us the main ideas and goals of our country’s rules.

Example : Just like the introduction to a story, the Preamble in India’s Constitution tells us what the country aims to achieve, like justice, liberty, and unity.

Secularism:

English Meaning: Secularism in India means that the government treats all religions f airly. No one religion is favored, and people are free to follow their own beliefs.

Example : India is a secular country, where people can practice different religions like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and more. The government doesn’t tell them which religion to follow, and everyone’s beliefs are respected equally.

Remember, these are just a few examples, and their usage might vary based on context and individual preferences. These examples aim to illustrate how they can be used but feel free to adapt them to different situations as needed.

• Phrases Related to Freedom

Here are the phrases with examples of how you might use them in your daily life:

Embrace the freedom to choose your path in life Hindi Meaning: जीवन में अपना रास्ता चुनने की स्वतंत्रता को अपनाएं

Example: I’ve decided to pursue an art career; I believe in embracing the freedom to choose a path that truly resonates with me.

Let’s cherish the liberty to express our thoughts openly Hindi Meaning: अपने विचारों को खुलकर व्यक्त करने की स्वतंत्रता का सम्मान करें

Example: We’re lucky to live in a society where we can openly discuss our opinions without fear; let’s cherish this liberty.

Freedom empowers us to pursue our dreams and aspirations Hindi Meaning: स्वतंत्रता हमें अपने सपनों और आकांक्षाओं को आगे बढ़ाने का अधिकार देती है

Example: I’ve always wanted to travel the world and experience different cultures; the freedom I have gives me the power to pursue that dream.

Respect for individual rights is the cornerstone of a free society Hindi Meaning: व्यक्तिगत अधिकारों का सम्मान एक स्वतंत्र समाज का महत्वपूर्ण पहलू है

Example: The foundation of a just and free society is built upon respecting the individual rights of every citizen.

In the realm of creativity, there are no boundaries – only freedom Hindi Meaning: रचनात्मकता के क्षेत्र में कोई सीमा नहीं होती – केवल स्वतंत्रता होती है

Example: When I’m painting, I feel like there are no limits to my creativity; it’s a realm of boundless freedom.

Today’s decisions shape tomorrow’s freedom Hindi Meaning: आज के फैसले कल की आज़ादी को आकार देते हैं

Example: The environmental choices we make today will directly impact the freedoms of future generations.

With great freedom comes great responsibility Hindi Meaning: स्वतंत्रता के साथ बड़ी जिम्मेदारी भी आती है

Example: As a journalist, I’m entrusted with the freedom to share information; I’m also aware of the responsibility that comes with it.

Celebrate the diversity that flourishes in a climate of freedom Hindi Meaning: स्वतंत्रता के माहौल में पनपने वाली विविधता का जश्न मनाएं

Example: Our city’s vibrant cultural scene is a testament to the diversity that thrives in an environment of freedom.

True freedom lies in being true to yourself Hindi Meaning: सच्ची स्वतंत्रता स्वयं के प्रति सच्चे होने में निहित है

Example: I’ve realized that true freedom is found when I’m authentic and honest with myself about my desires and beliefs.

The pursuit of knowledge is a journey to unlock intellectual freedom Hindi Meaning: स्वतंत्रता हमें अपने सपनों और आकांक्षाओं को आगे बढ़ाने का अधिकार देती है Example: I’ve always been passionate about learning; to me, the pursuit of knowledge is a pathway to intellectual freedom.

Independence Day is not just a time for celebration but also an occasion to remember and honour the sacrifices made by the freedom fighters to secure the nation’s liberty. It also serves as a reminder of the values and the principles on which our nation was founded – equality, justice, and democracy.

Independence Day is an opportunity for citizens to renew their commitment to building a progressive, inclusive, and harmonious society.

Independence Day is not only a day of remembrance but also a day of hope and a celebration of the nation’s resilience and spirit. It brings people together from all walks of life, reinforcing the idea of unity in diversity that defines India. As the tricolour flag soars high, it symbolizes the collective dreams and aspirations of a nation that continues to strive for progress, prosperity, and the welfare of its people.

• Idioms Vocabulary and Phrases about Freedom
• Idioms Vocabulary and Phrases about Freedom with Hindi meaning
• Independence Day words

0 responses on "Idioms, Vocabulary, and Phrases about Freedom with Meaning"

Leave a message cancel reply.

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Search More Topics

Recent posts.

• Divert | Day 585 | Word of the day
• Sentence of The Day | Pehchan Kaun!
• Idiom of the day | Under wraps | Day 469
• Celebrate This Mother’s Day Exploring Idioms and Phrases About Mother’s Love
• Covert | Day 584 | Word of the day

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Joseph Stiglitz and the Meaning of Freedom

By John Cassidy

In the early days of the COVID -19 pandemic, when there was no vaccine in sight and more than a thousand people who had contracted the virus were dying each day in the United States, Joseph Stiglitz, the economics professor and Nobel laureate, was isolating with his wife at home, on the Upper West Side. Stiglitz, who is now eighty-one, was a high-risk individual, and he followed the government’s guidelines on masking and social distancing scrupulously. Not everyone did, of course, and on the political right there were complaints that the mask mandate, in particular, was an unjustified infringement on individual freedom. Stiglitz strongly disagreed. “I thought it was very clear that this was an example where one person’s freedom is another’s unfreedom,” he told me recently. “Wearing a mask was a very little infringement on one person’s freedom, and not wearing a mask was potentially a large infringement on others.”

It also struck Stiglitz, who had served as chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration, that the experience of the pandemic could provide an opportunity for a wide-ranging examination of the question of freedom and unfreedom, which he had been thinking about from an economic perspective for many years. The result is a new book, “ The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society ,” in which he seeks to reclaim the concept of freedom for liberals and progressives. “Freedom is an important value that we do and ought to cherish, but it is more complex and more nuanced than the Right’s invocation,” he writes. “The current conservative reading of what freedom means is superficial, misguided, and ideologically motivated. The Right claims to be the defender of freedom, but I’ll show that the way they define the word and pursue it has led to the opposite result, vastly reducing the freedoms of most citizens.”

Stiglitz’s title is a play on “ The Road to Serfdom ,” Friedrich Hayek’s famous jeremiad against socialism, published in 1944. In making his argument, Stiglitz takes the reader on a broad tour of economic thinking and recent economic history, which encompasses everyone from John Stuart Mill to Hayek and Milton Friedman— the author of the 1962 book “ Capitalism and Freedom ,” which has long been a free-market bible—to Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump . The going can get a bit heavy when Stiglitz is explaining some tricky economic concepts, but his essential argument comes across very clearly. It is encapsulated in a quote from Isaiah Berlin, the late Oxford philosopher, which he cites on his first page and returns to repeatedly: “Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep.”

Stiglitz begins not with pandemic-era mask mandates but with the American plague of gun violence. He notes that there is a simple reason why the United States has far more gun deaths than other countries do. It has far more guns, and, thanks to a tendentious reading of the Second Amendment by the courts, including the Supreme Court, many Americans now regard owning a gun, or even a closet full of semi-automatic rifles, as a constitutionally protected right. “The rights of one group, gun owners, are placed above what most others would view as a more fundamental right, the right to live,” Stiglitz writes. “To rephrase Isaiah Berlin’s quote . . . ‘Freedom for the gun owners has often meant death to schoolchildren and adults killed in mass shootings.’ ”

Gun violence and the spread of diseases by people who refuse to abide by health guidelines are examples of what economists call externalities, an awkward word that is derived from the fact that certain actions (such as refusing to wear a mask) or market transactions (such as the sale of a gun) can have negative (or positive) consequences to the outside world. “Externalities are everywhere,” Stiglitz writes. The biggest and most famous negative externalities are air pollution and climate change, which derive from the freedom of businesses and individuals to take actions that create harmful emissions. The argument for restricting this freedom, Stiglitz points out, is that doing so will “expand the freedom of people in later generations to exist on a livable planet without having to spend a huge amount of money to adapt to massive changes in climate and sea levels.”

In all these cases, Stiglitz argues, restrictions on behavior are justified by the over-all increase in human welfare and freedom that they produce. In the language of cost-benefit analysis, the costs in terms of infringing on individual freedom of action are much smaller than the societal benefits, so the net benefits are positive. Of course, many gun owners and anti-maskers would argue that this isn’t true. Pointing to the gun-violence figures and to scientific studies showing that masking and social distancing did make a difference to COVID -transmission rates, Stiglitz gives such arguments short shrift, and he insists that the real source of the dispute is a difference in values. “Are there responsible people who really believe that the right to not be inconvenienced by wearing a mask is more important than the right to live?” he asks.

In 2002, five years after he left the White House, Stiglitz published “ Globalization and Its Discontents ,” which was highly critical of the International Monetary Fund, a multilateral lending agency based in Washington. The book’s success—and the Nobel—turned him into a public figure, and, over the years, he followed it up with further titles on the global financial crisis, inequality, the cost of the war in Iraq, and other subjects. As a vocal member of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, Stiglitz has expressed support for tighter financial regulations, international debt relief, the Green New Deal , and hefty taxes on very high incomes and large agglomerations of wealth.

During our sit-down interview, Stiglitz told me that, for a long time, he had cavilled at the negative conception of freedom used by conservative economists and politicians, which referred primarily to the ability to escape taxation, regulation, and other forms of government compulsion. As an economist accustomed to thinking in theoretical terms, Stiglitz conceived of freedom as expanding “opportunity sets”—the range of options that people can choose from—which are usually bounded, in the final analysis, by individuals’ incomes. Once you reframe freedom in this more positive sense, anything that reduces a person’s range of choices, such as poverty, joblessness, or illness, is a grave restriction on liberty. Conversely, policies that expand people’s opportunities to make choices, such as income-support payments and subsidies for worker training or higher education, enhance freedom.

Adopting this framework in “The Road to Freedom,” Stiglitz reserves his harshest criticisms for the free-market economists, conservative politicians, and business lobbying groups, who, over the past couple of generations, have used arguments about expanding freedom to promote policies that have benefitted rich and powerful interests at the expense of society at large. These policies have included giving tax cuts to wealthy individuals and big corporations, cutting social programs, starving public projects of investment, and liberating industrial and financial corporations from regulatory oversight. Among the ills that have resulted from this conservative agenda, Stiglitz identifies soaring inequality, environmental degradation, the entrenchment of corporate monopolies, the 2008 financial crisis, and the rise of dangerous right-wing populists like Donald Trump. These baleful outcomes weren’t ordained by any laws of nature or laws of economics, he says. Rather, they were “a matter of choice, a result of the rules and regulations that had governed our economy. They had been shaped by decades of neoliberalism , and it was neoliberalism that was at fault.”

Stiglitz’s approach to freedom isn’t exactly new, of course. Rousseau famously remarked that “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.” In “ Development as Freedom ,” published in 1999, the Harvard economist and philosopher Amartya Sen argued, in the context of debates about poverty and economic growth in developing economies, that the goal of development should be to expand people’s “capabilities,” which he defined as their opportunities to do things like nourish themselves, get educated, and exercise political freedoms. “The Road to Freedom” falls in this tradition, which includes another noted philosopher, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Stiglitz cites Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms speech, delivered in January, 1941, in which the President added freedom from want and freedom from fear to freedom of speech and freedom of worship as fundamental liberties that all people should enjoy.

“A person facing extremes of want and fear is not free,” Stiglitz writes. He describes how, at a high-school reunion, he spoke with former classmates from the city he grew up in—Gary, Indiana, which had once been a thriving center of steel production. “When they graduated from high school, they said, they had planned to get a job at the mill just like their fathers. But with another economic downturn hitting they had no choice —no freedom—but to join the military . . . . Deindustrialization was taking away manufacturing jobs, leaving mainly opportunities that made use of their military training, such as the police force.”

Among the hats Stiglitz wears is one as chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank. He doesn’t claim to have a surefire recipe for reviving rusting American steel towns. But in the second half of “The Road to Freedom” he calls for the creation of a “progressive capitalism” that would look nothing like the neoliberal variant he has spent the past two decades excoriating. In this “good society,” the government would employ a full range of tax, spending, and regulatory policies to reduce inequality, rein in corporate power, and develop the sorts of capital that don’t appear in G.D.P. figures or corporate profit-and-loss statements: human capital (education), social capital (norms and institutions that foster trust and coöperation), and natural capital (environmental resources, such as a stable climate and clean air). Not-for-profits and workers’ coöperatives would play a larger role than they do now, particularly in sectors where the profit motive can easily lead to abuses, such as caregiving for the sick and elderly.

In political terms, Stiglitz started out as a self-described centrist. Over the years, he has shifted to the left and become ever more gimlet-eyed about how policies and laws are made and upheld, and whom they benefit. In “The Road to Freedom,” he inveighs against the Supreme Court for adopting the perspective of the “white male slave-owning drafters of the Constitution,” and reminds us that conservative billionaires and major corporations underwrote the neoliberal policy revolution, which bestowed upon big corporations what Stiglitz refers to as “The Freedom to Exploit.” He writes, “We cannot divorce the current distribution of income and wealth from the current and historical distribution of power.”

Given this conjuncture, and the rise of authoritarian populists like Trump, Orbán , and Bolsonaro , it is easy to get fatalistic about the prospects for creating the “good society” that Stiglitz describes, in which “freedoms of citizens to flourish, to live up to their potential . . . are most expansive.” He’s under no illusion that winning the battle of ideas would be sufficient to bring about such a transformation. But he’s surely right when he writes that, if “we successfully dismantle the myths about freedom that have been propagated by the Right,” and reshape the popular conception of human liberty in a more mutual and positive direction, it would be an important first step.

And how likely is that? In his book, Stiglitz lists a number of reasons to be pessimistic, including the fact that “neoliberal ideology runs deep in society,” and that people stubbornly “discount information that runs counter to their preconceptions and presumptions.” On the positive side, he points to a widespread rejection, particularly among younger people, of the neoliberal approach to issues like inequality and climate change. During our conversation, he cited the Biden Administration’s industrial policy, which provides generous incentives to green-energy producers and purchasers of electric vehicles, as an example of a “sea change” in views about economic policymaking. “Neoliberalism is on the defensive,” he said. However, he also noted the enduring power of simplistic slogans about freedom and averred that he didn’t want to sound like a Pollyanna. “I am optimistic, over-all,” he said. “But it is going to be a battle.” ♦

New Yorker Favorites

The day the dinosaurs died .

What if you started itching— and couldn’t stop ?

How a notorious gangster was exposed by his own sister .

Woodstock was overrated .

Diana Nyad’s hundred-and-eleven-mile swim .

Photo Booth: Deana Lawson’s hyper-staged portraits of Black love .

Fiction by Roald Dahl: “The Landlady”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

News & Politics

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Susan B. Glasser

By Dexter Filkins

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Unpacking the truth of antisemitism on college campuses

Odette Yousef

Colleges have become a flashpoint in discussions about rising antisemitism. But some on those campuses say the alarm from politicians and groups distorts reality and their motives should be examined.

Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Amid campus crackdowns, Gaza war triggers freedom of expression crisis

Facebook Twitter Print Email

Across the United States, “heads are rolling” at the top of some Ivy League universities amid a campus-wide crackdown on students protesting Israel’s war in Gaza, shining a spotlight on the question of freedom of expression worldwide, said UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan.

“The Gaza crisis is truly becoming a global crisis of the freedom of expression,” said Ms. Khan, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. “This is going to have huge repercussions for a long time to come .”

Demonstrations around the world have been roundly calling for an end to the war, which began in October following Hamas-led attacks on Israel that left 1,200 people dead and 250 taken hostage, 133 of who remain captive in Gaza. 

Since then, Israeli military operations have killed more than 34,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, according to the local health ministry, which now faces a man-made famine UN agencies have said stems from Israel’s restrictions on aid deliveries.

In an exclusive interview on Wednesday, she told UN News the way academic freedom in the United States is being restricted is infringing on people’s rights to protest  over the on-going war and occupation, including on campuses of such elite Ivy League schools as Columbia, Harvard and Yale universities.

“One after the other, the Ivy League heads of colleges and universities, their heads are rolling, they’ve been chopped off,” she said. “That clearly polarises even further the political climate on this issue between ‘them’ and ‘us’.”

Confusion over political views and hate speech

Pointing to a troubling rise in hate speech on both sides of the protests, she said that at the same time, people must be allowed to express their political views.

In many of these protests, she said there is a confusion between what is hate speech or incitement to violence and what is basically a different view of the situation in Israel and the occupied territories - or criticism of the way Israel is conducting the conflict.

“Legitimate speech must be protected,” she said, “but, unfortunately, there is a hysteria that is taking hold in the US .”

Criticising Israel is ‘perfectly legitimate’

Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia must be prohibited, and hate speech violates international law, she said.

“But, we must not mix that up with criticism of Israel as a political entity, as a State,” she said. “Criticising Israel is perfectly legitimate under international law.”

She said special rapporteurs have already detected a bias against pro-Palestinian supporters on social media.

“ We need freedom of expression ,” she said, adding that it is a fundamental right that is important for democracy, development, conflict resolution and building peace.

“If we sacrifice all that, politicising the issue and undermining the right to protest and the right to freedom of expression, then I believe we are doing a disservice for which we will pay a price,” she said. “ It will be harder to negotiate if you shut down one side .”

Special Rapporteurs and other Human Rights Council -appointed experts are not UN staff and are independent from any government or organization. They serve in their individual capacity and receive no salary for their work.

We’re sorry, this site is currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please try again in a few moments. Exception: request blocked

Trump slurs words and struggles to gain crowd enthusiasm in Midwest rallies

On a day off from his criminal trial, trump decried biden's “infrastrucker, ershure para,” in a bout of confusion, by griffin eckstein.

Donald Trump took to Michigan and Wisconsin on his day off from court, Wednesday, to rally his supporters and whine about his legal woes. His incoherent speech, along with inflammatory claims on abortion and pro-Palestinian student demonstration, took the spotlight.

Slurring his words at a Waukesha, Wisconsin rally, Trump referred to Biden’s “fake infrastrucker, ershure para,” before settling on “a package of infrastructure.” Minutes later, the 77-year-old launched into a rant about Master Lock, again slipping into incoherence .

The speech was just another instance of his public slips, which have led to speculation on his mental fitness. Tuesday night, he seemed to scramble his words to an indecipherable point while speaking to Fox News about pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations.

In a moment of cognitive function, Trump managed to spew self-aggrandizing historical inaccuracies about the state of the nation when he left office. 

“When I left, [the mortgage rate] was 2.7%. We had no inflation. Everything was so good,” Trump said to a crowd in Freeland, Michigan. 

Mortgage rates and inflation were at lower points, but most likely due to historic job losses and lack of consumer confidence. In January 2021, when, per Trump, “everything was so good,” unemployment was double its current figure and 95,000 Americans lost their lives to COVID-19.

Trump went on to peddle false election conspiracies, including that he won the election, after dodging questions in a Time interview earlier this week about whether he’d resort to political violence if he lost. 

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter , Crash Course.

"They said that if I got the 63 million that I got the first time, which we won, that there was no way I could lose. I got millions and millions of more votes than that, and they nipped us,” Trump said . “We're not letting that bulls**t happen again."

The former president, who appointed three Supreme Court justices responsible for Roe v. Wade’s overturn, addressed the deeply unpopular ruling. 

“Democrats, Republicans, everybody wanted to get abortion out of the federal government. Everybody wanted that,” he said, before thanking the conservative justices “for the wisdom and the courage” to gut abortion protections.

Trump, who said that “people are absolutely thrilled” with abortion rights being left to the states, falsely  accused Democrats of allowing late-term abortions at eight and nine months and “execution after birth.”

To crowds in Wisconsin, Trump applauded the New York Police Department’s crackdown on protests at Columbia University and the City College of New York late Tuesday night, calling the raids “a beautiful thing to watch.” 

“New York was under siege last night,” he said of student demonstrators. "To every college president, I say remove the encampments immediately. Vanquish the radicals and take back our campuses for all of the normal students."

The defendant in a New York criminal hush money trial took the soapbox as an opportunity to lambast proceedings in his criminal trial, as well as previous judgments in a defamation case won by E. Jean Carroll.

“Every one of these fake cases is bulls**t, every single one,” Trump told the crowd, who reportedly became hushed as he ranted about his legal woes. Per Trump, “great legal experts,” including Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, believed there was no case.

“I have a crooked judge, he’s a totally conflicted judge. And [the jury] is in about a 95 percent Democrat area,” Trump said of Judge Merchan , taking care not to mention witnesses in the case.

He went on to criticize the $91 million dollar judgment incurred on him for repeatedly defaming Carroll. 

“They said I defamed her. Because I said her story isn’t true, I defamed her,” he said. “Hopefully the appeal process works because, if it doesn’t, you just don’t have a country.” 

Trump is due back in court Thursday morning for a hearing on further violations of his gag order, after Merchan warned that he may have to turn to jail time.

about this topic

• "Number of different devices" fail to keep Trump awake in court
• "Irreparable breakdown": Law firm abruptly quits defending Trump campaign in sex discrimination case
• Trump's disturbing Time interview shows he has no idea abortion is a ticking time bomb for the GOP

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

Related articles.

US House passes controversial bill that expands definition of anti-Semitism

Rights groups warn that the definition could further chill freedom of speech as protests continue on college campuses.

The United States House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would expand the federal definition of anti-Semitism, despite opposition from civil liberties groups.

The bill passed the House on Wednesday by a margin of 320 to 91, and it is largely seen as a reaction to the ongoing antiwar protests unfolding on US university campuses. It now goes to the Senate for consideration.

Keep reading

The take: university protests spread across the us, at least 200 arrested at may day clashes in turkey, university gaza protests rage on with columbia arrests and violence at ucla.

If the bill were to become law, it would codify a definition of anti-Semitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That is a federal anti-discrimination law that bars discrimination based on shared ancestry, ethnic characteristics or national origin. Adding IHRA’s definition to the law would allow the federal Department of Education to restrict funding and other resources to campuses perceived as tolerating anti-Semitism.

But critics warn IHRA’s definition could be used to stifle campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, which has claimed the lives of 34,568 Palestinians so far.

What is the definition?

IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”.

According to the IHRA, that definition also encompasses the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.

The group also includes certain examples in its definition to illustrate anti-Semitism. Saying, for instance, that “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” would be deemed anti-Semitic under its terms. The definition also bars any comparison between “contemporary Israeli policy” and “that of the Nazis”.

However, IHRA does specify that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic”.

Bipartisan criticism

Rights groups, however, have raised concerns the definition nevertheless conflates criticism of the state of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.

In a letter sent to lawmakers on Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged House members to vote against the legislation, saying federal law already prohibits anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment.

The bill is “therefore not needed to protect against anti-Semitic discrimination”, the letter said.

“Instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism.”

Those fears were echoed within the House of Representatives itself. During a hearing on Tuesday, Representative Jerry Nadler, a Democrat, said the scope of the definition was too broad.

“By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly,” he said.

Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican, also criticised the bill in a post on the social media platform X, noting that it only referred to the IHRA definition, without providing the exact language or stating clearly which parts would be enshrined into law.

“To find the legally adopted definition of anti-Semitism, one must go to [the IHRA website],” he wrote.

“Not only is the definition listed there, but one also finds specific examples of anti-Semitic speech. Are those examples made part of the law as well?”

Concerns on campus

The IHRA adopted its current definition of anti-Semitism in 2016, and its framing has been embraced by the US State Department under President Joe Biden and his two predecessors.

The vote on Wednesday comes as renewed protests have swept across college campuses in opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza. April has seen the spread of encampments on university lawns, as students call for university leaders to divest from Israel and for government officials to call for a ceasefire.

The Biden administration and other top Washington officials have pledged steadfast support for Israel, despite mounting humanitarian concerns over its military campaign.

US lawmakers also have upped the pressure on university administrators to quash the protests, which they have portrayed as inherently anti-Semitic.

Protest leaders across the country, however, have rejected that characterisation. Instead, they accuse administrators and local officials of conflating support for Palestinians with anti-Semitism.

They also have said their rights are being trampled by administrators who seek to appease lawmakers, prompting at times violent police crackdowns on the encampments.

On Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson announced that several House committees would be tasked with a probe into alleged campus anti-Semitism. But critics fear the investigation could ultimately threaten to withhold federal research grants and other government support from the universities where the protests are occurring.