This essay will be a concise, and hopefully enlightening, venture into a very

important philosophical issue. The struggle for understanding the nature of free speech.
When commenting on this subject in America, the logical place to start is the U.S.
Constitution, in particular the First Amendment, which also serves as the first part of our
Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states:

"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."

As you can see, the text covers more than just free speech. It delves into other
areas of life, and other forms of expression, freedom of the press for example. As a
result, when discussing free speech there is a tendency to replace the term “speech” with
“expression” as to do a more accurate accounting of the entire subject. The inspiration
for the First Amendment can be found in the “Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom” as
put forth by Thomas Jefferson in 1786, a full three years before the states would begin
voting to ratify the Bill of Rights. Here is a draft set forth by James Madison on the
same matter (though it was rejected in favor of a more Jeffersonian version):

"The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship,
nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of
conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the
equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal
cases."

While the texts may seem very straight forward in it's meaning; their implications are
far from being finally decided, let alone perfectly understood or agreed upon. The
ongoing debate yields new commentary on the subject, but here are a few examples of
early opinions about the subject:

"Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such
thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech." - Benjamin Franklin

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep
to the slaughter.” - George Washington

“Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.” - Rosa
Luxemburg
 Our founders were very adamant with the idea that the government is not to step
in the way of those that want to express themselves verbally, in print, or in thought.
Moreover, they extended this liberty to many subjects; religion, politics, art, and general
commentary within the country. It is also worth pointing out that in terms of governance
our founders encouraged critical discussion of current events and political leaders; they
knew that a healthy nation relies on the free flow of information. Debate also relies on
information, if only one version of a situation is made available, there can be little to no
discussion at all about it, the outcome would be predetermined.

Following or allowing all points of view often leads to hearing some things that
you don't agree with, or leads you to be subject to ideas that are offensive to you. In
these cases it becomes increasingly important to remember that the freedom to speech
extends to all views – not just your own – and not just the popular ones. It's all too easy
to take a censorious role to contradictory ideas, and in doing so cutting them off from
public discourse. Be aware that when you do this, or make the motion to do this, you are
also denying yourself an important freedom: the freedom of being the ability to hear
what is being said. It's as much a right of the speaker to talk as it is for you to listen. By
depriving another of their words, you build for yourself a cage, in which you, or
someone claiming to work on your behalf, keeps you from hearing a free exchange of
ideas.

That's not to say that by allowing the view to be expressed that you must agree
with it, or condone it. Actually, your permission is not needed, or may not even be
desired. In establishing that the government is in no position to make this call, it follows
that specific individuals or groups of individuals are not afforded that authority either.
In other words, your freedom from a view does not trump another's right to hold and
express their view. This is also true when a majority seeks to silence a minority; in
matters of expression the few do not require the permission of the many. And in these
cases the majority, if their concept of freedom is properly developed, should act in
protecting the views of the few, whether they agree with them or not. To do otherwise is
against the spirit of our founders and is not conducive with liberty. As John Stuart Mill
states:

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in
silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing
mankind.”

The freedom of expression is not reliant on a consensus, it does not require a strong
backing, a majority is simply not needed. One person with a view is all that is called for;
no additional support is necessary. Even if an opinion put forth is false, or comprised of
false elements, it still deserves to be revealed. It's then up to each that hear it to decide
for themselves what's true and what is fallacious, the responsibility to filter information
is our own. Reliance on a third party, or a majority, to make this decision is a terrible
mistake, as it leaves the individual open to the potential subjective review of the
information, rather than an objective or balanced examination. It may be the case that
we're unable or unwilling to find truth or fault with an opinion, and we may be tempted
to then discard it, or perhaps even remove it from discourse all together. In doing so we
would not only impoverish ourselves, but we would also do great harm to the originator.
Lack of subjective understanding is not a valid ground for omission. Just because you
don't understand doesn't mean that others can't, or won't. Again, John Stuart Mill:

“We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion;
and even if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.”

Still there are those who, despite the wisdom of those that came before us, and
against the better judgment of their contemporaries, seek to censor or oppress views.
Those that act to block expression would do good to realize that in building a structure
capable of the task, they design and implement a force that is also capable of doing the
same to them. In effect, they're building the force that will rob them of their own rights;
even if they refuse to acknowledge the risk, or lack the foresight to see this monster
coming down the road. There's a false sense of security when belonging to a group,
doubly so if that group is a majority. A person could be given to wishful thinking, they
may believe that since they're in the party of the censor, that they have protection from
it. This is not always the case. Over time you may find that popular views change, and
you may find yourself on the outside of a new societal norm. If those with the power,
and inside the cultural norm, do not share the American belief that all views are
protected, you could end up losing your voice to the very monster you helped to create.
The only way to ensure your freedoms, and the freedoms of others, is to rise in
protection of yours the same as theirs. To safeguard your neighbor's liberty is to
reinforce your own.

Sometimes there's confusion between supporting expression, and supporting the

view expressed. One does not require the other. Recent examples involving an American
intellectual in France illustrate this fallacy. Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky rose to
the defense of a French Professor Robert Faurisson by way of signing a rather large
(500+ signature) petition calling for observance of his civil rights, his right of free
speech as put forth by the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Faurisson had just published a book denying the conventional story of the Holocaust,
and in doing so created quite a controversy. Faurisson stated that the Nazi gas chambers
never existed, or didn't function in the accepted manner. Revolting and outlandish as the
claims are, they still need to be allowed in public discourse, even if they're promptly
disregarded by most people. The French intellectual community had a different view:
they overwhelmingly condemned both Faurisson and Chomsky, and called for
censorship, along with legal action. A hysterical smear campaign started, alleging that
the two professors were part of a Neo-Nazi propagandist effort. (Even though Chomsky
is Jewish and a former supporter of the Zionist movement).

The critics failed to differentiate between advocacy of free speech, and advocacy
of the expressed views. Luckily, in this country, we understand that even the most vile
opinion still has the right to see the light of day, even if it seems the message is not
worth the effort to voice. It's not the place of the government or the population to decide
what is worthy of inclusion. Here we have systems in place to ensure the continued
liberty of the press and of the citizen. Perhaps those that call for Faurisson's silence
should observe the wisdom of one of their own, a French Philosopher and Polemicist
named François Marie Arouet (Voltaire):

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Despite our nation's best efforts and intentions, we have some examples of
authoritarian censorship and policing of dissent. It's a supported view that up until the
the Supreme Court ruling of New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, we lacked true freedom of
the press. Another low point in our struggle with liberty was the Espionage Act of 1917,
which made illegal actions that the state deemed to be “anti-war” one example being:

“To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the
armed forces of the United State or to promote the success of its enemies. This was
punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years.”

A law that was upheld by Schenck v. United States. A case could be made that the
government's control over the population reached near totalitarian levels around the time
of the Second World War, a point in history when the state could imprison, without
charges, and without the right to due process, any citizen in good standing with the
country. It has been said many times that a nation needs its right to free expression most
when it goes to war, or when it faces any other large challenge. Indeed it was out of the
anti-war struggles of the 1930's and 1940's that we came to better understand the nature
of wartime dissent, and learned its importance. Though earlier examples exist, I'll again
mention the case of Schenck vs. United States, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
replied to the call for an example of when the freedom of speech should be abridged, he
replied that one form of expression that would not protected would be:

"falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

This example seems just, it falls in line with what John Stuart Mill put forth as the
“Harm Principle”. The Harm Principle states:

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
 This rule is a good one. It helps to bring into focus what can be a blurry line.
Where does one person's freedom end, and another person's freedom begin? When the
only purpose of a statement is to inflict real harm to another, the speaker loses their right
to express it, or does so at their own risk. Care has to be taken to recognize the
difference between real harm and perceived harm. One example would be Abrams vs.
United States in which the aforementioned Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dissented
from the majority of the Supreme Court in deciding that a Yiddish speaking, factory
working socialist was not of genuine threat to the United States war effort when
circulating anti-war pamphlets in a language that very few Americans could read. In
modern times this case would have a much different feel.

In closing, I would like to again invoke Mill on the idea of what subjects should
be open to the Freedom of Speech:

“Absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative,

scientific, moral or theological”

In the spirit of those ideas we should all make a concerted effort to utilized and
preserve our right of free expression in varied topics; ranging from the routine to the
exotic. It's important to realize that this freedom is necessary to carry discussions to:

“...their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. Such liberty of
expression is necessary, he suggests, for the dignity of persons.”

Thanks so much for reading, I hope you got something out of it!