Preface
Most nations insist they possess free speech, pointing to their constitutions as a shield against the accusation of tyranny. This insistence, however, is nothing more than mythology.
The boundaries of acceptable discourse are often enforced on a different level (streets, workplace, etc), and the state may have nothing to do with that. To understand free speech, one must start reading history, or at least the headlines (MLK, or even Charlie Kirk as a recent example).
Continental Free Speech
European countries have never been known for a high tolerance for disagreeable speech.
Post-WW2, nations like Germany and France built their identities on the concept of “militant liberal democracy”, the idea that freedom (in their narrow definition) must be protected from its own enemies. This created an environment where speech is a privilege granted by the state, revocable if it threatens the “public order”.
Some would call it hypocrisy. When confronted, the average citizen falls back on the tired trope, repeating “hate speech is not free speech” nonsense. It sounds entitled, but more importantly, it’s a form of censorship and it’s every bit as effective as any authoritarian decree.
American Ideal
Across the Atlantic, the American ideal stands in stark contrast, at least at first glance. The First Amendment is a very real and consequential thing. It’s one of the best products of the Enlightenment. For two centuries, it has protected some fine gentlemen much of the world would happily jail: Nazis marching in Skokie, flag burners, or the creators of degenerate, socially harmful art.
But constitution can only get you so far. In general, there are many things you can say in the US without serious legal consequences, but there are clear red lines you aren’t supposed to cross.
Reality Check
To see the real limits of speech, we must go back to Thomas Hobbes. In his masterpiece, Leviathan, Hobbes had a key insight into human nature. He saw man as a fundamentally vulnerable creature. His state of nature assumed total equality in that regard. The weakest person has the strength to kill the strongest, either by “secret machination” or by confederacy with others. This universal capacity for violence is the basic foundation of the state. We surrender our rights to a common power, building deterrence against the war of all against all.
In my view, this is absolutely true, and it is also the most honest limit on the freedom of speech. Yes, the United States government will not arrest you for saying something provocative. But that legal guarantee does not magically disarm a guy who didn’t like what you said.
This is the real limit. The history of the American South during the Civil Rights Movement proves this point. Black citizens had the legal right to register to vote and sit at lunch counters, but the exercise of that right was met with lynchings, bombings, and firehoses. The law was useless, and that’s the cruel Hobbesian check on liberty.
It means that no one can truly escape self-censorship. Some may call it cowardice, but it’s the rational recognition that we are all equally vulnerable to the violence of others.
Conclusion
Freedom of speech can only be taken seriously in a very narrow scope. There are no absolutes, only degrees of risk. The best we can hope for is the freedom to criticize our government without being disappeared. That is a monumental achievement of the Enlightenment, and it should not be dismissed.
But the myth of absolute freedom contradicts human nature. You can have the right to speak, but you cannot have the right to be heard, nor the right to be safe from the consequences of being heard. If you irritate someone enough, they will always have the option of ending your life, ruining your career, or destroying your reputation.
Speak freely, if you must. Just don’t expect to speak safely.