Preface
Most polities insist they possess free speech, pointing to their constitutions as proof. But the devil, as always, is in the details.
The boundaries of acceptable discourse can be enforced at different levels, so it doesn’t have to be the state alone. People may be forced to self-censor in their workplaces, or they might fear that a group of thugs will beat them up if they dare to voice something controversial.
To fully grasp free speech, one must start reading history, or at least the headlines (MLK, or even the assassination of Charlie Kirk as a recent example).
Continental Free Speech
European nations have never been known for a high tolerance for disagreeable speech.
Post-WW2, countries like Germany and France built their identities on the concept of “militant liberal democracy”. Freedom, in their narrow definition, must be protected from its enemies. This created an environment where speech is a privilege granted by the state, revocable at will.
Some would call it hypocrisy. When confronted, the average citizen falls back on the tired trope, repeating “hate speech is not free speech” nonsense.
American Ideal
The First Amendment is real and it has consequences, unlike the paper promises of Europe. It’s one of the best products of the Enlightenment. For two centuries, it has protected many good people alongside some questionable gentlemen much of the world would happily jail. The most notorious examples are Nazis marching in Skokie, flag burners, and creators of art perceived as degenerate or socially harmful.
But the constitution can only get you so far. 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, the foundational thinker on human nature.
In his masterpiece, Leviathan, 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 the Leviathan, the state, hoping to build 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 had to deal with the possibility of 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.