speech about freedom

Latest News

Published on: July 3rd, 2020

15 Great Speeches to Remind America what Independence Day is About

This year we will celebrate the 244 th anniversary of American independence. This day does not only represent the creation of a new nation, but the creation of a new civilization, one founded on the principles of freedom, self-government, and equality. Here are 15 speeches to inspire new vigor for our founding principles. Looking at who and what we were will help us remember who and what we ought to be.

1. Patrick Henry, “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” 1775

Patrick Henry gave this speech in 1775 at the Virginia Convention. It took place only a few months after the assembly of the first Continental Congress had sent King George III a petition for the redress of grievances. Boston Harbor was also blockaded by the British in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party. Tensions were high, revolution seemed inevitable, but still many political leaders in Virginia held out hope that the relationship with Great Britain could be restored. Patrick Henry sought to dispel them of that notion.

Patrick Henry was a lawyer and had a reputation as one of the greatest opponents of British taxation. In this speech he argues passionately for independence. He made his case clear in the opening of his speech stating, “For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery…” He chides the assembly for indulging in “illusions of hope” for passively waiting “to be betrayed with a kiss” and for falling prey to the siren songs of the British.

He reminds the assembly of the lengths the colonists have gone to in order to plead their case to the British, “We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.” He then states how the British have received such outreach, “Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne.”

Next is Henry’s powerful call to action, a call that would galvanize the colonies into declaring independence from Great Britain:

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us! … Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave… There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Read Patrick’s entire speech . Watch Patrick’s speech on YouTube .

2. Samuel Adams, “On American Independence” 1776

Samuel Adams was a delegate to the First Continental Congress in 1774, was a Signer of the Declaration of Independence, helped get the Constitution ratified in the Massachusetts Convention, and became Governor of Massachusetts in 1794.

In this speech Adams recognizes that this was not simply a battle that would determine the fate of two nations, but the fate of the world at large. He declared, “Courage, then, my countrymen; our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty.”

Adams notes the ability of men to “deliberately and voluntarily” form for themselves a political society. He cites John Hampden, John Locke, and Algernon Sidney whose ideas and actions paved the way for such a feat. Of this new founding he states:

Other nations have received their laws from conquerors; some are indebted for a constitution to the suffering of their ancestors through revolving centuries. The people of this country, alone, have formally and deliberately chosen a government for themselves, and with open and uninfluenced consent bound themselves into a social compact. Here no man proclaims his birth or wealth as a title to honorable distinction, or to sanctify ignorance and vice with the name of hereditary authority. He who has most zeal and ability to promote public felicity, let him be the servant of the public. This is the only line of distinction drawn by nature. Leave the bird of night to the obscurity for which nature intended him, and expect only from the eagle to brush the clouds with his wings and look boldly in the face of the sun.

He like Patrick Henry then gives a call to action:

We have no other alternative than independence, or the most ignominious and galling servitude. The legions of our enemies thicken on our plains; desolation and death mark their bloody career, while the mangled corpses of our countrymen seem to cry out to us as a voice from heaven.

Lastly, Adams ends his address declaring the people of America the guardians of their own liberty. Then with an ode to the ancient Roman republic he ends stating, “Nothing that we propose can pass into a law without your consent. Be yourselves, O Americans, the authors of those laws on which your happiness depends.”

You can read Samuel Adams' full speech .

3. John Quincy Adams, “An Address Celebrating the Declaration of Independence” 1821

Adams begins the speech recounting the first settlers of the Plymouth colony and how they entered into a written covenant with one another on the eve of their landing. Of this event he states,

Thus was a social compact formed upon the elementary principles of civil society, in which conquest and servitude had no part. The slough of brutal force was entirely cast off; all was voluntary; all was unbiased consent; all was the agreement of soul with soul.

Adams continues to trace America’s historical and political development throughout the speech. He recalls how the British mistreated the colonists from the beginning, citing how Britain went against its own ideas and principles in denying the colonists representation and consent. He states, “For the independence of North America, there were ample and sufficient causes in the laws of moral and physical nature.”

Adams’ ode to the Declaration of Independence is most worth reading:

It was the first solemn declaration by a nation of the only legitimate foundation of civil government. It was the corner stone of a new fabric, destined to cover the surface of the globe. It demolished at a stroke the lawfulness of all governments founded upon conquest. It swept away all the rubbish of accumulated centuries of servitude. It announced in practical form to the world the transcendent truth of the unalienable sovereignty of the people. It proved that the social compact was no figment of the imagination; but a real, solid, and sacred bond of the social union. From the day of this declaration, the people of North America were no longer the fragment of a distant empire, imploring justice and mercy from an inexorable master in another hemisphere. They were no longer children appealing in vain to the sympathies of a heartless mother; no longer subjects leaning upon the shattered columns of royal promises, and invoking the faith of parchment to secure their rights. They were a nation, asserting as of right, and maintaining by war, its own existence. A nation was born in a day. […] [T]hat a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.

Adams goes on to pronounce that the Declaration was more than the “mere secession of territory” and the “establishment of a nation.” No, these things have occurred before, but the Declaration of Independence not only liberated America but ennobled all of humanity, he stated. 

You can read John Quincy Adams' entire speech here .

  4. Daniel Webster “Speech at the laying of the cornerstone of the capitol,” July 4, 1851.

Daniel Webster was one of the most prominent lawyers in the 19 th century, arguing over 200 cases before the Supreme Court. He also represented New Hampshire and Massachusetts in Congress and was Secretary of State under three presidents. Webster is also known for his speech in Congress, called the Second Reply to Hayne, which derided the theory of nullification espoused by John C. Calhoun.

Webster’s speech on the occasion of laying the Capital building’s cornerstone had a patriotic tone, He begins with the celebratory declaration, “This is America! This is Washington! And this the Capitol of the United States!”

Of the Founding generation Webster stated,

The Muse inspiring our Fathers was the Genius of Liberty, all on fire with a sense of oppression, and a resolution to throw it off; the whole world was the stage and higher characters than princes trod it… how well the characters were cast, and how well each acted his part…

He went on to speak about the tremendous sacrifice the men who signed the Declaration paid. “It was sealed in blood,” he stated. Of the liberty that the Founding generation bestowed upon successive generations Webster said,

Every man’s heart swells within him; every man’s port and bearing becomes somewhat more proud and lofty, as he remembers that seventy-five years have rolled away, and that the great inheritance of liberty is still his; his undiminished and unimpaired; his in all its original glory’ his to enjoy’ his to protect; and his to transmit to future generations.

Finally, Webster made clear that American liberty is unique among nations,

I have said, gentlemen, that our inheritance is an inheritance of American liberty. That liberty is characteristic, peculiar, and altogether our own. Nothing like it existed in former times, nor was known in the most enlightened States of antiquity; while with us its principles have become interwoven into the minds of individual men… […] And, finally another most important part of the great fabric of American liberty is, that there shall be written constitutions, founded on the immediate authority of the people themselves, and regulating and restraining all the powers conferred upon Government, whether legislative, executive, or judicial.

You can read Daniel Webster's entire speech here .

5. Frederick Douglass, “What to the slave is the 4 th of July?”  July 5, 1852

He spoke about the Founding Fathers as men of courage who “preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage.” Of the “fathers of this republic” he said, “They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.”

Drawing a contrast between the Founders and the men of his generation advocating the positive good of slavery Douglass stated,

They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was “settled” that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final;” not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times.

Douglass encouraged Americans to celebrate the Declaration as the ring-bolt to the chains of the United Sates’ destiny. “The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost,” he stated.

Douglass then rightly points out that America was not living up to its own ideals as laid out in the Declaration when it came to the millions of black men and women still enslaved. He stated,

Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Of Slavery’s effects on the American union he declared, “It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement, the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice; it shelters crime; it is a curse to the earth that supports it…”

He goes on to explain that this anniversary does not yet include black men and women. He stated, “The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me.” Yet Douglass was optimistic that this would soon change. He called the Constitution a “GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT.” He exhorted the assembly to consider the Constitution’s preamble and ask themselves if slavery was listed as one of its purposes.

He finished his momentous speech by saying, 

Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.

You can read Frederick Douglass' entire speech here .

6. Abraham Lincoln, Electric Cord Speech, 1858

In this speech often titled, “Speech at Chicago, Illinois” Abraham Lincoln replies to Senator Stephen Douglas’ conception of popular sovereignty. This was a theory that argued that each new territory should be able to decide whether or not to have slavery within their borders instead of allowing the federal government to decide. Lincoln saw this as a repeal of the Missouri Compromise which kept slavery relegated to the South.

To make his case against popular sovereignty and the expansion of slavery Lincoln argues that the adopters of the Constitution decreed that slavery should not go into the new territory and that the slave trade should be cut off within twenty years by an act of Congress. “What were [these provisions] but a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution intended and expected the ultimate extinction of that institution,” Lincoln asked the crowd.

After expounding upon the evils of slavery and recent actions to preserve the institution Lincoln turns to the Declaration of Independence for support. He stated,

We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves—we feel more attached the one to the other and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, (loud and long continued applause) and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.

You can read the entire Electric Cord speech here .

7. Abraham Lincoln, Address in Independence Hall, February 22, 1861

On Abraham Lincoln's inaugural journey to Washington as president-elect, he stopped in Philadelphia at the site where the Declaration of Independence had been signed. There he said,

I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

You can read the entire address in Independence Hall here .

8. Abraham Lincoln, Fragments on the Constitution and Union, January 1, 1861

This short selection is not part of Lincoln’s tome of public speeches. One theory is that Lincoln wrote it while composing his first inaugural address. It is noteworthy because of Lincoln’s argument that what is most important about America are the principles and ideals it was founded upon. That principle, he states, is “Liberty to all.”

The  expression  of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate.  Without  this, as well as  with  it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but  without  it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will  fight,  and  endure,  as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters. The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple–not the apple for the picture.

Read the entire Fragments on the Constitution and Union selection here .

9. Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863

Aside from our original founding documents the Gettysburg address is perhaps the most important American creed ever written. It signifies America’s second founding or the moment our first founding more fully aligned with its own ideals. Since its decree America has begun to live in what Lincoln called “a new birth of freedom.” Here are selections from the address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. […] It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

You can read the full Gettysburg Address here .

10. Winston Churchill, “The Third Great Title-Deed of Anglo-American Liberties” July 4, 1918

A great harmony exists between the spirit and language of the Declaration of Independence and all we are fighting for now. A similar harmony exists between the principles of that Declaration and all that the British people have wished to stand for, and have in fact achieved at last both here at home and in the self-governing Dominions of the Crown. The Declaration of Independence is not only an American document. It follows on Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as the third great title-deed on which the liberties of the English-speaking people are founded.

Read Churchill's entire speech here .

11. Calvin Coolidge, “Speech on the 150 th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 5 1926

 Calvin Coolidge, the 30 th president of the United States, was sworn in after President Harding’s unexpected death. Harding’s administration was steeped in scandal. Coolidge is known for restoring integrity to the executive branch by rooting out corruption and being a model of integrity.

Coolidge gave his Fourth of July Speech in Philadelphia, the birthplace of our nation. There he pointed to the Liberty Bell as a great American symbol,

It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event.

Of the Declaration Coolidge stated,

It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

Of his trust in our Founding documents he said,

It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

Read Coolidge's full speech here .

12. John F. Kennedy, “Some Elements of the American Character” July 4, 1946

John F. Kennedy gave this speech as a candidate for Congress. In it he offers a robust defense of America’s founding. He lauds America’s religious character and derides the theory that America’s founders were concerned purely with economic interests. He explicitly states,

In recent years, the existence of this element in the American character has been challenged by those who seek to give an economic interpretation to American history. They seek to destroy our faith in our past so that they may guide our future. These cynics are wrong…

 Kennedy instead argues,

In Revolutionary times, the cry "No taxation without representation" was not an economic complaint. Rather, it was directly traceable to the eminently fair and just principle that no sovereign power has the right to govern without the consent of the governed. Anything short of that was tyranny. It was against this tyranny that the colonists "fired the shot heard 'round the world."

Kennedy then espouses a political theory of the American founding that relies on natural rights, 

The American Constitution has set down for all men to see the essentially Christian and American principle that there are certain rights held by every man which no government and no majority, however powerful, can deny. Conceived in Grecian thought, strengthened by Christian morality, and stamped indelibly into American political philosophy, the right of the individual against the State is the keystone of our Constitution. Each man is free.

You can read John F. Kennedy's full speech here .

13. Martin Luther King Jr., “I Have a Dream” 1963

Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech” is another great cry from another great man declaring that America was not living up to its founding principles.

King begins his speech by harkening back to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. He states, “This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice.” Yet, he argues, 100 years later black men and women are still not free. To right this wrong, he points to the Declaration,

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

King refused to believe that there was no hope. He said,

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

King’s dream inspired a nation to live up to its ideals. His beautiful words have become iconic,

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

 You can read and listen to "I Have a Dream" in full here .

14. Martin Luther King Jr. “The American Dream” Sermon Delivered at Ebenezar Baptist Church” July 4, 1965

In this sermon delivered on July 4, 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. locates the substance of the American dream within the Declaration of Independence. About the statement, “All men are created equal,” King states, “The first saying we notice in this dream is an amazing universalism. It doesn’t say “some men,” it says “all men.”

King goes on to explain to the congregation what separates the United States from other nations around the world.

 Then that dream goes on to say another thing that ultimately distinguishes our nation and our form of government from any totalitarian system in the world. It says that each of us has certain basic rights that are neither derived from or conferred by the state.

As the source of these inalienable rights King points to the fact that they are God-given. “Never before in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profound, eloquent, and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality,” he said.

King goes on to point out that America has not lived up to this dream. He describes America as being “divided against herself.” He argues that America cannot afford an “anemic democracy.”

He however professed hope that this dream will challenge America to remember her “noble capacity for justice and love and brotherhood.” He further challenged America to respect the “dignity and worth of all human personality” and to live up to the ideal that “all men are created equal.”

King clarifies that equality does not mean that every musician is a Mozart or every philosopher an Aristotle, but that all men are “equal in intrinsic worth.” He points to the Biblical concept of imago dei . He states, “[T]are no gradations in the image of God. Every man from a treble white to a bass black is significant on God’s keyboard, precisely because every man is made in the image of God. He ends his sermon with these powerful words,

We have a dream. It started way back in 1776, and God grant that America will be true to her dream. I still have a dream this morning that truth will reign supreme and all of God’s children will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. And when this day comes the morning stars will sing together and the sons of God will shout for joy.

Read Martin Luther King Jr.'s full sermon here .

15. Ronald Reagan, “Address to the Nation on Independence Day” July 4, 1986

In this speech Reagan recalls the moment of the signing of the Declaration,

Fifty-six men came forward to sign the parchment. It was noted at the time that they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors. And that was more than rhetoric; each of those men knew the penalty for high treason to the Crown. ``We must all hang together,'' Benjamin Franklin said, ``or, assuredly, we will all hang separately.'' And John Hancock, it is said, wrote his signature in large script so King George could see it without his spectacles. They were brave. They stayed brave through all the bloodshed of the coming years. Their courage created a nation built on a universal claim to human dignity, on the proposition that every man, woman, and child had a right to a future of freedom.

Reagan also talked about the beautiful friendship between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. He noted how they died on the same day, July 4 th , exactly 50 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It was their first gift to us, Reagan said.

My fellow Americans, it falls to us to keep faith with them and all the great Americans of our past. Believe me, if there's one impression I carry with me after the privilege of holding for 5 ½ years the office held by Adams and Jefferson and Lincoln, it is this: that the things that unite us -- America's past of which we're so proud, our hopes and aspirations for the future of the world and this much-loved country -- these things far outweigh what little divides us. And so tonight we reaffirm that Jew and gentile, we are one nation under God; that black and white, we are one nation indivisible; that Republican and Democrat, we are all Americans. Tonight, with heart and hand, through whatever trial and travail, we pledge ourselves to each other and to the cause of human freedom, the cause that has given light to this land and hope to the world.

You can watch Ronald Reagan's speech here or read Reagan's speech here .

About Hillsdale in D.C.

Hillsdale in D.C. is an extension of the teaching mission of Hillsdale College to Washington, D.C. Its purpose is to teach the Constitution and the principles that give it meaning. Through the study of original source documents from American history—and of older books that formed the education of America’s founders—it seeks to inspire students, teachers, citizens, and policymakers to return the America’s principles to their central place in the political life of the nation.

About Hillsdale College

Hillsdale College is an independent liberal arts college located in southern Michigan. Founded in 1844, the College has built a national reputation through its classical liberal arts core curriculum and its principled refusal to accept federal or state taxpayer subsidies, even indirectly in the form of student grants or loans. It also conducts an outreach effort promoting civil and religious liberty, including a free monthly speech digest, Imprimis , with a circulation of more than 5.7 million. For more information, visit hillsdale.edu .

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Read Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech in its entirety

Civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. addresses the crowd at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., where he gave his "I Have a Dream" speech on Aug. 28, 1963, as part of the March on Washington. AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. addresses the crowd at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., where he gave his "I Have a Dream" speech on Aug. 28, 1963, as part of the March on Washington.

Monday marks Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Below is a transcript of his celebrated "I Have a Dream" speech, delivered on Aug. 28, 1963, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. NPR's Talk of the Nation aired the speech in 2010 — listen to that broadcast at the audio link above.

Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders gather before a rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Aug. 28, 1963, in Washington. National Archives/Hulton Archive via Getty Images hide caption

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.: Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But 100 years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself in exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check.

Code Switch

The power of martin luther king jr.'s anger.

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men — yes, Black men as well as white men — would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked insufficient funds.

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt.

Martin Luther King is not your mascot

We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.

Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

Civil rights protesters march from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial for the March on Washington on Aug. 28, 1963. Kurt Severin/Three Lions/Hulton Archive/Getty Images hide caption

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. 1963 is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual.

There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

Throughline

Bayard rustin: the man behind the march on washington (2021).

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.

And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, when will you be satisfied? We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.

We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: for whites only.

We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.

No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

How The Voting Rights Act Came To Be And How It's Changed

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our Northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

So even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

People clap and sing along to a freedom song between speeches at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963. Express Newspapers via Getty Images hide caption

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right down in Alabama little Black boys and Black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

Nikole Hannah-Jones on the power of collective memory

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning: My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrims' pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that, let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, Black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last. Free at last. Thank God almighty, we are free at last.

Correction Jan. 15, 2024

A previous version of this transcript included the line, "We have also come to his hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now." The correct wording is "We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now."

50 Essential Civil Rights Speeches

Activists, athletes, actors, and preachers with sometimes-fiery presentation skills are just a few of the people who’ve communicated the message of civil rights to the masses.

When many people think of civil rights, the path to equality for the Black community comes to mind, but oration is equally as instrumental to civil rights movements too, especially those striving to secure equality for women, those who are older, and members of the LBGTQ+ community.

Our partners at Stacker compiled a list of 50 essential civil rights speeches using resources including BlackPast , TED , American RadioWorks , the Obama Foundation , and various other media and educational sources.

Almost everyone knows the names and the works of Martin Luther King Jr ., Malcolm X, and Barack Obama. But did you know one presenter, in particular, centered intersectionality in her speech to include a telling test that illustrated how visibility for some can be almost nonexistent? Even another key player in the civil rights movement of the ’60s was sometimes silenced because he was Black and gay.

Being incendiary was natural for some of these speakers, while others toed the line between creating change and avoiding offending more conservative elements of the movement.

Some of these speeches date back five decades into the past, but several others were delivered following the groundbreaking events of 2020 — from Black Lives Matter rallies to the 2020 March on Washington — which featured powerful orators, ranging from activists to professionals with doctorates to even a grade-school student.

Keep reading to discover 50 essential civil rights speeches.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘The Montgomery Bus Boycott’

Four days after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in 1955, Martin Luther King Jr. addressed thousands of people who were part of the subsequent boycott of the bus system in Montgomery, Alabama. He talked about the longtime intimidation of Black bus riders, and the importance of continuing the protest.

Related: The best quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. that go beyond the clichés

Related: The best quotes from Rosa Parks

Malcolm X’s ‘White Liberals and Conservatives’

Malcolm X talked in 1963 about the power of the vote to change the race problem, noting that only 3 million “Negro integration-seekers” in the “Black bourgeoisie” vote, but 8 million don’t. He proposed that both white liberals and conservatives use civil rights “in this crooked game of power politics” to garner power.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’

The civil rights leader penned this speech in 1963 while jailed for continuing to protest the mistreatment of Black people. Martin Luther King Jr. talked about the interconnectedness of humanity, reminding us that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere—we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”

Related: The best quotes from Martin Luther King Jr's daughter, Bernice King, about hope, justice, and love

John F. Kennedy’s 1963 address on civil rights

After National Guard assistance was required in 1963 to allow two Black students onto the University of Alabama campus, President John F. Kennedy reminded the nation that Americans of any color should be able to attend public schools, receive equal service, register to vote, and “enjoy the privileges of being American,” framing those rights as a moral issue. The stats he quoted to prove that this was not the case have changed over time, but many show that equality has not yet been achieved.

Related: The best John F. Kennedy quotes to leave you feeling inspired

John Lewis’ 1963 March on Washington speech

Before representing Georgia in Congress, John Lewis was chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), organizing with other civil rights leaders including Martin Luther King Jr. Lewis drafted his “March on Washington” speech in response to the Civil Rights Bill of 1963 , stating that “we cannot be patient” for jobs and freedom and that “we are tired. We are tired of being beaten by policemen. We are tired of seeing our people locked up in jail over and over again.”

Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’

The civil rights icon called for an end to racism in front of more than 250,000 people in 1963. Martin Luther King Jr. talked about the lack of progress at that time, but almost 60 years later, the police brutality decried in this speech still exists, visible in the deaths of unarmed Black citizens and the protests that followed —perhaps most demonstratively were the Black Lives Matter protests that ensued following the killings of George Floyd , Ahmaud Arbery , and Breonna Taylor in 2020.

Malcolm X’s ‘By Any Means Necessary’

The Nation of Islam activist spoke in 1964 about the creation of a Black nationalist party based on the successes of African brothers in gaining “more independence, more recognition, more respect as human beings.” His new Organization of African Unity would hasten the “complete independence of people of African descent … by any means necessary,” starting in Harlem.

Malcolm X’s ‘The Ballot or the Bullet’

Malcolm X continued his incendiary tone in 1964 with his “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech, in which he advocated for voting but doesn’t rule out more violent reactions. He noted that Black people are “fed up,” “disenchanted,” and “disillusioned,” creating an explosive environment.

Fannie Lou Hamer’s 1964 Democratic National Convention testimony

Former sharecropper and civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer talked in 1964 about traveling 26 miles to register to vote to become “first-class citizens,” being met by police, and ultimately being evicted for her efforts. In her speech, she asked, “Is this America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where we have to sleep with our telephones off of the hook?”

Lorraine Hansberry’s ‘The Black Revolution and the White Backlash’

Not far off the mark from the commentary of Malcolm X, Lorraine Hansberry noted the “problem about white liberals,” who she asserted don’t understand the impatience of Black people who’ve been “kicked in the face so often.” Her 1964 speech also mentioned that the solution is to get them to “stop being a liberal and become an American radical.”

Joseph Jackson’s ‘The Vote is the Only Effective Weapon in the Civil Rights Struggle’

Baptist preacher Joseph Jackson talked about the interconnectedness of civil rights and voting rights in this 1964 speech. The conservative leader implored the Black community to “fight their battles in the polling booth,” but opposed the direct action taken by many other civil rights leaders of the time.

Bayard Rustin’s ‘Negro Revolution in 1965’

Bayard Rustin is relatively unknown in civil rights history, even though he was a major contributor to the movement, and acted as deputy director of the March on Washington.

In this 1964 speech , he said that “the Negro is forcing the American people into a revolutionary situation” focused on better education, housing, and job opportunities. Some wanted to silence Rustin because he was Black and gay.

James Baldwin’s ‘Pin Drop’

Writer and activist James Baldwin talked in 1965 about how it can seem to Black people that they “belong where white people have put you.”

He addressed how gentrification existed 55 years ago: “When someone says ‘Urban Renewal,’ that Negroes are simply going to be thrown out into the streets.”

He also warned how those who are excluded will rise up: “The people who are denied participation in [the American Dream], by their very presence, will wreck it.”

Related: The Best Quotes From James Baldwin

Lyndon B. Johnson’s ‘We Shall Overcome’

In 1965, following the atrocities of Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon B. Johnson called for voting and civil rights , stating, “Their cause must be our cause too.” Johnson had helped pass the Civil Rights Act the previous year, but he’d previously called a press conference to detract from testimony by Fannie Lou Hamer about voter suppression.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘Our God is Marching On’

After a four-day march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. spoke to the crowd, asking the question “How long will prejudice blind the visions of men?”—with the often-repeated answer, “Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” King hoped that racist brutality was coming to an end, but progress has continued to be spiked with beatings and deaths and new records in the number of hate groups .

Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘The Three Evils of Society’

Martin Luther King Jr. talked about the “triple evils” of war, poverty, and racism at the 1967 National Conference on New Politics in Chicago.

His thoughts on war talk about “guided missiles and misguided men,” while his insights on poverty and racism note that “capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor both black and white, both here and abroad.”

Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘The Other America’

Equality for all was another of Martin Luther King Jr.’s rallying cries. In this 1967 speech, he recognized that some people live on a “lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.”

Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I’ve Been to the Mountaintop’

No collection of civil rights speeches would be complete without the hopeful presentation by Martin Luther King Jr. from the night before his assassination in 1968. Despite the roadblocks along the way, including the beatings and deaths of numerous people in the movement, the civil rights leader was still convinced that “we, as a people, will get to the promised land.”

Muhammad Ali’s ‘Wake Up and Apologize’

In a 1972 conversation with an Irish journalist, Muhammad Ali launched into a poetic assessment of what it’s like to face police brutality as a Black man. The GOAT noted, “Better far from all I see, to die fighting to be free, what more fitting end could be … let me die by being Black, better far that I should go, standing here against the foe is the sweeter death to know.”

Angela Davis’ ‘The Gates to Freedom’

Socialist and activist Angela Davis faced sexism while championing criminal justice reform and civil rights for the Black community, even being imprisoned as a result. After her trial, she gave this speech in 1972, suggesting that society “redirect that wealth … and channel it into food for the hungry , and to clothes for the needy; into schools, hospitals, housing, and all the material things that are necessary.” The ideas parallel current calls for reform.

Related: The Best Quotes About Hope, Optimism, and Cynicism

Related: The Best Quotes About Feeding the Hungry

Shirley Chisholm’s ‘The Black Woman in Contemporary America’

The first Black woman elected to Congress urged all Americans in 1974 to “Forget traditions! Forget conventionalisms! Forget what the world will say whether you're in your place or out of your place.” This mindset served her well when she put her name in the hat for president of the United States.

Jesse Jackson’s ‘Keep Hope Alive’

Two-time presidential candidate, activist, and organizer Jesse Jackson spoke to the Democratic National Convention in 1988 about finding common ground, decades before the divisiveness seen in recent years. “Progress will not come through boundless liberalism, nor static conservatism, but at the critical mass of mutual survival,” Jackson said.

John Lewis’ ‘You Cannot Tell People They Cannot Fall in Love’

The Georgia representative and civil rights organizer stepped up at the Defense of Marriage Act congressional debates in 1996 to tell the world, “You cannot tell people they cannot fall in love.” Lewis drew parallels between interracial and gay marriages in his reaction to the wording in the Act that defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s ‘America Beyond the Color Line’

Harvard professor and intellectual Henry Louis Gates Jr. spoke to the Commonwealth Club of California in 2004 about traveling all over the country to talk to Black people about their experiences, especially with racial equality. His interviews took place everywhere, from “Ebony Towers” and “Black Hollywood” to the inner city and all-Black communities in the South.

Barack Obama’s 2004 Democratic National Convention speech

Before he was even elected as a senator, Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 from the perspective of the child of parents who deemed him blessed to be in America. His speech considered the progress the country has made, but also how far we have to go.

Barack Obama’s ‘A More Perfect Union’

When former President Barack Obama was still a candidate in early 2008, he addressed America and its legacy of racism , talking about the original sin of slavery, and how the answer was already embedded in the Constitution “that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.” Continuing, he talked about how protests “on the streets and in the courts” have moved us closer to a “more just, more equal, more free, more caring, and more prosperous America.”

Barack Obama’s 2009 Inaugural Address

When President Barack Obama was inaugurated in 2009, his speech recognized the diversity of the American people with respect to race, religion, and more. His speech held out hope “that the old hatreds shall someday pass” and “that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve.” The year 2020 has shown us we haven’t reached that goal yet, but Obama’s speech promised that one day we will.

Bryan Stevenson’s ‘We Need to Talk About an Injustice’

Bryan Stevenson is a human rights lawyer who founded the Equal Justice Institute and its Legacy Museum , which educates people about the direct path from slavery to mass incarceration. In this 2012 TED Talk, he talks about injustices and the impact of the death penalty in a world where 10% of those on death row are ultimately exonerated.

Related: The Best Quotes By Activists About Activism

Barack Obama’s 2013 Inaugural Address

President Barack Obama took the opportunity of his second inauguration in 2013 to draw parallels between Black and women’s rights, fought for in Selma and Seneca Falls, to the Stonewall riots that were pivotal for the gay rights movement. His commitment to that cause was showcased in his comment that “our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law,” setting the stage for arguments to declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Related: The Best Quotes from Barack Obama

Vernā Myers’ ‘How to Overcome Our Biases? Walk Boldly Toward Them’

In her 2014 TEDx Talk , diversity consultant Vernā Myers advised , “Stop trying to be good people, we need real people. Don't even think about colorblindness.”

Yoruba Richen’s ‘What the Gay Rights Movement Learned From the Civil Rights Movement’

Filmmaker Yoruba Richen, who is a part of both the Black and LGBTQ+ community, spoke in this 2014 TED Talk about her frustration concerning the supposed conflict between the two worlds, but realized that there was really more intersection. She explored how the LGBTQ+ community successfully used strategies and tactics used by the Black community in their own civil rights efforts.

John Lewis’ speech on 50th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday

Fifty years after the Selma march that became known as Bloody Sunday because of the police abuse that almost killed him and other marchers, John Lewis returned to the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 2015. Lewis reminded everyone , “We must use this moment to recommit ourselves to do all we can to finish the work. There is still work left to be done. Get out there and push and pull until we redeem the soul of America.”

Related: Lessons We Can Learn From the World's Leading Activists

Jimmy Carter’s ‘Why I Believe the Mistreatment of Women is the Number One Human Rights Abuse’

Former President of the United States Jimmy Carter posited in this 2015 TEDWomen Talk that abuse of women and girls is the major human rights abuse of our time, resulting from various reasons, including misinterpretation of scriptures and “men [who] don't give a damn.” He also outlined in his talk a number of abuses that are commonplace across the world. His Carter Center is committed to protecting and advancing human rights .

You can read Jimmy Carter's most inspiring quotes about human rights and hope in our curated guide.

Julian Bond’s ‘Declaration: We Must Practice Dissent’

From the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee to the Southern Poverty Law Center and NAACP, Julian Bond has been a part of some of the major organizations of the civil rights movement. In his final speech in 2015, he continued to advocate for protest and dissent.

Barack Obama’s ‘Love is Love’

More than two years after advocating for marriage equality in his second inauguration, Barack Obama celebrated the downfall of part of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2015 with a speech in which he declared, “ Love is love.”

Jesse Williams’ 2016 BET Awards speech

Actor Jesse Williams’ speech at the 2016 BET Awards remembered the many Black people who were killed by police at the time, expressing, “We know that police somehow managed to deescalate, disarm, and not kill white people every day, so what’s gonna happen is we are gonna have equal rights and justice in our own country, or we will restructure their function and ours.” Mirroring the demands of other civil rights activists for action now, not later, he noted that “the hereafter is a hustle, we want it now.

Kimberlé Crenshaw’s ‘The Urgency of Intersectionality’

Kimberlé Crenshaw started her 2016 TEDWomen talk commemorating the names of people killed at the time by the hands of police, conducting an experiment that demonstrates that the women in that group are relatively unknown. Discrimination against Black women “feels like injustice squared,” asserted Crenshaw, who later invited the audience to use #SayHerName to bear witness to these women.

Related: Get to know these famous Black activists

Ashton Applewhite’s ‘Let’s End Ageism’

One type of discrimination that’s less considered in the civil rights realm is ageism. In this 2017 TED Talk , Ashton Applewhite called it the “last socially-acceptable prejudice.” Many fear getting old, even though the stats show that reality doesn’t match our fears. And prejudice of any type divides us. She implored us to get off the “hamster wheel of age denial.”

Daryl Davis’ ‘Why I, As a Black Man, Attend KKK Rallies’

Black musician Daryl Davis talked about the unusual evolution of a friendship between himself and a Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon in his 2017 TEDx Talk. His takeaway from the experience: “Hate stems from fear of the unknown. Take the time to sit down and talk with your adversaries. You’ll learn something; they'll learn something.” Amid his friendship, Davis revealed the Grand Dragon actually left the Klan.

Oprah Winfrey’s 2018 Golden Globes speech

The #MeToo movement played a prominent part in Oprah Winfrey’s acceptance speech as she received the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 2018 Golden Globes. Winfrey gave gratitude to the women who survived abuse and assault because they had “children to feed and bills to pay and dreams to pursue.”

Melinda Epler’s ‘3 Ways to Be a Better Ally in the Workplace’

Civil rights efforts need the collaboration and contribution of allies. Oftentimes, it’s not an employee who is failing, but the culture, due to microaggressions and other barriers. In this 2018 TED Salon talk, Melinda Epler shared specific ways to support those facing discrimination.

Samy Nour Younes’ ‘A Short History of Trans People’s Long Fight for Equality’

This 2018 TED Talk about the centuries-old history of trans people noted that their existence is not new, and explored both the struggles and triumphs of the community. The topic was and still is a matter of urgency—more than 50 transgender and gender-nonconforming people , mostly Black and Latinx women, were killed in 2021 alone.

John Lewis’ ‘Good Trouble’

Returning in 2020 to the Edmund Pettus Bridge , where police abused him 55 years earlier on Bloody Sunday, Georgia Rep. John Lewis implored to the crowd: “Go out there, speak up, speak out. Get in the way. Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America.” Lewis himself had gotten into plenty of “good trouble” over the years, being arrested more than 40 times as the result of civil disobedience during his lifelong fight for civil rights.

Andre Williams’ 2020 police brutality speech

At a 2020 Black Lives Matter march, NFL star Andre Williams reminded others , “Guess what, in the morning we still wake up Black, and we cannot continue to allow the people to oppress the African American community.” He begged them to “be the voice for Black people.”

Barack Obama’s ‘Reimagining Policing in the Wake of Continued Police Violence’

In his speech in response to the wave of police violence in 2020, former President Barack Obama stated : “I’ve been hearing a little bit of chatter on the internet about voting versus protest, politics, and participation versus civil disobedience and direct action. This is not either/or, this is both/and, to bring about real change. Because they kept marching, America changed. We’ll get back up, that’s how movement happens, that's how history bends.”

John Boyega’s 2020 Black Lives Matter protest speech

British actor John Boyega spoke out at a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest in London, prefacing, “I don’t know if I’m going to have a career after this.” He talked about his own experience and those of others, adding, “Every Black person understands and realizes the first time you were reminded that you were Black. I need you to understand how painful it is to be reminded every day that your race means nothing.”

Playon Patrick’s ‘2020 Quarantine Killings’

Playon Patrick was part of the Obama Foundation Conversation with former President Barack Obama about reimagining policing in 2020. His spoken word performance talked about the experience of Black boys in this country. “We are early graves before we are anything else,” Patrick said. “Always conflicted between being Black and being people. I wish God could give us a choice.”

Yolanda Renee King’s 2020 March on Washington speech

The civil rights leader’s granddaughter, Yolanda Renee King, channeled MLK in this powerful speech at the 2020 March on Washington . She noted that “great challenges produce great leaders: We have mastered the selfie and TikToks, now we must master ourselves.” She proclaimed that her generation was going to be “the one that moves from me to we—we are going to be the generation that dismantles systemic racism once and for all.”

Ayanna Pressley’s 2020 March on Washington speech

Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley “let it play” at the 2020 March on Washington, reminding us, “Another world is possible. Yes, it is possible to legislate justice and accountability, people over profits, joy over trauma, freedom over fear. Yes, it is possible to write budgets that actually value Black lives. If it feels unfamiliar, that’s because it has never been done in America.”

Martin Luther King III’s 2020 March on Washington speech

The son of the civil rights icon spoke out at the 2020 March on Washington, in which he talked about America’s “rocky but righteous journey towards justice” and advocated for “demilitarizing the police, dismantling mass incarceration, and declaring that Black Lives Matter.” Voting was another focus of this speech, as King urged listeners to start “marching to the ballot boxes, and the mailboxes” to defend our freedoms.

This article was first published by Stacker . ( CC BY-NC 4.0 )

Article Details

10 historical sites to visit to learn more about Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander heritage

22 Ideas To Celebrate AAPI Heritage Month

Paving a Path for Justice: 7 Runners Making a Difference to Follow on Instagram

25 Best Coretta Scott King Quotes About Positive Change

Want to stay up-to-date on positive news.

The best email in your inbox. Filled with the day’s best good news.

• About Good Good Good
• Privacy Policy & Terms
• Take Action
• Subscriber Account
• Affiliate Program

Join the Good News Community

Freedom's Ring "I Have a Dream" Speech

Main navigation.

Freedom's Ring  is Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, annotated. Here you can compare the written and spoken speech, explore multimedia images, listen to movement activists and uncover historical context.

Fifty years ago, in the concluding address of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, King demanded the riches of freedom and the security of justice. Today his language of love, nonviolent direct action and redemptive suffering, resonates globally in the millions who stand up for freedom and elevate democracy to its ideals. How do the echoes of King's Dream live within you?

Freedom's Ring serves as an innovative and thought-provoking resource for teachers, students, and the larger community. Evan Bissell, a Bay Area artist and educator, and webdesigner Erik Loyer worked with King Institute's Dr. Andrea McEvoy Spero,  Dr. Clayborne Carson and Regina Covington to create an engaging experience that documents one of the most famous events in Civil Rights history. Freedom's Ring compliments the King Legacy Series by Beacon Press and the corresponding curriculum guide. 

The July 4 speeches that helped define what America is — or what it should be

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Generations ago, America’s leading political figures delivered many of their most eloquent orations not in the chambers of the Capitol but from local gazebos and bandstands on Independence Day. Before large crowds on town greens or in front of fire halls, they would harken back to the lessons of the nation’s Founders, often holding their audiences spellbound for an hour, perhaps even more.

American presidents still deliver pro-forma July Fourth messages; last year President Trump, in a remarkable personal version of history and the capabilities of George Washington’s Revolutionary War forces, said that “our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports. ”

But the grand tradition of the Independence Day oration has largely disappeared. Today’s audiences are unaccustomed to the patriotic rhetoric that once commanded attention. Indeed, the standard themes of July Fourths past — paeans to the wisdom of Washington, suggestions that his Revolutionary comrades were soldiers in God’s own cause — now possess an antiquarian, almost alien air.

“A politician’s Fourth of July speech may seem anodyne and clichéd,” said Rutgers historian David Greenberg. “But it also contributes in some way to understanding and perhaps subtly redefining, in that moment and from that political perspective, what Americanism is or should be.”

And there are lessons in these orations of a long-ago age. They are period pieces, and yet they underline in the 21st century how the 18th century Enlightenment values embedded in the Declaration of Independence have not been redeemed or realized.

“If democracy is America’s civic religion, then its sacred text is the Declaration of Independence ,” said Martin Kaplan, a USC expert on media and society. “What better occasion for a secular sermon about our founding values than the anniversary of our birth certificate? The first time many Americans heard their unalienable rights proclaimed was with their own ears, listening to its text. In a way, every Fourth of July speech since then has been a reenactment of that first declaration, renewed and recommitted in the terms of its changing times.”

So as the 244th celebration of American Independence draws near, let us pause and draw inspiration, and perhaps wisdom, from this holiday sampler of Fourth of July addresses of the past:

Daniel Webster, July 4, 1800

“It becomes us, on whom the defence of our country will ere long devolve, this day, most seriously to reflect on the duties incumbent upon us. Our ancestors bravely snatched expiring liberty from the grasp of Britain, whose touch is poison... Shall we, their descendants, now basely disgrace our lineage, and pusillanimously disclaim the legacy bequeathed to us? Shall we pronounce the sad valediction to freedom, and immolate liberty on the altars our fathers have raised to her?”

Of all the remarkable elements of Webster’s life, what might be most remarkable was that the citizens of Hanover, N.H., invited him as a Dartmouth junior to deliver a speech at the tiny college town’s Independence Day commemoration. At age 18, Webster consciously looked to the past (by invoking the greatness of Washington, who had died earlier that year) and eerily foreshadowed the future (by providing a direct antecedent to the message John F. Kennedy would offer when he bid Americans to “ask what you can do for your country”).

These words also remind us that these moral principles are at the heart of the American creed, a theme that John Quincy Adams would return to on July 4, 1821, when he spoke of how the American Revolution “swept away all the rubbish of accumulated centuries of servitude” and “proved that the social compact was no figment of the imagination, but a real, solid, and sacred bond of the social union.”

Charles Sumner, July 4, 1845

“Nothing resembles God more than that man among us who has arrived at the highest degree of justice. The true greatness of nations is in those qualities which constitute the greatness of the individual. It is not to be found in extent of territory, nor in vastness of population, nor in wealth; not in fortifications, or armies, or navies; not in the phosphorescent glare of fields of battle; not in Golgothas, though covered by monuments that kiss the clouds; for all these are the creatures and representatives of those qualities of our nature, which are unlike any thing in God’s nature.”

These remarks by Sumner, who would become known as one of the Senate’s most ardent opponents of slavery, are part of a larger speech delivered six months before Texas joined the Union. In summoning an image of Golgotha, the Jerusalem hillside where Christ was crucified, and in decrying the prospect of war with Mexico, Sumner offered a vivid celebration of the concept of justice. This is a meditation on eternal truths that we might embrace in our own time, when the killings of men in Minneapolis and Atlanta remind us that we have not yet arrived at “the highest degree of justice.”

Frederick Douglass, July 5, 1852

“The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn...”

Speaking in Rochester, N.Y ., the Black abolitionist and statesman opened by asserting that he was “not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic.” Douglass, perhaps the greatest orator in our history, escaped slavery and in in his freedom spoke across the country, assuring that Americans could not escape the moral questions inherent in human bondage nor the hypocrisy of Americans’ rhetoric about human freedom.

In this speech he went on to ask the preeminent question of the age, and of ours: “Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?”

Douglass’ speech came on July 5, not the Fourth, because he refused to celebrate American independence on the usual day until the enslaved were free. July 5 was not without meaning; on that date in 1827 , 4,000 Blacks people had marched through New York to mark the end of slavery in that state.

Edward Everett, July 4, 1861

“We contend for the great inheritance of constitutional freedom transmitted from our revolutionary fathers. We engage in the struggle forced upon us, with sorrow, as by our misguided brethren, but with high heart and faith….”

Few Americans ever assembled a resume quite like that of Everett, who served as governor of Massachusetts, member of both the U.S. House and Senate, secretary of State — and president of Harvard University. But he is remembered most for a speech he delivered whose content, ironically, is not remembered at all — a two-hour stemwinder with allusions to classical antiquity, references to the War of the Roses and quotes from the philosopher David Hume that turned out to be merely the warm-up act to the two minutes of what is now known as Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

Everett possessed a voice that was, in the words of his protege, Ralph Waldo Emerson, “most mellow and beautiful, and correct of all the instruments of the time.” In the speech excerpted above, delivered in the early months of the Civil War, he spoke of the primacy of freedom in the Constitution and, by employing the powerful verb “contend,” he underlined the enduring struggle that has animated all of our history — and our own time: the debate over the nature, and the extent, of freedom in the nation.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, July 4, 1863

“It is easy to understand the bitterness which is often shown toward reformers. They are never general favorites. They are apt to interfere with vested rights and time honored interests. They often wear an unlovely, and forbidding, aspect.”

Physician and poet, Holmes was both one of the leading literary figures of a period with a surfeit of cultural giants and the father of the famous Supreme Court justice (1902-1932) who bore his name.

These remarks came as Union troops were surging to victory at Gettysburg in Pennsylvania and Vicksburg in Mississippi, and they anticipated a period when the country, rent by the Civil War, would need to be reconstituted on a new, reformed basis — in essence the “new birth of freedom” that Lincoln spoke of in his Gettysburg Address and that we seek in this hard year of contention and conflict.

Susan B. Anthony, July 4, 1876

“Our faith is firm and unwavering in the broad principles of human rights proclaimed in 1776, not only as abstract truths, but as the corner stones of a republic. Yet we cannot forget, even in this glad hour, that while all men of every race, and clime, and condition, have been invested with the full rights of citizenship under our hospitable flag, all women still suffer the degradation of disfranchisement.”

The official celebration of the centenary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia included no remarks by women. But a group of determined feminists distributed a Declaration of Rights for Women to the crowd assembled outside Independence Hall and then, at a stand erected for a group of musicians, Anthony read that document aloud.

“It is with sorrow we strike the one discordant note’’ at the anniversary commemoration, she said, but went on to assert, “The history of our country the past hundred years has been a series of assumptions and usurpations of power of woman, in direct opposition to the principles of just government...’’

With Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Anthony founded the National American Woman Suffrage Assn. It took 44 more years for the passage of the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing all women the right to vote — a measure known as the “Susan B. Anthony Amendment” — and a century and a half later there remains a pay gap between men and women in the workplace and a representation gap in Congress. Anthony, an important ally of Douglass in the abolitionist movement, became the first woman portrayed on an American coin.

Charles Francis Adams, July 4, 1876

“Let us labor continually to keep the advance in civilization as it becomes us to do after the struggles of the past, so that the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which we have honorably secured, may be firmly entailed upon the ever enlarging generations of mankind.”

The son and grandson of presidents, Adams was a state senator, a congressman, twice an unsuccessful vice presidential candidate, and the American ambassador to London. In this excerpt, delivered pointedly on the 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, he speaks of the fragility of liberty and the threat that it might not be extended to all in the future. This sentence is a vow that any contemporary American political figure could, and perhaps should, quote in a speech this Independence Day.

John F. Kennedy, July 4, 1946

“Our idealism, [a fundamental] element of the American character, is being severely tested. Now, only time will tell whether this element of the American character will be true to its historic tradition.”

In an evocative setting where Daniel Webster thundered about the Union and Frederick Douglass lectured about the evils of slavery, a first-time congressional candidate delivered a thoughtful analysis of what it means to be an American. In Boston’s Faneuil Hall, the meeting place for colonial rebels built by a slave trader and slave owner, Kennedy examined several elements of the American creed.

“JFK’s speech couldn’t be more timely,” said Robert Dallek, a prominent historian and Kennedy biographer. “With a current president, whose character defects cast a shadow across the presidency and the nation’s reputation for human decency, Kennedy’s speech reminds us that the country is better than what Donald Trump represents.”

Yet the Kennedy speech is more than an answer to the Trump presidency. As president he would weaponize the rhetoric of idealism, but as a recent war veteran and fledgling politician he set forth the ultimate American challenge, as fresh on the Fourth of July in 1946 as it would be three-quarters of a century later: for the United States to be true to its historic traditions.

More to Read

Letters to the Editor: Just one Presidents Day? Washington and Lincoln each deserve a holiday

Feb. 22, 2024

Commentary: Dump Presidents Day. Election Day is a better way to honor American democracy

Feb. 19, 2024

Opinion: Is it George Washington’s holiday or do we celebrate all 45 of the presidents?

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Climate & Environment

Despite H5N1 bird flu outbreaks in dairy cattle, raw milk enthusiasts are uncowed

Calmes: Our elections have integrity. These politicians do not

Arizona’s economy is booming. But Biden struggles to reap benefits from voters

Like water sloshing in a giant bathtub, El Niño begins an inevitable retreat

Freedom’s Ring

King’s “i have a dream” speech.

Freedom’s Ring is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, animated. Here you can compare the written and spoken speech, explore multimedia images, listen to movement activists, and uncover historical context. Fifty years ago, as the culminating address of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, King demanded the riches of freedom and the security of justice. Today, his language of love, nonviolent direct action, and redemptive suffering resonates globally in the millions who stand up for freedom together and elevate democracy to its ideals. How do the echoes of King’s Dream live within you?

Credits & Acknowledgements

Director, Art and Content: Evan Bissell Design and Programming: Erik Loyer Content, Curriculum Design and Project Coordinator: Andrea McEvoy Spero Project Advisor: Clayborne Carson Video: Owen Bissell Project Administration: Regina Covington

Freedom’s Ring is a project of The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University in collaboration with Beacon Press’s King Legacy Series.

We extend our deep appreciation to the many people whose work and lives contributed to Freedom’s Ring. Thank you to the interviewees: Aldo Billingslea, Clayborne Carson, Dorothy Cotton, Miriam Glickman, Kazu Haga, Bruce Hartford, Ericka Huggins, Clarence B. Jones, Kim Nalley, Wazir Peacock, and Marcus Shelby.

Thank you to Tenisha Armstrong. Her dedication and tireless efforts in editing Dr. King’s papers allow us to make this history available to teachers and students.

Thank you to the many photographers whose work has inspired much of this project and allowed these important histories to continue. We have made our best efforts to credit these photographers. They include: Bob Adelman, Eve Arnold, George Ballis, Martha Cooper, Benedict Fernandez, Bob Fitch, Declan Haun, Matt Herron, John Loengard, Danny Lyon, Spider Martin, Charles Moore/Black Star, Herbert Randall, Steve Schapiro, Flip Schulke, Maria Varela, and Tamio Wakayama.

Thank you to David Stein for his invaluable contributions and conversations about this history. Thanks to Lucas Guilkey for his work on the videos, Ming-kuo Hung for editing support, and Naomi Wilson for her comments on content.

Thanks to Beacon Press for editing support.

Thanks to Headlands Center for the Arts for the time and space to finish the project.

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute Staff:

Clayborne Carson Director

Tenisha Armstrong Associate Director and Editor of the King Papers Project

Regina Covington Administrator

Andrea McEvoy Spero Director of Education

Clarence B. Jones Scholar in Residence

Susan Carson Editorial Consultant

Stacey Zwald Assistant Editor

Dave Beals Research Assistant

Video hosting by Critical Commons Content management by  Scalar , a project of the Alliance for Networking Visual Culture

Works Cited

Baldwin, James. The Fire Next Time. New York: Dell, 1985. Print.

Branch, Taylor. Parting the Waters: America in the King years, 1954-63. New York : Simon and Schuster, 1988. Print.

Carson, Clayborne, eds. The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.. New York: Intellectual Properties Management; Warner Books, 1998. Print.

Freed, Leonard. This Is the Day: The March on Washington. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2013. Print.

Hansen, Drew D.. The Dream: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Speech that Inspired a Nation. New York : Ecco. 2003. Print.

Johnson, Charles and Bob Adelman. King: The Photobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York : Viking, 2000. Print.

Jones, Clarence B. and Stuart Connelly. Behind the Dream: The Making of the Speech that Transformed a Nation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Print.

Jones, William P.. The March on Washington: Jobs, Freedom and the Forgotten History of Civil Rights. New York : W.W. Norton, 2013. Print.

Jones, William P. and Labor and Working-Class History Association. “The Unknown Origins of the March on Washington: Civil Rights Politics and the Black Working Class.” Labor: Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas 7.3 (2010). Print.

Kasher, Steven. The Civil Rights Movement: A Photographic History, 1954-68. New York: Abbeville, 1996. Print.

Katznelson, Ira. Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time. New York: Liveright, 2013. Print.

Kelen, Leslie G., eds. This Light of Ours: Activist Photographers of the Civil Rights Movement. Jackson : University Press of Mississippi, 2011. Print.

LaFayette, Jr., Bernard and David C. Jehnsen. The Nonviolence Briefing Booklet: A 2-Day Orientation to Kingian Nonviolence Conflict Reconciliation. 1995. Galena: Institute for Human Rights and Responsibilities. 2007. Print.

Le Blanc, Paul. “Freedom Budget: The Promise of the Civil Rights Movement for Economic Justice.” WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor & Society 16 (2013), 43-58. Print.

Levine, Ellen. Freedom's Children : Young Civil Rights Activists Tell Their Own Stories. New York : Putnam, 1993. Print.

Lewis, John and Michael D’Orso. Walking with the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998. Print.

Sundquist, Eric J.. King’s Dream. New Haven : Yale University, 2009. Print.

Scroll position

• Infographics
• Inspired Source
• Visions of Human Rights
• Our Spotlights
• British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) Guest Blog
• Our funders
• How to pitch to us
• Contact EachOther
• Support Everyone, Support EachOther

What we write about

• Discrimination
• Environment
• Immigration
• Institutions
• Young People
• Black Lives Matter
• Fighting Hate with Rights
• Hostile Environment
• Reforming the Gender Recognition Act
• School Exclusions
• Sex Workers Rights
• The History Of Rights – HIV And AIDs In The UK
• Uncovering Period Poverty
• Why the Human Rights Act is crucial for the UK
• Young People and Mental Health

More than news

• EachOther's Comics
• EachOther's Videos

Explore EachOther

• About EachOther
• Commission EachOther
• Pitch to EachOther
• Our social media house rules

• Corrections & Complaints
• Privacy Policy
• Using Our Content

6 Human Rights Speeches That Changed The World

Words are powerful things. Put in the hands of skilful orators they have the ability to inspire, heal and rally vast swathes of people. And what could be more worth rallying for than the inherent dignity and equal rights of ‘ all members of the human family’ (AKA, our human rights) ? 

These six speakers advocate for equality, freedom, and dignity. But above all, what connects them is their belief in the power of free speech, and that their own voice can make a difference – and they did.

• Hundreds of inspirational human rights quotes

1. Eleanor Roosevelt, The Struggle for Human Rights, 1948

Let’s start off with the first lady of human rights – Eleanor Roosevelt with her famous 1948 speech ‘The Struggle for Human Rights’

We must not be confused about what freedom is. Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment.

Check her out in action here:

2. Martin Luther King, I Have A Dream, 1963

Moving on to one of the most recognisable speeches of the 20 th Century – Martin Luther King Jnr in 1963 ‘I Have A Dream.’

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

His delivery brings his words off the page:

3. Emmeline Pankhurst, Freedom or Death, 1913

Great speeches have a habit of connecting to times of strife. The struggle for women’s suffrage is littered with powerful speeches denouncing inequality – here is one of the most famous from Emmeline Pankhurst in 1913, ‘Freedom or Death,’

Human life for us is sacred, but we say if any life is to be sacrificed it shall be ours; we won’t do it ourselves, but we will put the enemy in the position where they will have to choose between giving us freedom or giving us death.

If you want to listen to it, check out this reading of it:

4. Harold Macmillan, The Wind of Change, 1960

Sometimes the location of a speech underlines its impact. Here Harold Macmillan is addressing the South African Parliament about racial discrimination and slavery in his 1960 ‘The Wind of Change’ speech.

The wind of change is blowing through this continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it.

Check out Harold in full flow here:

5. Nelson Mandela, I Am Prepared To Die, 1964

Four years later in 1964 in the same country, Nelson Mandela was on trial on charges of sabotage and made the following speech from the dock:

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

Here is Mr Mandela using the court room as his megaphone:

6. Elie Wiesel, The Perils of Indifference

We’ll end with a personal favourite. Here is Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor addressing President Clinton in 1999 talking about ‘The Perils of Indifference.’

Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor — never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees — not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own.

Watch the full 20 minutes here:

These are just a small selection of powerful speeches, which speeches would you put in your top ten?

• Check out our guest post on ‘Free Speech and Why it Matters’ 
• For more on freedom of expression and why it matters, read our Explainer here. 
• To read about why we should continue to fight for our freedoms, read RightsInfo’s director’s opinion post, ‘ Evil Progresses Cunningly ‘. 

Harold Macmillan image ©  Chetham’s Library , and Wikimedia used under Creative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic Licence.

About the author.

Anna Dannreuther is a barrister at Field Court Chambers practising in public, employment, and commercial law. She is a trans ally and has worked extensively on human rights issues, including at the European Court of Human Rights and with NGO partners.

Latest News

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Milestone Documents

President Franklin Roosevelt's Annual Message (Four Freedoms) to Congress (1941)

Citation: Franklin D. Roosevelt Annual Message to Congress, January 6, 1941; Records of the United States Senate; SEN 77A-H1; Record Group 46; National Archives.

View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog

View Transcript

This speech, delivered by President Franklin Roosevelt on January 6, 1941, became known as his "Four Freedoms Speech" due to a short closing portion in which he described his vision for extending American ideals throughout the world.

Very early in his political career, as state senator and later as Governor of New York, President Roosevelt was concerned with human rights in the broadest sense. During 1940, stimulated by a press conference in which he discussed long-range peace objectives, he started collecting ideas for a speech about various rights and freedoms.

In his 1941 State of the Union Address to Congress, with World War II underway in Europe and the Pacific, FDR asked the American people to work hard to produce armaments for the democracies of Europe, to pay higher taxes, and to make other wartime sacrifices. Roosevelt presented his reasons for American involvement, making the case for continued aid to Great Britain and greater production of war industries at home. In helping Britain, President Roosevelt stated, the United States was fighting for the universal freedoms that all people deserved.

At a time when Western Europe lay under Nazi domination, Roosevelt presented a vision in which the American ideals of individual liberties should be extended throughout the world. Alerting Congress and the nation to the necessity of war, Roosevelt articulated the ideological aims of the war, and appealed to Americans' most profound beliefs about freedom.

In his Four Freedoms Speech, Roosevelt proposed four fundamental freedoms that all people should have. His "four essential human freedoms" included some phrases already familiar to Americans from the Bill of Rights, as well as some new phrases: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. These symbolized America's war aims and gave the American people a mantra to hold onto during the war.

As America became more engaged in World War II, painter Norman Rockwell created a series of paintings illustrating the four freedoms as international war goals that went beyond just defeating the Axis powers. In the series, he translated abstract concepts of freedom into four scenes of everyday American life. Although the federal government initially rejected Rockwell's offer to create paintings on the four freedoms theme, the images were publicly circulated when The Saturday Evening Post , one of the nation's most popular magazines, commissioned and reproduced the paintings. After winning public approval, the paintings served as the centerpiece of a massive U.S. war bond drive and went on a national tour to raise money for the war effort.

After the war, the four freedoms appeared again, embedded in the Charter of the United Nations .

Teach with this document.

Previous Document Next Document

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Seventy-seventh Congress:

I address you, the Members of the Seventy-seventh Congress, at a moment unprecedented in the history of the Union. I use the word "unprecedented," because at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today.

Since the permanent formation of our Government under the Constitution, in 1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. Fortunately, only one of these--the four-year War Between the States--ever threatened our national unity. Today, thank God, one hundred and thirty million Americans, in forty-eight States, have forgotten points of the compass in our national unity.

It is true that prior to 1914 the United States often had been disturbed by events in other Continents. We had even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific for the maintenance of American rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce. But in no case had a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence.

What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times maintained clear, definite opposition, to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the Americas.

That determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, for example, during the quarter century of wars following the French Revolution.

While the Napoleonic struggles did threaten interests of the United States because of the French foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, and while we engaged in the War of 1812 to vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor Great Britain, nor any other nation, was aiming at domination of the whole world.

In like fashion from 1815 to 1914-- ninety-nine years-- no single war in Europe or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American nation.

Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought to establish itself in this Hemisphere; and the strength of the British fleet in the Atlantic has been a friendly strength. It is still a friendly strength.

Even when the World War broke out in 1914, it seemed to contain only small threat of danger to our own American future. But, as time went on, the American people began to visualize what the downfall of democratic nations might mean to our own democracy.

We need not overemphasize imperfections in the Peace of Versailles. We need not harp on failure of the democracies to deal with problems of world reconstruction. We should remember that the Peace of 1919 was far less unjust than the kind of "pacification" which began even before Munich, and which is being carried on under the new order of tyranny that seeks to spread over every continent today. The American people have unalterably set their faces against that tyranny.

Every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being' directly assailed in every part of the world--assailed either by arms, or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace.

During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. The assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small.

Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress information of the state of the Union," I find it, unhappily, necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.

Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, Asia, Africa and Australasia will be dominated by the conquerors. Let us remember that the total of those populations and their resources in those four continents greatly exceeds the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere-many times over.

In times like these it is immature--and incidentally, untrue--for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.

No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion -or even good business.

Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. "Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed.

We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the "ism" of appeasement.

We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests.

I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nations win this war.

There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and direct invasion from across the seas. Obviously, as long as the British Navy retains its power, no such danger exists. Even if there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy would be stupid enough to attack us by landing troops in the United States from across thousands of miles of ocean, until it had acquired strategic bases from which to operate.

But we learn much from the lessons of the past years in Europe-particularly the lesson of Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by treachery and surprise built up over a series of years.

The first phase of the invasion of this Hemisphere would not be the landing of regular troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied by secret agents and their dupes- and great numbers of them are already here, and in Latin America.

As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive, they-not we--will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack.

That is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger.

That is why this Annual Message to the Congress is unique in our history.

That is why every member of the Executive Branch of the Government and every member of the Congress faces great responsibility and great accountability.

The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily-almost exclusively--to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency.

Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end. Our national policy is this:

First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.

Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute peoples, everywhere, who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our Hemisphere. By this support, we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail; and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom.

In the recent national election there was no substantial difference between the two great parties in respect to that national policy. No issue was fought out on this line before the American electorate. Today it is abundantly evident that American citizens everywhere are demanding and supporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger.

Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production.

Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speed have been set. In some cases these goals are being reached ahead of time; in some cases we are on schedule; in other cases there are slight but not serious delays; and in some cases--and I am sorry to say very important cases--we are all concerned by the slowness of the accomplishment of our plans.

The Army and Navy, however, have made substantial progress during the past year. Actual experience is improving and speeding up our methods of production with every passing day. And today's best is not good enough for tomorrow.

I am not satisfied with the progress thus far made. The men in charge of the program represent the best in training, in ability, and in patriotism. They are not satisfied with the progress thus far made. None of us will be satisfied until the job is done.

No matter whether the original goal was set too high or too low, our objective is quicker and better results. To give you two illustrations:

We are behind schedule in turning out finished airplanes; we are working day and night to solve the innumerable problems and to catch up.

We are ahead of schedule in building warships but we are working to get even further ahead of that schedule.

To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to a basis of wartime production of implements of war is no small task. And the greatest difficulty comes at the beginning of the program, when new tools, new plant facilities, new assembly lines, and new ship ways must first be constructed before the actual materiel begins to flow steadily and speedily from them.

The Congress, of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times of the progress of the program. However, there is certain information, as the Congress itself will readily recognize, which, in the interests of our own security and those of the nations that we are supporting, must of needs be kept in confidence.

New circumstances are constantly begetting new needs for our safety. I shall ask this Congress for greatly increased new appropriations and authorizations to carry on what we have begun.

I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressor nations.

Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves. They do not need man power, but they do need billions of dollars worth of the weapons of defense.

The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them all in ready cash. We cannot, and we will not, tell them that they must surrender, merely because of present inability to pay for the weapons which we know they must have.

I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with which to pay for these weapons--a loan to be repaid in dollars.

I recommend that we make it possible for those nations to continue to obtain war materials in the United States, fitting their orders into our own program. Nearly all their materiel would, if the time ever came, be useful for our own defense.

Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities, considering what is best for our own security, we are free to decide how much should be kept here and how much should be sent abroad to our friends who by their determined and heroic resistance are giving us time in which to make ready our own defense.

For what we send abroad, we shall be repaid within a reasonable time following the close of hostilities, in similar materials, or, at our option, in other goods of many kinds, which they can produce and which we need.

Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you, in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. This is our purpose and our pledge."

In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they will regard as a breach of international law or as an act of war our aid to the democracies which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it so to be.

When the dictators, if the dictators, are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part. They did not wait for Norway or Belgium or the Netherlands to commit an act of war.

Their only interest is in a new one-way international law, which lacks mutuality in its observance, and, therefore, becomes an instrument of oppression.

The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend upon how effective and how immediate we can make our aid felt. No one can tell the exact character of the emergency situations that we may be called upon to meet. The Nation's hands must not be tied when the Nation's life is in danger.

We must all prepare to make the sacrifices that the emergency-almost as serious as war itself--demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and efficiency in defense preparations must give way to the national need.

A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups. A free nation has the right to look to the leaders of business, of labor, and of agriculture to take the lead in stimulating effort, not among other groups but within their own groups.

The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble makers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example, and, if that fails, to use the sovereignty of Government to save Government.

As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man our defenses, and those behind them who build our defenses, must have the stamina and the courage which come from unshakable belief in the manner of life which they are defending. The mighty action that we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all things worth fighting for.

The Nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fibre of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.

Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world.

For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others. Jobs for those who can work. Security for those who need it. The ending of special privilege for the few. The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.

Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement. As examples:

We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.

We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.

We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.

I have called for personal sacrifice. I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call.

A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my Budget Message I shall recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying today. No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of this program; and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation.

If the Congress maintains these principles, the voters, putting patriotism ahead of pocketbooks, will give you their applause.

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception--the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change -- in a perpetual peaceful revolution -- a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions--without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save victory.

• Lesson Plans
• Teacher's Guides
• Media Resources

FDR’s “Four Freedoms” Speech

Engraving of the Four Freedoms at the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in Washington, D.C.

Wikimedia Commons

"Sometimes we fail to hear or heed these voices of freedom because to us the privilege of our freedom is such an old, old story." —Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his Third Inaugural Address, January 20, 1941. 

While many of the most frequently-studied statements about freedom were published in the form of written documents such as the Bill of Rights or the Magna Carta , the library is certainly not the only place where Americans encounter references to freedom. On radio and television, on the campaign trail and at press conferences, our public officials appeal to the cause of freedom every day. The world of political oratory provides a living laboratory for studying the place of "freedom" within public discourse. Some of the most thought-provoking—and influential—musings on freedom were first presented not in books or in pamphlets, but broadcast from podiums and grandstands.

Guiding Questions

What does freedom mean?

What does FDR's "Four Freedoms" speech reveal about the variety of different attitudes, priorities, and political philosophies encompassed by the word "freedom"?

Learning Objectives

Examine the substance, context, subtext, and significance of the most famous portion of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1941 State of the Union Address.

Evaluate the influence of political rhetoric and oratory on the ongoing process of refining our definitions of "freedom."

Evaluate longstanding theoretical debates over the scope and meaning of freedom.

Create an original argument regarding the theory and practice of freedom in the U.S.

Lesson Plan Details

One of the most famous political speeches on freedom in the twentieth century was delivered by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his 1941 State of the Union message to Congress. The address is commonly known as the "Four Freedoms" speech, and an excerpt is available through the EDSITEment-reviewed website POTUS—Presidents of the United States .

In the relevant part of the speech , President Roosevelt announced:

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want -- which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear -- which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-- anywhere in the world."

In bold and plain language, Roosevelt's declaration raises many of the broad questions underlying any discussion of freedom. This lesson will introduce students to some of the rudiments of political theory embedded within FDR's vision.

The tone set by FDR in his "Four Freedoms" speech has been imitated by his successors and by his counterparts in other countries. Students today are so accustomed to hearing freedom invoked rhetorically as a matter of course that the word sometimes signifies little more than something to feel vaguely good about. This lesson will examine some of the nuances, vagaries, and ambiguities inherent in the rhetorical use of "freedom." The objective is to encourage students to glimpse the broad range of hopes and aspirations that are expressed in the call of—and for—freedom.

The ostensible purpose of FDR's 1941 State of the Union was not to comment about freedom in the abstract, but to persuade a reluctant Congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act. Through speeches like the Four Freedoms speech, FDR successfully sold the public and the Congress on the idea of the Lend-Lease Act. The passage of the Act effectively ended American neutrality in World War II by essentially giving the British the badly needed weapons that they could not afford to buy. This lesson does not focus on the debate over American participation in World War II, but it is impossible to read Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" as anything other than an argument against American neutrality in the war. Initially, of course, FDR was—at least publicly—in favor of neutrality. This is the position he stakes out in a fireside chat entitled " On the European War ." In this speech, delivered in September 1939, FDR says the following:

"Let no man or woman thoughtlessly or falsely talk of America sending its armies to European fields. At this moment there is being prepared a proclamation of American neutrality. This would have been done even if there had been no neutrality statute on the books, for this proclamation is in accordance with international law and in accordance with American policy."

It will be helpful, in considering the evolution of FDR's foreign policy, to consult a timeline of World War II related events that occurred during his presidency. An excellent WWII timeline is available through the FDR page of the PBS American Experience: The Presidents website. The American Experience site is available as a link from the EDSITEment resource New Deal Network.

Review and print the transcripts of some of FDR's fireside chats . Reading very short excerpts from these transcripts in Activity 2 will help set the scene for the unique rapport FDR had established with the American people by the time he made his Four Freedoms speech. You may want to pay particularly close attention to the September 1934 chat entitled " Greater Freedom and Greater Security ," which will be used in Activity 2.

• For general background on the life and policies of President Roosevelt, you may consult the general internet biography  available through the American Presidency .

NCSS.D2.His.1.9-12. Evaluate how historical events and developments were shaped by unique circumstances of time and place as well as broader historical contexts.

NCSS.D2.His.2.9-12. Analyze change and continuity in historical eras.

NCSS.D2.His.3.9-12. Use questions generated about individuals and groups to assess how the significance of their actions changes over time and is shaped by the historical context.

NCSS.D2.His.12.9-12. Use questions generated about multiple historical sources to pursue further inquiry and investigate additional sources.

NCSS.D2.His.14.9-12. Analyze multiple and complex causes and effects of events in the past.

NCSS.D2.His.15.9-12. Distinguish between long-term causes and triggering events in developing a historical argument.

NCSS.D2.His.16.9-12. Integrate evidence from multiple relevant historical sources and interpretations into a reasoned argument about the past.

Activity 1. Competing definitions of freedom: Is the idea of freedom universal?

People do not always agree about which freedoms are most essential. More generally, we can add that people do not even agree about what counts as freedom at all . But notice that President Roosevelt's vision of freedom is a universal one. He emphasizes his hope that each of the freedoms he lists will take hold " everywhere in the world ." Discuss:

• Is it possible to distinguish between ideas of freedom that are specific to certain times and places and ideas of freedom that are universal?
• How should we address disagreement about the meaning of freedom?
• What does the Declaration of Independence tell us about the universality of human freedom?
• How does the American Constitutional system handle disagreement about the meaning of freedom? Does the system of federalism and states' rights reflect the Founders' willingness to entertain more than one conception of freedom? What about the Bill of Rights?
• In the long run, can more than one idea of freedom coexist within a single nation? Within the world?

Activity 2. If you had to choose: Which freedoms are most essential?

As students will surely notice during activity 1, a roomful of people will come up with a roomful of responses when asked to identify the four most essential freedoms. Now ask students to think about the significance of the particular four freedoms listed by FDR: expression, worship, economic prosperity, and physical security.

• Why do you suppose that these were the four freedoms he chose to highlight as "essential?"
• How did the historical circumstances of the speech (see timeline ) contribute to FDR's emphasis on these freedoms?
• How are these four freedoms foreshadowed in FDR's 1934 fireside chat on economic freedom and security for all Americans? How is the 1934 speech different?
• Obviously there are more than four freedoms that the President could have mentioned. Which potential freedoms did the President leave out?
• How do FDR's four freedoms compare with the essential freedoms that the class came up with in Activity 1?
• How do FDR's four freedoms compare with the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

Explain to the class that FDR's goal in giving the "Four Freedoms" speech was to persuade Congress to end American neutrality in World War II through the passage of the Lend-Lease Act. If desired, you can read FDR's 1939 fireside chat in support of American neutrality in World War II(see the excerpt in Preparation Instructions). The arguments FDR makes in that address reflect the arguments of those who opposed the Lend-Lease Act in 1941. If time permits, discuss:

• How did FDR's attitude towards neutrality change, and how does the "Four Freedoms" speech explain that change?
• Whom is FDR trying to persuade and why?
• What might his opponents have listed as the four most essential freedoms?

Activity 3. Setting the Scene: FDR, Freedom, and Fireside Chats

Franklin Roosevelt ranks among the most gifted orators in American Presidential history. A large part of his reputation for eloquence comes from his institution of regular "fireside chats" with the American public. Families would gather around the radio to hear President Roosevelt offer words of hope, caution, and direction in regular radio broadcasts.

These chats helped Roosevelt cultivate an unmatched rhetorical rapport with the American public. Introduce the class to the idea of the fireside chat, and then read aloud from the chat entitled " Greater Freedom and Greater Security ." Roosevelt closes this speech, which addresses mainly worker's rights and issues of economic security, with the following paragraph:

"I still believe in ideals. I am not for a return to that definition of Liberty under which for many years a free people were being gradually regimented into the service of the privileged few. I prefer and I am sure you prefer that broader definition of Liberty under which we are moving forward to greater freedom, to greater security for the average man than he has ever known before in the history of America."

Within this remark, there is an apparent tension between two alternative definitions of freedom. Discuss this tension with the class:

• What "definition of Liberty" is Roosevelt rejecting?
• How is his own idea of freedom new and different?
• Was the medium of the fireside chat effective in reflecting and communicating Roosevelt's new definition of freedom?

These questions provide a nice introduction to the idea of competing definitions of freedom.

In order to set the scene for the "Four Freedoms" speech, first remind students of the date of the speech: January 6, 1941. You may want to note that the speech was delivered almost exactly 11 months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, at a time when the United States was officially neutral in World War II. If desired, distribute copies of the World War II timeline from the FDR page of the PBS American Experience  website.

Now tell students that what they are about to hear was addressed to Congress as part of FDR's 1941 State of the Union speech. Make sure the class has a general idea of the significance of the State of the Union address. If desired, you can familiarize the class with the Constitutional basis of the State of the Union address by reading to them from Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states:

"He [the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

(Note: The Text of the Constitution is available on the EDSITEment resource Educator Resources .) You might also want to ask members of the class who have watched a State of the Union address live to recount their memories of the speech.

Now ask students to imagine that they have all crowded around a radio set in a cozy living room on a cold January day to listen to the President deliver his State of the Union address. Then, have a volunteer read the relevant part of the speech (excerpted above) aloud to the class. Or, for a more dramatic experience, students can actually listen to a recording of FDR himself delivering a few lines from the speech. The recording can be accessed and played from the Four Freedoms section of the Powers of Persuasion exhibit on the EDSITEment-reviewed National Archives websites.

After listening to the recording of the speech, give students a moment to read and annotate the short excerpt on their own. If desired, have students read the brief commentary on the Four Freedoms speech provided in the Powers of Persuasion exhibit. The exhibit features four different World War II posters later designed by the artist Norman Rockwell in 1943, which promote the war effort by drawing from the text of the Four Freedoms speech. Discuss:

• How do these posters reflect the influence of FDR's "Four Freedoms" speech on the American public even two years after it was delivered?

Activity 4. Prologue

Before listening to and reading the "Four Freedoms" speech , ask students to each come up with a list of their own four most essential freedoms. Then, briefly discuss:

• How do the students' selections differ from each other?
• Does the class reach consensus on any particular freedom?
• What are the most controversial choices, and why?

Activity 5. Two dimensions of freedom: "freedom to" versus "freedom from"

FDR's speech presents an opportunity to highlight a subtle distinction that has troubled political philosophers through the ages: the distinction between "freedom FROM" and "freedom TO." Notice that two of FDR's four freedoms are framed as freedom to do something: freedom to speak one's mind and freedom to worship as one sees fit. The other two freedoms are framed in terms of freedom from something: freedom from want and freedom from fear. Many scholars have taken care to distinguish sharply between these two types of freedom. The British political philosopher Isaiah Berlin called "freedom from …" negative liberty; he called "freedom to …" positive liberty. Here is how Berlin defines those terms in an essay published in 1958:

"Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints … Positive liberty is the possibility of acting—or the fact of acting—in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes."

Of course, positive and negative liberty do not always describe two entirely different forms of freedom—they are often just two different ways of thinking about the same freedom. A single freedom might be conceived as the presence of a clear path to happiness or alternatively as the absence of obstacles to happiness. Almost any freedom can be expressed either as freedom TO or freedom FROM. "Freedom to worship God" in one's own way (FDR's second freedom) can just as easily be expressed as freedom from religious coercion. Similarly, "freedom from want" (FDR's third freedom) can just as easily be expressed as freedom to have a full stomach.

Teenagers tend to enjoy the freedom that comes with being able to drive. But when they ask their parents for the keys to the car, are they enjoying the freedom from parental interference or are they enjoying the freedom to go out and see their friends whenever they wish? Try asking your students which idea of freedom most closely resembles their way of thinking. Does the class agree, or does it depend on the individual?

While positive and negative conceptions of freedom often represent two ways of saying the same thing, there are instances in which "freedom to" and "freedom from" do conflict. We can imagine a situation in which a person is subject to no external constraints but is not, on his own, able to support his basic needs or pursue his fondest ambitions. In other words, he is held back not by externally imposed restrictions, but by his own personal limitations. The person has "freedom FROM," but not "freedom TO." There is sometimes a tradeoff to be negotiated between these two dimensions of freedom. If desired, ask your students to brainstorm situations that might involve such a tradeoff, and ask them how they would resolve such situations.

Theorists have long argued about which dimension of freedom should be honored by governments. Proponents of "negative liberty" contend that governments should avoid interfering with the private decisions of its citizens. "Freedom from" can therefore be understood as the ideal of non-coercion. Proponents of "positive liberty" suggest that governments should intervene to make it possible for their citizens to achieve certain ends. "Freedom to" can thus be understood as the ideal of empowerment. Discuss: Are the liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution most readily understood as "negative" or "positive" liberties—or some combination?

Ask your students to imagine that the school principal has just announced a new homework policy. Effective immediately, students will no longer be permitted to take their homework assignments home with them. Instead, students will be required to complete their assignments during a two-hour long study hall held each day immediately after school. Students will have access to all necessary texts and supplies, but they will not be permitted to leave the building until the two hours are up or until their work has been completed and turned in.

The principal has explained the new policy as follows: "We want students to enjoy the time they spend out of school We think that by getting all homework over and done with before they leave the building, students will find themselves more free to pursue their extra-curricular interests. We have found that when students are left to manage their time as they see fit, they end up wasting a lot of time. Of course, students will no longer be free to decide for themselves when to complete their assignments. We've taken the option of procrastination away from students, and we think that as a result, they are going to feel like their evenings are a lot more free."

Divide the class into two teams and organize a debate over the new homework policy, focusing on the issue of freedom. Do students agree with the principal's statement that the new policy will make them more free? Do students prefer the freedom of doing their homework whenever they please, or do they prefer the freedom of being done with their work by the time they leave the school building?

Students should be sure to note both the freedom TO and freedom FROM aspects of both sides of the debate. Completing the chart below will help debaters organize their thoughts:

The new homework policy will give me greater freedom to…

The new homework policy will give me greater freedom from…

The new homework policy will give me less freedom to…

The new homework policy will give me less freedom from…

If desired, this debate can be used as a prelude to some of the more substantive historical controversies over the scope and meaning of freedom, such as debates over permissible limitations on free speech. The EDSITEment lesson plan  The First Amendment: What's Fair in a Free Country?  provides basic introductions to a number of Supreme Court cases exploring the Constitutional limitations on protected freedoms. The materials in either lesson may be suitable for students in grades 6-8.

Also, students can find more examples of the centrality of "freedom" in American political rhetoric by visiting the EDSITEment-reviewed website  Presidential Speeches . The speeches of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, both of whom invoke freedom profusely, may provide particularly rewarding points of comparison and contrast.

Selected EDSITEment Websites

• Bill of Rights
• Magna Charta
• Text of the Constitution
• Four Freedoms
• Powers of Persuasion
• Annual Message to the Congress, 1941
• Fireside Chats
• Greater Freedom and Greater Security
• On the European War
• We the People Bookshelf on Freedom

Related on EDSITEment

Fdr: fireside chats, the new deal, and eleanor, the social security act, african-americans & ccc, john steinbeck’s the grapes of wrath : verbal pictures, depression-era photographs: worth a thousand words.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Freedom of Speech

[ Editor’s Note: The following new entry by Jeffrey W. Howard replaces the former entry on this topic by the previous author. ]

Human beings have significant interests in communicating what they think to others, and in listening to what others have to say. These interests make it difficult to justify coercive restrictions on people’s communications, plausibly grounding a moral right to speak (and listen) to others that is properly protected by law. That there ought to be such legal protections for speech is uncontroversial among political and legal philosophers. But disagreement arises when we turn to the details. What are the interests or values that justify this presumption against restricting speech? And what, if anything, counts as an adequate justification for overcoming the presumption? This entry is chiefly concerned with exploring the philosophical literature on these questions.

The entry begins by distinguishing different ideas to which the term “freedom of speech” can refer. It then reviews the variety of concerns taken to justify freedom of speech. Next, the entry considers the proper limits of freedom of speech, cataloging different views on when and why restrictions on communication can be morally justified, and what considerations are relevant when evaluating restrictions. Finally, it considers the role of speech intermediaries in a philosophical analysis of freedom of speech, with special attention to internet platforms.

1. What is Freedom of Speech?

2.1 listener theories, 2.2 speaker theories, 2.3 democracy theories, 2.4 thinker theories, 2.5 toleration theories, 2.6 instrumental theories: political abuse and slippery slopes, 2.7 free speech skepticism, 3.1 absoluteness, coverage, and protection, 3.2 the limits of free speech: external constraints, 3.3 the limits of free speech: internal constraints, 3.4 proportionality: chilling effects and political abuse, 3.5 necessity: the counter-speech alternative, 4. the future of free speech theory: platform ethics, other internet resources, related entries.

In the philosophical literature, the terms “freedom of speech”, “free speech”, “freedom of expression”, and “freedom of communication” are mostly used equivalently. This entry will follow that convention, notwithstanding the fact that these formulations evoke subtly different phenomena. For example, it is widely understood that artistic expressions, such as dancing and painting, fall within the ambit of this freedom, even though they don’t straightforwardly seem to qualify as speech , which intuitively connotes some kind of linguistic utterance (see Tushnet, Chen, & Blocher 2017 for discussion). Still, they plainly qualify as communicative activity, conveying some kind of message, however vague or open to interpretation it may be.

Yet the extension of “free speech” is not fruitfully specified through conceptual analysis alone. The quest to distinguish speech from conduct, for the purpose of excluding the latter from protection, is notoriously thorny (Fish 1994: 106), despite some notable attempts (such as Greenawalt 1989: 58ff). As John Hart Ely writes concerning Vietnam War protesters who incinerated their draft cards, such activity is “100% action and 100% expression” (1975: 1495). It is only once we understand why we should care about free speech in the first place—the values it instantiates or serves—that we can evaluate whether a law banning the burning of draft cards (or whatever else) violates free speech. It is the task of a normative conception of free speech to offer an account of the values at stake, which in turn can illuminate the kinds of activities wherein those values are realized, and the kinds of restrictions that manifest hostility to those values. For example, if free speech is justified by the value of respecting citizens’ prerogative to hear many points of view and to make up their own minds, then banning the burning of draft cards to limit the views to which citizens will be exposed is manifestly incompatible with that purpose. If, in contrast, such activity is banned as part of a generally applied ordinance restricting fires in public, it would likely raise no free-speech concerns. (For a recent analysis of this issue, see Kramer 2021: 25ff).

Accordingly, the next section discusses different conceptions of free speech that arise in the philosophical literature, each oriented to some underlying moral or political value. Before turning to the discussion of those conceptions, some further preliminary distinctions will be useful.

First, we can distinguish between the morality of free speech and the law of free speech. In political philosophy, one standard approach is to theorize free speech as a requirement of morality, tracing the implications of such a theory for law and policy. Note that while this is the order of justification, it need not be the order of investigation; it is perfectly sensible to begin by studying an existing legal protection for speech (such as the First Amendment in the U.S.) and then asking what could justify such a protection (or something like it).

But of course morality and law can diverge. The most obvious way they can diverge is when the law is unjust. Existing legal protections for speech, embodied in the positive law of particular jurisdictions, may be misguided in various ways. In other words, a justified legal right to free speech, and the actual legal right to free speech in the positive law of a particular jurisdiction, can come apart. In some cases, positive legal rights might protect too little speech. For example, some jurisdictions’ speech laws make exceptions for blasphemy, such that criminalizing blasphemy does not breach the legal right to free speech within that legal system. But clearly one could argue that a justified legal right to free speech would not include any such exception. In other cases, positive legal rights might perhaps protect too much speech. Consider the fact that, as a matter of U.S. constitutional precedent, the First Amendment broadly protects speech that expresses or incites racial or religious hatred. Plainly we could agree that this is so as a matter of positive law while disagreeing about whether it ought to be so. (This is most straightforwardly true if we are legal positivists. These distinctions are muddied by moralistic theories of constitutional interpretation, which enjoin us to interpret positive legal rights in a constitutional text partly through the prism of our favorite normative political theory; see Dworkin 1996.)

Second, we can distinguish rights-based theories of free speech from non-rights-based theories. For many liberals, the legal right to free speech is justified by appealing to an underlying moral right to free speech, understood as a natural right held by all persons. (Some use the term human right equivalently—e.g., Alexander 2005—though the appropriate usage of that term is contested.) The operative notion of a moral right here is that of a claim-right (to invoke the influential analysis of Hohfeld 1917); it thereby correlates to moral duties held by others (paradigmatically, the state) to respect or protect the right. Such a right is natural in that it exerts normative force independently of whether anyone thinks it does, and regardless of whether it is codified into the law. A tyrannical state that imprisons dissidents acts unjustly, violating moral rights, even if there is no legal right to freedom of expression in its legal system.

For others, the underlying moral justification for free speech law need not come in the form of a natural moral right. For example, consequentialists might favor a legal right to free speech (on, e.g., welfare-maximizing grounds) without thinking that it tracks any underlying natural right. Or consider democratic theorists who have defended legal protections for free speech as central to democracy. Such theorists may think there is an underlying natural moral right to free speech, but they need not (especially if they hold an instrumental justification for democracy). Or consider deontologists who have argued that free speech functions as a kind of side-constraint on legitimate state action, requiring that the state always justify its decisions in a manner that respects citizens’ autonomy (Scanlon 1972). This theory does not cast free speech as a right, but rather as a principle that forbids the creation of laws that restrict speech on certain grounds. In the Hohfeldian analysis (Hohfeld 1917), such a principle may be understood as an immunity rather than a claim-right (Scanlon 2013: 402). Finally, some “minimalists” (to use a designation in Cohen 1993) favor legal protection for speech principally in response to government malice, corruption, and incompetence (see Schauer 1982; Epstein 1992; Leiter 2016). Such theorists need not recognize any fundamental moral right, either.

Third, among those who do ground free speech in a natural moral right, there is scope for disagreement about how tightly the law should mirror that right (as with any right; see Buchanan 2013). It is an open question what the precise legal codification of the moral right to free speech should involve. A justified legal right to freedom of speech may not mirror the precise contours of the natural moral right to freedom of speech. A raft of instrumental concerns enters the downstream analysis of what any justified legal right should look like; hence a defensible legal right to free speech may protect more speech (or indeed less speech) than the underlying moral right that justifies it. For example, even if the moral right to free speech does not protect so-called hate speech, such speech may still merit legal protection in the final analysis (say, because it would be too risky to entrust states with the power to limit those communications).

2. Justifying Free Speech

I will now examine several of the morally significant considerations taken to justify freedom of expression. Note that while many theorists have built whole conceptions of free speech out of a single interest or value alone, pluralism in this domain remains an option. It may well be that a plurality of interests serves to justify freedom of expression, properly understood (see, influentially, Emerson 1970 and Cohen 1993).

Suppose a state bans certain books on the grounds that it does not want us to hear the messages or arguments contained within them. Such censorship seems to involve some kind of insult or disrespect to citizens—treating us like children instead of adults who have a right to make up our own minds. This insight is fundamental in the free speech tradition. On this view, the state wrongs citizens by arrogating to itself the authority to decide what messages they ought to hear. That is so even if the state thinks that the speech will cause harm. As one author puts it,

the government may not suppress speech on the ground that the speech is likely to persuade people to do something that the government considers harmful. (Strauss 1991: 335)

Why are restrictions on persuasive speech objectionable? For some scholars, the relevant wrong here is a form of disrespect for citizens’ basic capacities (Dworkin 1996: 200; Nagel 2002: 44). For others, the wrong here inheres in a violation of the kind of relationship the state should have with its people: namely, that it should always act from a view of them as autonomous, and so entitled to make up their own minds (Scanlon 1972). It would simply be incompatible with a view of ourselves as autonomous—as authors of our own lives and choices—to grant the state the authority to pre-screen which opinions, arguments, and perspectives we should be allowed to think through, allowing us access only to those of which it approves.

This position is especially well-suited to justify some central doctrines of First Amendment jurisprudence. First, it justifies the claim that freedom of expression especially implicates the purposes with which the state acts. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why the state might restrict speech (so-called “time, place, and manner” restrictions)—for example, noise curfews in residential neighborhoods, which do not raise serious free speech concerns. Yet when the state restricts speech with the purpose of manipulating the communicative environment and controlling the views to which citizens are exposed, free speech is directly affronted (Rubenfeld 2001; Alexander 2005; Kramer 2021). To be sure, purposes are not all that matter for free speech theory. For example, the chilling effects of otherwise justified speech regulations (discussed below) are seldom intended. But they undoubtedly matter.

Second, this view justifies the related doctrines of content neutrality and viewpoint neutrality (see G. Stone 1983 and 1987) . Content neutrality is violated when the state bans discussion of certain topics (“no discussion of abortion”), whereas viewpoint neutrality is violated when the state bans advocacy of certain views (“no pro-choice views may be expressed”). Both affront free speech, though viewpoint-discrimination is especially egregious and so even harder to justify. While listener autonomy theories are not the only theories that can ground these commitments, they are in a strong position to account for their plausibility. Note that while these doctrines are central to the American approach to free speech, they are less central to other states’ jurisprudence (see A. Stone 2017).

Third, this approach helps us see that free speech is potentially implicated whenever the state seeks to control our thoughts and the processes through which we form beliefs. Consider an attempt to ban Marx’s Capital . As Marx is deceased, he is probably not wronged through such censorship. But even if one held idiosyncratic views about posthumous rights, such that Marx were wronged, it would be curious to think this was the central objection to such censorship. Those with the gravest complaint would be the living adults who have the prerogative to read the book and make up their own minds about it. Indeed free speech may even be implicated if the state banned watching sunsets or playing video games on the grounds that is disapproved of the thoughts to which such experiences might give rise (Alexander 2005: 8–9; Kramer 2021: 22).

These arguments emphasize the noninstrumental imperative of respecting listener autonomy. But there is an instrumental version of the view. Our autonomy interests are not merely respected by free speech; they are promoted by an environment in which we learn what others have to say. Our interests in access to information is served by exposure to a wide range of viewpoints about both empirical and normative issues (Cohen 1993: 229), which help us reflect on what goals to choose and how best to pursue them. These informational interests are monumental. As Raz suggests, if we had to choose whether to express our own views on some question, or listen to the rest of humanity’s views on that question, we would choose the latter; it is our interest as listeners in the public good of a vibrant public discourse that, he thinks, centrally justifies free speech (1991).

Such an interest in acquiring justified beliefs, or in accessing truth, can be defended as part of a fully consequentialist political philosophy. J.S. Mill famously defends free speech instrumentally, appealing to its epistemic benefits in On Liberty . Mill believes that, given our fallibility, we should routinely keep an open mind as to whether a seemingly false view may actually be true, or at least contain some valuable grain of truth. And even where a proposition is manifestly false, there is value in allowing its expression so that we can better apprehend why we take it to be false (1859: chapter 2), enabled through discursive conflict (cf. Simpson 2021). Mill’s argument focuses especially on the benefits to audiences:

It is is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect. (1859: chapter 2, p. 94)

These views are sometimes associated with the idea of a “marketplace of ideas”, whereby the open clash of views inevitably leads to the correct ones winning out in debate. Few in the contemporary literature holds such a strong teleological thesis about the consequences of unrestricted debate (e.g., see Brietzke 1997; cf. Volokh 2011). Much evidence from behavioral economics and social psychology, as well as insights about epistemic injustice from feminist epistemology, strongly suggest that human beings’ rational powers are seriously limited. Smug confidence in the marketplace of ideas belies this. Yet it is doubtful that Mill held such a strong teleological thesis (Gordon 1997). Mill’s point was not that unrestricted discussion necessarily leads people to acquire the truth. Rather, it is simply the best mechanism available for ascertaining the truth, relative to alternatives in which some arbiter declares what he sees as true and suppresses what he sees as false (see also Leiter 2016).

Note that Mill’s views on free speech in chapter 2 in On Liberty are not simply the application of the general liberty principle defended in chapter 1 of that work; his view is not that speech is anodyne and therefore seldom runs afoul of the harm principle. The reason a separate argument is necessary in chapter 2 is precisely that he is carving out a partial qualification of the harm principle for speech (on this issue see Jacobson 2000, Schauer 2011b, and Turner 2014). On Mill’s view, plenty of harmful speech should still be allowed. Imminently dangerous speech, where there is no time for discussion before harm eventuates, may be restricted; but where there is time for discussion, it must be allowed. Hence Mill’s famous example that vociferous criticism of corn dealers as

starvers of the poor…ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer. (1859: chapter 3, p. 100)

The point is not that such speech is harmless; it’s that the instrumental benefits of permitting its expressions—and exposing its falsehood through public argument—justify the (remaining) costs.

Many authors have unsurprisingly argued that free speech is justified by our interests as speakers . This family of arguments emphasizes the role of speech in the development and exercise of our personal autonomy—our capacity to be the reflective authors of our own lives (Baker 1989; Redish 1982; Rawls 2005). Here an emphasis on freedom of expression is apt; we have an “expressive interest” (Cohen 1993: 224) in declaring our views—about the good life, about justice, about our identity, and about other aspects of the truth as we see it.

Our interests in self-expression may not always depend on the availability of a willing audience; we may have interests simply in shouting from the rooftops to declare who we are and what we believe, regardless of who else hears us. Hence communications to oneself—for example, in a diary or journal—are plausibly protected from interference (Redish 1992: 30–1; Shiffrin 2014: 83, 93; Kramer 2021: 23).

Yet we also have distinctive interests in sharing what we think with others. Part of how we develop our conceptions of the good life, forming judgments about how to live, is precisely through talking through the matter with others. This “deliberative interest” in directly served through opportunities to tell others what we think, so that we can learn from their feedback (Cohen 1993). Such encounters also offer opportunities to persuade others to adopt our views, and indeed to learn through such discussions who else already shares our views (Raz 1991).

Speech also seems like a central way in which we develop our capacities. This, too, is central to J.S. Mill’s defense of free speech, enabling people to explore different perspectives and points of view (1859). Hence it seems that when children engage in speech, to figure out what they think and to use their imagination to try out different ways of being in the world, they are directly engaging this interest. That explains the intuition that children, and not just adults, merit at least some protection under a principle of freedom of speech.

Note that while it is common to refer to speaker autonomy , we could simply refer to speakers’ capacities. Some political liberals hold that an emphasis on autonomy is objectionably Kantian or otherwise perfectionist, valorizing autonomy as a comprehensive moral ideal in a manner that is inappropriate for a liberal state (Cohen 1993: 229; Quong 2011). For such theorists, an undue emphasis on autonomy is incompatible with ideals of liberal neutrality toward different comprehensive conceptions of the good life (though cf. Shiffrin 2014: 81).

If free speech is justified by the importance of our interests in expressing ourselves, this justifies negative duties to refrain from interfering with speakers without adequate justification. Just as with listener theories, a strong presumption against content-based restrictions, and especially against viewpoint discrimination, is a clear requirement of the view. For the state to restrict citizens’ speech on the grounds that it disfavors what they have to say would affront the equal freedom of citizens. Imagine the state were to disallow the expression of Muslim or Jewish views, but allow the expression of Christian views. This would plainly transgress the right to freedom of expression, by valuing certain speakers’ interests in expressing themselves over others.

Many arguments for the right to free speech center on its special significance for democracy (Cohen 1993; Heinze 2016: Heyman 2009; Sunstein 1993; Weinstein 2011; Post 1991, 2009, 2011). It is possible to defend free speech on the noninstrumental ground that it is necessary to respect agents as democratic citizens. To restrict citizens’ speech is to disrespect their status as free and equal moral agents, who have a moral right to debate and decide the law for themselves (Rawls 2005).

Alternatively (or additionally), one can defend free speech on the instrumental ground that free speech promotes democracy, or whatever values democracy is meant to serve. So, for example, suppose the purpose of democracy is the republican one of establishing a state of non-domination between relationally egalitarian citizens; free speech can be defended as promoting that relation (Whitten 2022; Bonotti & Seglow 2022). Or suppose that democracy is valuable because of its role in promoting just outcomes (Arneson 2009) or tending to track those outcomes in a manner than is publicly justifiable (Estlund 2008) or is otherwise epistemically valuable (Landemore 2013).

Perhaps free speech doesn’t merely respect or promote democracy; another framing is that it is constitutive of it (Meiklejohn 1948, 1960; Heinze 2016). As Rawls says: “to restrict or suppress free political speech…always implies at least a partial suspension of democracy” (2005: 254). On this view, to be committed to democracy just is , in part, to be committed to free speech. Deliberative democrats famously contend that voting merely punctuates a larger process defined by a commitment to open deliberation among free and equal citizens (Gutmann & Thompson 2008). Such an unrestricted discussion is marked not by considerations of instrumental rationality and market forces, but rather, as Habermas puts it, “the unforced force of the better argument” (1992 [1996: 37]). One crucial way in which free speech might be constitutive of democracy is if it serves as a legitimation condition . On this view, without a process of open public discourse, the outcomes of the democratic decision-making process lack legitimacy (Dworkin 2009, Brettschneider 2012: 75–78, Cohen 1997, and Heinze 2016).

Those who justify free speech on democratic grounds may view this as a special application of a more general insight. For example, Scanlon’s listener theory (discussed above) contends that the state must always respect its citizens as capable of making up their own minds (1972)—a position with clear democratic implications. Likewise, Baker is adamant that both free speech and democracy are justified by the same underlying value of autonomy (2009). And while Rawls sees the democratic role of free speech as worthy of emphasis, he is clear that free speech is one of several basic liberties that enable the development and exercise of our moral powers: our capacities for a sense of justice and for the rational pursuit a lifeplan (2005). In this way, many theorists see the continuity between free speech and our broader interests as moral agents as a virtue, not a drawback (e.g., Kendrick 2017).

Even so, some democracy theorists hold that democracy has a special role in a theory of free speech, such that political speech in particular merits special protection (for an overview, see Barendt 2005: 154ff). One consequence of such views is that contributions to public discourse on political questions merit greater protection under the law (Sunstein 1993; cf. Cohen 1993: 227; Alexander 2005: 137–8). For some scholars, this may reflect instrumental anxieties about the special danger that the state will restrict the political speech of opponents and dissenters. But for others, an emphasis on political speech seems to reflect a normative claim that such speech is genuinely of greater significance, meriting greater protection, than other kinds of speech.

While conventional in the free speech literature, it is artificial to separate out our interests as speakers, listeners, and democratic citizens. Communication, and the thinking that feeds into it and that it enables, invariably engages our interests and activities across all these capacities. This insight is central to Seana Shiffrin’s groundbreaking thinker-based theory of freedom of speech, which seeks to unify the range of considerations that have informed the traditional theories (2014). Like other theories (e.g., Scanlon 1978, Cohen 1993), Shiffrin’s theory is pluralist in the range of interests it appeals to. But it offers a unifying framework that explains why this range of interests merits protection together.

On Shiffrin’s view, freedom of speech is best understood as encompassing both freedom of communication and freedom of thought, which while logically distinct are mutually reinforcing and interdependent (Shiffrin 2014: 79). Shiffrin’s account involves several profound claims about the relation between communication and thought. A central contention is that “free speech is essential to the development, functioning, and operation of thinkers” (2014: 91). This is, in part, because we must often externalize our ideas to articulate them precisely and hold them at a distance where we can evaluate them (p. 89). It is also because we work out what we think largely by talking it through with others. Such communicative processes may be monological, but they are typically dialogical; speaker and listener interests are thereby mutually engaged in an ongoing manner that cannot be neatly disentangled, as ideas are ping-ponged back and forth. Moreover, such discussions may concern democratic politics—engaging our interests as democratic citizens—but of course they need not. Aesthetics, music, local sports, the existence of God—these all are encompassed (2014: 92–93). Pace prevailing democratic theories,

One’s thoughts about political affairs are intrinsically and ex ante no more and no less central to the human self than thoughts about one’s mortality or one’s friends. (Shiffrin 2014: 93)

The other central aspect of Shiffrin’s view appeals to the necessity of communication for successfully exercising our moral agency. Sincere communication enables us

to share needs, emotions, intentions, convictions, ambitions, desires, fantasies, disappointments, and judgments. Thereby, we are enabled to form and execute complex cooperative plans, to understand one another, to appreciate and negotiate around our differences. (2014: 1)

Without clear and precise communication of the sort that only speech can provide, we cannot cooperate to discharge our collective obligations. Nor can we exercise our normative powers (such as consenting, waiving, or promising). Our moral agency thus depends upon protected channels through which we can relay our sincere thoughts to one another. The central role of free speech is to protect those channels, by ensuring agents are free to share what they are thinking without fear of sanction.

The thinker-based view has wide-ranging normative implications. For example, by emphasizing the continuity of speech and thought (a connection also noted in Macklem 2006 and Gilmore 2011), Shiffrin’s view powerfully explains the First Amendment doctrine that compelled speech also constitutes a violation of freedom of expression. Traditional listener- and speaker-focused theories seemingly cannot explain what is fundamentally objectionable with forcing someone to declare a commitment to something, as with children compelled to pledge allegiance to the American flag ( West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943). “What seems most troubling about the compelled pledge”, Shiffrin writes,

is that the motive behind the regulation, and its possible effect, is to interfere with the autonomous thought processes of the compelled speaker. (2014: 94)

Further, Shiffrin’s view explains why a concern for free speech does not merely correlate to negative duties not to interfere with expression; it also supports positive responsibilities on the part of the state to educate citizens, encouraging and supporting their development and exercise as thinking beings (2014: 107).

Consider briefly one final family of free speech theories, which appeal to the role of toleration or self-restraint. On one argument, freedom of speech is important because it develops our character as liberal citizens, helping us tame our illiberal impulses. The underlying idea of Lee Bollinger’s view is that liberalism is difficult; we recurrently face temptation to punish those who hold contrary views. Freedom of speech helps us to practice the general ethos of toleration in a manner than fortifies our liberal convictions (1986). Deeply offensive speech, like pro-Nazi speech, is protected precisely because toleration in these enormously difficult cases promotes “a general social ethic” of toleration more generally (1986: 248), thereby restraining unjust exercises of state power overall. This consequentialist argument treats the protection of offensive speech not as a tricky borderline case, but as “integral to the central functions of the principle of free speech” (1986: 133). It is precisely because tolerating evil speech involves “extraordinary self-restraint” (1986: 10) that it works its salutary effects on society generally.

The idea of self-restraint arises, too, in Matthew Kramer’s recent defense of free speech. Like listener theories, Kramer’s strongly deontological theory condemns censorship aimed at protecting audiences from exposure to misguided views. At the core of his theory is the thesis that the state’s paramount moral responsibility is to furnish the social conditions that serve the development and maintenance of citizens’ self-respect and respect for others. The achievement of such an ethically resilient citizenry, on Kramer’s view, has the effect of neutering the harmfulness of countless harmful communications. “Securely in a position of ethical strength”, the state “can treat the wares of pornographers and the maunderings of bigots as execrable chirps that are to be endured with contempt” (Kramer 2021: 147). In contrast, in a society where the state has failed to do its duty of inculcating a robust liberal-egalitarian ethos, the communication of illiberal creeds may well pose a substantial threat. Yet for the state then to react by banning such speech is

overweening because with them the system’s officials take control of communications that should have been defused (through the system’s fulfillment of its moral obligations) without prohibitory or preventative impositions. (2021: 147)

(One might agree with Kramer that this is so, but diverge by arguing that the state—having failed in its initial duty—ought to take measures to prevent the harms that flow from that failure.)

These theories are striking in that they assume that a chief task of free speech theory is to explain why harmful speech ought to be protected. This is in contrast to those who think that the chief task of free speech theory is to explain our interests in communicating with others, treating the further issue of whether (wrongfully) harmful communications should be protected as an open question, with different reasonable answers available (Kendrick 2017). In this way, toleration theories—alongside a lot of philosophical work on free speech—seem designed to vindicate the demanding American legal position on free speech, one unshared by virtually all other liberal democracies.

One final family of arguments for free speech appeals to the danger of granting the state powers it may abuse. On this view, we protect free speech chiefly because if we didn’t, it would be far easier for the state to silence its political opponents and enact unjust policies. On this view, a state with censorial powers is likely to abuse them. As Richard Epstein notes, focusing on the American case,

the entire structure of federalism, divided government, and the system of checks and balances at the federal level shows that the theme of distrust has worked itself into the warp and woof of our constitutional structure.

“The protection of speech”, he writes, “…should be read in light of these political concerns” (Epstein 1992: 49).

This view is not merely a restatement of the democracy theory; it does not affirm free speech as an element of valuable self-governance. Nor does it reduce to the uncontroversial thought that citizens need freedom of speech to check the behavior of fallible government agents (Blasi 1977). One need not imagine human beings to be particularly sinister to insist (as democracy theorists do) that the decisions of those entrusted with great power be subject to public discussion and scrutiny. The argument under consideration here is more pessimistic about human nature. It is an argument about the slippery slope that we create even when enacting (otherwise justified) speech restrictions; we set an unacceptable precedent for future conduct by the state (see Schauer 1985). While this argument is theoretical, there is clearly historical evidence for it, as in the manifold cases in which bans on dangerous sedition were used to suppress legitimate war protest. (For a sweeping canonical study of the uses and abuses of speech regulations during wartime, with a focus on U.S. history, see G. Stone 2004.)

These instrumental concerns could potentially justify the legal protection for free speech. But they do not to attempt to justify why we should care about free speech as a positive moral ideal (Shiffrin 2014: 83n); they are, in Cohen’s helpful terminology, “minimalist” rather than “maximalist” (Cohen 1993: 210). Accordingly, they cannot explain why free speech is something that even the most trustworthy, morally competent administrations, with little risk of corruption or degeneration, ought to respect. Of course, minimalists will deny that accounting for speech’s positive value is a requirement of a theory of free speech, and that critiquing them for this omission begs the question.

Pluralists may see instrumental concerns as valuably supplementing or qualifying noninstrumental views. For example, instrumental concerns may play a role in justifying deviations between the moral right to free communication, on the one hand, and a properly specified legal right to free communication, on the other. Suppose that there is no moral right to engage in certain forms of harmful expression (such as hate speech), and that there is in fact a moral duty to refrain from such expression. Even so, it does not follow automatically that such a right ought to be legally enforced. Concerns about the dangers of granting the state such power plausibly militate against the enforcement of at least some of our communicative duties—at least in those jurisdictions that lack robust and competently administered liberal-democratic safeguards.

This entry has canvassed a range of views about what justifies freedom of expression, with particular attention to theories that conceive free speech as a natural moral right. Clearly, the proponents of such views believe that they succeed in this justificatory effort. But others dissent, doubting that the case for a bona fide moral right to free speech comes through. Let us briefly note the nature of this challenge from free speech skeptics , exploring a prominent line of reply.

The challenge from skeptics is generally understood as that of showing that free speech is a special right . As Leslie Kendrick notes,

the term “special right” generally requires that a special right be entirely distinct from other rights and activities and that it receive a very high degree of protection. (2017: 90)

(Note that this usage is not to be confused from the alternative usage of “special right”, referring to conditional rights arising out of particular relationships; see Hart 1955.)

Take each aspect in turn. First, to vindicate free speech as a special right, it must serve some distinctive value or interest (Schauer 2015). Suppose free speech were just an implication of a general principle not to interfere in people’s liberty without justification. As Joel Feinberg puts it, “Liberty should be the norm; coercion always needs some special justification” (1984: 9). In such a case, then while there still might be contingent, historical reasons to single speech out in law as worthy of protection (Alexander 2005: 186), such reasons would not track anything especially distinctive about speech as an underlying moral matter. Second, to count as a special right, free speech must be robust in what it protects, such that only a compelling justification can override it (Dworkin 2013: 131). This captures the conviction, prominent among American constitutional theorists, that “any robust free speech principle must protect at least some harmful speech despite the harm it may cause” (Schauer 2011b: 81; see also Schauer 1982).

If the task of justifying a moral right to free speech requires surmounting both hurdles, it is a tall order. Skeptics about a special right to free speech doubt that the order can be met, and so deny that a natural moral right to freedom of expression can be justified (Schauer 2015; Alexander & Horton 1983; Alexander 2005; Husak 1985). But these theorists may be demanding too much (Kendrick 2017). Start with the claim that free speech must be distinctive. We can accept that free speech be more than simply one implication of a general presumption of liberty. But need it be wholly distinctive? Consider the thesis that free speech is justified by our autonomy interests—interests that justify other rights such as freedom of religion and association. Is it a problem if free speech is justified by interests that are continuous with, or overlap with, interests that justify other rights? Pace the free speech skeptics, maybe not. So long as such claims deserve special recognition, and are worth distinguishing by name, this may be enough (Kendrick 2017: 101). Many of the views canvassed above share normative bases with other important rights. For example, Rawls is clear that he thinks all the basic liberties constitute

essential social conditions for the adequate development and full exercise of the two powers of moral personality over a complete life. (Rawls 2005: 293)

The debate, then, is whether such a shared basis is a theoretical virtue (or at least theoretically unproblematic) or whether it is a theoretical vice, as the skeptics avow.

As for the claim that free speech must be robust, protecting harmful speech, “it is not necessary for a free speech right to protect harmful speech in order for it to be called a free speech right” (Kendrick 2017: 102). We do not tend to think that religious liberty must protect harmful religious activities for it to count as a special right. So it would be strange to insist that the right to free speech must meet this burden to count as a special right. Most of the theorists mentioned above take themselves to be offering views that protect quite a lot of harmful speech. Yet we can question whether this feature is a necessary component of their views, or whether we could imagine variations without this result.

3. Justifying Speech Restrictions

When, and why, can restrictions on speech be justified? It is common in public debate on free speech to hear the provocative claim that free speech is absolute . But the plausibility of such a claim depends on what is exactly meant by it. If understood to mean that no communications between humans can ever be restricted, such a view is held by no one in the philosophical debate. When I threaten to kill you unless you hand me your money; when I offer to bribe the security guard to let me access the bank vault; when I disclose insider information that the company in which you’re heavily invested is about to go bust; when I defame you by falsely posting online that you’re a child abuser; when I endanger you by labeling a drug as safe despite its potentially fatal side-effects; when I reveal your whereabouts to assist a murderer intent on killing you—across all these cases, communications may be uncontroversially restricted. But there are different views as to why.

To help organize such views, consider a set of distinctions influentially defended by Schauer (from 1982 onward). The first category involves uncovered speech : speech that does not even presumptively fall within the scope of a principle of free expression. Many of the speech-acts just canvassed, such as the speech involved in making a threat or insider training, plausibly count as uncovered speech. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said of fighting words (e.g., insults calculated to provoke a street fight),

such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. ( Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942)

The general idea here is that some speech simply has negligible—and often no —value as free speech, in light of its utter disconnection from the values that justify free speech in the first place. (For discussion of so-called “low-value speech” in the U.S. context, see Sunstein 1989 and Lakier 2015.) Accordingly, when such low-value speech is harmful, it is particularly easy to justify its curtailment. Hence the Court’s view that “the prevention and punishment of [this speech] have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem”. For legislation restricting such speech, the U.S. Supreme Court applies a “rational basis” test, which is very easy to meet, as it simply asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. (Note that it is widely held that it would still be impermissible to selectively ban low-value speech on a viewpoint-discriminatory basis—e.g., if a state only banned fighting words from left-wing activists while allowing them from right-wing activists.)

Schauer’s next category concerns speech that is covered but unprotected . This is speech that engages the values that underpin free speech; yet the countervailing harm of the speech justifies its restriction. In such cases, while there is real value in such expression as free speech, that value is outweighed by competing normative concerns (or even, as we will see below, on behalf of the very values that underpin free speech). In U.S. constitutional jurisprudence, this category encompasses those extremely rare cases in which restrictions on political speech pass the “strict scrutiny” test, whereby narrow restrictions on high-value speech can be justified due to the compelling state interests thereby served. Consider Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 2010, in which the Court held that an NGO’s legal advice to a terrorist organization on how to pursue peaceful legal channels were legitimately criminalized under a counter-terrorism statute. While such speech had value as free speech (at least on one interpretation of this contested ruling), the imperative of counter-terrorism justified its restriction. (Arguably, commercial speech, while sometimes called low-value speech by scholars, falls into the covered but unprotected category. Under U.S. law, legislation restricting it receives “intermediate scrutiny” by courts—requiring restrictions to be narrowly drawn to advance a substantial government interest. Such a test suggests that commercial speech has bona fide free-speech value, making it harder to justify regulations on it than regulations on genuinely low-value speech like fighting words. It simply doesn’t have as much free-speech value as categories like political speech, religious speech, or press speech, all of which trigger the strict scrutiny test when restricted.)

As a philosophical matter, we can reasonably disagree about what speech qualifies as covered but unprotected (and need not treat the verdicts of the U.S. Supreme Court as philosophically decisive). For example, consider politically-inflected hate speech, which advances repugnant ideas about the inferior status of certain groups. One could concur that there is substantial free-speech value in such expression, just because it involves the sincere expression of views about central questions of politics and justice (however misguided the views doubtlessly are). Yet one could nevertheless hold that such speech should not be protected in virtue of the substantial harms to which it can lead. In such cases, the free-speech value is outweighed. Many scholars who defend the permissibility of legal restrictions on hate speech hold such a view (e.g., Parekh 2012; Waldron 2012). (More radically, one could hold that such speech’s value is corrupted by its evil, such that it qualifies as genuinely low-value; Howard 2019a.)

The final category of speech encompasses expression that is covered and protected . To declare that speech is protected just is to conclude that it is immune from restriction. A preponderance of human communications fall into this category. This does not mean that such speech can never be regulated ; content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations (e.g., prohibiting loud nighttime protests) can certainly be justified (G. Stone 1987). But such regulations must not be viewpoint discriminatory; they must apply even-handedly across all forms of protected speech.

Schauer’s taxonomy offers a useful organizing framework for how we should think about different forms of speech. Where does it leave the claim that free speech is absolute? The possibility of speech that is covered but unprotected suggests that free speech should sometimes be restricted on account of rival normative concerns. Of course, one could contend that such a category, while logically possible, is substantively an empty set; such a position would involve some kind of absoluteness about free speech (holding that where free-speech values are engaged by expression, no countervailing values can ever be weighty enough to override them). Such a position would be absolutist in a certain sense while granting the permissibility of restrictions on speech that do not engage the free-speech values. (For a recent critique of Schauer’s framework, arguing that governmental designation of some speech as low-value is incompatible with the very ideal of free speech, see Kramer 2021: 31.)

In what follows, this entry will focus on Schauer’s second category: speech that is covered by a free speech principle, but is nevertheless unprotected because of the harms it causes. How do we determine what speech falls into this category? How, in other words, do we determine the limits of free speech? Unsurprisingly, this is where most of the controversy lies.

Most legal systems that protect free speech recognize that the right has limits. Consider, for example, international human rights law, which emphatically protects the freedom of speech as a fundamental human right while also affirming specific restrictions on certain seriously harmful speech. Article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights declares that “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”—but then immediately notes that this right “carries with it special duties and responsibilities”. The subsequent ICCPR article proceeds to endorse legal restrictions on “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, as well as speech constituting “propaganda for war” (ICCPR). While such restrictions would plainly be struck down as unconstitutional affronts to free speech in the U.S., this more restrictive approach prevails in most liberal democracies’ treatment of harmful speech.

Set aside the legal issue for now. How should we think about how to determine the limits of the moral right free speech? Those seeking to justify limits on speech tend to appeal to one of two strategies (Howard and Simpson forthcoming). The first strategy appeals to the importance of balancing free speech against other moral values when they come into conflict. This strategy involves external limits on free speech. (The next strategy, discussed below, invokes free speech itself, or the values that justify it, as limit-setting rationales; it thus involves internal limits on free speech.)

A balancing approach recognizes a moral conflict between unfettered communication and external values. Consider again the case of hate speech, understood as expression that attacks members of socially vulnerable groups as inferior or dangerous. On all of the theories canvassed above, there are grounds for thinking that restrictions on hate speech are prima facie in violation of the moral right to free speech. Banning hate speech to prevent people from hearing ideas that might incline them to bigotry plainly seems to disrespect listener autonomy. Further, even when speakers are expressing prejudiced views, they are still engaging their autonomous faculties. Certainly, they are expressing views on questions of public political concern, even false ones. And as thinkers they are engaged in the communication of sincere testimony to others. On many of the leading theories, the values underpinning free speech seem to be militate against bans on hate speech.

Even so, other values matter. Consider, for example, the value of upholding the equal dignity of all citizens. A central insight of critical race theory is that public expressions of white supremacy, for example, attack and undermine that equal dignity (Matsuda, Lawrence, Delgado, & Crenshaw 1993). On Jeremy Waldron’s view (2012), hate speech is best understood as a form of group defamation, launching spurious attacks on others’ reputations and thereby undermining their standing as respected equals in their own community (relatedly, see Beauharnais v. Illinois 1952).

Countries that ban hate speech, accordingly, are plausibly understood not as opposed to free speech, but as recognizing the importance that it be balanced when conflicting with other values. Such balancing can be understood in different ways. In European human rights law, for example, the relevant idea is that the right to free speech is balanced against other rights ; the relevant task, accordingly, is to specify what counts as a proportionate balance between these rights (see Alexy 2003; J. Greene 2021).

For others, the very idea of balancing rights undermines their deontic character. This alternative framing holds that the balancing occurs before we specify what rights are; on this view, we balance interests against each other, and only once we’ve undertaken that balancing do we proceed to define what our rights protect. As Scanlon puts it,

The only balancing is balancing of interests. Rights are not balanced, but are defined, or redefined, in the light of the balance of interests and of empirical facts about how these interests can best be protected. (2008: 78)

This balancing need not come in the form of some crude consequentialism; otherwise it would be acceptable to limit the rights of the few to secure trivial benefits for the many. On a contractualist moral theory such as Scanlon’s, the test is to assess the strength of any given individual’s reason to engage in (or access) the speech, against the strength of any given individual’s reason to oppose it.

Note that those who engage in balancing need not give up on the idea of viewpoint neutrality; they can accept that, as a general principle, the state should not restrict speech on the grounds that it disapproves of its message and dislikes that others will hear it. The point, instead, is that this commitment is defeasible; it is possible to be overridden.

One final comment is apt. Those who are keen to balance free speech against other values tend to be motivated by the concern that speech can cause harm, either directly or indirectly (on this distinction, see Schauer 1993). But to justify restrictions on speech, it is not sufficient (and perhaps not even necessary) to show that such speech imposes or risks imposing harm. The crucial point is that the speech is wrongful (or, perhaps, wrongfully harmful or risky) , breaching a moral duty that speakers owe to others. Yet very few in the free speech literature think that the mere offensiveness of speech is sufficient to justify restrictions on it. Even Joel Feinberg, who thinks offensiveness can sometimes be grounds for restricting conduct, makes a sweeping exception for

[e]xpressions of opinion, especially about matters of public policy, but also about matters of empirical fact, and about historical, scientific, theological, philosophical, political, and moral questions. (1985: 44)

And in many cases, offensive speech may be actively salutary, as when racists are offended by defenses of racial equality (Waldron 1987). Accordingly, despite how large it looms in public debate, discussion of offensive speech will not play a major role in the discussion here.

We saw that one way to justify limits on free speech is to balance it against other values. On that approach, free speech is externally constrained. A second approach, in contrast, is internally constrained. On this approach, the very values that justify free speech themselves determine its own limits. This is a revisionist approach to free speech since, unlike orthodox thinking, it contends that a commitment to free speech values can counterintuitively support the restriction of speech—a surprising inversion of traditional thinking on the topic (see Howard and Simpson forthcoming). This move—justifying restrictions on speech by appealing to the values that underpin free speech—is now prevalent in the philosophical literature (for an overview, see Barendt 2005: 1ff).

Consider, for example, the claim that free speech is justified by concerns of listener autonomy. On such a view, as we saw above, autonomous citizens have interests in exposure to a wide range of viewpoints, so that they can decide for themselves what to believe. But many have pointed out that this is not autonomous citizens’ only interest; they also have interests in not getting murdered by those incited by incendiary speakers (Amdur 1980). Likewise, insofar as being targeted by hate speech undermines the exercise of one’s autonomous capacities, appeal to the underlying value of autonomy could well support restrictions on such speech (Brison 1998; see also Brink 2001). What’s more, if our interests as listeners in acquiring accurate information is undermined by fraudulent information, then restrictions on such information could well be compatible with our status as autonomous; this was one of the insights that led Scanlon to complicate his theory of free speech (1978).

Or consider the theory that free speech is justified because of its role in enabling autonomous speakers to express themselves. But as Japa Pallikkathayil has argued, some speech can intimidate its audiences into staying silent (as with some hate speech), out of fear for what will happen if they speak up (Pallikkathayil 2020). In principle, then, restrictions on hate speech may serve to support the value of speaker expression, rather than undermine it (see also Langton 2018; Maitra 2009; Maitra & McGowan 2007; and Matsuda 1989: 2337). Indeed, among the most prominent claims in feminist critiques of pornography is precisely that it silences women—not merely through its (perlocutionary) effects in inspiring rape, but more insidiously through its (illocutionary) effects in altering the force of the word “no” (see MacKinnon 1984; Langton 1993; and West 204 [2022]; McGowan 2003 and 2019; cf. Kramer 2021, pp. 160ff).

Now consider democracy theories. On the one hand, democracy theorists are adamant that citizens should be free to discuss any proposals, even the destruction of democracy itself (e.g., Meiklejohn 1948: 65–66). On the other hand, it isn’t obvious why citizens’ duties as democratic citizens could not set a limit to their democratic speech rights (Howard 2019a). The Nazi propagandist Goebbels is said to have remarked:

This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed. (as quoted in Fox & Nolte 1995: 1)

But it is not clear why this is necessarily so. Why should we insist on a conception of democracy that contains a self-destruct mechanism? Merely stipulating that democracy requires this is not enough (see A. Greene and Simpson 2017).

Finally, consider Shiffrin’s thinker-based theory. Shiffrin’s view is especially well-placed to explain why varieties of harmful communications are protected speech; what the theory values is the sincere transmission of veridical testimony, whereby speakers disclose what they genuinely believe to others, even if what they believe is wrongheaded and dangerous. Yet because the sincere testimony of thinkers is what qualifies some communication for protection, Shiffrin is adamant that lying falls outside the protective ambit of freedom of expression (2014) This, then, sets an internal limit on her own theory (even if she herself disfavors all lies’ outright prohibition for reasons of tolerance). The claim that lying falls outside the protective ambit of free speech is itself a recurrent suggestion in the literature (Strauss 1991: 355; Brown 2023). In an era of rampant disinformation, this internal limit is of substantial practical significance.

Suppose the moral right (or principle) of free speech is limited, as most think, such that not all communications fall within its protective ambit (either for external reasons, internal reasons, or both). Even so, it does not follow that laws banning such unprotected speech can be justified all-things-considered. Further moral tests must be passed before any particular policy restricting speech can be justified. This sub-section focuses on the requirement that speech restrictions be proportionate .

The idea that laws implicating fundamental rights must be proportionate is central in many jurisdictions’ constitutional law, as well as in the international law of human rights. As a representative example, consider the specification of proportionality offered by the Supreme Court of Canada:

First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair, or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair “as little as possible” the right or freedom in question[…] Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of “sufficient importance” ( R v. Oakes 1986).

It is this third element (often called “proportionality stricto sensu ”) on which we will concentrate here; this is the focused sense of proportionality that roughly tracks how the term is used in the philosophical literatures on defensive harm and war, as well as (with some relevant differences) criminal punishment. (The strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny tests of U.S. constitutional law are arguably variations of the proportionality test; but set aside this complication for now as it distracts from the core philosophical issues. For relevant legal discussion, see Tsesis 2020.)

Proportionality, in the strict sense, concerns the relation between the costs or harms imposed by some measure and the benefits that the measure is designed to secure. The organizing distinction in recent philosophical literature (albeit largely missing in the literature on free speech) is one between narrow proportionality and wide proportionality . While there are different ways to cut up the terrain between these terms, let us stipulatively define them as follows. An interference is narrowly proportionate just in case the intended target of the interference is liable to bear the costs of that interference. An interference is widely proportionate just in case the collateral costs that the interference unintentionally imposes on others can be justified. (This distinction largely follows the literature in just war theory and the ethics of defensive force; see McMahan 2009.) While the distinction is historically absent from free speech theory, it has powerful payoffs in helping to structure this chaotic debate (as argued in Howard 2019a).

So start with the idea that restrictions on communication must be narrowly proportionate . For a restriction to be narrowly proportionate, those whose communications are restricted must be liable to bear their costs, such that they are not wronged by their imposition. One standard way to be liable to bear certain costs is to have a moral duty to bear them (Tadros 2012). So, for example, if speakers have a moral duty to refrain from libel, hate speech, or some other form of harmful speech, they are liable to bear at least some costs involved in the enforcement of that duty. Those costs cannot be unlimited; a policy of executing hate speakers could not plausibly be justified. Typically, in both defensive and punitive contexts, wrongdoers’ liability is determined by their culpability, the severity of their wrong, or some combination of the two. While it is difficult to say in the abstract what the precise maximal cost ceiling is for any given restriction, as it depends hugely on the details, the point is simply that there is some ceiling above which a speech restriction (like any restriction) imposes unacceptably high costs, even on wrongdoers.

Second, for a speech restriction to be justified, we must also show that it would be widely proportionate . Suppose a speaker is liable to bear the costs of some policy restricting her communication, such that she is not wronged by its imposition. It may be that the collateral costs of such a policy would render it unacceptable. One set of costs is chilling effects , the “overdeterrence of benign conduct that occurs incidentally to a law’s legitimate purpose or scope” (Kendrick 2013: 1649). The core idea is that laws targeting unprotected, legitimately proscribed expression may nevertheless end up having a deleterious impact on protected expression. This is because laws are often vague, overbroad, and in any case are likely to be misapplied by fallible officials (Schauer 1978: 699).

Note that if a speech restriction produces chilling effects, it does not follow that the restriction should not exist at all. Rather, concern about chilling effects instead suggests that speech restrictions should be under-inclusive—restricting less speech than is actually harmful—in order to create “breathing space”, or “a buffer zone of strategic protection” (Schauer 1978: 710) for legitimate expression and so reduce unwanted self-censorship. For example, some have argued that even though speech can cause harm recklessly or negligently, we should insist on specific intent as the mens rea of speech crimes in order to reduce any chilling effects that could follow (Alexander 1995: 21–128; Schauer 1978: 707; cf. Kendrick 2013).

But chilling effects are not the only sort of collateral effects to which speech restrictions could lead. Earlier we noted the risk that states might abuse their censorial powers. This, too, could militate in favor of underinclusive speech restrictions. Or the implication could be more radical. Consider the problem that it is difficult to author restrictions on hate speech in a tightly specified way; the language involved is open-ended in a manner that enables states to exercise considerable judgment in deciding what speech-acts, in fact, count as violations (see Strossen 2018). Given the danger that the state will misuse or abuse these laws to punish legitimate speech, some might think this renders their enactment widely disproportionate. Indeed, even if the law were well-crafted and would be judiciously applied by current officials, the point is that those in the future may not be so trustworthy.

Those inclined to accept such a position might simply draw the conclusion that legislatures ought to refrain from enacting laws against hate speech. A more radical conclusion is that the legal right to free speech ought to be specified so that hate speech is constitutionally protected. In other words, we ought to give speakers a legal right to violate their moral duties, since enforcing those moral duties through law is simply too risky. By appealing to this logic, it is conceivable that the First Amendment position on hate speech could be justified all-things-considered—not because the underlying moral right to free speech protects hate speech, but because hate speech must be protected for instrumental reasons of preventing future abuses of power (Howard 2019a).

Suppose certain restrictions on harmful speech can be justified as proportionate, in both the narrow and wide senses. This is still not sufficient to justify them all-things-considered. Additionally, they must be justified as necessary . (Note that some conceptions of proportionality in human rights law encompass the necessity requirement, but this entry follows the prevailing philosophical convention by treating them as distinct.)

Why might restrictions on harmful speech be unnecessary? One of the standard claims in the free speech literature is that we should respond to harmful speech not by banning it, but by arguing back against it. Counter-speech—not censorship—is the appropriate solution. This line of reasoning is old. As John Milton put it in 1644: “Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” The insistence on counter-speech as the remedy for harmful speech is similarly found, as noted above, throughout chapter 2 of Mill’s On Liberty .

For many scholars, this line of reply is justified by the fact that they think the harmful speech in question is protected by the moral right to free speech. For such scholars, counter-speech is the right response because censorship is morally off the table. For other scholars, the recourse to counter-speech has a plausible distinct rationale (although it is seldom articulated): its possibility renders legal restrictions unnecessary. And because it is objectionable to use gratuitous coercion, legal restrictions are therefore impermissible (Howard 2019a). Such a view could plausibly justify Mill’s aforementioned analysis in the corn dealer example, whereby censorship is permissible but only when there’s no time for counter-speech—a view that is also endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

Whether this argument succeeds depends upon a wide range of further assumptions—about the comparable effectiveness of counter-speech relative to law; about the burdens that counter-speech imposes on prospective counter-speakers. Supposing that the argument succeeds, it invites a range of further normative questions about the ethics of counter-speech. For example, it is important who has the duty to engage in counter-speech, who its intended audience is, and what specific forms the counter-speech ought to take—especially in order to maximize its persuasive effectiveness (Brettschneider 2012; Cepollaro, Lepoutre, & Simpson 2023; Howard 2021b; Lepoutre 2021; Badano & Nuti 2017). It is also important to ask questions about the moral limits of counter-speech. For example, insofar as publicly shaming wrongful speakers has become a prominent form of counter-speech, it is crucial to interrogate its permissibility (e.g., Billingham and Parr 2020).

This final section canvasses the young philosophical debate concerning freedom of speech on the internet. With some important exceptions (e.g., Barendt 2005: 451ff), this issue has only recently accelerated (for an excellent edited collection, see Brison & Gelber 2019). There are many normative questions to be asked about the moral rights and obligations of internet platforms. Here are three. First, do internet platforms have moral duties to respect the free speech of their users? Second, do internet platforms have moral duties to restrict (or at least refrain from amplifying) harmful speech posted by their users? And finally, if platforms do indeed have moral duties to restrict harmful speech, should those duties be legally enforced?

The reference to internet platforms , is a deliberate focus on large-scale social media platforms, through which people can discover and publicly share user-generated content. We set aside other entities such as search engines (Whitney & Simpson 2019), important though they are. That is simply because the central political controversies, on which philosophical input is most urgent, concern the large social-media platforms.

Consider the question of whether internet platforms have moral duties to respect the free speech of their users. One dominant view in the public discourse holds that the answer is no . On this view, platforms are private entities, and as such enjoy the prerogative to host whatever speech they like. This would arguably be a function of them having free speech rights themselves. Just as the free speech rights of the New York Times give it the authority to publish whatever op-eds it sees fit, the free speech rights of platforms give them the authority to exercise editorial or curatorial judgment about what speech to allow. On this view, if Facebook were to decide to become a Buddhist forum, amplifying the speech of Buddhist users and promoting Buddhist perspectives and ideas, and banning speech promoting other religions, it would be entirely within its moral (and thus proper legal) rights to do so. So, too, if it were to decide to become an atheist forum.

A radical alternative view holds that internet platforms constitute a public forum , a term of art from U.S. free speech jurisprudence used to designate spaces “designed for and dedicated to expressive activities” ( Southeastern Promotions Ltd., v. Conrad 1975). As Kramer has argued:

social-media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and YouTube have become public fora. Although the companies that create and run those platforms are not morally obligated to sustain them in existence at all, the role of controlling a public forum morally obligates each such company to comply with the principle of freedom of expression while performing that role. No constraints that deviate from the kinds of neutrality required under that principle are morally legitimate. (Kramer 2021: 58–59)

On this demanding view, platforms’ duties to respect speech are (roughly) identical to the duties of states. Accordingly, if efforts by the state to restrict hate speech, pornography, and public health misinformation (for example) are objectionable affronts to free speech, so too are platforms’ content moderation rules for such content. A more moderate view does not hold that platforms are public forums as such, but holds that government channels or pages qualify as public forums (the claim at issue in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2019).)

Even if we deny that platforms constitute public forums, it is plausible that they engage in a governance function of some kind (Klonick 2018). As Jack Balkin has argued, the traditional model of free speech, which sees it as a relation between speakers and the state, is today plausibly supplanted by a triadic model, involving a more complex relation between speakers, governments, and intermediaries (2004, 2009, 2018, 2021). If platforms do indeed have some kind of governance function, it may well trigger responsibilities for transparency and accountability (as with new legislation such as the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act).

Second, consider the question of whether platforms have a duty to remove harmful content posted by users. Even those who regard them as public forums could agree that platforms may have a moral responsibility to remove illegal unprotected speech. Yet a dominant view in the public debate has historically defended platforms’ place as mere conduits for others’ speech. This is the current position under U.S. law (as with 47 U.S. Code §230), which broadly exempts platforms from liability for much illegal speech, such as defamation. On this view, we should view platforms as akin to bulletin boards: blame whoever posts wrongful content, but don’t hold the owner of the board responsible.

This view is under strain. Even under current U.S. law, platforms are liable for removing some content, such as child sexual abuse material and copyright infringements, suggesting that it is appropriate to demand some accountability for the wrongful content posted by others. An increasing body of philosophical work explores the idea that platforms are indeed morally responsible for removing extreme content. For example, some have argued that platforms have a special responsibility to prevent the radicalization that occurs on their networks, given the ways in which extreme content is amplified to susceptible users (Barnes 2022). Without engaging in moderation (i.e., removal) of harmful content, platforms are plausibly complicit with the wrongful harms perpetrated by users (Howard forthcoming).

Yet it remains an open question what a responsible content moderation policy ought to involve. Many are tempted by a juridical model, whereby platforms remove speech in accordance with clearly announced rules, with user appeals mechanisms in place for individual speech decisions to ensure they are correctly made (critiqued in Douek 2022b). Yet platforms have billions of users and remove millions of pieces of content per week. Accordingly, perfection is not possible. Moving quickly to remove harmful content during a crisis—e.g., Covid misinformation—will inevitably increase the number of false positives (i.e., legitimate speech taken down as collateral damage). It is plausible that the individualistic model of speech decisions adopted by courts is decidedly implausible to help us govern online content moderation; as noted in Douek 2021 and 2022a, what is needed is analysis of how the overall system should operate at scale, with a focus on achieving proportionality between benefits and costs. Alternatively, one might double down and insist that the juridical model is appropriate, given the normative significance of speech. And if it is infeasible for social-media companies to meet its demands given their size, then all the worse for social-media companies. On this view, it is they who must bend to meet the moral demands of free speech theory, not the other way around.

Substantial philosophical work needs to be done to deliver on this goal. The work is complicated by the fact that artificial intelligence (AI) is central to the processes of content moderation; human moderators, themselves subjected to terrible working conditions at long hours, work in conjunction with machine learning tools to identify and remove content that platforms have restricted. Yet AI systems notoriously are as biased as their training data. Further, their “black box” decisions are cryptic and cannot be easily understood. Given that countless speech decisions will necessarily be made without human involvement, it is right to ask whether it is reasonable to expect users to accept the deliverances of machines (e.g., see Vredenburgh 2022; Lazar forthcoming a). Note that machine intelligence is used not merely for content moderation, narrowly understood as the enforcement of rules about what speech is allowed. It is also deployed for the broader practice of content curation, determining what speech gets amplified — raising the question of what normative principles should govern such amplification; see Lazar forthcoming b).

Finally, there is the question of legal enforcement. Showing that platforms have the moral responsibility to engage in content moderation is necessary to justifying its codification into a legal responsibility. Yet it is not sufficient; one could accept that platforms have moral duties to moderate (some) harmful speech while also denying that those moral duties ought to be legally enforced. A strong, noninstrumental version of such a view would hold that while speakers have moral duties to refrain from wrongful speech, and platforms have duties not to platform or amplify it, the coercive enforcement of such duties would violate the moral right to freedom of expression. A more contingent, instrumental version of the view would hold that legal enforcement is not in principle impermissible; but in practice, it is simply too risky to grant the state the authority to enforce platforms’ and speakers’ moral duties, given the potential for abuse and overreach.

Liberals who champion the orthodox interpretation of the First Amendment, yet insist on robust content moderation, likely hold one or both of these views. Yet globally such views seem to be in the minority. Serious legislation is imminent that will subject social-media companies to burdensome regulation, in the form of such laws as the Digital Services Act in the European Union and the Online Safety Bill in the UK. Normatively evaluating such legislation is a pressing task. So, too, is the task of designing normative theories to guide the design of content moderation systems, and the wider governance of the digital public sphere. On both fronts, political philosophers should get back to work.

• Alexander, Larry [Lawrence], 1995, “Free Speech and Speaker’s Intent”, Constitutional Commentary , 12(1): 21–28.
• –––, 2005, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? , (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Alexander, Lawrence and Paul Horton, 1983, “The Impossibility of a Free Speech Principle Review Essay”, Northwestern University Law Review , 78(5): 1319–1358.
• Alexy, Robert, 2003, “Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality”, Ratio Juris , 16(2): 131–140. doi:10.1111/1467-9337.00228
• Amdur, Robert, 1980, “Scanlon on Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 9(3): 287–300.
• Arneson, Richard, 2009, “Democracy is Not Intrinsically Just”, in Justice and Democracy , Keith Dowding, Robert E. Goodin, and Carole Pateman (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–58.
• Baker, C. Edwin, 1989, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2009, “Autonomy and Hate Speech”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 139–157 (ch. 8). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0009
• Balkin, Jack M., 2004, “Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society”, New York University Law Review , 79(1): 1–55.
• –––, 2009, “The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age Free Speech and Press in the Digital Age”, Pepperdine Law Review , 36(2): 427–444.
• –––, 2018, “Free Speech Is a Triangle Essays”, Columbia Law Review , 118(7): 2011–2056.
• –––, 2021, “How to Regulate (and Not Regulate) Social Media”, Journal of Free Speech Law , 1(1): 71–96. [ Balkin 2021 available online (pdf) ]
• Barendt, Eric M., 2005, Freedom of Speech , second edition, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225811.001.0001
• Barnes, Michael Randall, 2022, “Online Extremism, AI, and (Human) Content Moderation”, Feminist Philosophy Quarterly , 8(3/4): article 6. [ Barnes 2022 available online ]
• Beauharnais v. Illinois 343 U.S. 250 (1952).
• Billingham, Paul and Tom Parr, 2020, “Enforcing Social Norms: The Morality of Public Shaming”, European Journal of Philosophy , 28(4): 997–1016. doi:10.1111/ejop.12543
• Blasi, Vincent, 1977, “The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory”, American Bar Foundation Research Journal 3: 521–649.
• –––, 2004, “Holmes and the Marketplace of Ideas”, The Supreme Court Review , 2004: 1–46.
• Brettschneider, Corey Lang, 2012, When the State Speaks, What Should It Say? How Democracies Can Protect Expression and Promote Equality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Brietzke, Paul H., 1997, “How and Why the Marketplace of Ideas Fails”, Valparaiso University Law Review , 31(3): 951–970.
• Bollinger, Lee C., 1986, The Tolerant Society: Free Speech and Extremist Speech in America , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bonotti, Matteo and Jonathan Seglow, 2022, “Freedom of Speech: A Relational Defence”, Philosophy & Social Criticism , 48(4): 515–529.
• Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• Brink, David O., 2001, “Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech”, Legal Theory , 7(2): 119–157. doi:10.1017/S1352325201072019
• Brison, Susan J., 1998, “The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech”, Ethics , 108(2): 312–339. doi:10.1086/233807
• Brison, Susan J. and Katharine Gelber (eds), 2019, Free Speech in the Digital Age , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190883591.001.0001
• Brown, Étienne, 2023, “Free Speech and the Legal Prohibition of Fake News”, Social Theory and Practice , 49(1): 29–55. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract202333179
• Buchanan, Allen E., 2013, The Heart of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199325382.001.0001
• Cepollaro, Bianca, Maxime Lepoutre, and Robert Mark Simpson, 2023, “Counterspeech”, Philosophy Compass , 18(1): e12890. doi:10.1111/phc3.12890
• Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
• Cohen, Joshua, 1993, “Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 22(3): 207–263.
• –––, 1997, “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy”, in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics , James Bohman and William Rehg (eds), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 67–92.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1981, “Is There a Right to Pornography?”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 1(2): 177–212. doi:10.1093/ojls/1.2.177
• –––, 1996, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2006, “A New Map of Censorship”, Index on Censorship , 35(1): 130–133. doi:10.1080/03064220500532412
• –––, 2009, “Forward.” In Extreme Speech and Democracy , ed. J. Weinstein and I. Hare, pp. v-ix. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013, Religion without God , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Douek, Evelyn, 2021, “Governing Online Speech: From ‘Posts-as-Trumps’ to Proportionality and Probability”, Columbia Law Review , 121(3): 759–834.
• –––, 2022a, “Content Moderation as Systems Thinking”, Harvard Law Review , 136(2): 526–607.
• –––, 2022b, “The Siren Call of Content Moderation Formalism”, in Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of Our Democracy , Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 139–156 (ch. 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780197621080.003.0009
• Ely, John Hart, 1975, “Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment Analysis”, Harvard Law Review , 88: 1482–1508.
• Emerson, Thomas I., 1970, The System of Freedom of Expression , New York: Random House.
• Epstein, Richard A., 1992, “Property, Speech, and the Politics of Distrust”, University of Chicago Law Review , 59(1): 41–90.
• Estlund, David, 2008, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Feinberg, Joel, 1984, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Volume 1: Harm to Others , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195046641.001.0001
• –––, 1985, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Volume 2: Offense to Others , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195052153.001.0001
• Fish, Stanley Eugene, 1994, There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Fox, Gregory H. and Georg Nolte, 1995, “Intolerant Democracies”, Harvard International Law Journal , 36(1): 1–70.
• Gelber, Katharine, 2010, “Freedom of Political Speech, Hate Speech and the Argument from Democracy: The Transformative Contribution of Capabilities Theory”, Contemporary Political Theory , 9(3): 304–324. doi:10.1057/cpt.2009.8
• Gilmore, Jonathan, 2011, “Expression as Realization: Speakers’ Interests in Freedom of Speech”, Law and Philosophy , 30(5): 517–539. doi:10.1007/s10982-011-9096-z
• Gordon, Jill, 1997, “John Stuart Mill and the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’:”, Social Theory and Practice , 23(2): 235–249. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract199723210
• Greenawalt, Kent, 1989, Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Greene, Amanda R. and Robert Mark Simpson, 2017, “Tolerating Hate in the Name of Democracy”, The Modern Law Review , 80(4): 746–765. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12283
• Greene, Jamal, 2021, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession with Rights Is Tearing America Apart , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2008, Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
• Hare, Ivan and James Weinstein (eds), 2009, Extreme Speech and Democracy , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.001.0001
• Hart, H. L. A., 1955, “Are There Any Natural Rights?”, The Philosophical Review , 64(2): 175–191. doi:10.2307/2182586
• Heinze, Eric, 2016, Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759027.001.0001
• Heyman, Steven J., 2009, “Hate Speech, Public Discourse, and the First Amendment”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 158–181 (ch. 9). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0010
• Hohfeld, Wesley, 1917, “Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,” Yale Law Journal 26(8): 710–770.
• Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 561 U.S. 1 (2010).
• Hornsby, Jennifer, 1995, “Disempowered Speech”, Philosophical Topics , 23(2): 127–147. doi:10.5840/philtopics199523211
• Howard, Jeffrey W., 2019a, “Dangerous Speech”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 47(2): 208–254. doi:10.1111/papa.12145
• –––, 2019b, “Free Speech and Hate Speech”, Annual Review of Political Science , 22: 93–109. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343
• –––, 2021, “Terror, Hate and the Demands of Counter-Speech”, British Journal of Political Science , 51(3): 924–939. doi:10.1017/S000712341900053X
• –––, forthcoming a, “The Ethics of Social Media: Why Content Moderation is a Moral Duty”, Journal of Practical Ethics .
• Howard, Jeffrey W. and Robert Simpson, forthcoming b, “Freedom of Speech”, in Issues in Political Theory , fifth edition, Catriona McKinnon, Patrick Tomlin, and Robert Jubb (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Husak, Douglas N., 1985, “What Is so Special about [Free] Speech?”, Law and Philosophy , 4(1): 1–15. doi:10.1007/BF00208258
• Jacobson, Daniel, 2000, “Mill on Liberty, Speech, and the Free Society”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 29(3): 276–309. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00276.x
• Kendrick, Leslie, 2013, “Speech, Intent, and the Chilling Effect”, William & Mary Law Review , 54(5): 1633–1692.
• –––, 2017, “Free Speech as a Special Right”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 45(2): 87–117. doi:10.1111/papa.12087
• Klonick, Kate, 2018, “The New Governors”, Harvard Law Review 131: 1589–1670.
• Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump 928 F.3d 226 (2019).
• Kramer, Matthew H., 2021, Freedom of Expression as Self-Restraint , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lakier, Genevieve, 2015, “The Invention of Low-Value Speech”, Harvard Law Review , 128(8): 2166–2233.
• Landemore, Hélène, 2013, Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Langton, Rae, 1993, “Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 22(4): 293–330.
• –––, 2018, “The Authority of Hate Speech”, in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law (Volume 3), John Gardner, Leslie Green, and Brian Leiter (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: ch. 4. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198828174.003.0004
• Lazar, Seth, forthcoming, “Legitimacy, Authority, and the Public Value of Explanations”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 10), Steven Wall (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, forthcoming, Connected by Code: Algorithmic Intermediaries and Political Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Leiter, Brian, 2016, “The Case against Free Speech”, Sydney Law Review , 38(4): 407–439.
• Lepoutre, Maxime, 2021, Democratic Speech in Divided Times , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
• MacKinnon, Catharine A., 1984 [1987], “Not a Moral Issue”, Yale Law & Policy Review , 2(2): 321–345. Reprinted in her Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987, 146–162 (ch. 13).
• Macklem, Timothy, 2006, Independence of Mind , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535446.001.0001
• Maitra, Ishani, 2009, “Silencing Speech”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 39(2): 309–338. doi:10.1353/cjp.0.0050
• Maitra, Ishani and Mary Kate McGowan, 2007, “The Limits of Free Speech: Pornography and the Question of Coverage”, Legal Theory , 13(1): 41–68. doi:10.1017/S1352325207070024
• Matsuda, Mari J., 1989, “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story Legal Storytelling”, Michigan Law Review , 87(8): 2320–2381.
• Matsuda, Mari J., Charles R. Lawrence, Richard Delgado, and Kimberlè Williams Crenshaw, 1993, Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment (New Perspectives on Law, Culture, and Society), Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Reprinted 2018, Abingdon: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429502941
• McGowan, Mary Kate, 2003, “Conversational Exercitives and the Force of Pornography”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 31(2): 155–189. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00155.x
• –––, 2019, Just Words: On Speech and Hidden Harm , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829706.001.0001
• McMahan, Jeff, 2009, Killing in War , (Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics), Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548668.001.0001
• Milton, John, 1644, “Areopagitica”, London. [ Milton 1644 available online ]
• Meiklejohn, Alexander, 1948, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government , New York: Harper.
• –––, 1960, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People , New York: Harper.
• Mill, John Stuart, 1859, On Liberty , London: John W. Parker and Son. [ Mill 1859 available online ]
• Nagel, Thomas, 2002, Concealment and Exposure , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Pallikkathayil, Japa, 2020, “Free Speech and the Embodied Self”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 6), David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 61–84 (ch. 3). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198852636.003.0003
• Parekh, Bhikhu, 2012, “Is There a Case for Banning Hate Speech?”, in The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses , Michael Herz and Peter Molnar (eds.), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 37–56. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139042871.006
• Post, Robert C., 1991, “Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment Free Speech and Religious, Racial, and Sexual Harassment”, William and Mary Law Review , 32(2): 267–328.
• –––, 2000, “Reconciling Theory and Doctrine in First Amendment Jurisprudence Symposium of the Law in the Twentieth Century”, California Law Review , 88(6): 2353–2374.
• –––, 2009, “Hate Speech”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 123–138 (ch. 7). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0008
• –––, 2011, “Participatory Democracy as a Theory of Free Speech: A Reply Replies”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 617–632.
• Quong, Jonathan, 2011, Liberalism without Perfection , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199594870.001.0001
• R v. Oakes , 1 SCR 103 (1986).
• Rawls, John, 2005, Political Liberalism , expanded edition, (Columbia Classics in Philosophy), New York: Columbia University Press.
• Raz, Joseph, 1991 [1994], “Free Expression and Personal Identification”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 11(3): 303–324. Collected in his Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 146–169 (ch. 7).
• Redish, Martin H., 1982, “Value of Free Speech”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review , 130(3): 591–645.
• Rubenfeld, Jed, 2001, “The First Amendment’s Purpose”, Stanford Law Review , 53(4): 767–832.
• Scanlon, Thomas, 1972, “A Theory of Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 1(2): 204–226.
• –––, 1978, “Freedom of Expression and Categories of Expression ”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review , 40(4): 519–550.
• –––, 2008, “Rights and Interests”, in Arguments for a Better World: Essays in Honor of Amartya Sen , Kaushik Basu and Ravi Kanbur (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68–79 (ch. 5). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239115.003.0006
• –––, 2013, “Reply to Wenar”, Journal of Moral Philosophy 10: 400–406
• Schauer, Frederick, 1978, “Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the Chilling Effect”, Boston University Law Review , 58(5): 685–732.
• –––, 1982, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1985, “Slippery Slopes”, Harvard Law Review , 99(2): 361–383.
• –––, 1993, “The Phenomenology of Speech and Harm”, Ethics , 103(4): 635–653. doi:10.1086/293546
• –––, 2004, “The Boundaries of the First Amendment: A Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience”, Harvard Law Review , 117(6): 1765–1809.
• –––, 2009, “Is It Better to Be Safe than Sorry: Free Speech and the Precautionary Principle Free Speech in an Era of Terrorism”, Pepperdine Law Review , 36(2): 301–316.
• –––, 2010, “Facts and the First Amendment”, UCLA Law Review , 57(4): 897–920.
• –––, 2011a, “On the Relation between Chapters One and Two of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty ”, Capital University Law Review , 39(3): 571–592.
• –––, 2011b, “Harm(s) and the First Amendment”, The Supreme Court Review , 2011: 81–111. doi:10.1086/665583
• –––, 2015, “Free Speech on Tuesdays”, Law and Philosophy , 34(2): 119–140. doi:10.1007/s10982-014-9220-y
• Shiffrin, Seana Valentine, 2014, Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality, and the Law (Carl G. Hempel Lecture Series), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Simpson, Robert Mark, 2016, “Defining ‘Speech’: Subtraction, Addition, and Division”, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , 29(2): 457–494. doi:10.1017/cjlj.2016.20
• –––, 2021, “‘Lost, Enfeebled, and Deprived of Its Vital Effect’: Mill’s Exaggerated View of the Relation Between Conflict and Vitality”, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume , 95: 97–114. doi:10.1093/arisup/akab006
• Southeastern Promotions Ltd., v. Conrad , 420 U.S. 546 (1975).
• Sparrow, Robert and Robert E. Goodin, 2001, “The Competition of Ideas: Market or Garden?”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 4(2): 45–58. doi:10.1080/13698230108403349
• Stone, Adrienne, 2017, “Viewpoint Discrimination, Hate Speech Laws, and the Double-Sided Nature of Freedom of Speech”, Constitutional Commentary , 32(3): 687–696.
• Stone, Geoffrey R., 1983, “Content Regulation and the First Amendment”, William and Mary Law Review , 25(2): 189–252.
• –––, 1987, “Content-Neutral Restrictions”, University of Chicago Law Review , 54(1): 46–118.
• –––, 2004, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism , New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Strauss, David A., 1991, “Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression”, Columbia Law Review , 91(2): 334–371.
• Strossen, Nadine, 2018, Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship , New York: Oxford University Press
• Sunstein, Cass R., 1986, “Pornography and the First Amendment”, Duke Law Journal , 1986(4): 589–627.
• –––, 1989, “Low Value Speech Revisited Commentaries”, Northwestern University Law Review , 83(3): 555–561.
• –––, 1993, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech , New York: The Free Press.
• –––, 2017, #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Tadros, Victor, 2012, “Duty and Liability”, Utilitas , 24(2): 259–277.
• Turner, Piers Norris, 2014, “‘Harm’ and Mill’s Harm Principle”, Ethics , 124(2): 299–326. doi:10.1086/673436
• Tushnet, Mark, Alan Chen, and Joseph Blocher, 2017, Free Speech beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment , New York: New York University Press.
• Volokh, Eugene, 2011, “In Defense of the Marketplace of Ideas/Search for Truth as a Theory of Free Speech Protection Responses”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 595–602.
• Vredenburgh, Kate, 2022, “The Right to Explanation”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 30(2): 209–229. doi:10.1111/jopp.12262
• Waldron, Jeremy, 1987, “Mill and the Value of Moral Distress”, Political Studies , 35(3): 410–423. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1987.tb00197.x
• –––, 2012, The Harm in Hate Speech (The Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures, 2009), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Weinstein, James, 2011, “Participatory Democracy as the Central Value of American Free Speech Doctrine”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 491–514.
• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Whitten, Suzanne, 2022, A Republican Theory of Free Speech: Critical Civility , Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78631-1
• Whitney, Heather M. and Robert Mark Simpson, 2019, “Search Engines and Free Speech Coverage”, in Free Speech in the Digital Age , Susan J. Brison and Katharine Gelber (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33–51 (ch. 2). doi:10.1093/oso/9780190883591.003.0003
• West, Caroline, 2004 [2022], “Pornography and Censorship”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 edition), Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/pornography-censorship/ >.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) , adopted: 16 December 1966; Entry into force: 23 March 1976.
• Free Speech Debate
• Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
• van Mill, David, “Freedom of Speech”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/freedom-speech/ >. [This was the previous entry on this topic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – see the version history .]

ethics: search engines and | hate speech | legal rights | liberalism | Mill, John Stuart | Mill, John Stuart: moral and political philosophy | pornography: and censorship | rights | social networking and ethics | toleration

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the editors and anonymous referees of this Encyclopedia for helpful feedback. I am greatly indebted to Robert Mark Simpson for many incisive suggestions, which substantially improved the entry. This entry was written while on a fellowship funded by UK Research & Innovation (grant reference MR/V025600/1); I am thankful to UKRI for the support.

Copyright © 2024 by Jeffrey W. Howard < jeffrey . howard @ ucl . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• 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

First Amendment

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: December 4, 2017

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects the right to peaceful protest and to petition the government. The amendment was adopted in 1791 along with nine other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights—a written document protecting civil liberties under U.S. law. The meaning of the First Amendment has been the subject of continuing interpretation and dispute over the years. Landmark Supreme Court cases have dealt with the right of citizens to protest U.S. involvement in foreign wars, flag burning and the publication of classified government documents.

Bill of Rights

During the summer of 1787, a group of politicians, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton , gathered in Philadelphia to draft a new U.S. Constitution .

Antifederalists, led by the first governor of Virginia , Patrick Henry , opposed the ratification of the Constitution. They felt the new constitution gave the federal government too much power at the expense of the states. They further argued that the Constitution lacked protections for people’s individual rights.

The debate over whether to ratify the Constitution in several states hinged on the adoption of a Bill of Rights that would safeguard basic civil rights under the law. Fearing defeat, pro-constitution politicians, called Federalists , promised a concession to the antifederalists—a Bill of Rights.

James Madison drafted most of the Bill of Rights. Madison was a Virginia representative who would later become the fourth president of the United States. He created the Bill of Rights during the 1st United States Congress, which met from 1789 to 1791 – the first two years that President George Washington was in office.

The Bill of Rights, which was introduced to Congress in 1789 and adopted on December 15, 1791, includes the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

First Amendment Text

The First Amendment text reads:

“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.”

While the First Amendment protected freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition, subsequent amendments under the Bill of Rights dealt with the protection of other American values including the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech . Freedom of speech gives Americans the right to express themselves without having to worry about government interference. It’s the most basic component of freedom of expression.

The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what types of speech is protected. Legally, material labeled as obscene has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection, for example, but deciding what qualifies as obscene has been problematic. Speech provoking actions that would harm others—true incitement and/or threats—is also not protected, but again determining what words have qualified as true incitement has been decided on a case-by-case basis.

Freedom of the Press

This freedom is similar to freedom of speech, in that it allows people to express themselves through publication.

There are certain limits to freedom of the press . False or defamatory statements—called libel—aren’t protected under the First Amendment.

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment, in guaranteeing freedom of religion , prohibits the government from establishing a “state” religion and from favoring one religion over any other.

While not explicitly stated, this amendment establishes the long-established separation of church and state.

Right to Assemble, Right to Petition

The First Amendment protects the freedom to peacefully assemble or gather together or associate with a group of people for social, economic, political or religious purposes. It also protects the right to protest the government.

The right to petition can mean signing a petition or even filing a lawsuit against the government.

First Amendment Court Cases

Here are landmark Supreme Court decisions related to the First Amendment.

Free Speech &  Freedom of the Press :

Schenck v. United States , 1919: In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft during World War I .

The Schenck decision helped define limits of freedom of speech, creating the “clear and present danger” standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, the Supreme Court viewed draft resistance as dangerous to national security.

New York Times Co. v. United States , 1971: This landmark Supreme Court case made it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship.

The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Published portions of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman , Dwight D. Eisenhower , John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Texas v. Johnson , 1990: Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the administration of President Ronald Reagan .

The Supreme Court reversed a Texas court’s decision that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. This Supreme Court Case invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag-burning.

Freedom of Religion:

Reynolds v. United States (1878): This Supreme Court case upheld a federal law banning polygamy, testing the limits of religious liberty in America. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids government from regulating belief but not from actions such as marriage.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961): The Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring stores to close on Sundays, even though Orthodox Jews argued the law was unfair to them since their religion required them to close their stores on Saturdays as well.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. In this case, Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, worked in a textile mill. When her employer switched from a five-day to six-day workweek, she was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays. When she applied for unemployment compensation, a South Carolina court denied her claim.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): This Supreme Court decision struck down a Pennsylvania law allowing the state to reimburse Catholic schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in those schools. This Supreme Court case established the “Lemon Test” for determining when a state or federal law violates the Establishment Clause—that’s the part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from declaring or financially supporting a state religion.

Ten Commandments Cases (2005): In 2005, the Supreme Court came to seemingly contradictory decisions in two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. In the first case, Van Orden v. Perry , the Supreme Court ruled that the display of a six-foot Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capital was constitutional. In McCreary County v. ACLU , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses violated the First Amendment.

Right to Assemble & Right to Petition:

NAACP v. Alabama (1958): When Alabama Circuit Court ordered the NAACP to stop doing business in the state and subpoenaed the NAACP for records including their membership list, the NAACP brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of the NAACP, which Justice John Marshall Harlan II writing: “This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations.”

Edwards v. South Carolina (1962): On March 2, 1961, 187 Black students marched from Zion Baptist Church to the South Carolina State House, where they were arrested and convicted of breaching the peace. The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision to reverse the convictions, arguing that the state infringed on the free speech, free assembly and freedom to petition of the students.

The Bill of Rights; White House . History of the First Amendment; The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Schenck v. United States ; C-Span .

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

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Your voice matters. You have the right to say what you think, share information and demand a better world. You also have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express these opinions in peaceful protests.

Exercising these rights – without fear or unlawful interference – is central to living in an open and fair society; one in which people can access justice and enjoy their human rights.

Yet governments around the world routinely imprison people – or worse – for speaking out, even though almost every country’s constitution refers to the value of ‘free speech’.

Governments have a duty to prohibit hateful, inciteful speech but many abuse their authority to silence peaceful dissent by passing laws criminalizing freedom of expression. This is often done in the name of counterterrorism, national security or religion. More recently, freedom of expression has come under threat by authorities clamping down on activists, NGOs and individuals helping refugees and migrants.

How governments tolerate unfavourable views or critical voices is often a good indication of how they treat human rights generally.

Amnesty International supports people who speak out peacefully for themselves and for others – whether a journalist reporting on violence by security forces, a trade unionist exposing poor working conditions or an indigenous leader defending their land rights against big business. We would similarly defend the right of those who support the positions of big business, the security forces and employers to express their views peacefully.

We consider anyone put in prison solely for exercising their right to free speech peacefully to be a prisoner of conscience and call for their immediate and unconditional release.

Why is freedom of expression important?

The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which sets out in broad terms the human rights that each of us has. It was later protected legally by a raft of international and regional treaties.

Defending freedom of expression has always been a core part of Amnesty International’s work and is vital in holding the powerful to account. Freedom of expression also underpins other human rights such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion – and allows them to flourish.

It is also closely linked to freedom of association – the right to  form and join clubs, societies, trade unions or political parties with anyone you choose; and freedom of peaceful assembly – the right to take part in a peaceful demonstration or public meeting.

However, these very freedoms come under regular attack by governments that want to stifle criticism.

For example, in  Egypt  it is currently extremely dangerous to criticize the government. Over the course of 2018, the authorities arrested at least 113 individuals citing a host of absurd reasons including satire, tweeting, supporting football clubs, denouncing sexual harassment, editing movies and giving interviews.

Those arrested have been accused of “membership of terrorist groups” and “disseminating false news”. Detained without trial for months, those who eventually faced trial were sentenced by military courts, even though military trials of civilians, in Egypt as elsewhere, are inherently unfair.

Press freedom

A free press reporting on the issues that interest us and shape our lives is a key building block of any rights-respecting society. Yet in Azerbaijan, Türkiye and Venezuela to name just a few countries, journalists face repression and attacks.

In June 2019,  Tanzania’s parliament  fast-tracked the passing of the Written Laws Bill, which would entrench censorship, among other violations. Journalists in the country already operate within the tight confines of a media law that requires media houses to “broadcast or publish news or issues of national importance as government may direct”.  

In July 2019, the libel trial began in the Philippines against  Maria Ressa , the executive editor of online news outlet Rappler. Ressa, a prominent critic of President Rodrigo Duterte, was arrested in February 2019 on trumped up libel charges after Rappler published detailed investigations into some of the thousands of extrajudicial executions committed by police and unknown armed persons, with Duterte’s explicit encouragement, during drugs-related operations. Her case is widely seen as an attack by the government on press freedom.

During conflict, repression can get worse, such as in  Myanmar  where journalists investigating the killing of Rohingya men and boys by security forces in Rakhine State were arrested and jailed, before being freed under international pressure.

Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech, or freedom of expression, applies to ideas of all kinds, including those that may be deeply offensive. While international law protects free speech, there are instances where speech can legitimately restricted under the same law – such as when it violates the rights of others, or, advocates hatred and incites discrimination or violence.

However, any restrictions on freedom of expression must be provided by law, protect certain public interests or the rights of others and, be clearly necessary for that purpose. .

In 2018, Amnesty International published research that found that  Twitter is a platform where violence and abuse against women flourish , often with little accountability. Instead of the platform being a place where women can express themselves freely and where their voices are strengthened, Twitter leads women to self-censor what they post and limit their interactions. As a company, Twitter is failing its responsibility to respect women’s rights online by inadequately investigating and responding to reports of violence and abuse in a transparent manner.

The digital frontier

The digital world gives many more of us access to the information we need, including to challenge governments and corporations. Information is power and the internet has the potential to significantly empower the world’s seven billion people.

But freedom of expression today still often depends on wealth, privilege and our place in society. Those who are rich and powerful are seldom restricted in expressing their views.. Similarly, those who have their own laptops with broadband, have far greater access to information than those who have to walk miles to an internet café.

Increasingly, some states try to build firewalls around digital communications, or in the case of Egypt, Sudan and Zimbabwe among others, respond to mass street protests with an internet shutdown. Iran, China and Viet Nam have all tried to develop systems that enable them to control access to digital information. In India’s northern Kashmir region, mobile Internet and communications are suspended in response to any unrest. At Amnesty International, we are continually finding new ways to stop our website being blocked in China.

Governments are also using dangerous and sophisticated technologies to read activists and journalists’ private emails and remotely turn on their computers’ camera or microphone to secretly record their activities. In 2014, Amnesty and a coalition of human rights and technology organizations launched ‘ Detekt ’ – a simple tool that allows activists to scan their devices for surveillance spyware.

What is Amnesty doing to protect the freedom of expression?

Case study: poland and the right to protest.

Amnesty International has documented how people in  Poland  have taken to the streets to express their opinions despite restrictive legislation combined with heavy-handed policing, surveillance, harassment and prosecution which threaten to strangle the right to peaceful protest.

Since 2016, tens of thousands of people have protested against repressive legislation aimed at curbing women’s rights and undermining the independence of the judiciary. Protesters have routinely been met with a show of force and restrictive measures that infringe their right to be seen and heard. Hundreds have found themselves in police custody and facing lengthy court proceedings.

In parallel with tightening the laws affecting the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, the government has vastly expanded the surveillance powers of law enforcement agencies with evidence that these expanded powers have been used against people engaged in organizing and participating in peaceful protests.

Case study: Surge in Vietnamese prisoners of conscience

In 2019 ,  Amnesty released shocking research showing that the number of prisoners of conscience unjustly jailed across  Viet Nam  had sharply risen by a third in signs of a growing crackdown on peaceful activism by lawyers, bloggers, human rights defenders, environmental activists and pro-democracy campaigners.

The prisoners’ detention conditions remain appalling with evidence of people being tortured and otherwise ill-treated, routinely held incommunicado and in solitary confinement, kept in squalid conditions and denied medical care, clean water and fresh air.

Many prisoners of conscience were jailed for comments made on social media platforms and were targeted using the vague and overly broad provisions of the penal code.

One prisoner of conscience is Tran Hoang Phuc. A pro-democracy and environmental activist, he was arrested in June 2017. Tried and convicted on charges of ‘conducting propaganda against the state’ for making and sharing videos perceived to be critical of the government on social media, he was sentenced to six years in prison, followed by four years under house arrest.

The Solution: What is Amnesty calling for?

• Prisoners of conscience around the world should be released immediately and unconditionally.
• All laws criminalizing people who speak out or protest peacefully, should be struck off the law books.
• Laws against hate speech or other incitement to discrimination and violence must not be used to repress peaceful dissent.
• People should have access to information, and the power of governments and companies to obtain information about individuals and organisations must be restricted.

Learn more about Freedom of Expression

Take our Human Rights Academy course, Speaking out for Freedom of Expression, to learn more and take action.

Related Content

Georgia: authorities must address violent attacks against critics and bring perpetrators to justice, understanding human rights in policing: an online course for human rights activists and practitioner, hong kong: protest song ban a ‘worrying sign’ of shrinking freedoms, where is the promised protection journalists in mexico threatened by state actors and organized crime., free angolan activists jailed for planning to protest.

2 Minute Speech On The Importance Of Freedom In English

Good morning everyone present here, today I am going to give a speech on the importance of freedom. The ability for each person to make choices about their own lives, subject to some constraints, is referred to as freedom. While we have a lot of options at our disposal, we must also be careful not to infringe on others’ freedoms. The right of people to express their views and beliefs lies at the heart of disputes between civilizations.

Freedom is the state of being able to speak, act, and pursue happiness without unneeded external restraints. Freedom is important because it promotes original thought and creative expression, higher productivity, and a high standard of living in general.

Each generation needs to rethink and reaffirm the difficult concept of freedom. Furthermore, only people who have a strong sense of history and a profound comprehension of human nature can truly comprehend and value freedom. People who enjoy freedom all too frequently fail to recognize its fragility and take it for granted. On the other hand, those who have not grown up in a culture that has a long history of valuing freedom find it difficult to comprehend and apply it to their community. 

Absolute freedom does not exist, particularly inside centralized political structures like towns and nations. The rights of the individual and the objectives and duties of the state must always be compromised for freedom to exist. As a result, there are numerous laws, rules, and legal rulings about the principles of freedom and the specifics of how they are to be used. Thank you. 

Related Posts:

• Mirza Ghalib Shayari on God
• Of Friendship Essay | Summary by Francis Bacon
• Random Idiom Generator
• Michael Poem by William Wordsworth Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English
• Business Phrases in English for Meetings, Emails and Conversations [List of 372]
• Random Disease Generator [Fake & Real]

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

Peace, poverty and race: here are some of Nelson Mandela’s wisest words

Demonstrators in front of a Nelson Mandela statue in Parliament Square, London, 6 June, 2020. Image:  REUTERS/John Sibley

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Charlotte Edmond

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} SDG 01: No Poverty is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, sdg 01: no poverty.

• Since 2009, 18 July is Nelson Mandela International Day.
• With unrest over race, and COVID-19, his words continue to strike a chord.
• He called young people to create a brighter future together.

This year’s Nelson Mandela International Day has a particular poignancy. Against a backdrop of protests against racial injustice, and COVID-19 amplifying inequality, his words resonate as much as ever.

Through his work as a human rights lawyer, prisoner of conscience, and the first democratically elected president of a free South Africa, Mandela has become one of the most recognized peacemakers of our time.

In his 95 years he made countless speeches, driving forward global efforts in conflict resolution, race relations, the promotion and protection of human rights and social justice.

Here are some of his most inspiring quotes on those issues.

“Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity . It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life.”

“The dire poverty of some is not an affliction which impacts only on those who are deprived . It reverberates across the globe and ineluctably impacts negatively on the whole of humanity, including those who live in conditions of comfort and plenty.”

"The very fact that racism degrades both the perpetrator and the victim commands that, if we are true to our commitment to protect human dignity , we fight on until victory is achieved."

“We should lay the scourge of racism to rest”.

The COVID-19 pandemic and recent social and political unrest have created a profound sense of urgency for companies to actively work to tackle inequity.

The Forum's work on Diversity, Equality, Inclusion and Social Justice is driven by the New Economy and Society Platform, which is focused on building prosperous, inclusive and just economies and societies. In addition to its work on economic growth, revival and transformation, work, wages and job creation, and education, skills and learning, the Platform takes an integrated and holistic approach to diversity, equity, inclusion and social justice, and aims to tackle exclusion, bias and discrimination related to race, gender, ability, sexual orientation and all other forms of human diversity.

The Platform produces data, standards and insights, such as the Global Gender Gap Report and the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion 4.0 Toolkit , and drives or supports action initiatives, such as Partnering for Racial Justice in Business , The Valuable 500 – Closing the Disability Inclusion Gap , Hardwiring Gender Parity in the Future of Work , Closing the Gender Gap Country Accelerators , the Partnership for Global LGBTI Equality , the Community of Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officers and the Global Future Council on Equity and Social Justice .

"Our freedom cannot be complete while others in the world are not free. "

“Freedom cannot be achieved unless the women have been emancipated from all forms of oppression.”

“It is easy to break down and destroy. The heroes are those who make peace and build .”

“Peace is not just the absence of conflict ; peace is the creation of an environment where all can flourish, regardless of race, colour, creed, religion, gender, class, caste, or any other social markers of difference. Religion, ethnicity, language, social and cultural practices are elements which enrich human civilization, adding to the wealth of our diversity. Why should they be allowed to become a cause of division and violence? We demean our common humanity by allowing that to happen.”

On making the world a better place

"To the youth of today, I also have a wish to make: Be the script writers of your destiny and feature yourselves as stars that showed the way towards a brighter future. "

“Today we should all ask ourselves: What have I done to improve the surroundings in which I live?”

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Economic Growth .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

UK leaves recession with fastest growth in 3 years, and other economics stories to read

Kate Whiting

May 10, 2024

How a pair of reading glasses could increase your income

Emma Charlton

May 8, 2024

Why shifting from prediction to foresight can help us plan for future disruption

Roger Spitz

May 3, 2024

5 ways businesses can help to alleviate poverty

Sreevas Sahasranamam and Vivek Soundararajan

The state of world prosperity: 4 key data points you need to understand

Wolfgang Fengler and Homi Kharas

Money matters: Your guide to financial literacy

Meagan Andrews and Haleh Nazeri

Freedom Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on freedom.

Freedom is something that everybody has heard of but if you ask for its meaning then everyone will give you different meaning. This is so because everyone has a different opinion about freedom. For some freedom means the freedom of going anywhere they like, for some it means to speak up form themselves, and for some, it is liberty of doing anything they like.

Meaning of Freedom

The real meaning of freedom according to books is. Freedom refers to a state of independence where you can do what you like without any restriction by anyone. Moreover, freedom can be called a state of mind where you have the right and freedom of doing what you can think off. Also, you can feel freedom from within.

The Indian Freedom

Indian is a country which was earlier ruled by Britisher and to get rid of these rulers India fight back and earn their freedom. But during this long fight, many people lost their lives and because of the sacrifice of those people and every citizen of the country, India is a free country and the world largest democracy in the world.

Moreover, after independence India become one of those countries who give his citizen some freedom right without and restrictions.

The Indian Freedom Right

India drafted a constitution during the days of struggle with the Britishers and after independence it became applicable. In this constitution, the Indian citizen was given several fundaments right which is applicable to all citizen equally. More importantly, these right are the freedom that the constitution has given to every citizen.

These right are right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion¸ culture and educational right, right to constitutional remedies, right to education. All these right give every freedom that they can’t get in any other country.

Value of Freedom

The real value of anything can only be understood by those who have earned it or who have sacrificed their lives for it. Freedom also means liberalization from oppression. It also means the freedom from racism, from harm, from the opposition, from discrimination and many more things.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Freedom does not mean that you violate others right, it does not mean that you disregard other rights. Moreover, freedom means enchanting the beauty of nature and the environment around us.

The Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is the most common and prominent right that every citizen enjoy. Also, it is important because it is essential for the all-over development of the country.

Moreover, it gives way to open debates that helps in the discussion of thought and ideas that are essential for the growth of society.

Besides, this is the only right that links with all the other rights closely. More importantly, it is essential to express one’s view of his/her view about society and other things.

To conclude, we can say that Freedom is not what we think it is. It is a psychological concept everyone has different views on. Similarly, it has a different value for different people. But freedom links with happiness in a broadway.

FAQs on Freedom

Q.1 What is the true meaning of freedom? A.1 Freedom truly means giving equal opportunity to everyone for liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Q.2 What is freedom of expression means? A.2 Freedom of expression means the freedom to express one’s own ideas and opinions through the medium of writing, speech, and other forms of communication without causing any harm to someone’s reputation.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Download the App

• Discussions
• Reading Challenge
• Kindle Notes & Highlights
• Favorite genres
• Friends’ recommendations
• Account settings

Freedom Of Speech Quotes

Browse By Tag

• Love Quotes 96.5k
• Life Quotes 76.5k
• Inspirational Quotes 72k
• Humor Quotes 43k
• Philosophy Quotes 29.5k
• Inspirational Quotes Quotes 26.5k
• God Quotes 26k
• Truth Quotes 23.5k
• Wisdom Quotes 23.5k
• Romance Quotes 22.5k
• Poetry Quotes 21.5k
• Death Quotes 19.5k
• Happiness Quotes 18.5k
• Life Lessons Quotes 18k
• Hope Quotes 17.5k
• Faith Quotes 17.5k
• Quotes Quotes 16.5k
• Inspiration Quotes 16.5k
• Spirituality Quotes 15k
• Motivational Quotes 14.5k
• Religion Quotes 14.5k
• Writing Quotes 14.5k
• Relationships Quotes 14k
• Life Quotes Quotes 14k
• Success Quotes 13.5k
• Love Quotes Quotes 13.5k
• Time Quotes 12.5k
• Motivation Quotes 12k
• Science Quotes 11.5k
• Knowledge Quotes 11k

Welcome back. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.

Advertisement

Supported by

Justice Alito Warns of Threats to Freedom of Speech and Religion

In a commencement ceremony at a Catholic university, the justice said that fundamental principles were in peril at universities and American society.

• Share full article

By Adam Liptak

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. warned on Saturday that freedom of speech was under threat at universities and that freedom of religion was in peril in society at large.

“Troubled waters are slamming against some of our most fundamental principles,” he said.

He made his remarks at a commencement ceremony at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, a Catholic institution.

“Support for freedom of speech is declining dangerously, especially where it should find deepest acceptance,” he said.

A university, he said, should be “a place for reasoned debate.” But he added that “today, very few colleges live up to that ideal.”

The same is true, he said, for tolerance of religious views in society generally.

“Freedom of religion is also imperiled,” he said. “When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job or a community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm.”

In other settings , Justice Alito has given a specific example, complaining that people opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds are sometimes treated as bigots.

As the Supreme Court prepares to issue major decisions in the coming weeks, including ones on a criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump, abortion, gun rights and social media, members of its conservative majority have fanned out across the nation to offer varied takes on their work.

At a judicial conference on Friday in Alabama, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke bitterly about being subjected to what he called “the nastiness and the lies.” The justice has been criticized for receiving lavish gifts and for failing to recuse himself from cases arising from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol despite his wife’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

That same day, at a judicial conference in Texas, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh struck a sunnier tone , speaking of his dedication to neutral principles and the court’s efforts to find consensus.

Those appearances were wide-ranging public conversations, while Justice Alito’s speech was brief and general. But it was laced with the justice’s characteristic pessimism.

“It’s rough out there,” he said. “And, in fact, I think it is rougher out there right now than it has been for quite some time.”

He received an extended standing ovation when a speaker introducing him noted that he had written the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overruled Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion it had established.

In his speech, Justice Alito said that respect for precedent, in law and life, was important.

“If you read almost any opinion issued by a court in this country, you will see that the text is full of citations to past court decisions,” he said. “Those decisions, which we call precedents, are given great respect. They are not written in stone. Sometimes they must be changed, but they are not to be lightly discarded.”

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak

Justice Alito warns of declining support for freedom of speech on college campuses

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Saturday warned that support for freedom of speech is "declining dangerously," especially on college campuses, as part of a commencement address he delivered at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, a Catholic college in Ohio.

His remarks appeared to reference unrest at various college campuses around the country arising from protests against Israel's military operations in Gaza.

“Right now in the world outside this beautiful campus, troubled waters are slamming against some of our most fundamental principles," Alito said.

"Support for freedom of speech is declining dangerously," he added, especially on college campuses, where the exchange of ideas should be most protected.

"Very few colleges live up to that ideal. This place is one of them … but things are not that way out there in the broader world," Alito said.

But Alito's support for free speech has its limits — he was a notable sole dissenter when the Supreme Court in 2011 ruled 8-1 that members of the conservative Westboro Baptist Church had a free speech right to picket the funeral of a military veteran.

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he wrote in dissent.

Alito, who is Catholic, has frequently raised the alarm about freedom of religion being under attack and has often voted in favor of expanding religious rights.

"Freedom of religion is also imperiled," he told the graduating students. "When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job, or community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe, or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm."

The Supreme Court is poised in the coming weeks to issue major rulings on a series of contentious issues including abortion, gun rights and whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Alito, the author of the 2022 ruling that overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade, is one of several justices making public appearances while the court prepares its rulings.

On Friday, fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at a judicial conference in Alabama, where he decried the "nastiness and the lies" he has faced.

He and his wife, conservative political activist Ginni Thomas, have both been in the spotlight in recent years. He has been accused of failing to follow ethics rules, while she was criticized for backing Trump's effort to challenge election results.

At another judicial conference in Texas, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Friday that Supreme Court rulings that are unpopular when issued can later become part of the "fabric of American constitutional law."

Lawrence Hurley covers the Supreme Court for NBC News.

Color Scheme

• Use system setting
• Light theme

Alito warns of threats to freedom of speech and religion

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. warned Saturday that freedom of speech was under threat at universities and that freedom of religion was in peril in society at large.

“Troubled waters are slamming against some of our most fundamental principles,” he said.

He made his remarks at a commencement ceremony at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, a Catholic institution.

“Support for freedom of speech is declining dangerously, especially where it should find deepest acceptance,” he said.

A university, he said, should be “a place for reasoned debate.” But he added that “today, very few colleges live up to that ideal.”

The same is true, he said, for tolerance of religious views in society generally.

“Freedom of religion is also imperiled,” he said. “When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job or a community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm.”

In other settings, Alito has given a specific example, complaining that people opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds are sometimes treated as bigots.

As the Supreme Court prepares to issue major decisions in the coming weeks, including ones on a criminal case against former President Donald Trump, abortion, gun rights and social media, members of its conservative majority have fanned out across the nation to offer varied takes on their work.

At a judicial conference Friday in Alabama, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke bitterly about being subjected to what he called “the nastiness and the lies.” The justice has been criticized for receiving lavish gifts and for failing to recuse himself from cases arising from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol despite his wife’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

That same day, at a judicial conference in Texas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh struck a sunnier tone, speaking of his dedication to neutral principles and the court’s efforts to find consensus.

Those appearances were wide-ranging public conversations, while Alito’s speech was brief and general. But it was laced with the justice’s characteristic pessimism.

“It’s rough out there,” he said. “And, in fact, I think it is rougher out there right now than it has been for quite some time.”

He received an extended standing ovation when a speaker introducing him noted that he had written the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overruled Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion it had established.

In his speech, Alito said that respect for precedent, in law and life, was important.

“If you read almost any opinion issued by a court in this country, you will see that the text is full of citations to past court decisions,” he said. “Those decisions, which we call precedents, are given great respect. They are not written in stone. Sometimes they must be changed, but they are not to be lightly discarded.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times .

Advancing rural health in Northeast Washington and beyond

Access to health care across rural Washington is a growing challenge.

Justices Thomas, Alito complain about 'nastiness' and 'imperiled' freedom of religion

Two of the Supreme Court’s most conservative members painted dark pictures of the nation in separate recent remarks.

Justice Clarence Thomas , who has faced heavy criticism along with his wife in recent years, said at a judicial conference Friday he lives in a world in which “the nastiness and the lies” are “just incredible.”

Justice Samuel Alito warned graduates at a Catholic University that support for freedom of speech is “dangerously declining” and “freedom of religion is also imperiled.”

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

“I think it is rougher out there right now than it has been for quite some time,” Alito said in a commencement address at Franciscan University of Steubenville where he received a standing ovation for authoring the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning the right to an abortion.

Before receiving an honorary degree in Christian ethics, Alito was also praised for writing a 2014 decision exempting Hobby Lobby  and other businesses with religious objections from the Affordable Care Act's "contraceptive mandate.” 

“Right now, in the world outside this beautiful campus, troubled waters are slamming against some of our most fundamental principles,” Alito told the graduates.

Alluding to complaints that college campuses are friendlier to liberal views than conservative ones when it comes to free speech, Alito said few colleges are living up to the ideal of “reasoned debate.”

Raising equal alarm about the freedom of religion, Alito said the graduates may soon find themselves in a job or social setting where they will feel pressure to endorse ideas they don’t believe in or to abandon core beliefs.

“It will be up to you to stand firm,” he said.

Thomas, who spoke at an 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals conference in Point Clear, Alabama, decried Washington, D.C., as a “hideous place,” according to media reports .

Both Thomas and his wife, Ginni, have been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent years.  Thomas has been heavily criticized for accepting luxury gifts from billionaires friends without reporting them on his financial disclosures. 

The Supreme Court justice has also faced serious blowback for not recusing himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack given his wife’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.  

“I think there’s challenges to that. We’re in a world and we – certainly my wife and I the last two or three years it’s been – just the nastiness and the lies, it’s just incredible,” Thomas said, responding to a question about working in a hostile world, according to the Associated Press.

More: Clarence Thomas returns after unexplained absence as Supreme Court hears Jan. 6 case

Thomas also derided Washington D.C. as a place where “people pride themselves in being awful,” according to the New York Times. “It’s a hideous place, as far as I’m concerned. Because the rest of the country, it’s one of the reasons we like RV.-ing, you get to be around regular people who don’t pride themselves in doing harmful things, merely because they have the capacity to do it,” Thomas said. 

Among the many criticisms levied at Thomas is his acceptance of a $267,000 loan from a wealthy businessman to purchase a luxury RV, but Thomas did not make mention of that in his remarks, the New York Times reported.

“Being in Washington, you have to get used to particularly people who are reckless,” Thomas said, according to CNN. “They don’t bomb you, necessarily, but they bomb your reputation or your good name or your honor. And that’s not a crime but they can do as much harm that way.”

Taylor Swift fan: Justice Kavanaugh on why the Supreme Court should take more cases - and whether he's a Swiftie

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Justices Thomas, Alito complain about 'nastiness' and 'imperiled' freedom of religion

• All Publications
• Priorities Magazine Spring 2018
• The Next Plague and How Science Will Stop It
• Priorities Magazine Winter 2018
• Priorities Magazine Fall 2017
• Little Black Book of Junk Science
• Priorities Magazine Winter 2017
• Should You Worry About Artificial Flavors Or Colors?
• Should You Worry About Artificial Sweeteners?
• Summer Health and Safety Tips
• How Toxic Terrorists Scare You With Science Terms
• Adult Immunization: The Need for Enhanced Utilization
• Should You Worry About Salt?
• Priorities Magazine Spring 2016
• IARC Diesel Exhaust & Lung Cancer: An Analysis
• Teflon and Human Health: Do the Charges Stick?
• Helping Smokers Quit: The Science Behind Tobacco Harm Reduction
• Irradiated Foods
• Foods Are Not Cigarettes: Why Tobacco Lawsuits Are Not a Model for Obesity Lawsuits
• The Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis: A Review
• Are "Low Dose" Health Effects of Chemicals Real?
• The Effects of Nicotine on Human Health
• Traditional Holiday Dinner Replete with Natural Carcinogens - Even Organic Thanksgiving Dinners
• A Primer On Dental Care: Quality and Quackery
• Nuclear Energy and Health And the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis
• Priorities in Caring for Your Children: A Primer for Parents
• Endocrine Disrupters: A Scientific Perspective
• Good Stories, Bad Science: A Guide for Journalists to the Health Claims of "Consumer Activist" Groups
• A Comparison of the Health Effects of Alcohol Consumption and Tobacco Use in America
• Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Health
• Irradiated Foods Fifth Edition
• Media/Contact
• Write For Us

Does Compelling Graphic Warnings on Cigarettes Violate Freedom of Speech?

Banning cigarette advertisements outright would violate freedom of speech. But maybe there is a workaround called compelled speech? Can the government compel graphic package warnings with the same (subliminal) effect as an outright ban? Recently, the Fifth Circuit provided the answer.

Cigarette Warnings – Info-creep to package takeover

In 1984, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act, requiring labeling stating one of four “Surgeon General Warnings:

• Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema And May Complicate Pregnancy.
• Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.
• Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, and Low Birth Weight.
• Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide

But it became clear that these warnings weren’t curbing tobacco use – especially by adolescents. Various initiatives (such as restricting flavored and menthol-containing cigarettes) were instituted, but even those weren’t enough to accomplish Congress’s stated goal of “restrict[ing] advertising and marketing of tobacco products….” 

Hence, in 2009, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (“TCA” or “Act”), augmenting previous directives by selecting nine specific package warnings that would rotate quarterly.

• WARNING: Cigarettes are addictive.
• WARNING: Tobacco smoke can harm your children
• WARNING: Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease.
• WARNING: Cigarettes cause cancer.
• WARNING: Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease.
• WARNING: Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby.
• WARNING: Smoking can kill you.
• WARNING: Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in nonsmokers.
• WARNING: Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health.

But increasing text and font size wasn’t enough—Congress also wanted graphic images to accompany these textual warnings. The powerful graphic warnings were also mandated to occupy half the visual real estate of each cigarette package's front and back panels and 20% of advertising material.

“Modernizing the ubiquitous text of the Surgeon General’s current warnings, the Act requires cigarette packages to include ‘color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany the [updated] label statements.’ …”

In 2012, the Cigarette companies sued, claiming the TCA was unconstitutional. The 6 th Circuit ruled against them, holding the Act did not impinge on freedom of speech. The Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal. 

However, in a separate case, the FDA was challenged regarding how the Rule would be implemented. This time, they lost, although the ruling only applied to the specific proposed warnings and graphics, not the constitutionality of the underlying TCA. In 2013, the FDA promised to promulgate new rules and graphic warnings – a promise that stood empty for almost a decade.

By 2016, the FDA, failing to issue the promised new rules, was sued by the American Cancer Society, and other groups sued to force compliance with the TCA. In 2018, Massachusetts’s District Court’s Judge Indira Talwani gave the FDA until March 2020 to promulgate final rules and new warnings. The new rules, delayed by COVID-19, didn’t emerge until 2021.

Within a month, the tobacco companies sued, decrying the warnings as “unprecedented” and “precisely the type of compelled speech that the First Amendment prohibits” and alleging that each warning “misrepresent[s] or exaggerate[s] the potential effects of smoking.”

In December of 2022, a Texas court agreed. The decision was appealed to the traditionally arch-conservative 5 th Circuit, which, in late March, rendered its decision. [1]

The Tobacco Companies Claim a Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures

Among the cigarette companies’ objections was that graphic depictions couldn’t accurately represent what text can. The 5 th Circuit didn’t buy that. A second argument the companies claimed was that the visceral or emotional response evoked by the images trespassed on their First Amendment rights. The Court didn’t buy that either. The Court was operating on the Zauderer standard, which focuses on preventing consumer deception and requires that only facts, not opinions, be put before the consumer. In ruling that the graphics and the warnings were both accurate and informative, i.e., they were facts and not opinions, the Court decided that:

“Graphic and textual warnings that convey factual information about the health risks of tobacco use are reasonably related to the purpose of preventing consumer deception.… That deception…, arose inherently from the past decades of false advertising and misleading research by the companies that were proclaiming that tobacco had no health risks and was not addictive.”

The Court also determined that while facts can “disconcert, displease, provoke an emotional response, spark controversy, and even overwhelm reason, … that does not magically turn such facts into opinions.”  Because they were ‘purely factual and uncontroversial’ information” even if the images “could be misinterpreted by consumers” or were “primarily intended to evoke an emotional response, or, at most, shock the viewer into retaining the information in the text warning,” the primary purpose was to inform consumers.

“Emotional response to a statement is irrelevant to its truth; the emotional impact of the Warnings does not abrogate their factual nature.”

As for the package’s “real estate” takeover, the Court found the number and size of required warnings and graphics weren’t unduly burdensome.

Holding that the warnings are both factual and uncontroversial, the 5th Circuit overruled the lower district court and determined the Act to be constitutional, but the FDA didn’t get an outright win. The Court sent the matter back to determine if the FDA complied with all the procedural rule-making requirements. Likely, they will succeed.

Hopefully, once instituted, these warnings will reduce cigarette consumption and prove a public health boon.

Warning: Beyond the Lines

The Court’s language -- which might be considered dicta (the incidental expression of opinion, not essential to the decision nor setting a precedent), may bode poorly for anti-science groups, such as the anti-vax contingent. The Court goes to great lengths to differentiate between scientific fact, information, and opinion, distinguishing scientific facts from “truth.” It is not inconceivable, for example, that this case might be used to compel social media to include a warning regarding the lack of scientific veracity of some anti-vax claims. 

In determining that “factual information” requires it to be falsifiable material and inferences fairly drawn from it, rather than one’s non-falsifiable interpretations, the Court rejects non-falsifiable “opinions,” e.g., harms attributed to vaccines, such as contemporaneous implantation of tracking devices, causing infertility,  and the like.

While acknowledging that “in some instances, compulsion to speak may be as violative of the First Amendment as prohibitions on speech” and that no State may “prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” they held that this sentiment does not apply to scientific facts

To pass muster, a warning, even accompanied by a graphic, must comply with the Zauderer requirements. In addition to furthering a governmental interest and not being unduly burdensome, the warnings must be:

• statements composed of only information supported by facts,
• conclusions driven by those facts
• not akin to unfalsifiable statements of opinion.

“Consequences supported by scientific findings , even if exaggerated or non-modal, are still, by definition, factual…”

Information contained in a medical textbook, the court notes, would be considered factual. A science-based position, even one aligned with a particular political party, won’t shield it if it is not factual, holds the Court, rejecting the plaintiff's claim that “the Rule is unlawful because it conveys an ideological or provocative message. “

The Court concludes: “A fact does not become “value-laden” merely because the fact drives a reaction. But even if it did, ideological baggage has no relevance to the first Zauderer prong. Any number of factual messages are, of course, ideological… In other words, that the speaker does not like the message does not make it controversial; there must be something more.”

The Fifth Circuit's ruling, affirms the constitutionality of government action compelling graphic warnings on cigarette packages, dismisses claims of freedom of speech violations, and endorses government speech as a public health tool. By adhering to the Zauderer standard, which prioritizes factual scientific fact over opinion, the decision sets a precedent for addressing other public health challenges and combating public health misinformation that might see far-reaching uses.

[1] For now, the US falls short of its international peers in warning prowess, currently ranking last in the world in the size of warnings, and well behind in implementing graphic warnings , now required by  138 countries and territories . Cigarette-related illness costs Americans some 300 billion dollars a year -- which continues while the tobacco companies and the FDA duke it out, as the tortured history of the TCA reveals.

Sources: Defending Graphic Warnings on Cigarette Packs and Ads American Cancer Society

Ruling of the 5 th Circuit Court of Appeals

View the discussion thread.

By Barbara Pfeffer Billauer JD MA (Occ. Health) PhD

Dr. Billauer, JD MA (Occ. Health) Ph.D. is Professor of Law and Bioethics in the International Program in Bioethics of the University of Porto and Research Professor of Scientific Statecraft at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC.

Latest from Barbara Pfeffer Billauer JD MA (Occ. Health) PhD :