A Philosophical Happy Hour on an issue of perennial contention in liberal democracies everywhere: where do we draw the lines around the freedom of expression?
In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in Abrams et al. v. United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote this since-famous line: “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — …the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.” Though his argument did not persuade his confreres on the highest bench, Holmes’ idealism has held sway over the United States (and influence in many other countries) for over a century. Recent years, however, have seen an increasing challenge to the premise.
The freedom of speech, or expression (that is, to signify in ways beyond what language itself directly accomplishes), has always been an important right in the United States. The First Amendment to the Constitution makes this explicit: “Congress small make no law… 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.” There is an attraction, even a charming optimism in Holmes’ interpretation of this Amendment. The occasion of his remarks was the imprisonment of anarchists who distributed leaflets advocating that U.S. workers strike in solidarity with the Bolsheviks’ revolution. Similarly, the well-known campaign of Sen. Joseph McCarthy to root out communists in the country seemingly repressed a certain freedom of expression.
Many other prominent court cases have captured national attention in the debate over the limits to this right’s enjoyment. Flag burning; “hate speech”; shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater; calls for violence, threats; “Stolen Valor”; false speech; “misinformation”; and so on and on, the problems continue to emerge.
The abuses by a government unrestrained by this constitutional law seem evident; but so too, it seems—especially now, especially given the ease and celerity of a message’s dissemination by any given person with access to social media—the unrestraint upon individual persons allows much abuse as well.
What then is to be done?
The Key Questions
It seems doubtful there exists today a soul devoid of interest in this question: for not only does it bear upon us all, either in our own persons or in those we know, but we have seen all too recently and all too shockingly the lengths to which people will go to silence speech they do not like.
But resolving the problem—or perhaps, confronting the difficulty—is not easy. To help guide us in our own meditations upon the topic, let us ask the following:
- What does it mean to have a right to freedom of expression?
- What is freedom and what does it mean to have it with respect to expression?
- Is the kind of optimism exhibited by Holmes’ justified? Is “the power of the thought to get itself accepted” truly the best test of its truth? Why/not?
- How do we determine the standards to regulate expression?
- How do we enforce those standards without becoming totalitarian in a way unsuited to human nature?
You are Free to Contribute
The Lyceum Institute has always been a place where ideas can be freely exchanged—but what does this really mean? And what shape does it truly take? We welcome your participation in the conversation!
So please if you are able, join us this Wednesday (17 September 2025, from 5:45-7:15+ pm ET) as we question the right limits to expression’s freedom.
philosophical happy hour
« »
Come join us for drinks (adult or otherwise) and a meaningful conversation. Open to the public! Held every Wednesday from 5:45–7:15pm ET.
No responses yet