Should you be allowed to say anything?

Every argument about free speech is an argument about where the edge is. Almost nobody says “people may say anything at all” and means it — a threat, a lie that ruins someone, a false shout of fire in a crowded room. Almost nobody says “nothing may be said” either.

So the real work is the boundary, and there are two ways to draw it. Mill drew it at harm: you may say what you like, and nobody may stop you, unless what you say harms somebody. Holmes drew a narrower line for courts: some speech is so likely to cause immediate harm that it is not protected at all. Both leave the hardest question open, which is what harm means when the damage is done by persuading people rather than hurting them.

There is a deeper argument, and it is Mill’s best one. When you silence an opinion, you are behaving as if you could not possibly be wrong. And even if you are right, silencing the objection costs you something: a belief you have never had to defend becomes something you repeat rather than something you understand. He thought a live disagreement is worth more than an enforced agreement that nobody has examined.

Which leaves a genuinely uncomfortable test, and it is the one to argue about: if you would protect a sentence you agree with, would you protect the sentence you find most wrong? If not, you are not really making an argument about freedom — you are making one about who should get to speak.

Try it

Take one sentence you genuinely believe and write down what would change your mind. Then ask: do I want this sentence protected, and would I protect the one I disagree with most?

What do you think?

Do you think there is a right answer to this question?

Yes, I think soNo — and here's whyI'm not sure yet

Talk about it

• Is it worse to say something harmful, or to persuade others to believe it?
• Who should decide what counts as harm in words?
• Is a lie still free speech?

Yes, but… — the arguments people actually make

• Words can't hurt anyone, so anything goes.

  Then a threat is only noise, and a lie about someone is only weather. Test it: pick a sentence that would end a friendship and ask whether 'just words' is a good description.

• Harmful ideas should be banned to protect people.

  Reasonable until you ask who holds the pen — and notice that the people who most want to ban speech always assume they'll be the ones deciding.

• In a free society, everyone should be able to say anything at all.

  Mill, the great defender, did not go that far. He put harm at the boundary — which means the real argument is over the boundary, not over freedom.

What other philosophers think

• John Stuart MillArgued that silencing an opinion assumes you are certain you are right, and nobody is. Even a wrong opinion is useful, because defending a truth against it keeps the truth alive rather than dead dogma.
• Oliver Wendell HolmesIn a 1919 court ruling he allowed limits: free speech does not protect falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Almost every later argument has been about where that line sits.
• John MiltonArgued in 1644 that truth needs no protection from falsehood, and will win in a fair fight. A hopeful position, and testable.
• Mary WollstonecraftNoticed that the loudest defenders of free speech often meant free speech for people like themselves.

If you want to go further

• On Liberty — John Stuart Mill1859. Chapter 2, the best argument ever written for tolerating opinions you find wrong.
• Areopagitica — John Milton1644. Against censorship, and one of the earliest to argue it as a principle.
• A Vindication of the Rights of Woman — Mary Wollstonecraft1792. For the point that freedoms are unevenly distributed among the people defending them.

Most of these were written for adults, which is why it is worth reading them with someone older.