Key Takeaways
1. Free Speech is a Perennial Struggle Against Entropy
Yet, almost invariably the introduction of free speech sets in motion a process of entropy.
The constant erosion. Free speech is never permanently won; its introduction often triggers a process of entropy, where leaders, regardless of their initial enlightenment, eventually conclude that freedom has gone too far. This phenomenon is as old as democracy itself, with justifications for limiting speech in the 21st century echoing those from 2,500 years ago. This cyclical pattern highlights that the fight for free expression is an ongoing battle, not a definitive victory.
Psychological and political roots. This entropy is not merely political but deeply rooted in human psychology. The desire for social harmony, fear of outgroups, and aversion to conflict often lead individuals and institutions to silence uncomfortable voices. This innate human tendency, like a massive body pulling in all matter, draws societies towards censorship, making active cultivation of a free speech culture essential.
The "Weimar fallacy." A common argument for limiting tolerance of intolerance is the "Weimar fallacy," which suggests that prohibiting totalitarian propaganda could have prevented Nazi Germany. However, historical analysis reveals that attempts to silence figures like Hitler often backfired, increasing interest and sympathy, and that the Nazis themselves exploited emergency laws to dismantle the very democracy they were meant to protect. This cautionary tale underscores the complex and often counterproductive nature of censorship.
2. New Technologies Disrupt and Reshape Free Speech
New communication technology is inevitably disruptive and every new advancement—from the printing press to the internet—has been opposed by those whose institutional authority is vulnerable to being undermined by sudden change.
Disruption is inevitable. Throughout history, every major leap in communication technology, from the printing press to the internet, has been met with resistance from established authorities. These innovations disrupt existing power structures, challenge traditional gatekeepers, and expand the public sphere, often leading to "elite panic" as new voices emerge and traditional control mechanisms weaken.
Historical parallels. The concerns voiced by Erasmus about the printing press in 1525, Elie Luzac about populist newspapers in the 1780s, and Barack Obama about the internet in 2020, all reflect a recurring fear that new technologies will unleash dangerous ideas and propaganda, threatening social and political order. This pattern reveals a deep-seated anxiety among elites whenever previously marginalized groups gain a platform.
Unintended consequences. While disruptive, these technologies also catalyze transformative events like the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, and modern democratic movements. However, they also facilitate the spread of misinformation, hate speech, and moral panics, demonstrating that the benefits of expanded discourse come with the price of inevitable abuse. The challenge lies in harnessing the emancipatory potential while mitigating the inherent risks.
3. The Ancient Roots of Free Speech: Elitist vs. Egalitarian Ideals
This clash between an egalitarian versus an elitist conception of free speech stretches back to antiquity.
Athenian democracy's radicalism. The Athenian city-state, around 507 to 322 BCE, formalized and articulated free speech (isēgoría for public civic speech, parrhēsía for frank speech) as a core democratic value. Pericles extolled open debate and tolerance of dissent, believing it led to truth and distinguished Athens from oligarchies. This egalitarian model allowed ordinary (free, male) citizens a direct voice and freedom to criticize their own constitution.
Roman republicanism's limitations. In contrast, the Roman Republic (c. 509 BCE) adopted an elitist model, distinguishing between libertas (liberty for the elite) and licentia (licentiousness for the masses). Cicero, a staunch republican, championed free speech for "the best men" in the Senate, not the "plebs." This hierarchical approach meant ordinary citizens lacked the right to speak in assemblies, and criticism of the powerful by those of lower rank was often punished.
The enduring conflict. The tension between these two conceptions—egalitarian free speech (rooted in Athens) and privileged free speech (rooted in Rome)—has never been fully resolved. This historical dichotomy continues to shape debates about who should have a voice in public affairs, with the Roman model often resurfacing when elites fear the "unwashed mob" and the Athenian ideal inspiring movements for broader inclusion.
4. Religious Authority and the Suppression of Thought
But medieval thought was dominated by “religious dynamics and diversity” rather than strict orthodox regimentation.
Islamic Golden Age's intellectual ferment. In stark contrast to early medieval Europe, the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate (8th-10th centuries CE) fostered a vibrant intellectual climate. It actively sponsored the translation of Greek philosophy and science, leading to groundbreaking advancements. Freethinkers like Ibn al-Rāwandī and al-Rāzī openly questioned prophecy and holy books, often without severe punishment, demonstrating a remarkable, albeit limited, tolerance for heterodox views.
The rise of the Inquisition. Medieval Europe, however, saw the Catholic Church develop a "machinery of persecution" to enforce orthodoxy. Heresy, defined as an active choice to persist in unsanctioned belief, became a grave concern. The Medieval Inquisition, though less bloody than often imagined, systematically used:
- Inquisitorial procedures (magistrates initiating investigations)
- Humiliating punishments (yellow crosses)
- Imprisonment for "behavior modification"
- Book bans (Pope Gelasius I's "index of forbidden books")
This system aimed to control thought and speech, culminating in the brutal suppression of groups like the Cathars and the Spanish Inquisition's targeting of conversos.
The "closing of the Muslim mind." While initially more tolerant, the Islamic world also experienced a hardening of apostasy and blasphemy laws, particularly from the 11th century onwards. Influential figures like al-Ghazālī expanded the scope of apostasy to include heterodox philosophical ideas, leading to a rejection of non-authoritative sources and a stricter literalist interpretation of religious texts. This shift, alongside the institutionalized persecution in the West, demonstrates the dangers of centralized religious authority in policing thought and speech.
5. The Printing Press Unleashes the Reformation and New Forms of Censorship
Luther and Gutenberg proved to be a match made in Heaven (or Hell if you asked the Church).
Gutenberg's revolution. Johannes Gutenberg's invention of the printing press around 1450 dramatically lowered the cost of books and exponentially increased their production, making knowledge accessible to a vast new audience. This technological leap saved ancient manuscripts, inspired humanist scholars, and laid the groundwork for revolutionary dissent by democratizing access to information.
Luther's viral Reformation. Martin Luther masterfully leveraged the printing press to spread his ninety-five theses and vernacular Bible translations, bypassing traditional gatekeepers and igniting the Reformation. His ability to craft punchy, accessible messages in German, accompanied by illustrations, made "Brand Luther" a sensation, demonstrating the unprecedented power of mass communication to challenge established religious authority.
The backlash of censorship. The Church and secular powers, initially welcoming of the press, quickly realized its disruptive potential. They responded with:
- Prepublication censorship (Archbishop of Mainz 1486, Pope Leo X 1515)
- Book bans (Edict of Worms against Luther's works, Index Librorum Prohibitorum)
- Persecution of printers and authors (Tyndale's execution, Bruno's burning, Galileo's house arrest)
This era saw censorship shift from sporadic acts to systematic, institutionalized control, as authorities struggled to contain the "deluge of publications" and the "pestiferous" ideas they spread.
6. Enlightenment Thinkers Champion Free Speech, But Often with Limits
“Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
The Dutch Golden Age as a haven. The Dutch Republic, born from a revolt against Spanish persecution, became an early modern epicenter of tolerance and publishing. Figures like Dirck Coornhert championed religious freedom and open debate, arguing that "freedom has always consisted chiefly in the fact that someone is allowed freely to speak his mind." This pragmatic tolerance, though not absolute, attracted exiled freethinkers like Spinoza and Bayle, who further developed radical ideas about free expression.
Milton's Curse and selective advocacy. John Milton's Areopagitica (1644) famously argued against censorship, declaring, "Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." However, Milton, like many others, suffered from "Milton's Curse," advocating for free speech while simultaneously calling for the suppression of "tolerated popery" and "impious or evil" ideas. This selective defense highlights the enduring challenge of principled free speech.
The "bulwark of liberty." In England, the lapse of the Licensing Act in 1695, partly due to John Locke's arguments, marked a significant step towards press freedom. The "Cato's Letters" (1720-1723) by Trenchard and Gordon popularized the idea that "Freedom of speech is the great bulwark of liberty; they prosper and die together." This concept, rooted in Roman ideals of libertas, became a foundational argument for protecting individual and political freedom against arbitrary government, profoundly influencing American revolutionaries.
7. The American Revolution Forges a Bulwark of Liberty
“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.”
Colonial struggles for expression. Early American colonies, particularly Puritan New England, were far from bastions of free speech, often punishing religious dissenters and seditious speakers. However, figures like Roger Williams in Rhode Island and William Penn in Pennsylvania established early havens for religious freedom. The Zenger case in 1735, where a jury acquitted a printer accused of seditious libel, effectively ended such prosecutions in colonial courts and cemented the idea that truth could be a defense against libel.
The press as a revolutionary engine. The American Revolution was fought as much with "paper bullets" as with actual ones. Newspapers and pamphlets, amplified by the printing press, became the "engine moving the protest forward." Figures like Benjamin Franklin, despite his own past inconsistencies, articulated the vital role of free speech in a free government. The widespread circulation of radical ideas, often drawn from "Cato's Letters," galvanized public opinion against British rule.
Madison's First Amendment vision. The debates surrounding the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights saw a clash between Federalists, who initially dismissed the need for explicit free speech protections, and Anti-Federalists, who feared unchecked government power. James Madison, initially a skeptic, ultimately championed the First Amendment, aiming to create a federal "bulwark of liberty" that protected speech from both government overreach and majoritarian intolerance. His vision explicitly rejected the English common-law restrictions on speech, asserting that in America, ultimate sovereignty rested with the people.
8. Revolutions and Reactions: Free Speech as a Casualty of Political Upheaval
“In this historical hour, we German Social Democrats pledge ourselves to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No Enabling Act gives you the power to eradicate ideas, which are eternal and indestructible.”
The French Revolution's tragic arc. The French Revolution, initially heralded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen's promise of free expression, quickly descended into the Reign of Terror. The undefined "abuse clause" in Article 11 allowed warring factions to weaponize speech limits, leading to the execution of figures like Olympe de Gouges for "political heresy." Robespierre, once a free speech advocate, became its chief executioner, demonstrating how revolutionary fervor can swiftly turn against its own foundational principles.
Counter-revolution and repression. The French Revolution triggered a widespread reactionary backlash across Europe. Catherine the Great, initially an "Enlightened Absolutist," swiftly reimposed strict censorship and exiled critics like Radishchev, fearing the spread of "French madness." In Britain, Prime Minister William Pitt's "Reign of Terror" saw the suspension of habeas corpus and the passage of "Gagging Acts" to suppress radical dissent, particularly against Thomas Paine's influential writings.
The Sedition Act of 1798. Even in the nascent United States, the French Revolution's polarization led to the Sedition Act, which criminalized "false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. This act, passed just seven years after the First Amendment, saw journalists and politicians imprisoned for criticizing President Adams. James Madison vehemently opposed it, arguing that such laws were "palpably in the teeth of the constitution" and would stifle the very public discourse necessary for a free republic.
9. Totalitarian Regimes Weaponize Censorship and Propaganda
“An Enemy of the People,” said Stalin, is “one who doubts the rightness of the Party line.”
Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat." Following the 1917 Russian Revolution, Vladimir Lenin, despite initially benefiting from free expression, swiftly dismantled it. He viewed the "bourgeois press" as a dangerous weapon, implementing decrees to suppress publications and establishing the Cheka secret police to root out opposition. This laid the groundwork for a one-party press, where "freedom of the press" was redefined as absolute ideological conformity, ensuring that only the party's voice was heard.
Stalin's reign of terror. Under Joseph Stalin, censorship and propaganda reached genocidal proportions. He personally oversaw the meticulous control of all media, from news articles to book manuscripts, and established Glavlit, a centralized censorship bureau, to purge any "anti-Soviet agitation." Article 58 of the criminal code, particularly its "anti-Soviet agitation" clause, became a catch-all for punishing dissent, leading to millions of "babblers" being sent to the Gulags. This systematic suppression of information allowed the regime's massive crimes to go unchecked.
Nazi Germany's "Gleichschaltung." The Weimar Republic's attempts to curb extremist speech through increasingly draconian laws ultimately paved the way for Hitler. Upon taking power, Hitler swiftly implemented the "Reichstag Fire Decree" and the "Enabling Act," suspending constitutional rights and consolidating a one-party dictatorship. Joseph Goebbels's Ministry of Propaganda orchestrated the "Gleichschaltung" (synchronization) of all media, purging Jewish journalists, burning books, and micromanaging content to ensure complete ideological conformity. This fusion of ruthless censorship and incessant propaganda facilitated the regime's atrocities.
10. Free Speech as a Tool for Liberation Against Oppression
“The right of speech is a very precious one, especially to the oppressed.”
Abolitionists' fight for freedom. In the American South, the "Slaver's Veto" saw draconian laws banning "incendiary" antislavery literature, with punishments including flogging and death. However, abolitionists like Angelina Grimké and Harriet Beecher Stowe used the power of the press and public speaking to expose slavery's depravity. Frederick Douglass, a runaway slave, eloquently argued that "Slavery cannot tolerate free speech," asserting that free speech was a "moral renovator" and "the dread of tyrants," essential for racial equality.
The Civil Rights Movement's triumph. Decades later, the Civil Rights Movement, led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., strategically used First Amendment freedoms to dismantle segregation. Despite arrests and violence, activists' peaceful protests and powerful speeches, amplified by media, reshaped public opinion. Landmark Supreme Court decisions like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) expanded free speech protections, fulfilling Madison's vision and providing a crucial legal framework for challenging systemic discrimination.
Global struggles against apartheid and communism. The fight for free speech extended globally. Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, inspired by Gandhi's nonviolent resistance, used dissent as a weapon against apartheid, even when it led to imprisonment. Behind the Iron Curtain, dissidents like Andrei Sakharov and Václav Havel, emboldened by the Helsinki Final Act, formed groups like Charter 77 to monitor human rights violations. Their tireless efforts, amplified by Western media and NGOs, ultimately contributed to the collapse of communist dictatorships, demonstrating free speech's power to erode authoritarian control.
11. The Digital Age: A New Era of Free Speech Entropy and Elite Panic
“The virus of liberty” could not be warded off “by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace.”
The internet's utopian promise. The early internet, envisioned as a decentralized global agora, promised universal free and equal speech, uncoerced by governments or corporations. CDA 230 in the US granted online intermediaries broad immunity, fostering a "horizontal web" of blogs and peer-to-peer platforms. The "Arab Spring" in 2011, fueled by social media, seemed to confirm the internet's revolutionary potential to dismantle dictatorships and usher in democracy.
The rise of "elite panic." However, the internet's darker side soon emerged:
- Amplification of hate speech and disinformation
- Coordination of violent extremism
- Targeting of minorities and women by trolls
- Foreign interference in elections
This led to "elite panic" among politicians and traditional media, who, fearing the "weaponization of free speech," began demanding greater content moderation and regulation.
Centralization and censorship. The internet's commercialization led to the dominance of a few tech giants, creating centralized "choke points" for content. Authoritarian regimes, like China with its "Great Firewall," ruthlessly expanded and updated their censorship capabilities, using AI and mass surveillance to control digital traffic and silence dissent. Even Western companies, under pressure, have complied with these demands, demonstrating how the initial "flash of freedom" can be short-lived as control is rebuilt.
12. Cultivating a Robust Free Speech Culture is Paramount
“Free speech culture is more important than the First Amendment.… It’s what informs the First Amendment today—and it is what will decide if our current free speech protections will survive into the future.”
Beyond legal protections. While constitutional guarantees like the First Amendment are vital, a robust "free speech culture" is equally, if not more, crucial for its survival. This culture involves a societal commitment to open debate, tolerance of heretical ideas, and a willingness to engage with uncomfortable truths, rather than resorting to censorship or "cancel culture."
The dangers of selective enforcement. The historical pattern of "Milton's Curse"—where free speech advocates, once in power, suppress dissenting voices—recurs in the digital age. Calls for deplatforming, content removal, and "apology for terrorism" laws, even if well-intentioned, risk creating new orthodoxies and being exploited by authoritarians. As Eleanor Roosevelt warned, vague hate speech prohibitions can be "exploited by totalitarian States for the purpose of rendering the other articles null and void."
Empowering citizens and decentralization. Instead of top-down control, fostering "open vigilance" and empowering citizens with critical thinking tools can help counter disinformation. Decentralizing the internet, through antitrust measures or open protocols, could create a more diverse and resilient information ecosystem. Ultimately, the future of free speech depends on individuals and societies resisting the temptation to silence others, recognizing that "some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing."
Last updated:
Similar Books
