Freedom of speech is the right to speak out publicly or privately. The term covers all forms of expression, including books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, motion pictures, and electronic documents on computer networks. Many scholars consider freedom of speech a natural right.
In a democracy, freedom of speech is a necessity. Democratic constitutions guarantee people the right to express their opinions freely because democracy is government of, by, and for the people. The people need information to help them determine the best political and social policies. Democratic governments need to know what most people believe and want. The governments also need to know the opinions of various minorities.
Most undemocratic nations deny freedom of speech to their people. The governments of these countries operate under the theory that the ruler or governing party “knows best” what is good for the people. Such governments believe that freedom of speech would interfere with the conduct of public affairs and would create disorder.
Limitations.
All societies, including democratic ones, put various limitations on what people may say. They prohibit certain types of speech that they believe might harm the government or the people. But drawing a line between dangerous and harmless speech can be extremely difficult.
Most democratic nations have five major restrictions on free expression. (1) Laws covering libel and slander prohibit speech or publication that harms a person’s reputation (see Libel; Slander). (2) Some laws forbid speech that offends public decency by using obscenities or by encouraging people to commit acts considered immoral. (3) Laws against spying, treason, and urging violence prohibit speech that endangers life, property, or national security. (4) Other laws forbid speech that invades the right of people not to listen to it. For example, a city ordinance might limit the times when people may use loudspeakers on public streets. (5) Other laws ban speech that is intended to intimidate or express hatred toward other people or make the target want to fight immediately.
In the United States.
Freedom of speech was one of the goals of the American colonists that led to the Revolutionary War in America (1775-1783). Since 1791, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has protected freedom of speech from interference by the federal government.
Since 1925, the Supreme Court of the United States has protected free speech against interference by state or local governments. The court has done this by using the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (see Due process of law).
The government restricts some speech considered dangerous or immoral. The first major federal law that limited speech was the Sedition Act of 1798 (see Alien and Sedition Acts). It provided punishment for speaking or writing against the government. The law expired in 1801 and was not renewed.
In the late 1800’s, Congress passed several laws against obscenity. But during the 1900’s, court decisions generally eased such restrictions. For example, judges lifted the bans on such famous books as Ulysses by James Joyce, in 1933, and Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D. H. Lawrence, in 1960. See Obscenity and pornography.
The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, passed during World War I, forbade speeches and publications that interfered with the war effort. Since 1919, the Supreme Court has suggested that the government can restrict speech if it poses a “clear and present danger” of an evil that the government has a right to prevent. In 1940, Congress passed the Smith Act, which made it a crime to urge the violent overthrow of the United States government. See Smith Act.
Most periods of increased restrictions on speech occur when threats to individuals, national security, or social morality seem grave. During such times of stress, the courts have provided little protection for individual freedom. In the early 1950’s, for example, fear of Communism was strong in the United States because of the Korean War and the conviction of several Americans as Soviet spies. In 1951, the Supreme Court upheld the Smith Act in the case of 11 leaders of the Communist Party convicted for advocating the overthrow of the government. Since the mid-1950’s, however, the courts have become more concerned about personal rights and have provided greater protection for freedom of expression. In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that a protest speech by Ku Klux Klan members in Ohio was protected because the speech was not likely to produce “imminent and lawless action.” In 1989 and again in 1990, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot punish a person for burning the American flag as a form of political protest. In 2000, the court ruled that the government could not require cable systems to limit sexually explicit channels to late-night hours.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that even corporations had a protected right of free speech to contribute as much money as they wanted to political campaigns. The court argued that corporations were the same as people, and their free speech rights would not lead to corruption in government. In 2011, the court ruled that the First Amendment protected a church’s antigay protests at military funerals because the group had a proper governmental permit, was on public ground, and was dealing with controversial political issues. Later that year, the court overturned a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children. It argued that governments do not have the power to “restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”
In other countries.
The development of freedom of speech in most Western European countries and English-speaking nations has resembled that in the United States. In various other countries, this freedom has grown more slowly or not at all.
Britain and France have long traditions of protecting free speech. But like the United States, these countries place certain restrictions on free expression in the interests of national security. Smaller Western European countries, such as Denmark and Switzerland, generally have fewer restrictions on free speech. Ireland bases some of its controls over freedom of expression on the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, to which the majority of the Irish people belong.
The rulers of some countries have simply ignored or have taken away constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech. For example, the rulers of China and North Korea severely limit freedom of speech. These dictators believe they alone hold the truth. Therefore, they say, any opposition must be based on falsehood and regarded as dangerous.
History.
Throughout history, people have fought for freedom of speech. In the 400’s B.C., the city-state of Athens in ancient Greece gave its citizens considerable freedom of expression. Later, freedom of speech became linked with struggles for political and religious freedom. These struggles took place in the Middle Ages, from about the A.D. 400’s through the 1400’s. They also played an important part in the Reformation, a religious movement of the 1500’s that gave rise to Protestantism.
In the 1600’s and 1700’s, a period called the Enlightenment, many people began to regard freedom of speech as a natural right. Such philosophers as John Locke of England and Voltaire of France based this idea on their belief in the importance of the individual. Every person, they declared, has a right to speak freely and to have a voice in the government. Thomas Jefferson expressed this idea in the Declaration of Independence.
During the 1800’s, democratic ideas grew and increasing numbers of people gained freedom of speech. At the same time, however, the growth of cities and industry required more and more people to live and work in large groups. To some people, such as the German philosopher Karl Marx, the interests of society became more important than those of the individual. They thought nations could operate best under an intelligent central authority, rather than with democracy and individual freedom.
In the 1900’s, a number of nations came under such totalitarian forms of government as Communism and fascism. These nations abolished or put heavy curbs on freedom of speech. By the late 1980’s, however, many of these nations had begun to ease the restrictions.
Technological advances have helped create a centralization of both power and communications in many industrial nations. In such nations, a government can use this power to restrict speech, so that the ordinary person with an idea to express may find it difficult to reach an audience. On the other hand, the same technological advances have produced new methods of communication, such as computers, the internet, and cell phones. These new methods, together with the rise of various forms of social media such as Facebook, X (formerly called Twitter), and YouTube, have led to increased freedom of speech.
