When the Founders wrote the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they placed freedom of speech first because they understood that a democratic republic cannot work without it. You can't have government "of the people, by the people, for the people" if the news media can't report the facts and people can't speak freely.

It is important to note that free speech isn't about just protecting popular opinions. Most people support speech they agree with. The real test comes when someone says something unpopular, offensive or even wrong. That's when free speech matters most.

Why Democracies Need Free Speech

Think about how the rational you makes life decisions. Ideally, you gather information, hear different perspectives, weigh the options and choose. Democracy works the same way, just on a larger scale. Voters need access to diverse viewpoints—including uncomfortable ones—to make informed decisions at the ballot box. They must be free to shop without restraint at the free marketplace of ideas.

When speech gets restricted, even with noble intentions, we lose the critical ability to challenge those in power. We lose the marketplace of ideas where bad arguments get exposed and better ones emerge. We lose the early warning system that lets us know when something's going wrong in our political system or society.

Even a cursory reading of history shows that every authoritarian government, left or right, starts by and consolidates its power through controlling speech. They set themselves up as public judges of truth and what can be discussed in the public forum without penalty. Authoritarians always claim their speech restrictions are for the public good. Unfortunately, democracy dies in the silence that follows.

The Messy Reality

It is an uncomfortable truth that protecting free speech often means protecting speech you hate. It means neo-Nazis get to march. It means conspiracy theorists get to speak. It means people can burn flags, criticize religion or say things that make your blood boil.

This isn't a flaw in a democracy--it's a feature. Once we start deciding which speech is acceptable, the question becomes who decides? The best answer is nobody-all speech must be protected unless it is a clear and present danger, like shouting fire in a crowded theatre or defaming somebody with malicious lies. Otherwise, censorship on speech that offends you today can be weaponized against you tomorrow when political winds shift.

The Modern Challenge

Today's debates about speech look different than they did fifty years ago. We're not just talking about government censorship anymore. We're talking about social media platforms with no censorship, campus speech codes, cancel culture and misinformation.

Some argue that private companies can restrict speech however they want—and legally, they often can. But there's a difference between what's legal and what's wise for democracy. When a handful of tech companies control the modern public square, their speech policies matter enormously. When universities—meant to be bastions of free inquiry—shut down controversial speakers, we lose opportunities to engage with challenging ideas.

The misinformation problem is real. Foreign actors do try to manipulate our discourse. Lies spread faster than truth online. But the solution isn't to appoint censors to decide what's true. It's to teach critical thinking, promote media literacy civic literacy that allows citizens to sort through competing claims. Democracy is messy precisely because it trusts ordinary people with that responsibility. It is often loud, contentious and frustrating. But it beats the alternative: a society where someone else decides what you're allowed to think, say, or hear.