What is called free speech?
Thought experiments in not knowing

My country has free speech on the brain. I don't particularly wish to wade into any of the current controversies— I had my fill of internet flame wars long ago. But I am interested in a deeper question:

What is this thing we call "free speech"?

You probably think you know what "free speech" means. By the end of this post, you might not be so sure. I'm going to give you a series of thought experiments, cases designed to pump your intuitions¹¹1 "Intuition pump" is a term from Daniel Dennett: a thought experiment designed less to illustrate a concept, than to provoke your intuitions in a particular direction. about what free speech is and isn't. We'll test two common versions of the concept, and see how they fare.

Version 1: Freedom from restriction

"My speech is free when the government places no restrictions on what I can say. It is not censorship when a private agent, such as Facebook or a television channel, restricts what I may say via their platform."

This version would have us believe that freedom is about law and governance. I am unfree insofar as the law binds me from speaking, and free insofar as the law permits me. On its face, this feels fairly sensible²²2 Indeed, in an American context, this is roughly the First Amendment reading of free speech. ! You may even have heard it before in debates about disinformation or social media moderation. Let's see how well it comports to our intuitions.

Consider first the case of Sam the Spammer.

Nothing brings Sam as much joy as sending billions of messages promoting his discount widget business. He sends a constant stream of misleading and disruptive posts day and night, to every social media platform, comment section, web marketplace, and email inbox he can get his hands on. There are no government restrictions on Sam's speech, but people don't particularly appreciate being flooded with Sam's messages. Social platforms suspend his accounts, marketplaces take down his listings, and email providers filter his messages as spam. Sam is indignant, and argues his free speech has been gravely restricted.

Is Sam correct? I don't think so! Sam's essential liberties have not been infringed. We wouldn't blame anyone for sending Sam's messages straight to the spam filter. If Sam wishes to freely promote his widget business, we'd suggest he try a less disruptive method, such as the ordinary advertising and marketing strategies that other businesses pursue.

Let's consider a second case, that of Cheryl the Chef.

Cheryl the Chef has a recipe blog she's proud of. Unfortunately, Joe Byson, CEO of Byson Food Inc., is offended by Cheryl's criticisms of his frozen meat products. One day, her hosting provider takes down her blog— not for legal reasons, but because Byson, their largest advertiser, complained. She moves to a new host; they do the same. She tries posting to social media instead, but her posts get flagged and removed (Byson again). Email newsletters, physical publishing, in-person events... every platform she tries quickly shuts her out, through a shared set of business pressures that exclude her. There's no law against what Cheryl wants to say. But she can't say it.

What about Cheryl? I think she's been censored. Cheryl has been prevented from speaking, and the restrictions placed on her feel wildly unreasonable. It doesn't particularly seem to matter whether the restrictions came from a government or from Byson, they are unjust. We ought to be free to criticize food products we dislike without being frozen out of all communications.

From Cheryl, let's move to Beryl the Baker.

Just like Cheryl, Beryl has a recipe blog she wishes to share. One afternoon, Beryl enters your home uninvited. She claims she has the right to use your home to promote her blog: to host cooking classes in your kitchen, use your computer to type recipes and post them to your website, and put up advertising in your yard. You tell her to leave your house. Beryl argues that this is censorship, and you have violated her right to free speech.

What do you think about Beryl? I don't think her right to free speech includes a right to use your kitchen. She is free to do these things in her own home. It is in no way censorship to tell her to cease trespassing and exit your abode.

What clarity have we gained on private agents and free speech? Is it or isn't it censorship when a private platform restricts speech? Well... it's not so clear! We seem to agree on a number of things that pull us in different directions:

• At least sometimes, private restrictions do not impinge on free speech. We don't think Sam or Beryl are subject to unjust restrictions on their liberties.
• At least sometimes, private restrictions do impinge on free speech. Cheryl is being censored by private entities, and we don't think that's just.
• The content and method of the speech matters. Though it is unjust for private entities to censor Cheryl, there's nothing untoward about those same entities deleting Sam's spam. There seems to be some sphere of discourse which is considered acceptable or ordinary, and ought not be restricted. But there also seem to be forms of discourse outside that sphere, which are OK to privately restrict.
• Precisely which private agent is restricting the speech also matters. We seem concerned about the actions of entities like ISPs, publishers, television outlets, social media sites, or email providers. But we don't seem particularly concerned about your choice to kick Beryl out of your kitchen.

We haven't gained much clarity. Perhaps this just wasn't the right angle of attack. Let's try our hand at a different version of free speech.

Version 2: Freedom from consequences

"Free speech is when I can say whatever I want without consequences. If I suffer from social sanction or ostracism as a result of my speech, I have been censored."

This version of free speech is about results. I am unfree insofar as I am punished for my speech, and free insofar as I may speak without suffering harm. This feels pretty plausible! You may have heard this version come up when public figures face backlash after adopting controversial views³³3 The Internet "cancel culture" debate is roughly this. . Perhaps you've also encountered it when marginalized groups face public judgement for their self-expression⁴⁴4 In an American context, consider National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education, or Don't Ask, Don't Tell. .

Let's first consider the case of Steve the Star Wars fan:

Steve is a car salesman who loves the Star Wars franchise. He spends his free time watching and reading Star Wars media, writing fanfiction, and engaging with other fans on the Internet. Unfortunately for Steve, his city is dominated by Trekkie extremists, who have a sharply negative opinion of Star Wars. One day, Steve's boss discovers Steve's anonymous fanblog. Steve is summarily fired from the car dealership and blacklisted from the industry. The news spreads among the community. Steve is disowned by his family and friends, and banned from entering most local businesses. Steve argues that these consequences are unjust, and that he has been censored.

Is Steve being censored? I think so. Condemning a person to a life of unemployment, segregation, and ostracism simply for liking a different sci-fi franchise sounds wildly unjust. We would not like to live in a world like this.

Now consider Beav:

Similar to Steve, Beav is a car salesman who loves Star Wars. Unlike Steve, Beav lives in our world. But Beav likes Star Wars a little too much, to the point that he is incapable of focusing on anything else. He dominates every conversation with incessant chatter about Jedi lore. At work, he subjects all customers to Star Wars banter until they leave. Beav's conduct leads to awful sales, and causes Beav to get fired for poor performance. His circle of friends dwindles to only those who can tolerate his fixation, and his family stops inviting him to gatherings. Beav argues that these consequences are unjust, and that he has been censored.

Has Beav earned his consequences? Unlike Steve, I think he has. While Beav is free to like Star Wars as much as he likes, that doesn't give him a license to shirk work, nor does it obligate us to listen. It's perfectly reasonable for his employer to expect that his speech at work conforms to his job expectations. It's equally reasonable for his friends and family to be upset that they can't get a word in edgeways, and stop inviting him.

Enough about Star Wars. Now consider Jim the Jerk.

Jim is a car salesman, and a cruel and disagreeable person. Everyone he meets, he berates. He hollers vulgarities as he walks through town. He insults all the customers at his workplace. He even verbally abuses his friends and family members. One day, everyone gets fed up. Jim gets fired, because his constant insults toward customers are ruining the whole dealership. His family and friends get tired of his abuse and disown him, and he is barred from most local bars and restaurants for his pervasive conduct issues. Jim argues that these consequences are unjust, and that he has been censored.

What do you think about Jim? I don't think his rights were violated. A right to free speech does not imply an obligation to be friends with jerks, or to employ people with conduct problems. Jim is free to be as much of a jerk as he likes, but we are equally free to reject him because of it.

One last case.

Just like Jim, Tim is a cruel and disagreeable car salesman, who insults everyone he meets. One day, a coworker gets truly fed up with Tim. They confront him as he leaves work, and shoot him dead. As he dies, Tim howls that these consequences are unjust, and that he has been censored.

How about Tim? I think he's at least partially correct. Being an incorrigible jerk is certainly a good reason to fire Tim from a job, or end a friendship with Tim. But it's not a good reason to shoot Tim. We might disagree about whether or not this is censorship specifically, but I hope we'd agree that it's unjust.

What clarity have we gained on free speech and consequences? Is it or isn't it censorship when a speaker faces negative consequences for their speech? Again... it's not so clear!

• At least sometimes, negative consequences for speech do impinge on free speech. We think Steve is right to complain about his treatment.
• At least sometimes, negative consequences for speech do not impinge on free speech. We think that Jim has been treated fairly. His verbal mistreatment of others has rightly led to their rejection.
• The manner and place of the speech matters. While Steve and Beav both have the right to speak about Star Wars, Beav's car dealership isn't the right place for it, and Beav's domineering long-windedness is not the right manner. Speech with the same content might rightly lead to different consequences in different situations.
• The scale of the consequences matters. It is just for Jim to get fired for his jerkiness, but it is not just for Tim to get shot for the same jerkiness.

What, then, is this thing we call "free speech"?

Let's try to synthesize what we've learned:

"Free speech is when I can speak about most things, without undue public or private restriction beyond what is appropriate for the particular venue, and without suffering consequences that are inappropriate or out of proportion to my speech, within reason when taking into account the content and manner of the speech in question."

Clear as mud. We've ended up with so many weasel words that we're not saying much at all. And it's not obvious that we can do any better without conflicting with our own intuitions.

Perhaps the disagreements we have over free speech are, at base, disagreements over deeper sociopolitical questions:

• What content falls within the sphere of public normalcy? How much deviation from that norm is acceptable?
• What shape should a community have? Who is included in it? Who leads it, and what obligations do they have toward its members?
• What degree of social disruption should we tolerate, and what sanctions should follow?
• How much control should private agents have over the public commons?
• Which words are suited to which times and places?

These aren't questions with obvious answers. Neither can we resolve these questions with further appeals to free speech. We can only resolve them through ethics, politics, and difficult conversation.

That might feel dissatisfying. That's OK; I came here to tear down, not to build. If I've done my job, you're less sure what "free speech" means than when you started. That discomfort, viewed rightly, is a boon. "Free speech", you see, is a powerful phrase. It has the ring of a settled principle, something foundational and non-negotiable. It gets invoked like a magic spell, as though saying the words alone should end the conversation. But, as we've seen, what looked like a single principle turned out to be a knot of deeply contingent ethical, political, and social questions. So, this aporia that you're feeling? Consider it something akin to an immunization against loose thought. When someone invokes "free speech" as though saying the words settles the matter, they're flattening that complexity into a slogan. The questions don't go away when we stop asking them. We'd do better to ask them honestly.