freedom of speech writing prompts

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom of Speech

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: December 4, 2017

Freedom of speech—the right to express opinions without government restraint—is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are—and aren’t—protected under U.S. law.

The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word “parrhesia” means “free speech,” or “to speak candidly.” The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution . The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

Flag Burning

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court , in 1990, reversed a Texas court’s conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

When Isn’t Speech Protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that aren’t protected include:

• Obscene material such as child pornography
• Plagiarism of copyrighted material
• Defamation (libel and slander)
• True threats

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren’t protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I . The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the “clear and present danger” standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called “content neutrality.” Content neutrality means the government can’t censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free Speech in Schools

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa , organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didn’t bite—they ruled in favor of the students’ right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District . The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don’t apply in private schools.

What does free speech mean?; United States Courts . Tinker v. Des Moines; United States Courts . Freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment; ACLU .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

First Amendment – Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment allows citizens to express and to be exposed to a wide range of opinions and views. It was intended to ensure a free exchange of ideas even if the ideas are unpopular. Freedom of speech encompasses not only the spoken and written word, but also all kinds of expression (including non-verbal communications, such as sit-ins, art, photographs, films and advertisements).

1735 Truth Is A Defense Against Libel Charge

New York printer John Peter Zenger is tried on charges of seditious libel for publishing criticism of the royal governor. English law – asserting that the greater the truth, the greater the libel – prohibits any published criticism of the government that would incite public dissatisfaction with it. Zenger’s lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, convinces the jury that Zenger should be acquitted because the articles were, in fact, true, and that New York libel law should not be the same as English law. The Zenger case is a landmark in the development of protection of freedom of speech and the press.

1787 Federalist Papers’ Publication Starts

The first of 85 essays written under the pen name Publius by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay begin to appear in the New York Independent Journal. The essays, called the Federalist Papers, support ratification of the Constitution approved by the Constitutional Convention on Sept. 17, 1787. In Federalist Paper No. 84, Hamilton discusses “liberty of the press.”

1791 First Amendment Is Ratified

The First Amendment is ratified when Virginia becomes the 11th state to approve the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. The amendment, drafted primarily by James Madison, guarantees basic freedoms for citizens: freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

1798 Alien And Sedition Acts Signed Into Law

While the nation’s leaders believe an outspoken press was justified during the war for independence, they take a different view when they are in power. The Federalist-controlled Congress passes the Alien and Sedition Acts. Aimed at quashing criticism of Federalists, the Sedition Act makes it illegal for anyone to express “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against Congress or the president.

The United States is in an undeclared war with France, and Federalists say the law is necessary to protect the nation from attacks and to protect the government from false and malicious words. Republicans argue for a free flow of information and the right to publicly examine officials’ conduct.

1836 Efforts To Stifle Debate About Slavery Unsuccessful

As abolitionists develop the tactic of submitting many antislavery petitions to Congress, proslavery members of the U.S. House of Representatives adopt “gag” rules that bar such petitions from being introduced and debated. In 1844, former President John Quincy Adams, then a representative from Massachusetts, leads the effort to repeal these rules.

1859 ‘On Liberty’ Is Published

British philosopher John Stuart Mill publishes the essay On Liberty , arguing that only through the free exchange of ideas, even offensive ones or ones held by a minority of individuals, can society find “truth.”

1864 Lincoln Orders Two Newspapers Shut

President Abraham Lincoln orders Union Gen. John Dix to stop publication of the New York Journal of Commerce and the New York World after they publish a forged presidential proclamation calling for another military draft. The editors also are arrested. After the authors of the forgery are arrested, the newspapers are allowed to resume publication.

1873 Circulation Of Birth Control Information Outlawed

An “Act of the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use” is passed by Congress. The act, more commonly known as the Comstock Act – after anti-obscenity activist Anthony Comstock – makes it a crime to publish, distribute or possess information about contraception or abortion, or to distribute or possess devices or medications used for those purposes.

Lawmakers were responding to increasing concern about abortion, the institution of marriage, and the changing role of women in society.

1917 Congress Passes Espionage Act Of 1917

With World War I being fought, President Woodrow Wilson proposes the Espionage Act of 1917 to protect the country from internal warfare propaganda. Congress passes the act, which makes it a crime to intentionally interfere with military forces, recruiting or enlistment or “cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States.” Punishment is a maximum fine of $10,000, a maximum jail term of 20 years, or both. The act also bans any mailings urging treason.

1918 Sedition Act Of 1918 Punishes Critics Of WWI

An amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act is passed by Congress. It goes much further than its predecessor, imposing severe criminal penalties on all forms of expression that are critical of the government, its symbols, or its mobilization of resources for World War I. Ultimately, about 900 people will be convicted under the law. Hundreds of noncitizens will be deported without a trial; 249 of them, including anarchist Emma Goldman, will be sent to the Soviet Union.

1919 ‘Clear And Present Danger’ Exception Established

In Schenck v. United States , the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, upholds the conviction of Socialist Charles Schenck for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to distribute thousands of antiwar leaflets to U.S. servicemen. While acknowledging that the First Amendment under normal circumstances might protect Schenck’s activities, the Court holds that in special circumstances, such as wartime, speech that poses a “clear and present danger” can be restricted. The Court likens the ideas expressed in Schenck’s leaflets to “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

A few days later, in another opinion by Holmes, the Court will uphold Socialist Eugene V. Debs’ conviction, finding that his speech also poses a “clear and present danger” of undermining war recruitment and is not protected by the First Amendment.

1919 ‘Marketplace Of Ideas’ Concept Defined

In his dissent from the majority opinion in Abrams v. United States (upholding the Espionage Act convictions of a group of antiwar activists), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes coins his famous “marketplace of ideas” phrase to explain the value of freedom of speech. He said that “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas … the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

Over the years, Holmes’ “marketplace” concept, and the idea that more is better when it comes to competing ideas, has been a consistent theme in First Amendment cases.

1925 Court: First Amendment Applies To States’ Laws

In Gitlow v. New York , the U.S. Supreme Court concludes that the free speech clause of the First Amendment applies not just to laws passed by Congress, but also to those passed by the states.

1926 Mencken Arrested For ‘Indecent Literature’

H.L. Mencken is arrested in Boston for distributing copies of his American Mercury magazine, which contains a story with a prostitute as a central character. Censorship groups in Boston say the magazine is obscene and order Mencken’s arrest for selling “indecent literature.”

1927 Criminal Syndicalism Law Constitutional

In Whitney v. California , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that California’s criminal syndicalism law is constitutional. A member of the state’s Communist Labor Party was prosecuted under the law, which barred advocating, teaching or aiding the commission of a crime, including “terrorism” as a way to achieve change in industrial ownership or political change. The Court says that freedom of speech is not an absolute right.

1931 Court: Symbolic Expression Of Ideas Also Protected

In Stromberg v. California , the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates the state court conviction of a 19-year-old member of the Young Communist League for displaying a red flag as “an emblem of opposition to the United States government.” The Court rules that the woman’s nonverbal, symbolic expression of her antigovernment opinions is protected just as are any words that she might write or speak to express those opinions.

1931 Prior Restraint Ruled Unconstitutional

Near v. Minnesota is the first U.S. Supreme Court decision to invoke the First Amendment’s press clause. A Minnesota law prohibited the publication of “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory” newspapers. It was aimed at the Saturday Press, which had run a series of articles about corrupt practices by local politicians and business leaders. The justices rule that prior restraints against publication violate the First Amendment, meaning that once the press possesses information that it deems newsworthy, the government can seldom prevent its publication. The Court also says the protection is not absolute, suggesting that information during wartime or obscenity or incitement to acts of violence may be restricted.

1937 Court: First Amendment Protects ‘Peaceable Assembly’

In De Jonge v. Oregon , the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the conviction of Dirk De Jonge for participating in a Communist Party political meeting, holding that “peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime.” That right, the Court finds, is not dependent upon whether one agrees with the ideas being discussed by the people assembled.

1940 Ban On Religious Solicitation Struck Down

In Cantwell v. Connecticut , the U.S. Supreme Court holds that two Jehovah Witnesses’ rights of free speech and free exercise of religion were violated when they were arrested for proselytizing in a Catholic neighborhood. The Court says the solicitation law, which allows a state official to refuse a permit based on religious grounds, is unconstitutional. The Court also overturns a breach of peace conviction, saying the pair’s message was protected religious speech. The case is the first to extend the free exercise of religion clause to the states and to establish the ‘time, manner and place’ rule, which says the state can regulate the free exercise right to ensure it is practiced in a reasonable time, manner and place.

1940 Flag Salute Requirement Is Upheld

In Minersville School District v. Gobitis , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a Pennsylvania flag-salute law after a challenge by a Jehovah’s Witness family whose two children were expelled for refusing to salute the flag. They believe the salute is forbidden by biblical commands. The Court says the flag is a symbol of national unity, which is the “basis of national security.”

1942 ‘Fighting Words’ Exception Established

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the conviction of a Jehovah’s Witness who had called a police officer a “damned fascist.” The Court rules that there are certain words that “by their very utterance inflict injury” and are of “such slight social value” that they are not welcome in the marketplace of ideas. This category of speech, named “fighting words” by the Court, is not protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, the speaker may be prosecuted.

1943 Court: Required Flag Salute Violates First Amendment

In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette , the U.S. Supreme Court overrules its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and decides that a West Virginia law requiring students to salute the American flag violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. “Compulsory unification of opinion,” the Court says, is “antithetical to First Amendment values.”

1947 Hatch Act Upheld; Dissent Says It Violates 17th Amendment

In United Public Workers v. Mitchell , the U.S. Supreme Court finds that the Hatch Act, a federal law that prohibits federal employees from participating in many electoral activities does not violate the First Amendment. In a strong dissent, Justice Hugo Black argues that the law muzzles several million citizens and threatens popular government, because it deprives citizens of the right to participate in the political process.

Such limitations, he argues, would be inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition. Moreover, Black finds that the Hatch Act would violate, or come dangerously close to violating, Article I and the 17th Amendment, which protect the right of the people to vote for their representatives in the House and Senate and to have their votes counted.

1949 Scope Of ‘Fighting Words’ Doctrine Limited

In Terminiello v. Chicago , the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the conviction of Father Arthur Terminiello for disturbing the peace. He was convicted after giving a controversial speech that criticized various racial and political groups. Several disturbances by protesters occurred after the speech. The Court says “fighting words” can be restricted only when they are “likely to produce a clear and present danger.” Justice William O. Douglas writes that free speech may “best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”

1952 Justices Uphold Group Libel Law

In Beauharnais v. Illinois , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the conviction of a white supremacist for passing out leaflets that characterized African Americans as dangerous criminals. The “group libel” law under which Joseph Beauharnais was prosecuted makes it a crime to make false statements about people of a particular “race, color, creed or religion” for no other reason than to harm that group. The Court rules that libel against groups, like libel against individuals, has no place in the marketplace of ideas.

1957 Obscenity Exception To First Amendment Established

In Roth v. United States , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that it is not a violation of the First Amendment for the government to regulate, or even criminalize, speech that is “obscene,” because, just like libel and “fighting words,” obscene speech is “utterly without redeeming social importance.” The Court says that in defining obscenity, the government must consider “contemporary community standards.” What was “obscene” 50 years ago may not be in today’s society.

1958 Court Protects ‘Free Association’ In NAACP Case

In NAACP v. Alabama , the U.S. Supreme Court holds that when Alabama state officials demanded that the NAACP hand over its membership list, the members’ right of “free association” was violated. Although no such right is specifically included in the First Amendment, the Court says it is a necessary extension of the rights to free speech and free assembly: “It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.”

1959 No Protection From Congressional Inquiry

The U.S. Supreme Court finds professor Lloyd Barenblatt’s First Amendment rights were not violated when he was convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about his religious and political beliefs before the House Un-American Activities Committee. In Barenblatt v. United States , the Court says that such questions are legitimate when the investigation’s goal is to “aid the legislative process” and to protect important government interests.

1961 Symbolic Speech Of Civil Rights Protesters Protected

In Garner v. Louisiana , the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the convictions of 16 African American demonstrators for disturbing the peace in three lunch counter sit-ins at all-white restaurants in Baton Rouge, La., to protest segregation. The cases were consolidated under Garner v. Louisiana. Referring to earlier court opinions protecting symbolic speech, Justice John Harlan explains that a sit-in demonstration “is as much a part of the free trade of ideas as is verbal expression.”

1964 Court Establishes ‘Actual Malice’ Standard

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , the U.S. Supreme Court establishes the “actual malice” standard when it reverses a civil libel judgment against the New York Times. The newspaper was sued for libel by Montgomery, Ala.’s police commissioner after it published a full-page ad that criticized anti-civil rights activities in Montgomery. The court rules that debate about public issues and officials is central to the First Amendment. Consequently, public officials cannot sue for libel unless they prove that a statement was made with “actual malice,” meaning it was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

1966 Loyalty Oath Is Struck Down

In Elfbrandt v. Russell , the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates an Arizona law requiring state employees to take a loyalty oath. Anyone who took the oath and then became a member of the Communist Party or any other group that advocated the violent overthrow of the government could be prosecuted for perjury and fired. The Court says the law violates the due process clause by infringing on the right of free association. The Court holds that the law is too broad by punishing a person who joins a group that has both legal and illegal purposes but does not subscribe to the illegal purpose.

1966 Smith Act Is Found Constitutional

In Dennis v. United States , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the convictions of 12 Communist Party leaders who were convicted under the Smith Act of 1940, formally known as the Alien Registration Act. The law makes it illegal to teach or advocate the overthrow or destruction of the U.S. government, or publish any materials or organize a group that endorses such action. The majority writes that the “existence of the conspiracy” creates “a clear and present danger.”

1968 Limits Placed On Symbolic Speech Right

In United States v. O’Brien , the U.S. Supreme Court lets stand the conviction of an activist who burned his draft card to protest the Vietnam War. Although the Court admits that the law against destroying a draft card does limit speech, it rules that the limit is acceptable because it serves an important government interest (i.e., the smooth operation of the draft during wartime) and is “content-neutral,” meaning that it is not meant to punish any particular point of view or opinion.

1968 Teacher’s Free Speech Right Upheld

The U.S. Supreme Court decides that a public school teacher’s free speech right was violated when he was fired for writing a letter to the newspaper criticizing how money was divided between athletics and academics. The justices say in Pickering v. Board of Education that public school teachers are entitled to some First Amendment protection and that the teacher was speaking out more as a citizen than as a public employee when he wrote the letter.

1969 Students’ Right To Symbolic Speech Upheld

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the school board was wrong to suspend three students who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The Court finds that the students’ passive protest posed no risk of disrupting school activities. “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” the Court’s opinion says.

1969 Private Ownership Of Obscene Material Protected

In Stanley v. Georgia , the U.S. Supreme Court finds unconstitutional a Georgia obscenity law that prohibits the possession of such material. The Court rules that the Constitution “protects the right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, and to be generally free from governmental intrusions into one’s privacy and control of one’s thoughts.”

1969 Advocacy Of Violence Is Protected Speech Except In Rare Circumstances

In Brandenburg v. Ohio , the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader under an Ohio law prohibiting speech that calls for crime or violence as a way of winning political change. The Court holds that unless the speaker incites his listeners to “imminent lawless action,” the speech is protected by the First Amendment.

1971 Antiwar Expression Is Ruled Protected Speech

In Cohen v. California , the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the conviction of a man convicted of disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket bearing a vulgarism about the draft. The Court concludes that the expression, however crude, did not pose enough of a risk of inciting disobedience to override his First Amendment right to express his opposition to the Vietnam War.

1971 Newspapers Win Pentagon Papers Case

The New York Times and the Washington Post obtain secret Defense Department documents that detail U.S. involvement in Vietnam in the years leading up to the Vietnam War. Citing national security, the U.S. government gets temporary restraining orders to halt publication of the documents, known as the Pentagon Papers. But, acting with unusual haste, the U.S. Supreme Court finds in New York Times v. United States that prior restraint on the documents’ publication violates the First Amendment. National security concerns are too speculative to overcome the “heavy presumption” in favor of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press, the Court says.

1972 Court: No Reporter’s Privilege Before Grand Juries

Branzburg v. Hayes is a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court rejects First Amendment protection for reporters called before a grand jury to reveal confidential information or sources. Reporters argued that if they were forced to identify their sources, their informants would be reluctant to provide information in the future. The Court decides reporters are obliged to cooperate with grand juries just as average citizens are. The justices do allow a small exception for grand jury investigations that are not conducted or initiated in good faith.

1973 Court: States Can Regulate Obscene Exhibits

In Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a Georgia injunction against the showing of allegedly obscene films at an adult movie theater that allowed only patrons at least 21 years old. The Court finds that “legitimate state interests,” such as preserving quality of life and public safety, are at stake in regulating commercialized obscenity even if the exhibits are limited to consenting adults.

1973 Definition Of Obscenity Is Clarified

In Miller v. California , the U.S. Supreme Court establishes a new definition of obscenity, setting out a three-part test for judging whether material is obscene: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

1976 Money Spent In Political Campaigns Considered Speech

When Congress tries to limit expenditures in political campaigns, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo , invalidates provisions that restrict candidates’ ability to spend their own money on a campaign, limit campaign expenditures by an outside group, and limit total campaign spending. The Court compares spending restrictions with restrictions on “political speech.” The majority reasons that discussion of public issues and political candidates are integral to the U.S. political system under the Constitution. The Court says government-imposed limits on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication reduces “the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.”

1976 Justices Protect Commercial Speech

In Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council , the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a state law that forbids pharmacists from including the prices of prescription drugs in their ads because it is unprofessional conduct. Although such information does not convey an idea other than proposing that a purchase be made, the Court finds that commercial speech enjoys the same First Amendment protection as noncommercial speech.

1977 Court Allows Publication Of Juvenile’s Identity

In Oklahoma Publishing Company v. District Court , the U.S. Supreme Court finds that when a newspaper obtains the name and photograph of a juvenile involved in a juvenile court proceeding, it is unconstitutional to prevent publication of the information, even though the juvenile has a right to confidentiality in such proceedings. A similar ruling will be made by the court two years later, in Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Company , when the Court finds that a newspaper’s First Amendment right takes precedence over a juvenile’s right to anonymity.

1978 Nazis Permitted To March In Skokie, Ill.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidates a city law passed in Skokie, Ill., home to 5,000 Holocaust survivors, to prevent a neo-Nazi group from holding a march there. The Court rules in Collin v. Smith that the group should be permitted to march in their uniforms, distribute anti-Semitic leaflets and display swastikas. The court does not deny the group’s symbols are offensive to many observers, but concludes that “public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.” The U.S. Supreme Court will refuse to review the case.

1978 FCC Can Regulate Indecent Speech

The U.S. Supreme Court, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation , allows the Federal Communications Commission to regulate indecent speech broadcast over the air. The Court says the FCC can channel broadcasts that contain indecent language to late-night hours, when children are less likely to be listening.

1980 Court Establishes Commercial Speech Test

In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that a state ban on promotional advertising by the electric utility is unconstitutional. The ruling sets up a four-part test to decide when commercial speech can or cannot be regulated: (1) It must not be misleading or involve illegal activity (2) The government interest advanced by the regulation must be significant (3) The regulation must directly advance the government interest (4) The regulation must be limited to serving the asserted government interest.

1982 School Board Cannot Ban Library Books

In Board of Education v. Pico , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a school board’s decision to remove books from the school library based simply on their content violates the First Amendment’s free speech right. The Court says the First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas. The justices allow that books that are “pervasively vulgar” or educationally unsuitable can be removed.

1982 Justices Rule Child Porn Not Protected

In New York v. Ferber , the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the First Amendment does not protect child pornography. Child pornography joins certain categories of speech – libel, “fighting words,” words that present a “clear and present danger” of violence, and obscene material – that are considered to have such negative consequences that it is acceptable for the government to restrict them.

1983 Public Employees’ Free Speech Right Defined

In Connick v. Myers , a landmark free-speech ruling for public employees, the U.S. Supreme Court says that an assistant district attorney’s free speech right was not violated when she was fired for distributing a questionnaire about internal office practices to fellow prosecutors. At least one of Myers’ questions related to a matter of public concern: whether assistant prosecutors felt pressured to work in political campaigns. But, relying on its 1968 Pickering ruling, the Court decides that the employer’s interest in a disruption-free workplace outweighs the employee’s right to comment on an issue of public concern.

1985 Anti-Pornography Law Is Struck Down

In American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut , the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down an Indianapolis anti-pornography law. The law had not used the court’s guidelines for deciding what is “obscene” material. The court finds that the law unconstitutionally targeted a certain viewpoint and allowed the government to decide which ideas are good or bad.

1986 Court: Student’s Lewd Speech Not Protected

In Bethel School District v. Fraser , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that a high school senior’s free speech right was not violated when he was disciplined for making a lewd speech at an assembly. Previously, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , the justices had said students do not “shed their constitutional rights” at the schoolhouse door. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger writes that schools can prohibit lewd speech because it is inconsistent with the “fundamental values of public school education.”

1988 Court Allows Censorship Of School Publications

In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that public school administrators can censor speech by students in publications (or activities) that are funded by the school – such as a yearbook, newspaper, play, or art exhibit – if they have a valid educational reason for doing so.

1989 Court: Flag Burning Is Protected Symbolic Speech

In Texas v. Johnson , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that burning an American flag is protected symbolic speech. Gregory Lee Johnson burned the flag outside Dallas City Hall to protest Reagan administration policies. The justices find that his actions fall into the category of expressive conduct and have a political nature. Speech cannot be prohibited simply because an audience takes offense to certain ideas, the Court says.

1990 Flag Protection Act Ruled Unconstitutional

In U.S. v. Eichman , the U.S. Supreme Court decides that the 1989 Flag Protection Act is unconstitutional. The law provided penalties of up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for anyone who “knowingly mutilates, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon” any U.S. flag. The justices rule that the right to free expression supersedes protection of the flag as a national symbol. Justice William J. Brennan writes: “Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.”

1991 Media Coverage Limited In Gulf War

The Pentagon imposes rules for media coverage of the war in the Persian Gulf, citing the possibility that some news – including information on downed aircrafts, specific troop numbers, and names of operations – may endanger lives or jeopardize U.S. military strategy. Nine news organizations file a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of limiting media access to the battleground. But a court rules the question moot when the war ends before the case is decided.

1991 Son Of Sam Law Is Struck Down

The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down New York’s Son of Sam law aimed at preventing convicted criminals or those accused of crimes from profiting from the sale of any work discussing their crimes. In Simon & Schuster Inc. v. New York State Crime Victims Board , the Court says the law violates the First Amendment because it singles out earnings from speech or writing.

1992 Court Strikes Down Hate Crime Law

In R.A.V. v. The City of St. Paul , the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the juvenile conviction of a 14-year-old white boy who burned a cross on the lawn of an African American family. The boy was prosecuted under a law prohibiting the placement of certain symbols that were “likely to arouse anger, alarm, or resentment on the basis of race, religion, or gender.” The Court finds that because the law punishes certain conduct only because of the ideas behind it – however offensive those ideas may be – it violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

1993 Justices Allow Tougher Hate Crime Penalties

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a Wisconsin law that increases the penalty for assault if the offender purposely picks his victim “because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation or national origin or ancestry of that person.” The Court rules that the increased penalty does not violate the offender’s free speech rights because the Wisconsin law is aimed at the offender’s actions.

1994 Justices Uphold Buffer Zones At Abortion Clinics

In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center , the U.S. Supreme Court affirms a Florida court’s ruling that abortion protesters could not demonstrate within 36 feet of an abortion clinic, make loud noises within earshot of the clinic, or make loud noises within 300 feet of a clinic employee’s home. (These distance requirements are known as buffer zones.) Although the Court acknowledges that the ruling restricts the protesters’ speech, it finds the restrictions “necessary to serve a significant government interest” of providing needed health care.

1995 Communications Decency Act Passed

As part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress enacts the Communications Decency Act. The law is intended primarily to protect minors using the internet by criminalizing the placement of “obscene” and “patently offensive” material on the Web. The Communications Decency Act is almost immediately challenged by a diverse coalition of health-care providers, sex educators and pornographers on the grounds that the law violates the right to free speech.

1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act Passed

The Child Pornography Prevention Act expands the definition of child pornography – which, unlike most pornography involving adult subjects, does not enjoy First Amendment protection and can be criminalized – to include computer-generated depictions of children engaging in sexual activity. The act is challenged on First Amendment grounds by a variety of civil liberties and artistic groups.

1997 ‘Floating’ Buffer Zones At Clinics Struck Down

In Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a 15-foot buffer zone around an abortion clinic’s entrances and driveways, but strikes down a “floating” buffer zone that requires protesters to stay 15 feet away from all cars and patients as they enter and exit the clinic. The Court finds that, in contrast to the “fixed” buffer zone around the clinic, the “floating” zone risks silencing protesters: “Leafletting and commenting on matters of public concern are classic forms of speech that lie at the heart of the First Amendment, and speech in public areas is at its most protected on public sidewalks, a prototypical example of a traditional public forum.”

1997 Equal Access For Military Recruiters Is Upheld

The Solomon Amendment requires institutions of higher education to provide military recruiters with the same access to students as other potential employers. If the school does not, it loses certain federal funds. Members of an association of law schools and law faculties wanted to restrict military recruiting because they objected to the military’s policy on LGBT+ recruits. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously says that the Solomon Amendment does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds. The Court says the First Amendment does not prevent Congress from directly imposing the equal access requirement because the Solomon Amendment limits conduct, not speech.

1997 Court Ruling Backs Free Speech On Internet

In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union , the U.S. Supreme Court gives broad support to free speech on the Internet. The justices rule that the Communications Decency Act violates the First Amendment by criminalizing many kinds of material on the internet that are not obscene or offensive, such as medical information or artistic depictions of the human body.

1998 Court: Public TV Can Exclude Candidates

The U.S. Supreme Court decides that public television stations can exclude minor-party candidates from their debates as long as the decision is not based on the candidates’ views and the debates are not designed as public forums. The decision, in Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes , strikes down an appeals court ruling that a state-owned TV network is obliged under the First Amendment to allow any candidate who has qualified for the ballot access to a debate.

1998 Decency Test On Arts Grants Is Upheld

In National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the NEA, the government’s art-funding agency, can include “decency” standards among its criteria for awarding government grants for artists’ work without violating the First Amendment.

1999 Giuliani Targets Publicly Funded Art

Infuriated by a planned exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art that features an image of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani threatens to cut all city funding to the museum, evict the museum from its building, and remove the Board of Directors. A subsequent First Amendment lawsuit between the museum and the city will be settled the following year, with the city agreeing to pay an additional $5.8 million in repairs to the museum over the next two years.

2000 Boy Scouts Can Bar LGBT+ Leaders

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale , the U.S. Supreme Court says the Boy Scouts organization has the right to bar gay people from serving as troop leaders. Assistant scoutmaster James Dale contended that the Boy Scouts had violated a New Jersey statute banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The justices said the law violated the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right to expressive association.

2000 Court Revisits ‘Floating’ Buffer Zones At Clinics

In Hill v. Colorado , the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a Colorado law that prohibits abortion protesters from “knowingly approaching” within eight feet of a person entering or exiting an abortion clinic. The Court says that, unlike the “floating” 15-foot buffer zone that it struck down in Schenck , the buffer zone in the Colorado law is small, so protesters are still able to exercise their free speech right.

2000 Children’s Internet Protection Act Passed

Congress passes the Children’s Internet Protection Act. The law requires public libraries that receive certain federal funds to use a portion of those funds to buy internet programs for their computer terminals to filter out material that is “harmful to minors.” The American Library Association and the ACLU both bring lawsuits challenging the law on First Amendment grounds.

2002 Ban On ‘Virtual’ Child Porn Struck Down

In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Child Pornography Prevention Act’s criminalization of computer-generated depictions of children engaging in sexual activity violates the First Amendment. The Court finds that the law goes further than existing child pornography laws (which ban material involving actual children) to potentially cover many kinds of images that are not pornographic.

2003 Law To Protect Children Passed

The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act, or the PROTECT Act, includes numerous provisions intended to protect children from exploitation, kidnapping, and other crimes. It increases penalties for creating child pornography and strengthens penalties for “virtual” child pornography. Modern technology makes it easier for individuals to produce child pornography without involving “real” children. This law takes steps to prevent that practice. The law also encourages increased cooperation of internet service providers to report suspected child pornography.

2003 Court Rules On Cross-Burning Law

In Virginia v. Black , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a law prohibiting cross burning could, in theory, be allowed under the First Amendment if it targets only cross burnings that are specifically “intended to intimidate.” Nevertheless, the Court strikes down the Virginia law because it outlaws all cross burnings, including those intended to express a political view.

2003 Law On Library Internet Filters Upheld

In United States v. American Library Association , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000, requiring public libraries that receive certain federal funds to buy internet filters for their computers to weed out material that is “harmful to minors,” does not violate the First Amendment. The Court says that Congress has broad authority to attach restrictions to its funding, and that the CIPA restrictions are consistent with library rules that limit children’s access to only age-appropriate materials. The Court says that libraries are allowed to disable the “blocking” software for adults.

2003 Justices Uphold Campaign Finance Law

The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold Bill, is an effort to change the way money is raised and spent by political campaigns. Key parts are a ban on unrestricted (“soft money”) donations to political parties (often by corporations and unions) and restrictions on TV ads sponsored by unions, corporations and nonprofit groups up to 60 days before elections. The plaintiffs, including unlikely allies such as the National Rifle Association and the ACLU, say these provisions violate their rights to free speech and association. The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the provisions, finding that they are justified by the government’s interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption that might result.

2004 Child Online Protection Act Struck Down

After the Child Online Protection Act became law, the ACLU sued to stop its enforcement, saying the law violated the right to free speech. The U.S. District Court and the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both agree with the ACLU. In 2002, however, the U.S. Supreme Court orders the Third Circuit to reevaluate the case, saying the decision was based on insufficient reasoning.

In 2003, the appeals court again finds the law unconstitutional, based on different grounds from the first ruling. The justices agree to rehear the case and, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , strike down the law. Justice Anthony Kennedy writes that children can be protected from inappropriate material by other, less restrictive ways and that the law could prevent adults from accessing information they have a right to view.

2004 Patriot Act Provision Ruled Unconstitutional

A federal judge for the Southern District of New York rules unconstitutional a Patriot Act provision that allows the FBI to demand information about internet users but does not hold the FBI subject to public review or judicial oversight for its actions. The provision also forbids internet service providers from revealing that such information has been requested. Judge Victor Marrero rules that this provision violates the free speech right by prohibiting internet service providers from ever speaking about such FBI requests.

2006 Court Rejects Vermont Campaign Finance Law

Vermont’s Act 64 stringently limits the amounts that candidates for state office may spend on their campaigns and the amounts that individuals, organizations, and political parties may contribute. In Randall v. Sorrell , the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirms its 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo that rejected limits on how much candidates could spend on their own campaigns. Regarding Vermont’s contribution limits, the Court says they are so low that they pose a constitutional risk to the electoral process. Challengers may be unable to mount an effective challenge to better-financed incumbents.

2007 Court Strikes Down Ad Limits In Campaign Law

The U.S. Supreme Court creates an exemption to advertisement restrictions set out in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life , Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writes that only ads that make specific appeals to vote for or against a candidate can be prohibited in the period covered by the law – 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election. The Court says limits on TV ads sponsored by corporations or unions in that period amount to censorship of political speech, which is protected under the First Amendment.

2007 Justices Restrict Students’ Free Speech Right

In Morse v. Frederick , the U.S. Supreme Court affirms that free speech rights for public school students are not as extensive as those for adults. In this case, a student held up a banner with the message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” a slang reference to marijuana use, at a school-supervised event across from the campus. The principal removed the banner and suspended the student for 10 days. The majority opinion says that although students have some right to political speech, it does not include pro-drug messages that may undermine the school’s mission to educate against illegal drug use.

2009 City’s Refusal Of Religious Monument Upheld

The U.S. Supreme Court decides unanimously in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum that a Utah city did not violate the Summum church’s free speech right by refusing a donation of a monument reflecting its beliefs. The church argued that the park, which had a Ten Commandments monument, was a public forum and that the city could not discriminate among speakers. The Court said permanent monuments were government speech and did not have the same free speech protection as speakers or leaflets in a public forum.

2010 Court Lifts Limits On Corporate Election Spending

In Citizens United v. FEC , the U.S. Supreme Court rules, 5-4, to remove limits on corporate spending on elections. Corporations and unions still cannot directly give money to federal candidates or national party committees. The majority opinion says the First Amendment right of free speech extended to corporations. The landmark decision overturns decades of rules that governed the campaign finance and sparked fears that a flood of money into politics would dramatically alter campaigns.

2010 Corporate Spending Limit Rejected

The U.S. Supreme Court decides, 5-4, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , that the government cannot regulate political speech — political spending — by corporations in elections. “If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writes for the majority, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” The dissenters warn of the consequences if a flood of corporate money is unleashed in elections. Justice John Paul Stevens says corporate speech should not be treated the same as that of people. The ruling overturns two precedents about the free speech rights of corporations: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , a 1990 ruling that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission , a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

2011 First Amendment Protects Funeral Protests

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.” Those are Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s words when the Supreme Court rules in Snyder v. Phelps that the First Amendment’s right to free speech protects hateful protests at military funerals. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church — which believes God is punishing the U.S. for its tolerance of homosexuality — had appeared at the funeral of a Marine who died in Iraq. Albert Snyder, the Marine’s father, sued the protesters for, among other things, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Roberts suggests that laws creating buffer zones around funerals would be a better response than punishing unpopular speech. He says that the nation’s commitment to free speech demands protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

2012 Person’s Right To Lie Is Protected

The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Stolen Valor Act, a federal law that made it illegal for individuals to claim to have won or to wear military medals or ribbons that they didn’t earn. The Court, in a 6-3 ruling, says that the First Amendment protects the right to lie about medals and military service. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy says freedom of speech “protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.” The government had argued that such lies “inhibit the government’s efforts to ensure that the armed services and the public perceive awards as going only to the most deserving few.”

2012 U.S. Can’t Require Graphic Warnings On Cigarette Packs

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rules that the federal Food and Drug Administration cannot require tobacco companies to place large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages to show the effects of smoking. The appeals court upholds a lower court’s decision that the requirement violates the First Amendment’s free speech right. Some of the largest tobacco companies sued the government, arguing that the warnings were not just factual information but advocated against smoking.

2015 States May Limit Judicial Candidates’ Fund-Raising Requests

The U.S. Supreme Court rules, 5-4, in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar , No. 13-1499 that states may ban judicial candidates from personally asking their supporters for money. Twenty-nine other states also prohibit personal solicitations, which they say threaten the integrity of the judicial branch and public confidence in the system.

2015 Intent Cited in Online Threats Case

In a social media case, Elonis v. United States , the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who had used violent language against his wife on Facebook. The majority opinion says prosecutors failed to prove the defendant’s intent when he published threatening lyrics about his wife on Facebook. The decision makes it harder to prosecute people for threats made on social media.

2015 Court Says Texas May Reject License Plate Design

The U.S. Supreme Court decides in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. , 5-4, that Texas may refuse to make a specialty license plate with the Confederate flag. The Sons of Confederate Veterans sued the state when it refused to make such a plate. The group said its First Amendment right to free speech had been violated. The majority opinion says that because license plates “constitute government speech,” Texas could choose which designs to produce.

2015 Town Ordinance On Signs Struck Down

In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously strikes down a town law that treated a church’s signs differently from other signs, such as political ads. Unlike other signs, the church signs were limited in size and allowed to be in place for only a certain number of house. The majority opinion says that the town ordinance was based on the content of the sign’s message, which violates the First Amendment’s free speech right.

2019 Federal Ban on ‘Immoral,’ ‘Scandalous’ Trademarks Struck Down

The U.S. Supreme Court rules, 6-3, that the federal government’s ban on registering “immoral” and “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. The dissenters express concern that the majority opinion goes too far and that the trademark office would be forced to register trademarks containing “the most vulgar, profane, or obscene words and images imaginable.” In the case, Iancu v. Brunetti, a Los Angeles artist, Erik Brunetti, sued the government for refusing to register the trademark for his “subversive” clothing line.

2021 Court Backs Catholic Agency Over Refusal To Work With Same-Sex Couples

The U.S. Supreme Court sides with a Catholic foster care agency that was cut off by the City of Philadelphia from receiving foster care referrals because it refused to work with same-sex couples. The agency believes marriage is between a man and a woman. The Court unanimously rules in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia that the city was wrong to end its foster care contract with Catholic Social Services. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for six of the justices, said the city’s refusal to contract with the foster care agency unless it agreed to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violated the First Amendment.

2021 Court Sides With Cheerleader In Off-Campus Speech

The U.S. Supreme Court rules 8-1 in Mahony Area School District v. B.L. in favor of a Pennsylvania cheerleader who lost her place on the squad because of a profane off-campus rant posted on social media. Although the Court said the punishment violated her First Amendment right of free speech, it declined to say schools never have a role in disciplining students for off-campus speech.

2022 Censure of Politician Is Constitutional, High Court Says

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decides in House Community College System v. Wilson that elected bodies do not violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause when they censure a member. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote: “In this country, we expect elected representatives to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers — and to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes.”

2022 High Court Rules Against Boston On Christian Flag

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules in Shurtleff v. City of Boston that the City of Boston violated the First Amendment when it refused to let a private group raise a Christian flag in front of its City Hall. One of three flagpoles is occasionally made available to groups seeking to celebrate their backgrounds or to promote causes like gay pride. In a 12-year period, the city approved 284 requests to raise flags and rejected only one, from Camp Constitution, which says it seeks “to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage.” The city’s refusal to let the group fly its flag based on its religious viewpoint violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment, the majority opinion said.

Related Resources

• Book: First Amendment (1791)
• Handout: Freedom of Speech: Finding the Limits
• Book: Chapter 6: The Right to Freedom of Speech
• Video: A Conversation on the Constitution with Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor: Freedom of Speech
• Book: Chapter 8: The Latitude and Limits of Free Speech
• Book: Chapter 10: The Flag-Salute Cases
• Book: Chapter 18: Freedom of Speech in Public Schools

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Freedom of Speech

[ Editor’s Note: The following new entry by Jeffrey W. Howard replaces the former entry on this topic by the previous author. ]

Human beings have significant interests in communicating what they think to others, and in listening to what others have to say. These interests make it difficult to justify coercive restrictions on people’s communications, plausibly grounding a moral right to speak (and listen) to others that is properly protected by law. That there ought to be such legal protections for speech is uncontroversial among political and legal philosophers. But disagreement arises when we turn to the details. What are the interests or values that justify this presumption against restricting speech? And what, if anything, counts as an adequate justification for overcoming the presumption? This entry is chiefly concerned with exploring the philosophical literature on these questions.

The entry begins by distinguishing different ideas to which the term “freedom of speech” can refer. It then reviews the variety of concerns taken to justify freedom of speech. Next, the entry considers the proper limits of freedom of speech, cataloging different views on when and why restrictions on communication can be morally justified, and what considerations are relevant when evaluating restrictions. Finally, it considers the role of speech intermediaries in a philosophical analysis of freedom of speech, with special attention to internet platforms.

1. What is Freedom of Speech?

2.1 listener theories, 2.2 speaker theories, 2.3 democracy theories, 2.4 thinker theories, 2.5 toleration theories, 2.6 instrumental theories: political abuse and slippery slopes, 2.7 free speech skepticism, 3.1 absoluteness, coverage, and protection, 3.2 the limits of free speech: external constraints, 3.3 the limits of free speech: internal constraints, 3.4 proportionality: chilling effects and political abuse, 3.5 necessity: the counter-speech alternative, 4. the future of free speech theory: platform ethics, other internet resources, related entries.

In the philosophical literature, the terms “freedom of speech”, “free speech”, “freedom of expression”, and “freedom of communication” are mostly used equivalently. This entry will follow that convention, notwithstanding the fact that these formulations evoke subtly different phenomena. For example, it is widely understood that artistic expressions, such as dancing and painting, fall within the ambit of this freedom, even though they don’t straightforwardly seem to qualify as speech , which intuitively connotes some kind of linguistic utterance (see Tushnet, Chen, & Blocher 2017 for discussion). Still, they plainly qualify as communicative activity, conveying some kind of message, however vague or open to interpretation it may be.

Yet the extension of “free speech” is not fruitfully specified through conceptual analysis alone. The quest to distinguish speech from conduct, for the purpose of excluding the latter from protection, is notoriously thorny (Fish 1994: 106), despite some notable attempts (such as Greenawalt 1989: 58ff). As John Hart Ely writes concerning Vietnam War protesters who incinerated their draft cards, such activity is “100% action and 100% expression” (1975: 1495). It is only once we understand why we should care about free speech in the first place—the values it instantiates or serves—that we can evaluate whether a law banning the burning of draft cards (or whatever else) violates free speech. It is the task of a normative conception of free speech to offer an account of the values at stake, which in turn can illuminate the kinds of activities wherein those values are realized, and the kinds of restrictions that manifest hostility to those values. For example, if free speech is justified by the value of respecting citizens’ prerogative to hear many points of view and to make up their own minds, then banning the burning of draft cards to limit the views to which citizens will be exposed is manifestly incompatible with that purpose. If, in contrast, such activity is banned as part of a generally applied ordinance restricting fires in public, it would likely raise no free-speech concerns. (For a recent analysis of this issue, see Kramer 2021: 25ff).

Accordingly, the next section discusses different conceptions of free speech that arise in the philosophical literature, each oriented to some underlying moral or political value. Before turning to the discussion of those conceptions, some further preliminary distinctions will be useful.

First, we can distinguish between the morality of free speech and the law of free speech. In political philosophy, one standard approach is to theorize free speech as a requirement of morality, tracing the implications of such a theory for law and policy. Note that while this is the order of justification, it need not be the order of investigation; it is perfectly sensible to begin by studying an existing legal protection for speech (such as the First Amendment in the U.S.) and then asking what could justify such a protection (or something like it).

But of course morality and law can diverge. The most obvious way they can diverge is when the law is unjust. Existing legal protections for speech, embodied in the positive law of particular jurisdictions, may be misguided in various ways. In other words, a justified legal right to free speech, and the actual legal right to free speech in the positive law of a particular jurisdiction, can come apart. In some cases, positive legal rights might protect too little speech. For example, some jurisdictions’ speech laws make exceptions for blasphemy, such that criminalizing blasphemy does not breach the legal right to free speech within that legal system. But clearly one could argue that a justified legal right to free speech would not include any such exception. In other cases, positive legal rights might perhaps protect too much speech. Consider the fact that, as a matter of U.S. constitutional precedent, the First Amendment broadly protects speech that expresses or incites racial or religious hatred. Plainly we could agree that this is so as a matter of positive law while disagreeing about whether it ought to be so. (This is most straightforwardly true if we are legal positivists. These distinctions are muddied by moralistic theories of constitutional interpretation, which enjoin us to interpret positive legal rights in a constitutional text partly through the prism of our favorite normative political theory; see Dworkin 1996.)

Second, we can distinguish rights-based theories of free speech from non-rights-based theories. For many liberals, the legal right to free speech is justified by appealing to an underlying moral right to free speech, understood as a natural right held by all persons. (Some use the term human right equivalently—e.g., Alexander 2005—though the appropriate usage of that term is contested.) The operative notion of a moral right here is that of a claim-right (to invoke the influential analysis of Hohfeld 1917); it thereby correlates to moral duties held by others (paradigmatically, the state) to respect or protect the right. Such a right is natural in that it exerts normative force independently of whether anyone thinks it does, and regardless of whether it is codified into the law. A tyrannical state that imprisons dissidents acts unjustly, violating moral rights, even if there is no legal right to freedom of expression in its legal system.

For others, the underlying moral justification for free speech law need not come in the form of a natural moral right. For example, consequentialists might favor a legal right to free speech (on, e.g., welfare-maximizing grounds) without thinking that it tracks any underlying natural right. Or consider democratic theorists who have defended legal protections for free speech as central to democracy. Such theorists may think there is an underlying natural moral right to free speech, but they need not (especially if they hold an instrumental justification for democracy). Or consider deontologists who have argued that free speech functions as a kind of side-constraint on legitimate state action, requiring that the state always justify its decisions in a manner that respects citizens’ autonomy (Scanlon 1972). This theory does not cast free speech as a right, but rather as a principle that forbids the creation of laws that restrict speech on certain grounds. In the Hohfeldian analysis (Hohfeld 1917), such a principle may be understood as an immunity rather than a claim-right (Scanlon 2013: 402). Finally, some “minimalists” (to use a designation in Cohen 1993) favor legal protection for speech principally in response to government malice, corruption, and incompetence (see Schauer 1982; Epstein 1992; Leiter 2016). Such theorists need not recognize any fundamental moral right, either.

Third, among those who do ground free speech in a natural moral right, there is scope for disagreement about how tightly the law should mirror that right (as with any right; see Buchanan 2013). It is an open question what the precise legal codification of the moral right to free speech should involve. A justified legal right to freedom of speech may not mirror the precise contours of the natural moral right to freedom of speech. A raft of instrumental concerns enters the downstream analysis of what any justified legal right should look like; hence a defensible legal right to free speech may protect more speech (or indeed less speech) than the underlying moral right that justifies it. For example, even if the moral right to free speech does not protect so-called hate speech, such speech may still merit legal protection in the final analysis (say, because it would be too risky to entrust states with the power to limit those communications).

2. Justifying Free Speech

I will now examine several of the morally significant considerations taken to justify freedom of expression. Note that while many theorists have built whole conceptions of free speech out of a single interest or value alone, pluralism in this domain remains an option. It may well be that a plurality of interests serves to justify freedom of expression, properly understood (see, influentially, Emerson 1970 and Cohen 1993).

Suppose a state bans certain books on the grounds that it does not want us to hear the messages or arguments contained within them. Such censorship seems to involve some kind of insult or disrespect to citizens—treating us like children instead of adults who have a right to make up our own minds. This insight is fundamental in the free speech tradition. On this view, the state wrongs citizens by arrogating to itself the authority to decide what messages they ought to hear. That is so even if the state thinks that the speech will cause harm. As one author puts it,

the government may not suppress speech on the ground that the speech is likely to persuade people to do something that the government considers harmful. (Strauss 1991: 335)

Why are restrictions on persuasive speech objectionable? For some scholars, the relevant wrong here is a form of disrespect for citizens’ basic capacities (Dworkin 1996: 200; Nagel 2002: 44). For others, the wrong here inheres in a violation of the kind of relationship the state should have with its people: namely, that it should always act from a view of them as autonomous, and so entitled to make up their own minds (Scanlon 1972). It would simply be incompatible with a view of ourselves as autonomous—as authors of our own lives and choices—to grant the state the authority to pre-screen which opinions, arguments, and perspectives we should be allowed to think through, allowing us access only to those of which it approves.

This position is especially well-suited to justify some central doctrines of First Amendment jurisprudence. First, it justifies the claim that freedom of expression especially implicates the purposes with which the state acts. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why the state might restrict speech (so-called “time, place, and manner” restrictions)—for example, noise curfews in residential neighborhoods, which do not raise serious free speech concerns. Yet when the state restricts speech with the purpose of manipulating the communicative environment and controlling the views to which citizens are exposed, free speech is directly affronted (Rubenfeld 2001; Alexander 2005; Kramer 2021). To be sure, purposes are not all that matter for free speech theory. For example, the chilling effects of otherwise justified speech regulations (discussed below) are seldom intended. But they undoubtedly matter.

Second, this view justifies the related doctrines of content neutrality and viewpoint neutrality (see G. Stone 1983 and 1987) . Content neutrality is violated when the state bans discussion of certain topics (“no discussion of abortion”), whereas viewpoint neutrality is violated when the state bans advocacy of certain views (“no pro-choice views may be expressed”). Both affront free speech, though viewpoint-discrimination is especially egregious and so even harder to justify. While listener autonomy theories are not the only theories that can ground these commitments, they are in a strong position to account for their plausibility. Note that while these doctrines are central to the American approach to free speech, they are less central to other states’ jurisprudence (see A. Stone 2017).

Third, this approach helps us see that free speech is potentially implicated whenever the state seeks to control our thoughts and the processes through which we form beliefs. Consider an attempt to ban Marx’s Capital . As Marx is deceased, he is probably not wronged through such censorship. But even if one held idiosyncratic views about posthumous rights, such that Marx were wronged, it would be curious to think this was the central objection to such censorship. Those with the gravest complaint would be the living adults who have the prerogative to read the book and make up their own minds about it. Indeed free speech may even be implicated if the state banned watching sunsets or playing video games on the grounds that is disapproved of the thoughts to which such experiences might give rise (Alexander 2005: 8–9; Kramer 2021: 22).

These arguments emphasize the noninstrumental imperative of respecting listener autonomy. But there is an instrumental version of the view. Our autonomy interests are not merely respected by free speech; they are promoted by an environment in which we learn what others have to say. Our interests in access to information is served by exposure to a wide range of viewpoints about both empirical and normative issues (Cohen 1993: 229), which help us reflect on what goals to choose and how best to pursue them. These informational interests are monumental. As Raz suggests, if we had to choose whether to express our own views on some question, or listen to the rest of humanity’s views on that question, we would choose the latter; it is our interest as listeners in the public good of a vibrant public discourse that, he thinks, centrally justifies free speech (1991).

Such an interest in acquiring justified beliefs, or in accessing truth, can be defended as part of a fully consequentialist political philosophy. J.S. Mill famously defends free speech instrumentally, appealing to its epistemic benefits in On Liberty . Mill believes that, given our fallibility, we should routinely keep an open mind as to whether a seemingly false view may actually be true, or at least contain some valuable grain of truth. And even where a proposition is manifestly false, there is value in allowing its expression so that we can better apprehend why we take it to be false (1859: chapter 2), enabled through discursive conflict (cf. Simpson 2021). Mill’s argument focuses especially on the benefits to audiences:

It is is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect. (1859: chapter 2, p. 94)

These views are sometimes associated with the idea of a “marketplace of ideas”, whereby the open clash of views inevitably leads to the correct ones winning out in debate. Few in the contemporary literature holds such a strong teleological thesis about the consequences of unrestricted debate (e.g., see Brietzke 1997; cf. Volokh 2011). Much evidence from behavioral economics and social psychology, as well as insights about epistemic injustice from feminist epistemology, strongly suggest that human beings’ rational powers are seriously limited. Smug confidence in the marketplace of ideas belies this. Yet it is doubtful that Mill held such a strong teleological thesis (Gordon 1997). Mill’s point was not that unrestricted discussion necessarily leads people to acquire the truth. Rather, it is simply the best mechanism available for ascertaining the truth, relative to alternatives in which some arbiter declares what he sees as true and suppresses what he sees as false (see also Leiter 2016).

Note that Mill’s views on free speech in chapter 2 in On Liberty are not simply the application of the general liberty principle defended in chapter 1 of that work; his view is not that speech is anodyne and therefore seldom runs afoul of the harm principle. The reason a separate argument is necessary in chapter 2 is precisely that he is carving out a partial qualification of the harm principle for speech (on this issue see Jacobson 2000, Schauer 2011b, and Turner 2014). On Mill’s view, plenty of harmful speech should still be allowed. Imminently dangerous speech, where there is no time for discussion before harm eventuates, may be restricted; but where there is time for discussion, it must be allowed. Hence Mill’s famous example that vociferous criticism of corn dealers as

starvers of the poor…ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer. (1859: chapter 3, p. 100)

The point is not that such speech is harmless; it’s that the instrumental benefits of permitting its expressions—and exposing its falsehood through public argument—justify the (remaining) costs.

Many authors have unsurprisingly argued that free speech is justified by our interests as speakers . This family of arguments emphasizes the role of speech in the development and exercise of our personal autonomy—our capacity to be the reflective authors of our own lives (Baker 1989; Redish 1982; Rawls 2005). Here an emphasis on freedom of expression is apt; we have an “expressive interest” (Cohen 1993: 224) in declaring our views—about the good life, about justice, about our identity, and about other aspects of the truth as we see it.

Our interests in self-expression may not always depend on the availability of a willing audience; we may have interests simply in shouting from the rooftops to declare who we are and what we believe, regardless of who else hears us. Hence communications to oneself—for example, in a diary or journal—are plausibly protected from interference (Redish 1992: 30–1; Shiffrin 2014: 83, 93; Kramer 2021: 23).

Yet we also have distinctive interests in sharing what we think with others. Part of how we develop our conceptions of the good life, forming judgments about how to live, is precisely through talking through the matter with others. This “deliberative interest” in directly served through opportunities to tell others what we think, so that we can learn from their feedback (Cohen 1993). Such encounters also offer opportunities to persuade others to adopt our views, and indeed to learn through such discussions who else already shares our views (Raz 1991).

Speech also seems like a central way in which we develop our capacities. This, too, is central to J.S. Mill’s defense of free speech, enabling people to explore different perspectives and points of view (1859). Hence it seems that when children engage in speech, to figure out what they think and to use their imagination to try out different ways of being in the world, they are directly engaging this interest. That explains the intuition that children, and not just adults, merit at least some protection under a principle of freedom of speech.

Note that while it is common to refer to speaker autonomy , we could simply refer to speakers’ capacities. Some political liberals hold that an emphasis on autonomy is objectionably Kantian or otherwise perfectionist, valorizing autonomy as a comprehensive moral ideal in a manner that is inappropriate for a liberal state (Cohen 1993: 229; Quong 2011). For such theorists, an undue emphasis on autonomy is incompatible with ideals of liberal neutrality toward different comprehensive conceptions of the good life (though cf. Shiffrin 2014: 81).

If free speech is justified by the importance of our interests in expressing ourselves, this justifies negative duties to refrain from interfering with speakers without adequate justification. Just as with listener theories, a strong presumption against content-based restrictions, and especially against viewpoint discrimination, is a clear requirement of the view. For the state to restrict citizens’ speech on the grounds that it disfavors what they have to say would affront the equal freedom of citizens. Imagine the state were to disallow the expression of Muslim or Jewish views, but allow the expression of Christian views. This would plainly transgress the right to freedom of expression, by valuing certain speakers’ interests in expressing themselves over others.

Many arguments for the right to free speech center on its special significance for democracy (Cohen 1993; Heinze 2016: Heyman 2009; Sunstein 1993; Weinstein 2011; Post 1991, 2009, 2011). It is possible to defend free speech on the noninstrumental ground that it is necessary to respect agents as democratic citizens. To restrict citizens’ speech is to disrespect their status as free and equal moral agents, who have a moral right to debate and decide the law for themselves (Rawls 2005).

Alternatively (or additionally), one can defend free speech on the instrumental ground that free speech promotes democracy, or whatever values democracy is meant to serve. So, for example, suppose the purpose of democracy is the republican one of establishing a state of non-domination between relationally egalitarian citizens; free speech can be defended as promoting that relation (Whitten 2022; Bonotti & Seglow 2022). Or suppose that democracy is valuable because of its role in promoting just outcomes (Arneson 2009) or tending to track those outcomes in a manner than is publicly justifiable (Estlund 2008) or is otherwise epistemically valuable (Landemore 2013).

Perhaps free speech doesn’t merely respect or promote democracy; another framing is that it is constitutive of it (Meiklejohn 1948, 1960; Heinze 2016). As Rawls says: “to restrict or suppress free political speech…always implies at least a partial suspension of democracy” (2005: 254). On this view, to be committed to democracy just is , in part, to be committed to free speech. Deliberative democrats famously contend that voting merely punctuates a larger process defined by a commitment to open deliberation among free and equal citizens (Gutmann & Thompson 2008). Such an unrestricted discussion is marked not by considerations of instrumental rationality and market forces, but rather, as Habermas puts it, “the unforced force of the better argument” (1992 [1996: 37]). One crucial way in which free speech might be constitutive of democracy is if it serves as a legitimation condition . On this view, without a process of open public discourse, the outcomes of the democratic decision-making process lack legitimacy (Dworkin 2009, Brettschneider 2012: 75–78, Cohen 1997, and Heinze 2016).

Those who justify free speech on democratic grounds may view this as a special application of a more general insight. For example, Scanlon’s listener theory (discussed above) contends that the state must always respect its citizens as capable of making up their own minds (1972)—a position with clear democratic implications. Likewise, Baker is adamant that both free speech and democracy are justified by the same underlying value of autonomy (2009). And while Rawls sees the democratic role of free speech as worthy of emphasis, he is clear that free speech is one of several basic liberties that enable the development and exercise of our moral powers: our capacities for a sense of justice and for the rational pursuit a lifeplan (2005). In this way, many theorists see the continuity between free speech and our broader interests as moral agents as a virtue, not a drawback (e.g., Kendrick 2017).

Even so, some democracy theorists hold that democracy has a special role in a theory of free speech, such that political speech in particular merits special protection (for an overview, see Barendt 2005: 154ff). One consequence of such views is that contributions to public discourse on political questions merit greater protection under the law (Sunstein 1993; cf. Cohen 1993: 227; Alexander 2005: 137–8). For some scholars, this may reflect instrumental anxieties about the special danger that the state will restrict the political speech of opponents and dissenters. But for others, an emphasis on political speech seems to reflect a normative claim that such speech is genuinely of greater significance, meriting greater protection, than other kinds of speech.

While conventional in the free speech literature, it is artificial to separate out our interests as speakers, listeners, and democratic citizens. Communication, and the thinking that feeds into it and that it enables, invariably engages our interests and activities across all these capacities. This insight is central to Seana Shiffrin’s groundbreaking thinker-based theory of freedom of speech, which seeks to unify the range of considerations that have informed the traditional theories (2014). Like other theories (e.g., Scanlon 1978, Cohen 1993), Shiffrin’s theory is pluralist in the range of interests it appeals to. But it offers a unifying framework that explains why this range of interests merits protection together.

On Shiffrin’s view, freedom of speech is best understood as encompassing both freedom of communication and freedom of thought, which while logically distinct are mutually reinforcing and interdependent (Shiffrin 2014: 79). Shiffrin’s account involves several profound claims about the relation between communication and thought. A central contention is that “free speech is essential to the development, functioning, and operation of thinkers” (2014: 91). This is, in part, because we must often externalize our ideas to articulate them precisely and hold them at a distance where we can evaluate them (p. 89). It is also because we work out what we think largely by talking it through with others. Such communicative processes may be monological, but they are typically dialogical; speaker and listener interests are thereby mutually engaged in an ongoing manner that cannot be neatly disentangled, as ideas are ping-ponged back and forth. Moreover, such discussions may concern democratic politics—engaging our interests as democratic citizens—but of course they need not. Aesthetics, music, local sports, the existence of God—these all are encompassed (2014: 92–93). Pace prevailing democratic theories,

One’s thoughts about political affairs are intrinsically and ex ante no more and no less central to the human self than thoughts about one’s mortality or one’s friends. (Shiffrin 2014: 93)

The other central aspect of Shiffrin’s view appeals to the necessity of communication for successfully exercising our moral agency. Sincere communication enables us

to share needs, emotions, intentions, convictions, ambitions, desires, fantasies, disappointments, and judgments. Thereby, we are enabled to form and execute complex cooperative plans, to understand one another, to appreciate and negotiate around our differences. (2014: 1)

Without clear and precise communication of the sort that only speech can provide, we cannot cooperate to discharge our collective obligations. Nor can we exercise our normative powers (such as consenting, waiving, or promising). Our moral agency thus depends upon protected channels through which we can relay our sincere thoughts to one another. The central role of free speech is to protect those channels, by ensuring agents are free to share what they are thinking without fear of sanction.

The thinker-based view has wide-ranging normative implications. For example, by emphasizing the continuity of speech and thought (a connection also noted in Macklem 2006 and Gilmore 2011), Shiffrin’s view powerfully explains the First Amendment doctrine that compelled speech also constitutes a violation of freedom of expression. Traditional listener- and speaker-focused theories seemingly cannot explain what is fundamentally objectionable with forcing someone to declare a commitment to something, as with children compelled to pledge allegiance to the American flag ( West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943). “What seems most troubling about the compelled pledge”, Shiffrin writes,

is that the motive behind the regulation, and its possible effect, is to interfere with the autonomous thought processes of the compelled speaker. (2014: 94)

Further, Shiffrin’s view explains why a concern for free speech does not merely correlate to negative duties not to interfere with expression; it also supports positive responsibilities on the part of the state to educate citizens, encouraging and supporting their development and exercise as thinking beings (2014: 107).

Consider briefly one final family of free speech theories, which appeal to the role of toleration or self-restraint. On one argument, freedom of speech is important because it develops our character as liberal citizens, helping us tame our illiberal impulses. The underlying idea of Lee Bollinger’s view is that liberalism is difficult; we recurrently face temptation to punish those who hold contrary views. Freedom of speech helps us to practice the general ethos of toleration in a manner than fortifies our liberal convictions (1986). Deeply offensive speech, like pro-Nazi speech, is protected precisely because toleration in these enormously difficult cases promotes “a general social ethic” of toleration more generally (1986: 248), thereby restraining unjust exercises of state power overall. This consequentialist argument treats the protection of offensive speech not as a tricky borderline case, but as “integral to the central functions of the principle of free speech” (1986: 133). It is precisely because tolerating evil speech involves “extraordinary self-restraint” (1986: 10) that it works its salutary effects on society generally.

The idea of self-restraint arises, too, in Matthew Kramer’s recent defense of free speech. Like listener theories, Kramer’s strongly deontological theory condemns censorship aimed at protecting audiences from exposure to misguided views. At the core of his theory is the thesis that the state’s paramount moral responsibility is to furnish the social conditions that serve the development and maintenance of citizens’ self-respect and respect for others. The achievement of such an ethically resilient citizenry, on Kramer’s view, has the effect of neutering the harmfulness of countless harmful communications. “Securely in a position of ethical strength”, the state “can treat the wares of pornographers and the maunderings of bigots as execrable chirps that are to be endured with contempt” (Kramer 2021: 147). In contrast, in a society where the state has failed to do its duty of inculcating a robust liberal-egalitarian ethos, the communication of illiberal creeds may well pose a substantial threat. Yet for the state then to react by banning such speech is

overweening because with them the system’s officials take control of communications that should have been defused (through the system’s fulfillment of its moral obligations) without prohibitory or preventative impositions. (2021: 147)

(One might agree with Kramer that this is so, but diverge by arguing that the state—having failed in its initial duty—ought to take measures to prevent the harms that flow from that failure.)

These theories are striking in that they assume that a chief task of free speech theory is to explain why harmful speech ought to be protected. This is in contrast to those who think that the chief task of free speech theory is to explain our interests in communicating with others, treating the further issue of whether (wrongfully) harmful communications should be protected as an open question, with different reasonable answers available (Kendrick 2017). In this way, toleration theories—alongside a lot of philosophical work on free speech—seem designed to vindicate the demanding American legal position on free speech, one unshared by virtually all other liberal democracies.

One final family of arguments for free speech appeals to the danger of granting the state powers it may abuse. On this view, we protect free speech chiefly because if we didn’t, it would be far easier for the state to silence its political opponents and enact unjust policies. On this view, a state with censorial powers is likely to abuse them. As Richard Epstein notes, focusing on the American case,

the entire structure of federalism, divided government, and the system of checks and balances at the federal level shows that the theme of distrust has worked itself into the warp and woof of our constitutional structure.

“The protection of speech”, he writes, “…should be read in light of these political concerns” (Epstein 1992: 49).

This view is not merely a restatement of the democracy theory; it does not affirm free speech as an element of valuable self-governance. Nor does it reduce to the uncontroversial thought that citizens need freedom of speech to check the behavior of fallible government agents (Blasi 1977). One need not imagine human beings to be particularly sinister to insist (as democracy theorists do) that the decisions of those entrusted with great power be subject to public discussion and scrutiny. The argument under consideration here is more pessimistic about human nature. It is an argument about the slippery slope that we create even when enacting (otherwise justified) speech restrictions; we set an unacceptable precedent for future conduct by the state (see Schauer 1985). While this argument is theoretical, there is clearly historical evidence for it, as in the manifold cases in which bans on dangerous sedition were used to suppress legitimate war protest. (For a sweeping canonical study of the uses and abuses of speech regulations during wartime, with a focus on U.S. history, see G. Stone 2004.)

These instrumental concerns could potentially justify the legal protection for free speech. But they do not to attempt to justify why we should care about free speech as a positive moral ideal (Shiffrin 2014: 83n); they are, in Cohen’s helpful terminology, “minimalist” rather than “maximalist” (Cohen 1993: 210). Accordingly, they cannot explain why free speech is something that even the most trustworthy, morally competent administrations, with little risk of corruption or degeneration, ought to respect. Of course, minimalists will deny that accounting for speech’s positive value is a requirement of a theory of free speech, and that critiquing them for this omission begs the question.

Pluralists may see instrumental concerns as valuably supplementing or qualifying noninstrumental views. For example, instrumental concerns may play a role in justifying deviations between the moral right to free communication, on the one hand, and a properly specified legal right to free communication, on the other. Suppose that there is no moral right to engage in certain forms of harmful expression (such as hate speech), and that there is in fact a moral duty to refrain from such expression. Even so, it does not follow automatically that such a right ought to be legally enforced. Concerns about the dangers of granting the state such power plausibly militate against the enforcement of at least some of our communicative duties—at least in those jurisdictions that lack robust and competently administered liberal-democratic safeguards.

This entry has canvassed a range of views about what justifies freedom of expression, with particular attention to theories that conceive free speech as a natural moral right. Clearly, the proponents of such views believe that they succeed in this justificatory effort. But others dissent, doubting that the case for a bona fide moral right to free speech comes through. Let us briefly note the nature of this challenge from free speech skeptics , exploring a prominent line of reply.

The challenge from skeptics is generally understood as that of showing that free speech is a special right . As Leslie Kendrick notes,

the term “special right” generally requires that a special right be entirely distinct from other rights and activities and that it receive a very high degree of protection. (2017: 90)

(Note that this usage is not to be confused from the alternative usage of “special right”, referring to conditional rights arising out of particular relationships; see Hart 1955.)

Take each aspect in turn. First, to vindicate free speech as a special right, it must serve some distinctive value or interest (Schauer 2015). Suppose free speech were just an implication of a general principle not to interfere in people’s liberty without justification. As Joel Feinberg puts it, “Liberty should be the norm; coercion always needs some special justification” (1984: 9). In such a case, then while there still might be contingent, historical reasons to single speech out in law as worthy of protection (Alexander 2005: 186), such reasons would not track anything especially distinctive about speech as an underlying moral matter. Second, to count as a special right, free speech must be robust in what it protects, such that only a compelling justification can override it (Dworkin 2013: 131). This captures the conviction, prominent among American constitutional theorists, that “any robust free speech principle must protect at least some harmful speech despite the harm it may cause” (Schauer 2011b: 81; see also Schauer 1982).

If the task of justifying a moral right to free speech requires surmounting both hurdles, it is a tall order. Skeptics about a special right to free speech doubt that the order can be met, and so deny that a natural moral right to freedom of expression can be justified (Schauer 2015; Alexander & Horton 1983; Alexander 2005; Husak 1985). But these theorists may be demanding too much (Kendrick 2017). Start with the claim that free speech must be distinctive. We can accept that free speech be more than simply one implication of a general presumption of liberty. But need it be wholly distinctive? Consider the thesis that free speech is justified by our autonomy interests—interests that justify other rights such as freedom of religion and association. Is it a problem if free speech is justified by interests that are continuous with, or overlap with, interests that justify other rights? Pace the free speech skeptics, maybe not. So long as such claims deserve special recognition, and are worth distinguishing by name, this may be enough (Kendrick 2017: 101). Many of the views canvassed above share normative bases with other important rights. For example, Rawls is clear that he thinks all the basic liberties constitute

essential social conditions for the adequate development and full exercise of the two powers of moral personality over a complete life. (Rawls 2005: 293)

The debate, then, is whether such a shared basis is a theoretical virtue (or at least theoretically unproblematic) or whether it is a theoretical vice, as the skeptics avow.

As for the claim that free speech must be robust, protecting harmful speech, “it is not necessary for a free speech right to protect harmful speech in order for it to be called a free speech right” (Kendrick 2017: 102). We do not tend to think that religious liberty must protect harmful religious activities for it to count as a special right. So it would be strange to insist that the right to free speech must meet this burden to count as a special right. Most of the theorists mentioned above take themselves to be offering views that protect quite a lot of harmful speech. Yet we can question whether this feature is a necessary component of their views, or whether we could imagine variations without this result.

3. Justifying Speech Restrictions

When, and why, can restrictions on speech be justified? It is common in public debate on free speech to hear the provocative claim that free speech is absolute . But the plausibility of such a claim depends on what is exactly meant by it. If understood to mean that no communications between humans can ever be restricted, such a view is held by no one in the philosophical debate. When I threaten to kill you unless you hand me your money; when I offer to bribe the security guard to let me access the bank vault; when I disclose insider information that the company in which you’re heavily invested is about to go bust; when I defame you by falsely posting online that you’re a child abuser; when I endanger you by labeling a drug as safe despite its potentially fatal side-effects; when I reveal your whereabouts to assist a murderer intent on killing you—across all these cases, communications may be uncontroversially restricted. But there are different views as to why.

To help organize such views, consider a set of distinctions influentially defended by Schauer (from 1982 onward). The first category involves uncovered speech : speech that does not even presumptively fall within the scope of a principle of free expression. Many of the speech-acts just canvassed, such as the speech involved in making a threat or insider training, plausibly count as uncovered speech. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said of fighting words (e.g., insults calculated to provoke a street fight),

such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. ( Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942)

The general idea here is that some speech simply has negligible—and often no —value as free speech, in light of its utter disconnection from the values that justify free speech in the first place. (For discussion of so-called “low-value speech” in the U.S. context, see Sunstein 1989 and Lakier 2015.) Accordingly, when such low-value speech is harmful, it is particularly easy to justify its curtailment. Hence the Court’s view that “the prevention and punishment of [this speech] have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem”. For legislation restricting such speech, the U.S. Supreme Court applies a “rational basis” test, which is very easy to meet, as it simply asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. (Note that it is widely held that it would still be impermissible to selectively ban low-value speech on a viewpoint-discriminatory basis—e.g., if a state only banned fighting words from left-wing activists while allowing them from right-wing activists.)

Schauer’s next category concerns speech that is covered but unprotected . This is speech that engages the values that underpin free speech; yet the countervailing harm of the speech justifies its restriction. In such cases, while there is real value in such expression as free speech, that value is outweighed by competing normative concerns (or even, as we will see below, on behalf of the very values that underpin free speech). In U.S. constitutional jurisprudence, this category encompasses those extremely rare cases in which restrictions on political speech pass the “strict scrutiny” test, whereby narrow restrictions on high-value speech can be justified due to the compelling state interests thereby served. Consider Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 2010, in which the Court held that an NGO’s legal advice to a terrorist organization on how to pursue peaceful legal channels were legitimately criminalized under a counter-terrorism statute. While such speech had value as free speech (at least on one interpretation of this contested ruling), the imperative of counter-terrorism justified its restriction. (Arguably, commercial speech, while sometimes called low-value speech by scholars, falls into the covered but unprotected category. Under U.S. law, legislation restricting it receives “intermediate scrutiny” by courts—requiring restrictions to be narrowly drawn to advance a substantial government interest. Such a test suggests that commercial speech has bona fide free-speech value, making it harder to justify regulations on it than regulations on genuinely low-value speech like fighting words. It simply doesn’t have as much free-speech value as categories like political speech, religious speech, or press speech, all of which trigger the strict scrutiny test when restricted.)

As a philosophical matter, we can reasonably disagree about what speech qualifies as covered but unprotected (and need not treat the verdicts of the U.S. Supreme Court as philosophically decisive). For example, consider politically-inflected hate speech, which advances repugnant ideas about the inferior status of certain groups. One could concur that there is substantial free-speech value in such expression, just because it involves the sincere expression of views about central questions of politics and justice (however misguided the views doubtlessly are). Yet one could nevertheless hold that such speech should not be protected in virtue of the substantial harms to which it can lead. In such cases, the free-speech value is outweighed. Many scholars who defend the permissibility of legal restrictions on hate speech hold such a view (e.g., Parekh 2012; Waldron 2012). (More radically, one could hold that such speech’s value is corrupted by its evil, such that it qualifies as genuinely low-value; Howard 2019a.)

The final category of speech encompasses expression that is covered and protected . To declare that speech is protected just is to conclude that it is immune from restriction. A preponderance of human communications fall into this category. This does not mean that such speech can never be regulated ; content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations (e.g., prohibiting loud nighttime protests) can certainly be justified (G. Stone 1987). But such regulations must not be viewpoint discriminatory; they must apply even-handedly across all forms of protected speech.

Schauer’s taxonomy offers a useful organizing framework for how we should think about different forms of speech. Where does it leave the claim that free speech is absolute? The possibility of speech that is covered but unprotected suggests that free speech should sometimes be restricted on account of rival normative concerns. Of course, one could contend that such a category, while logically possible, is substantively an empty set; such a position would involve some kind of absoluteness about free speech (holding that where free-speech values are engaged by expression, no countervailing values can ever be weighty enough to override them). Such a position would be absolutist in a certain sense while granting the permissibility of restrictions on speech that do not engage the free-speech values. (For a recent critique of Schauer’s framework, arguing that governmental designation of some speech as low-value is incompatible with the very ideal of free speech, see Kramer 2021: 31.)

In what follows, this entry will focus on Schauer’s second category: speech that is covered by a free speech principle, but is nevertheless unprotected because of the harms it causes. How do we determine what speech falls into this category? How, in other words, do we determine the limits of free speech? Unsurprisingly, this is where most of the controversy lies.

Most legal systems that protect free speech recognize that the right has limits. Consider, for example, international human rights law, which emphatically protects the freedom of speech as a fundamental human right while also affirming specific restrictions on certain seriously harmful speech. Article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights declares that “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”—but then immediately notes that this right “carries with it special duties and responsibilities”. The subsequent ICCPR article proceeds to endorse legal restrictions on “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, as well as speech constituting “propaganda for war” (ICCPR). While such restrictions would plainly be struck down as unconstitutional affronts to free speech in the U.S., this more restrictive approach prevails in most liberal democracies’ treatment of harmful speech.

Set aside the legal issue for now. How should we think about how to determine the limits of the moral right free speech? Those seeking to justify limits on speech tend to appeal to one of two strategies (Howard and Simpson forthcoming). The first strategy appeals to the importance of balancing free speech against other moral values when they come into conflict. This strategy involves external limits on free speech. (The next strategy, discussed below, invokes free speech itself, or the values that justify it, as limit-setting rationales; it thus involves internal limits on free speech.)

A balancing approach recognizes a moral conflict between unfettered communication and external values. Consider again the case of hate speech, understood as expression that attacks members of socially vulnerable groups as inferior or dangerous. On all of the theories canvassed above, there are grounds for thinking that restrictions on hate speech are prima facie in violation of the moral right to free speech. Banning hate speech to prevent people from hearing ideas that might incline them to bigotry plainly seems to disrespect listener autonomy. Further, even when speakers are expressing prejudiced views, they are still engaging their autonomous faculties. Certainly, they are expressing views on questions of public political concern, even false ones. And as thinkers they are engaged in the communication of sincere testimony to others. On many of the leading theories, the values underpinning free speech seem to be militate against bans on hate speech.

Even so, other values matter. Consider, for example, the value of upholding the equal dignity of all citizens. A central insight of critical race theory is that public expressions of white supremacy, for example, attack and undermine that equal dignity (Matsuda, Lawrence, Delgado, & Crenshaw 1993). On Jeremy Waldron’s view (2012), hate speech is best understood as a form of group defamation, launching spurious attacks on others’ reputations and thereby undermining their standing as respected equals in their own community (relatedly, see Beauharnais v. Illinois 1952).

Countries that ban hate speech, accordingly, are plausibly understood not as opposed to free speech, but as recognizing the importance that it be balanced when conflicting with other values. Such balancing can be understood in different ways. In European human rights law, for example, the relevant idea is that the right to free speech is balanced against other rights ; the relevant task, accordingly, is to specify what counts as a proportionate balance between these rights (see Alexy 2003; J. Greene 2021).

For others, the very idea of balancing rights undermines their deontic character. This alternative framing holds that the balancing occurs before we specify what rights are; on this view, we balance interests against each other, and only once we’ve undertaken that balancing do we proceed to define what our rights protect. As Scanlon puts it,

The only balancing is balancing of interests. Rights are not balanced, but are defined, or redefined, in the light of the balance of interests and of empirical facts about how these interests can best be protected. (2008: 78)

This balancing need not come in the form of some crude consequentialism; otherwise it would be acceptable to limit the rights of the few to secure trivial benefits for the many. On a contractualist moral theory such as Scanlon’s, the test is to assess the strength of any given individual’s reason to engage in (or access) the speech, against the strength of any given individual’s reason to oppose it.

Note that those who engage in balancing need not give up on the idea of viewpoint neutrality; they can accept that, as a general principle, the state should not restrict speech on the grounds that it disapproves of its message and dislikes that others will hear it. The point, instead, is that this commitment is defeasible; it is possible to be overridden.

One final comment is apt. Those who are keen to balance free speech against other values tend to be motivated by the concern that speech can cause harm, either directly or indirectly (on this distinction, see Schauer 1993). But to justify restrictions on speech, it is not sufficient (and perhaps not even necessary) to show that such speech imposes or risks imposing harm. The crucial point is that the speech is wrongful (or, perhaps, wrongfully harmful or risky) , breaching a moral duty that speakers owe to others. Yet very few in the free speech literature think that the mere offensiveness of speech is sufficient to justify restrictions on it. Even Joel Feinberg, who thinks offensiveness can sometimes be grounds for restricting conduct, makes a sweeping exception for

[e]xpressions of opinion, especially about matters of public policy, but also about matters of empirical fact, and about historical, scientific, theological, philosophical, political, and moral questions. (1985: 44)

And in many cases, offensive speech may be actively salutary, as when racists are offended by defenses of racial equality (Waldron 1987). Accordingly, despite how large it looms in public debate, discussion of offensive speech will not play a major role in the discussion here.

We saw that one way to justify limits on free speech is to balance it against other values. On that approach, free speech is externally constrained. A second approach, in contrast, is internally constrained. On this approach, the very values that justify free speech themselves determine its own limits. This is a revisionist approach to free speech since, unlike orthodox thinking, it contends that a commitment to free speech values can counterintuitively support the restriction of speech—a surprising inversion of traditional thinking on the topic (see Howard and Simpson forthcoming). This move—justifying restrictions on speech by appealing to the values that underpin free speech—is now prevalent in the philosophical literature (for an overview, see Barendt 2005: 1ff).

Consider, for example, the claim that free speech is justified by concerns of listener autonomy. On such a view, as we saw above, autonomous citizens have interests in exposure to a wide range of viewpoints, so that they can decide for themselves what to believe. But many have pointed out that this is not autonomous citizens’ only interest; they also have interests in not getting murdered by those incited by incendiary speakers (Amdur 1980). Likewise, insofar as being targeted by hate speech undermines the exercise of one’s autonomous capacities, appeal to the underlying value of autonomy could well support restrictions on such speech (Brison 1998; see also Brink 2001). What’s more, if our interests as listeners in acquiring accurate information is undermined by fraudulent information, then restrictions on such information could well be compatible with our status as autonomous; this was one of the insights that led Scanlon to complicate his theory of free speech (1978).

Or consider the theory that free speech is justified because of its role in enabling autonomous speakers to express themselves. But as Japa Pallikkathayil has argued, some speech can intimidate its audiences into staying silent (as with some hate speech), out of fear for what will happen if they speak up (Pallikkathayil 2020). In principle, then, restrictions on hate speech may serve to support the value of speaker expression, rather than undermine it (see also Langton 2018; Maitra 2009; Maitra & McGowan 2007; and Matsuda 1989: 2337). Indeed, among the most prominent claims in feminist critiques of pornography is precisely that it silences women—not merely through its (perlocutionary) effects in inspiring rape, but more insidiously through its (illocutionary) effects in altering the force of the word “no” (see MacKinnon 1984; Langton 1993; and West 204 [2022]; McGowan 2003 and 2019; cf. Kramer 2021, pp. 160ff).

Now consider democracy theories. On the one hand, democracy theorists are adamant that citizens should be free to discuss any proposals, even the destruction of democracy itself (e.g., Meiklejohn 1948: 65–66). On the other hand, it isn’t obvious why citizens’ duties as democratic citizens could not set a limit to their democratic speech rights (Howard 2019a). The Nazi propagandist Goebbels is said to have remarked:

This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed. (as quoted in Fox & Nolte 1995: 1)

But it is not clear why this is necessarily so. Why should we insist on a conception of democracy that contains a self-destruct mechanism? Merely stipulating that democracy requires this is not enough (see A. Greene and Simpson 2017).

Finally, consider Shiffrin’s thinker-based theory. Shiffrin’s view is especially well-placed to explain why varieties of harmful communications are protected speech; what the theory values is the sincere transmission of veridical testimony, whereby speakers disclose what they genuinely believe to others, even if what they believe is wrongheaded and dangerous. Yet because the sincere testimony of thinkers is what qualifies some communication for protection, Shiffrin is adamant that lying falls outside the protective ambit of freedom of expression (2014) This, then, sets an internal limit on her own theory (even if she herself disfavors all lies’ outright prohibition for reasons of tolerance). The claim that lying falls outside the protective ambit of free speech is itself a recurrent suggestion in the literature (Strauss 1991: 355; Brown 2023). In an era of rampant disinformation, this internal limit is of substantial practical significance.

Suppose the moral right (or principle) of free speech is limited, as most think, such that not all communications fall within its protective ambit (either for external reasons, internal reasons, or both). Even so, it does not follow that laws banning such unprotected speech can be justified all-things-considered. Further moral tests must be passed before any particular policy restricting speech can be justified. This sub-section focuses on the requirement that speech restrictions be proportionate .

The idea that laws implicating fundamental rights must be proportionate is central in many jurisdictions’ constitutional law, as well as in the international law of human rights. As a representative example, consider the specification of proportionality offered by the Supreme Court of Canada:

First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair, or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair “as little as possible” the right or freedom in question[…] Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of “sufficient importance” ( R v. Oakes 1986).

It is this third element (often called “proportionality stricto sensu ”) on which we will concentrate here; this is the focused sense of proportionality that roughly tracks how the term is used in the philosophical literatures on defensive harm and war, as well as (with some relevant differences) criminal punishment. (The strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny tests of U.S. constitutional law are arguably variations of the proportionality test; but set aside this complication for now as it distracts from the core philosophical issues. For relevant legal discussion, see Tsesis 2020.)

Proportionality, in the strict sense, concerns the relation between the costs or harms imposed by some measure and the benefits that the measure is designed to secure. The organizing distinction in recent philosophical literature (albeit largely missing in the literature on free speech) is one between narrow proportionality and wide proportionality . While there are different ways to cut up the terrain between these terms, let us stipulatively define them as follows. An interference is narrowly proportionate just in case the intended target of the interference is liable to bear the costs of that interference. An interference is widely proportionate just in case the collateral costs that the interference unintentionally imposes on others can be justified. (This distinction largely follows the literature in just war theory and the ethics of defensive force; see McMahan 2009.) While the distinction is historically absent from free speech theory, it has powerful payoffs in helping to structure this chaotic debate (as argued in Howard 2019a).

So start with the idea that restrictions on communication must be narrowly proportionate . For a restriction to be narrowly proportionate, those whose communications are restricted must be liable to bear their costs, such that they are not wronged by their imposition. One standard way to be liable to bear certain costs is to have a moral duty to bear them (Tadros 2012). So, for example, if speakers have a moral duty to refrain from libel, hate speech, or some other form of harmful speech, they are liable to bear at least some costs involved in the enforcement of that duty. Those costs cannot be unlimited; a policy of executing hate speakers could not plausibly be justified. Typically, in both defensive and punitive contexts, wrongdoers’ liability is determined by their culpability, the severity of their wrong, or some combination of the two. While it is difficult to say in the abstract what the precise maximal cost ceiling is for any given restriction, as it depends hugely on the details, the point is simply that there is some ceiling above which a speech restriction (like any restriction) imposes unacceptably high costs, even on wrongdoers.

Second, for a speech restriction to be justified, we must also show that it would be widely proportionate . Suppose a speaker is liable to bear the costs of some policy restricting her communication, such that she is not wronged by its imposition. It may be that the collateral costs of such a policy would render it unacceptable. One set of costs is chilling effects , the “overdeterrence of benign conduct that occurs incidentally to a law’s legitimate purpose or scope” (Kendrick 2013: 1649). The core idea is that laws targeting unprotected, legitimately proscribed expression may nevertheless end up having a deleterious impact on protected expression. This is because laws are often vague, overbroad, and in any case are likely to be misapplied by fallible officials (Schauer 1978: 699).

Note that if a speech restriction produces chilling effects, it does not follow that the restriction should not exist at all. Rather, concern about chilling effects instead suggests that speech restrictions should be under-inclusive—restricting less speech than is actually harmful—in order to create “breathing space”, or “a buffer zone of strategic protection” (Schauer 1978: 710) for legitimate expression and so reduce unwanted self-censorship. For example, some have argued that even though speech can cause harm recklessly or negligently, we should insist on specific intent as the mens rea of speech crimes in order to reduce any chilling effects that could follow (Alexander 1995: 21–128; Schauer 1978: 707; cf. Kendrick 2013).

But chilling effects are not the only sort of collateral effects to which speech restrictions could lead. Earlier we noted the risk that states might abuse their censorial powers. This, too, could militate in favor of underinclusive speech restrictions. Or the implication could be more radical. Consider the problem that it is difficult to author restrictions on hate speech in a tightly specified way; the language involved is open-ended in a manner that enables states to exercise considerable judgment in deciding what speech-acts, in fact, count as violations (see Strossen 2018). Given the danger that the state will misuse or abuse these laws to punish legitimate speech, some might think this renders their enactment widely disproportionate. Indeed, even if the law were well-crafted and would be judiciously applied by current officials, the point is that those in the future may not be so trustworthy.

Those inclined to accept such a position might simply draw the conclusion that legislatures ought to refrain from enacting laws against hate speech. A more radical conclusion is that the legal right to free speech ought to be specified so that hate speech is constitutionally protected. In other words, we ought to give speakers a legal right to violate their moral duties, since enforcing those moral duties through law is simply too risky. By appealing to this logic, it is conceivable that the First Amendment position on hate speech could be justified all-things-considered—not because the underlying moral right to free speech protects hate speech, but because hate speech must be protected for instrumental reasons of preventing future abuses of power (Howard 2019a).

Suppose certain restrictions on harmful speech can be justified as proportionate, in both the narrow and wide senses. This is still not sufficient to justify them all-things-considered. Additionally, they must be justified as necessary . (Note that some conceptions of proportionality in human rights law encompass the necessity requirement, but this entry follows the prevailing philosophical convention by treating them as distinct.)

Why might restrictions on harmful speech be unnecessary? One of the standard claims in the free speech literature is that we should respond to harmful speech not by banning it, but by arguing back against it. Counter-speech—not censorship—is the appropriate solution. This line of reasoning is old. As John Milton put it in 1644: “Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” The insistence on counter-speech as the remedy for harmful speech is similarly found, as noted above, throughout chapter 2 of Mill’s On Liberty .

For many scholars, this line of reply is justified by the fact that they think the harmful speech in question is protected by the moral right to free speech. For such scholars, counter-speech is the right response because censorship is morally off the table. For other scholars, the recourse to counter-speech has a plausible distinct rationale (although it is seldom articulated): its possibility renders legal restrictions unnecessary. And because it is objectionable to use gratuitous coercion, legal restrictions are therefore impermissible (Howard 2019a). Such a view could plausibly justify Mill’s aforementioned analysis in the corn dealer example, whereby censorship is permissible but only when there’s no time for counter-speech—a view that is also endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

Whether this argument succeeds depends upon a wide range of further assumptions—about the comparable effectiveness of counter-speech relative to law; about the burdens that counter-speech imposes on prospective counter-speakers. Supposing that the argument succeeds, it invites a range of further normative questions about the ethics of counter-speech. For example, it is important who has the duty to engage in counter-speech, who its intended audience is, and what specific forms the counter-speech ought to take—especially in order to maximize its persuasive effectiveness (Brettschneider 2012; Cepollaro, Lepoutre, & Simpson 2023; Howard 2021b; Lepoutre 2021; Badano & Nuti 2017). It is also important to ask questions about the moral limits of counter-speech. For example, insofar as publicly shaming wrongful speakers has become a prominent form of counter-speech, it is crucial to interrogate its permissibility (e.g., Billingham and Parr 2020).

This final section canvasses the young philosophical debate concerning freedom of speech on the internet. With some important exceptions (e.g., Barendt 2005: 451ff), this issue has only recently accelerated (for an excellent edited collection, see Brison & Gelber 2019). There are many normative questions to be asked about the moral rights and obligations of internet platforms. Here are three. First, do internet platforms have moral duties to respect the free speech of their users? Second, do internet platforms have moral duties to restrict (or at least refrain from amplifying) harmful speech posted by their users? And finally, if platforms do indeed have moral duties to restrict harmful speech, should those duties be legally enforced?

The reference to internet platforms , is a deliberate focus on large-scale social media platforms, through which people can discover and publicly share user-generated content. We set aside other entities such as search engines (Whitney & Simpson 2019), important though they are. That is simply because the central political controversies, on which philosophical input is most urgent, concern the large social-media platforms.

Consider the question of whether internet platforms have moral duties to respect the free speech of their users. One dominant view in the public discourse holds that the answer is no . On this view, platforms are private entities, and as such enjoy the prerogative to host whatever speech they like. This would arguably be a function of them having free speech rights themselves. Just as the free speech rights of the New York Times give it the authority to publish whatever op-eds it sees fit, the free speech rights of platforms give them the authority to exercise editorial or curatorial judgment about what speech to allow. On this view, if Facebook were to decide to become a Buddhist forum, amplifying the speech of Buddhist users and promoting Buddhist perspectives and ideas, and banning speech promoting other religions, it would be entirely within its moral (and thus proper legal) rights to do so. So, too, if it were to decide to become an atheist forum.

A radical alternative view holds that internet platforms constitute a public forum , a term of art from U.S. free speech jurisprudence used to designate spaces “designed for and dedicated to expressive activities” ( Southeastern Promotions Ltd., v. Conrad 1975). As Kramer has argued:

social-media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and YouTube have become public fora. Although the companies that create and run those platforms are not morally obligated to sustain them in existence at all, the role of controlling a public forum morally obligates each such company to comply with the principle of freedom of expression while performing that role. No constraints that deviate from the kinds of neutrality required under that principle are morally legitimate. (Kramer 2021: 58–59)

On this demanding view, platforms’ duties to respect speech are (roughly) identical to the duties of states. Accordingly, if efforts by the state to restrict hate speech, pornography, and public health misinformation (for example) are objectionable affronts to free speech, so too are platforms’ content moderation rules for such content. A more moderate view does not hold that platforms are public forums as such, but holds that government channels or pages qualify as public forums (the claim at issue in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2019).)

Even if we deny that platforms constitute public forums, it is plausible that they engage in a governance function of some kind (Klonick 2018). As Jack Balkin has argued, the traditional model of free speech, which sees it as a relation between speakers and the state, is today plausibly supplanted by a triadic model, involving a more complex relation between speakers, governments, and intermediaries (2004, 2009, 2018, 2021). If platforms do indeed have some kind of governance function, it may well trigger responsibilities for transparency and accountability (as with new legislation such as the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act).

Second, consider the question of whether platforms have a duty to remove harmful content posted by users. Even those who regard them as public forums could agree that platforms may have a moral responsibility to remove illegal unprotected speech. Yet a dominant view in the public debate has historically defended platforms’ place as mere conduits for others’ speech. This is the current position under U.S. law (as with 47 U.S. Code §230), which broadly exempts platforms from liability for much illegal speech, such as defamation. On this view, we should view platforms as akin to bulletin boards: blame whoever posts wrongful content, but don’t hold the owner of the board responsible.

This view is under strain. Even under current U.S. law, platforms are liable for removing some content, such as child sexual abuse material and copyright infringements, suggesting that it is appropriate to demand some accountability for the wrongful content posted by others. An increasing body of philosophical work explores the idea that platforms are indeed morally responsible for removing extreme content. For example, some have argued that platforms have a special responsibility to prevent the radicalization that occurs on their networks, given the ways in which extreme content is amplified to susceptible users (Barnes 2022). Without engaging in moderation (i.e., removal) of harmful content, platforms are plausibly complicit with the wrongful harms perpetrated by users (Howard forthcoming).

Yet it remains an open question what a responsible content moderation policy ought to involve. Many are tempted by a juridical model, whereby platforms remove speech in accordance with clearly announced rules, with user appeals mechanisms in place for individual speech decisions to ensure they are correctly made (critiqued in Douek 2022b). Yet platforms have billions of users and remove millions of pieces of content per week. Accordingly, perfection is not possible. Moving quickly to remove harmful content during a crisis—e.g., Covid misinformation—will inevitably increase the number of false positives (i.e., legitimate speech taken down as collateral damage). It is plausible that the individualistic model of speech decisions adopted by courts is decidedly implausible to help us govern online content moderation; as noted in Douek 2021 and 2022a, what is needed is analysis of how the overall system should operate at scale, with a focus on achieving proportionality between benefits and costs. Alternatively, one might double down and insist that the juridical model is appropriate, given the normative significance of speech. And if it is infeasible for social-media companies to meet its demands given their size, then all the worse for social-media companies. On this view, it is they who must bend to meet the moral demands of free speech theory, not the other way around.

Substantial philosophical work needs to be done to deliver on this goal. The work is complicated by the fact that artificial intelligence (AI) is central to the processes of content moderation; human moderators, themselves subjected to terrible working conditions at long hours, work in conjunction with machine learning tools to identify and remove content that platforms have restricted. Yet AI systems notoriously are as biased as their training data. Further, their “black box” decisions are cryptic and cannot be easily understood. Given that countless speech decisions will necessarily be made without human involvement, it is right to ask whether it is reasonable to expect users to accept the deliverances of machines (e.g., see Vredenburgh 2022; Lazar forthcoming a). Note that machine intelligence is used not merely for content moderation, narrowly understood as the enforcement of rules about what speech is allowed. It is also deployed for the broader practice of content curation, determining what speech gets amplified — raising the question of what normative principles should govern such amplification; see Lazar forthcoming b).

Finally, there is the question of legal enforcement. Showing that platforms have the moral responsibility to engage in content moderation is necessary to justifying its codification into a legal responsibility. Yet it is not sufficient; one could accept that platforms have moral duties to moderate (some) harmful speech while also denying that those moral duties ought to be legally enforced. A strong, noninstrumental version of such a view would hold that while speakers have moral duties to refrain from wrongful speech, and platforms have duties not to platform or amplify it, the coercive enforcement of such duties would violate the moral right to freedom of expression. A more contingent, instrumental version of the view would hold that legal enforcement is not in principle impermissible; but in practice, it is simply too risky to grant the state the authority to enforce platforms’ and speakers’ moral duties, given the potential for abuse and overreach.

Liberals who champion the orthodox interpretation of the First Amendment, yet insist on robust content moderation, likely hold one or both of these views. Yet globally such views seem to be in the minority. Serious legislation is imminent that will subject social-media companies to burdensome regulation, in the form of such laws as the Digital Services Act in the European Union and the Online Safety Bill in the UK. Normatively evaluating such legislation is a pressing task. So, too, is the task of designing normative theories to guide the design of content moderation systems, and the wider governance of the digital public sphere. On both fronts, political philosophers should get back to work.

• Alexander, Larry [Lawrence], 1995, “Free Speech and Speaker’s Intent”, Constitutional Commentary , 12(1): 21–28.
• –––, 2005, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? , (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Alexander, Lawrence and Paul Horton, 1983, “The Impossibility of a Free Speech Principle Review Essay”, Northwestern University Law Review , 78(5): 1319–1358.
• Alexy, Robert, 2003, “Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality”, Ratio Juris , 16(2): 131–140. doi:10.1111/1467-9337.00228
• Amdur, Robert, 1980, “Scanlon on Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 9(3): 287–300.
• Arneson, Richard, 2009, “Democracy is Not Intrinsically Just”, in Justice and Democracy , Keith Dowding, Robert E. Goodin, and Carole Pateman (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–58.
• Baker, C. Edwin, 1989, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2009, “Autonomy and Hate Speech”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 139–157 (ch. 8). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0009
• Balkin, Jack M., 2004, “Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society”, New York University Law Review , 79(1): 1–55.
• –––, 2009, “The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age Free Speech and Press in the Digital Age”, Pepperdine Law Review , 36(2): 427–444.
• –––, 2018, “Free Speech Is a Triangle Essays”, Columbia Law Review , 118(7): 2011–2056.
• –––, 2021, “How to Regulate (and Not Regulate) Social Media”, Journal of Free Speech Law , 1(1): 71–96. [ Balkin 2021 available online (pdf) ]
• Barendt, Eric M., 2005, Freedom of Speech , second edition, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225811.001.0001
• Barnes, Michael Randall, 2022, “Online Extremism, AI, and (Human) Content Moderation”, Feminist Philosophy Quarterly , 8(3/4): article 6. [ Barnes 2022 available online ]
• Beauharnais v. Illinois 343 U.S. 250 (1952).
• Billingham, Paul and Tom Parr, 2020, “Enforcing Social Norms: The Morality of Public Shaming”, European Journal of Philosophy , 28(4): 997–1016. doi:10.1111/ejop.12543
• Blasi, Vincent, 1977, “The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory”, American Bar Foundation Research Journal 3: 521–649.
• –––, 2004, “Holmes and the Marketplace of Ideas”, The Supreme Court Review , 2004: 1–46.
• Brettschneider, Corey Lang, 2012, When the State Speaks, What Should It Say? How Democracies Can Protect Expression and Promote Equality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Brietzke, Paul H., 1997, “How and Why the Marketplace of Ideas Fails”, Valparaiso University Law Review , 31(3): 951–970.
• Bollinger, Lee C., 1986, The Tolerant Society: Free Speech and Extremist Speech in America , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bonotti, Matteo and Jonathan Seglow, 2022, “Freedom of Speech: A Relational Defence”, Philosophy & Social Criticism , 48(4): 515–529.
• Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• Brink, David O., 2001, “Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech”, Legal Theory , 7(2): 119–157. doi:10.1017/S1352325201072019
• Brison, Susan J., 1998, “The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech”, Ethics , 108(2): 312–339. doi:10.1086/233807
• Brison, Susan J. and Katharine Gelber (eds), 2019, Free Speech in the Digital Age , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190883591.001.0001
• Brown, Étienne, 2023, “Free Speech and the Legal Prohibition of Fake News”, Social Theory and Practice , 49(1): 29–55. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract202333179
• Buchanan, Allen E., 2013, The Heart of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199325382.001.0001
• Cepollaro, Bianca, Maxime Lepoutre, and Robert Mark Simpson, 2023, “Counterspeech”, Philosophy Compass , 18(1): e12890. doi:10.1111/phc3.12890
• Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
• Cohen, Joshua, 1993, “Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 22(3): 207–263.
• –––, 1997, “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy”, in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics , James Bohman and William Rehg (eds), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 67–92.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1981, “Is There a Right to Pornography?”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 1(2): 177–212. doi:10.1093/ojls/1.2.177
• –––, 1996, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2006, “A New Map of Censorship”, Index on Censorship , 35(1): 130–133. doi:10.1080/03064220500532412
• –––, 2009, “Forward.” In Extreme Speech and Democracy , ed. J. Weinstein and I. Hare, pp. v-ix. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013, Religion without God , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Douek, Evelyn, 2021, “Governing Online Speech: From ‘Posts-as-Trumps’ to Proportionality and Probability”, Columbia Law Review , 121(3): 759–834.
• –––, 2022a, “Content Moderation as Systems Thinking”, Harvard Law Review , 136(2): 526–607.
• –––, 2022b, “The Siren Call of Content Moderation Formalism”, in Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of Our Democracy , Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 139–156 (ch. 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780197621080.003.0009
• Ely, John Hart, 1975, “Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment Analysis”, Harvard Law Review , 88: 1482–1508.
• Emerson, Thomas I., 1970, The System of Freedom of Expression , New York: Random House.
• Epstein, Richard A., 1992, “Property, Speech, and the Politics of Distrust”, University of Chicago Law Review , 59(1): 41–90.
• Estlund, David, 2008, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Feinberg, Joel, 1984, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Volume 1: Harm to Others , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195046641.001.0001
• –––, 1985, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Volume 2: Offense to Others , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195052153.001.0001
• Fish, Stanley Eugene, 1994, There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Fox, Gregory H. and Georg Nolte, 1995, “Intolerant Democracies”, Harvard International Law Journal , 36(1): 1–70.
• Gelber, Katharine, 2010, “Freedom of Political Speech, Hate Speech and the Argument from Democracy: The Transformative Contribution of Capabilities Theory”, Contemporary Political Theory , 9(3): 304–324. doi:10.1057/cpt.2009.8
• Gilmore, Jonathan, 2011, “Expression as Realization: Speakers’ Interests in Freedom of Speech”, Law and Philosophy , 30(5): 517–539. doi:10.1007/s10982-011-9096-z
• Gordon, Jill, 1997, “John Stuart Mill and the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’:”, Social Theory and Practice , 23(2): 235–249. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract199723210
• Greenawalt, Kent, 1989, Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Greene, Amanda R. and Robert Mark Simpson, 2017, “Tolerating Hate in the Name of Democracy”, The Modern Law Review , 80(4): 746–765. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12283
• Greene, Jamal, 2021, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession with Rights Is Tearing America Apart , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2008, Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
• Hare, Ivan and James Weinstein (eds), 2009, Extreme Speech and Democracy , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.001.0001
• Hart, H. L. A., 1955, “Are There Any Natural Rights?”, The Philosophical Review , 64(2): 175–191. doi:10.2307/2182586
• Heinze, Eric, 2016, Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759027.001.0001
• Heyman, Steven J., 2009, “Hate Speech, Public Discourse, and the First Amendment”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 158–181 (ch. 9). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0010
• Hohfeld, Wesley, 1917, “Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,” Yale Law Journal 26(8): 710–770.
• Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 561 U.S. 1 (2010).
• Hornsby, Jennifer, 1995, “Disempowered Speech”, Philosophical Topics , 23(2): 127–147. doi:10.5840/philtopics199523211
• Howard, Jeffrey W., 2019a, “Dangerous Speech”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 47(2): 208–254. doi:10.1111/papa.12145
• –––, 2019b, “Free Speech and Hate Speech”, Annual Review of Political Science , 22: 93–109. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343
• –––, 2021, “Terror, Hate and the Demands of Counter-Speech”, British Journal of Political Science , 51(3): 924–939. doi:10.1017/S000712341900053X
• –––, forthcoming a, “The Ethics of Social Media: Why Content Moderation is a Moral Duty”, Journal of Practical Ethics .
• Howard, Jeffrey W. and Robert Simpson, forthcoming b, “Freedom of Speech”, in Issues in Political Theory , fifth edition, Catriona McKinnon, Patrick Tomlin, and Robert Jubb (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Husak, Douglas N., 1985, “What Is so Special about [Free] Speech?”, Law and Philosophy , 4(1): 1–15. doi:10.1007/BF00208258
• Jacobson, Daniel, 2000, “Mill on Liberty, Speech, and the Free Society”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 29(3): 276–309. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00276.x
• Kendrick, Leslie, 2013, “Speech, Intent, and the Chilling Effect”, William & Mary Law Review , 54(5): 1633–1692.
• –––, 2017, “Free Speech as a Special Right”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 45(2): 87–117. doi:10.1111/papa.12087
• Klonick, Kate, 2018, “The New Governors”, Harvard Law Review 131: 1589–1670.
• Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump 928 F.3d 226 (2019).
• Kramer, Matthew H., 2021, Freedom of Expression as Self-Restraint , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lakier, Genevieve, 2015, “The Invention of Low-Value Speech”, Harvard Law Review , 128(8): 2166–2233.
• Landemore, Hélène, 2013, Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Langton, Rae, 1993, “Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 22(4): 293–330.
• –––, 2018, “The Authority of Hate Speech”, in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law (Volume 3), John Gardner, Leslie Green, and Brian Leiter (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: ch. 4. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198828174.003.0004
• Lazar, Seth, forthcoming, “Legitimacy, Authority, and the Public Value of Explanations”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 10), Steven Wall (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, forthcoming, Connected by Code: Algorithmic Intermediaries and Political Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Leiter, Brian, 2016, “The Case against Free Speech”, Sydney Law Review , 38(4): 407–439.
• Lepoutre, Maxime, 2021, Democratic Speech in Divided Times , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
• MacKinnon, Catharine A., 1984 [1987], “Not a Moral Issue”, Yale Law & Policy Review , 2(2): 321–345. Reprinted in her Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987, 146–162 (ch. 13).
• Macklem, Timothy, 2006, Independence of Mind , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535446.001.0001
• Maitra, Ishani, 2009, “Silencing Speech”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 39(2): 309–338. doi:10.1353/cjp.0.0050
• Maitra, Ishani and Mary Kate McGowan, 2007, “The Limits of Free Speech: Pornography and the Question of Coverage”, Legal Theory , 13(1): 41–68. doi:10.1017/S1352325207070024
• Matsuda, Mari J., 1989, “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story Legal Storytelling”, Michigan Law Review , 87(8): 2320–2381.
• Matsuda, Mari J., Charles R. Lawrence, Richard Delgado, and Kimberlè Williams Crenshaw, 1993, Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment (New Perspectives on Law, Culture, and Society), Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Reprinted 2018, Abingdon: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429502941
• McGowan, Mary Kate, 2003, “Conversational Exercitives and the Force of Pornography”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 31(2): 155–189. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00155.x
• –––, 2019, Just Words: On Speech and Hidden Harm , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829706.001.0001
• McMahan, Jeff, 2009, Killing in War , (Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics), Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548668.001.0001
• Milton, John, 1644, “Areopagitica”, London. [ Milton 1644 available online ]
• Meiklejohn, Alexander, 1948, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government , New York: Harper.
• –––, 1960, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People , New York: Harper.
• Mill, John Stuart, 1859, On Liberty , London: John W. Parker and Son. [ Mill 1859 available online ]
• Nagel, Thomas, 2002, Concealment and Exposure , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Pallikkathayil, Japa, 2020, “Free Speech and the Embodied Self”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 6), David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 61–84 (ch. 3). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198852636.003.0003
• Parekh, Bhikhu, 2012, “Is There a Case for Banning Hate Speech?”, in The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses , Michael Herz and Peter Molnar (eds.), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 37–56. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139042871.006
• Post, Robert C., 1991, “Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment Free Speech and Religious, Racial, and Sexual Harassment”, William and Mary Law Review , 32(2): 267–328.
• –––, 2000, “Reconciling Theory and Doctrine in First Amendment Jurisprudence Symposium of the Law in the Twentieth Century”, California Law Review , 88(6): 2353–2374.
• –––, 2009, “Hate Speech”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 123–138 (ch. 7). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0008
• –––, 2011, “Participatory Democracy as a Theory of Free Speech: A Reply Replies”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 617–632.
• Quong, Jonathan, 2011, Liberalism without Perfection , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199594870.001.0001
• R v. Oakes , 1 SCR 103 (1986).
• Rawls, John, 2005, Political Liberalism , expanded edition, (Columbia Classics in Philosophy), New York: Columbia University Press.
• Raz, Joseph, 1991 [1994], “Free Expression and Personal Identification”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 11(3): 303–324. Collected in his Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 146–169 (ch. 7).
• Redish, Martin H., 1982, “Value of Free Speech”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review , 130(3): 591–645.
• Rubenfeld, Jed, 2001, “The First Amendment’s Purpose”, Stanford Law Review , 53(4): 767–832.
• Scanlon, Thomas, 1972, “A Theory of Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 1(2): 204–226.
• –––, 1978, “Freedom of Expression and Categories of Expression ”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review , 40(4): 519–550.
• –––, 2008, “Rights and Interests”, in Arguments for a Better World: Essays in Honor of Amartya Sen , Kaushik Basu and Ravi Kanbur (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68–79 (ch. 5). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239115.003.0006
• –––, 2013, “Reply to Wenar”, Journal of Moral Philosophy 10: 400–406
• Schauer, Frederick, 1978, “Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the Chilling Effect”, Boston University Law Review , 58(5): 685–732.
• –––, 1982, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1985, “Slippery Slopes”, Harvard Law Review , 99(2): 361–383.
• –––, 1993, “The Phenomenology of Speech and Harm”, Ethics , 103(4): 635–653. doi:10.1086/293546
• –––, 2004, “The Boundaries of the First Amendment: A Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience”, Harvard Law Review , 117(6): 1765–1809.
• –––, 2009, “Is It Better to Be Safe than Sorry: Free Speech and the Precautionary Principle Free Speech in an Era of Terrorism”, Pepperdine Law Review , 36(2): 301–316.
• –––, 2010, “Facts and the First Amendment”, UCLA Law Review , 57(4): 897–920.
• –––, 2011a, “On the Relation between Chapters One and Two of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty ”, Capital University Law Review , 39(3): 571–592.
• –––, 2011b, “Harm(s) and the First Amendment”, The Supreme Court Review , 2011: 81–111. doi:10.1086/665583
• –––, 2015, “Free Speech on Tuesdays”, Law and Philosophy , 34(2): 119–140. doi:10.1007/s10982-014-9220-y
• Shiffrin, Seana Valentine, 2014, Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality, and the Law (Carl G. Hempel Lecture Series), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Simpson, Robert Mark, 2016, “Defining ‘Speech’: Subtraction, Addition, and Division”, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , 29(2): 457–494. doi:10.1017/cjlj.2016.20
• –––, 2021, “‘Lost, Enfeebled, and Deprived of Its Vital Effect’: Mill’s Exaggerated View of the Relation Between Conflict and Vitality”, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume , 95: 97–114. doi:10.1093/arisup/akab006
• Southeastern Promotions Ltd., v. Conrad , 420 U.S. 546 (1975).
• Sparrow, Robert and Robert E. Goodin, 2001, “The Competition of Ideas: Market or Garden?”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 4(2): 45–58. doi:10.1080/13698230108403349
• Stone, Adrienne, 2017, “Viewpoint Discrimination, Hate Speech Laws, and the Double-Sided Nature of Freedom of Speech”, Constitutional Commentary , 32(3): 687–696.
• Stone, Geoffrey R., 1983, “Content Regulation and the First Amendment”, William and Mary Law Review , 25(2): 189–252.
• –––, 1987, “Content-Neutral Restrictions”, University of Chicago Law Review , 54(1): 46–118.
• –––, 2004, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism , New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Strauss, David A., 1991, “Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression”, Columbia Law Review , 91(2): 334–371.
• Strossen, Nadine, 2018, Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship , New York: Oxford University Press
• Sunstein, Cass R., 1986, “Pornography and the First Amendment”, Duke Law Journal , 1986(4): 589–627.
• –––, 1989, “Low Value Speech Revisited Commentaries”, Northwestern University Law Review , 83(3): 555–561.
• –––, 1993, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech , New York: The Free Press.
• –––, 2017, #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Tadros, Victor, 2012, “Duty and Liability”, Utilitas , 24(2): 259–277.
• Turner, Piers Norris, 2014, “‘Harm’ and Mill’s Harm Principle”, Ethics , 124(2): 299–326. doi:10.1086/673436
• Tushnet, Mark, Alan Chen, and Joseph Blocher, 2017, Free Speech beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment , New York: New York University Press.
• Volokh, Eugene, 2011, “In Defense of the Marketplace of Ideas/Search for Truth as a Theory of Free Speech Protection Responses”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 595–602.
• Vredenburgh, Kate, 2022, “The Right to Explanation”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 30(2): 209–229. doi:10.1111/jopp.12262
• Waldron, Jeremy, 1987, “Mill and the Value of Moral Distress”, Political Studies , 35(3): 410–423. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1987.tb00197.x
• –––, 2012, The Harm in Hate Speech (The Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures, 2009), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Weinstein, James, 2011, “Participatory Democracy as the Central Value of American Free Speech Doctrine”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 491–514.
• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Whitten, Suzanne, 2022, A Republican Theory of Free Speech: Critical Civility , Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78631-1
• Whitney, Heather M. and Robert Mark Simpson, 2019, “Search Engines and Free Speech Coverage”, in Free Speech in the Digital Age , Susan J. Brison and Katharine Gelber (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33–51 (ch. 2). doi:10.1093/oso/9780190883591.003.0003
• West, Caroline, 2004 [2022], “Pornography and Censorship”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 edition), Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/pornography-censorship/ >.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) , adopted: 16 December 1966; Entry into force: 23 March 1976.
• Free Speech Debate
• Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
• van Mill, David, “Freedom of Speech”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/freedom-speech/ >. [This was the previous entry on this topic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – see the version history .]

ethics: search engines and | hate speech | legal rights | liberalism | Mill, John Stuart | Mill, John Stuart: moral and political philosophy | pornography: and censorship | rights | social networking and ethics | toleration

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the editors and anonymous referees of this Encyclopedia for helpful feedback. I am greatly indebted to Robert Mark Simpson for many incisive suggestions, which substantially improved the entry. This entry was written while on a fellowship funded by UK Research & Innovation (grant reference MR/V025600/1); I am thankful to UKRI for the support.

Copyright © 2024 by Jeffrey W. Howard < jeffrey . howard @ ucl . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Research & Learn

Table of contents, free speech essay contest.

The Details

The contest may return in 2024. Check back for updates.

Eligibility

Open to juniors and seniors in U.S. high schools, including home-schooled students, as well as U.S. citizens attending high school overseas. Additional questions regarding eligibility may be emailed to [email protected] .

Word Length

Students must submit an essay between 700 and 900 words on the provided topic below.

FIRE must receive all entries by 11:59 EST, December 31, 2021. Winners will be announced by February 15, 2022.

Scholarship Prizes

One $10,000 first prize, one $5,000 second prize, three $1,000 third place prizes and four $500 prizes will be awarded.

Before You Start

Get to know us! The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech , legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. In addition to defending the rights of students and faculty, FIRE works to educate students and the general public on the necessity of free speech and its importance to a thriving democratic society.

The freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, is a foundational American right. Nowhere is that right more important than on our college campuses, where the free flow of ideas and the clash of opposing views advance knowledge and promote human progress. It is on our college campuses, however, where some of the most serious violations of free speech occur, and where students are regularly censored simply because their expression might offend others.

We also encourage you to take advantage of our other educational resources , including our First Amendment Library , our continually-updated Newsdesk , our K-12 Video Library , and our many publications , including our Guide to Free Speech on Campus.

In a persuasive letter or essay, convince your peers that free speech is a better idea than censorship.

Your letter or essay must be between 700-900 words. We encourage you to draw from current events, historical examples, our free speech comic , other resources on FIRE’s website , and/or your own personal experiences.

Note: While there is no required format for your submission, many entrants use MLA guidelines. Successful entries will show an understanding of the importance of free speech and the pitfalls of censorship. You may use in-text citations, and do not need to include a References or Works Cited page. Essays that do not address the prompt question or fail to meet the word-count requirements will not be considered. View the essays of some of our past winners here !

Entering this essay contest constitutes agreement to having your name and essay published on FIRE's website if you are selected as a winner. FIRE reserves the right to make minor edits to winning essays before publication on our website.

• Share this selection on Twitter
• Share this selection via email

Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech

• 🗃️ Essay topics
• ❓ Research questions
• 📝 Topic sentences
• 🪝 Essay hooks
• 📑 Thesis statements
• 🔀 Hypothesis examples
• 🧐 Personal statements

🔗 References

🗃️ freedom of speech essay topics.

• The importance of freedom of speech in a democratic society.
• The role of the First Amendment in protecting freedom of speech.
• The limits of free speech in society.
• The impact of social media on freedom of speech.
• The relationship between hate speech and freedom of speech.
• The impact of political correctness on freedom of speech.
• Analysis of freedom of speech in the US.
• The role of censorship in limiting freedom of speech.
• The impact of technology on freedom of speech.
• The impact of commercial interests on freedom of speech.
• The role of universities in protecting freedom of speech.
• The impact of fake news on freedom of speech.
• The impact of hate speech on marginalized communities.
• The role of satire in freedom of speech.
• American citizens’ protests to federal government.
• The relationship between freedom of speech and academic freedom.
• The impact of the government on freedom of speech.
• The importance of protecting whistleblowers in freedom of speech.
• The role of journalists in protecting freedom of speech.
• The impact of the internet on freedom of speech.
• The relationship between freedom of speech and intellectual property rights.
• The impact of cancel culture on freedom of speech.

❓ Freedom of Speech Essay Questions

• What is the historical origin of the concept of freedom of speech, and how has it evolved over time?
• How do different legal systems around the world approach freedom of speech?
• What are the main arguments for and against limitations on freedom of speech, such as hate speech, libel, and obscenity?
• What is the impact of social media on freedom of speech?
• How does freedom of speech intersect with other fundamental human rights?
• What is the relationship between freedom of speech and democracy?
• What is the role of education in promoting responsible free speech?
• What are the most common forms of censorship around the world?
• How has the internet and social media affected the ability of individuals and groups to express themselves freely?
• What are the key ethical considerations surrounding freedom of speech, and how can these be addressed in practice?
• How do different cultural and religious traditions approach freedom of speech?
• What is the impact of commercial interests, such as advertising and corporate influence, on freedom of speech in the media?
• How does the exercise of free speech differ between online and offline contexts?
• What are the key legal and ethical issues surrounding the use of encryption technology to protect freedom of speech?
• How can freedom of speech be balanced with the need for national security and public safety?

📝 Freedom of Speech Topic Sentence Examples

• Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that should be protected at all costs, as it enables individuals to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship or persecution.
• Despite its importance, freedom of speech remains a contested issue in many societies, with some arguing that it should be limited to prevent harm or offense to others.
• The digital age has brought about new challenges for freedom of speech, with social media platforms facing increasing pressure to balance the right to free expression with the need to combat hate speech and misinformation.

🪝 Top Hooks for Freedom of Speech Paper

📍 definition hooks for essay about freedom of speech.

• At its core, freedom of speech is the right to communicate one’s thoughts and ideas, whether through written or spoken word, without interference from government or other authorities.
• Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to express their ideas and opinions freely and openly without fear of retribution or censorship.

📍 Statistical Hooks about Freedom of Speech for Essa

• According to a recent survey, over 70% of Americans believe that freedom of speech is under threat in today’s society, with concerns about censorship and cancel culture on the rise.
• According to a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists, 274 journalists were imprisoned worldwide in 2020 for their work, with freedom of speech violations reaching a 12-year high.

📍 Quotation Hooks

• “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” – Benjamin Franklin
• “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often attributed to Voltaire)

📑 Top Freedom of Speech Thesis Statements

✔️ argumentative thesis samples on freedom of speech.

• While some argue that freedom of speech should be absolute, the reality is that certain forms of speech, such as hate speech and incitement to violence, can have damaging and dangerous consequences, and therefore limited restrictions on speech are necessary to protect individuals and society as a whole.
• The increasing prevalence of social media has created a complex landscape for freedom of speech, where online platforms must balance the competing values of free expression and responsible content moderation, and where the power dynamics between individuals, governments, and corporations play a crucial role in shaping the boundaries of acceptable speech.

✔️ Analytical Thesis Examples about Freedom of Speech

• The debate surrounding freedom of speech is not simply a matter of protecting individual rights but also involves the complex interplay between the individual and society, including the role of power dynamics, cultural norms, and the impact of technology.
• The concept of freedom of speech is not absolute, as it intersects with other rights such as privacy and the prevention of harm, and thus requires a nuanced analysis of the specific contexts and implications of speech acts in order to strike a balance between individual liberty and the common good.

✔️ Informative Thesis on Freedom of Speech

• Freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by many international and national laws, allowing individuals to express themselves without fear of censorship or retaliation, but its boundaries are constantly debated and contested in society.
• While freedom of speech is a vital component of a democratic society, it also comes with ethical and moral responsibilities, as the unchecked expression of hate speech and misinformation can have harmful consequences on individuals and communities.

🔀 Freedom of Speech Hypothesis Examples

• Increased protection of freedom of speech leads to a more diverse and inclusive society, where marginalized groups are better able to express their opinions and have their voices heard.
• The rise of social media has led to an erosion of traditional norms around freedom of speech, with individuals feeling more empowered to express extreme and hateful views online, leading to an increase in polarization and division within society.

🔂 Null & Alternative Hypothesis on Freedom of Speech

• Null hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between freedom of speech and the ability of individuals to express their opinions freely without fear of censorship or retaliation.
• Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between freedom of speech and the ability of individuals to express their opinions freely without fear of censorship or retaliation.

🧐 Examples of Personal Statement about Freedom of Speech

• As a student, I believe that freedom of speech is one of the most important principles in a democratic society. The ability to express our thoughts and ideas without fear of censorship or retaliation is essential to promoting dialogue and progress. Through my experiences as a student journalist and activist, I have come to understand the power of free speech in creating social change and advocating for marginalized communities.
• As a student, I recognize the challenges and complexities that come with protecting freedom of speech. While it is essential to uphold this fundamental right, it is also important to recognize the potential harm that hate speech and misinformation can cause. Through my involvement in student organizations and community activism, I have worked to create spaces where diverse perspectives can be heard and respected.
• Motivated moral judgments about freedom of speech are constrained by a need to maintain consistency
• Predictors of the importance of freedom of speech
• Freedom of Speech and Democracy
• Freedom of Speech and Media
• Intellectual Freedom and Freedom of Speech: Three Theoretical Perspectives

Cite this page

Select a referencing style

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

AssignZen. (2023, June 9). Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech. https://assignzen.com/writing-prompts/freedom-of-speech-essay-ideas/

"Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech." AssignZen , 9 June 2023, assignzen.com/writing-prompts/freedom-of-speech-essay-ideas/.

1. AssignZen . "Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech." June 9, 2023. https://assignzen.com/writing-prompts/freedom-of-speech-essay-ideas/.

Bibliography

AssignZen . "Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech." June 9, 2023. https://assignzen.com/writing-prompts/freedom-of-speech-essay-ideas/.

AssignZen . 2023. "Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech." June 9, 2023. https://assignzen.com/writing-prompts/freedom-of-speech-essay-ideas/.

AssignZen . (2023) 'Writing Prompts about Freedom of Speech'. 9 June.

1001 Writing Prompts About Civil Rights

March 10, 2021

Commaful is supported by readers. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. This does not affect who we choose to review or what we recommend.  Learn more

Ever since Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move the back of the bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 sparked the modern civil rights movement in America, people have been created stories about institutionalized racial discrimination, disenfranchisement, and racial segregation. This includes The Help by Kathryn Stockett—a historical fiction novel that tells the story of African Americans working in white households in Jackson, Mississippi during the early 1960s—and Let the Children March by Monica Clark-Robinson—a children’s picture book set during the Birmingham Children’s Crusade in 1963.

Even though it is already the 21st century, there is still a need for racial equality in the country today, so stories about civil rights are still needed. If you are interested in writing some, here are some writing prompts that could hopefully inspire you: 

• Write from the point of view of an African American during the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write a story about the first black American in Air Force One.
• How does the Civil Rights Movement compare to the Gay Rights Movement? Write an essay comparing both movements.
• Write about two people from two different circumstances defining the  word “peace.”
• Write about how to define people based on their membership to an ethnic group.
• Write about the destruction of Jim Crow laws.
• Write a letter that your family sent to the civil rights movement.
• Write about a time when the local government intervened and made a change in your community.
• Write a poem about what you have learned and what you still need to know.
• Write about freedom of speech. Write a story about the founding fathers and what they fought for.
• Write a fictional story about being in the Civil Rights Movement or undertaking a civil rights action of your own.
• Write about your experience participating in a Civil Rights protest.
• What do you think of Emmett Till? Make a story about his life.
• Write a toast/speech about your commitment to social justice.
• What is personal integrity? What is your experience with the concept?
• Have you ever taken a stand for something you believed in, even if you were alone?
• What is the importance of knowing who you are?  Write about heritage.
• Write about someone who made a difference.
• Write about the struggle for equal justice.
• How can the civil rights act change the future?
• How does war affect killing racism?
• Do you believe affirmative action is fair? Why or why not?
• Write about Rosa Parks.
• What are your child’s civil rights?
• Write a story about a Civil Rights violation not mentioned in this list.
• Write about why civil rights is important.
• Write a story about Rosa Parks.
• Write about Rosa Parks
• Write about a hero in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a poem about a civil rights event.
• Write a story about the Freedom Riders.
• Write about the segregation of students.
• Write about the Civil Rights movement.
• Describe a situation of injustice that has happened to a friend or family member.
• Write about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s nonviolence.
• Day of Empathy
• Write about the first time you were discriminated against.
• Write about the divide in opinion between those of faith and those of the military.
• Write a letter to your future grandchildren about the progress of the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about different ways certain minorities are treated. How do they cope with it?
• Write about what race means to you.
• Write about a Civil Rights Leader you admire or love.
• Write about your experiences.
• Write a story about a childhood experience.
• Write about Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus.
• Write about sitting down lunch counters as a form of nonviolent protest.
• Write a text message conversation in which you discuss a situation of racism with a friend. Your friend secretly has a grudge against you and the dialogue between you two escalates into a heated debate. The police get called by an unknown stranger.
• Write about any of the songs from the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about what your community can do to diminish racism and prejudice.
• Write about unfair laws and how they affect the main character.
• Write about a blind activist / a self-taught educator.
• Change your setting and write a story about what might have happened if a Civil Rights leader never impacted his or her community? Will anything ever happen if these leaders never existed?
• Write about a contemporary or historic injustice in America.
• Create a dialogue between two people who disagree about the outcomes of the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about a time where you tried to stand up for something you believe in.
• Write a story about Rosa Parks
• Write about marches taking place during the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about a current protest in the world today.
• Write about Rosa Parks or a civil rights activist.
• Write about being a part of the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a story of the Civil Rights movement that takes place in your town.
• Write about your personal connection to history, or being inspired by having a connection to history.
• Write about a part of history that brought people . Write a poem.
• Write a story about how someone in your family inspires you to have civil rights.
• Explain how the work of African Americans and other people of color affected or influenced the progress of civil rights.
• What civil liberties does your country guarantee?
• Write a story where everyone is given equal rights.
• Write about one of many important leaders.
• Write a narrative based on an African American in your family.
• Write a story about Gandhi’s non-violent movement
• Write about a moment when you saw systemic discrimination.
• What is an activist? What is someone’s definition of activism?
• Write an alternate ending to the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about an act of community service.
• How does prejudice affect other people besides the person being discriminated against?
• How prominent was the civil rights problem at the time of your creation?
• Yolanda White’s students at Ivy Elementary School in Memphis, Tennessee are excited to learn about Martin Luther King, Jr.
• Write your favorite scene from Alice Walker’s novel “The Color Purple”.
• Write about getting your rights back… sometimes to get them back, you need to take them back.
• Tell a story about your favorite civil rights leader.
• Write about segregation.
• Write about the memories of a family member such as oral history.
• Write a short story in which anachronistic languages are used.
• How did the women in SNCC change national opinion? How did they change their own lives?
• Describe an event that happened to you or a friend in which someone expressed true tolerance.
• Write about a Mother who is taking her family across the country on the underground railroad.
• Write your own version of a well-known civil right’s song.
• Write about an important part in history that changed with a decision like Brown v. Board of Education.
• Write a story about Emmett Till’s murder.
• Write a poem about being in a civil rights movement.
• Write about a Civil Rights leader you admire.
• Talk about a current social issue and how that reflects personal freedoms.
• Write about the Civil Rights Movement in your community or state.
• Write about the story of Rosa Parks
• Write a story about a specific civil rights battle.
• Write about what you are personally doing to prevent racism in your life.
• Write about how your school handles racial segregation.
• Write about where you fit in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about someone who stood up for their rights.
• Write about a Civil Rights leader that does not receive as much attention as historical figures like
• Write a story about forgiveness.
• Write a story about an African-American’s involvement in a humanitarian cause or historical event.
• Your community seems to have gotten very upset.  The sight of a police car infuriates some people, others have been spreading rumors about what community members did at the meeting last night. You have to choose-write for the people who are angry or write for the people who have been hurt by the rumors.
• What is racism?
• What is the problem in Salem, and how do the characters fix the problem?
• Write about a historic event in the struggle for women’s rights.
• Write a true story about another civil rights activist.
• Autobiography – Why are you an activist?
• Write about Black Lives Matter.
• Write about a time in your life when you experienced racism.
• What is freedom and how does it affect different people?
• Write about a person against discrimination.
• Write about a historic site in civil rights history.
• Write a story about a historic civil rights leader.
• Write about a person who inspires you to fight for civil rights.
• Write a list poem involving the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a list of Bad things Americans did to Japanese Americans during World War II.
• Write about “standing up for what you believe”, including in confronting and standing up to racism
• Write about a historic event in the Civil Rights movement like the march on Washington or desegregation.
• Write about the importance of freedom and equality.
• Write about racism, segregation and discrimination.
• Write about the freedom of speech.
• When trouble strikes, who helps you?
• How do you make your contribution to peace?
• Write a story about Malcolm X.
• What does reverse racism look like?
• Write about Rosa Parks’ legacy
• How important is legislation in improving peoples’ lives?
• Write a piece about the University of Alabama integration protests.
• Write a post/short story relating to a lesson you have learned through racism.
• Write about the racial makeup of your neighborhood.
• Write a story incorporating the word freedom.
• Write a story about your own courageous act to help someone.
• Do you recognize what is segregation and what is inequality?
• Write a scene about Rosa Parks refusal to give her seat on the bus.
• Write about something you wish you could change.
• Write a story about Martin Luther King Jr. and instances of courage in your life.
• Write about Apartheid during South Africa’s peak years.
• How did Dr. King’s life affect you?
• Write a story about a present day Civil Rights leader.
• Write about people who overcame adversity.
• Discuss Rosa Parks. Describe events surrounding her arrest the events following her arrest.
• Write a story about voting rights.
• Write a poem dedicated to a civil-rights leader.
• Write a story about a person in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about racism, prejudice, or discrimination.
• A Word from Author 2 Author Mentor
• Write about going back in time and working for Dr. King.
• Write about what freedom means to you
• Write about prejudice and discrimination.
• Write a letter to a magazine or newspaper urging others to fight for your rights as an equal citizen.
• Write a story of dedication to a cause
• Who is your most favorite female this year?
• Write a poem about the importance of civil rights.
• Write a poem about the current protest today.
• Write about the Civil Rights movement, particularly the marches, protests and demonstrations.
• Write about one of the rights Americans have, that many people in the world don’t have.
• Write a newspaper article about a historic event in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a story about some of the peaceful protests taken part in during the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about making a difference.
• Write about a civil rights figure.
• What would your life be like if racism was eliminated?
• Write about the African-American civil rights movement.
• Write a song about Rosa Parks.
• Write a poem about feelings, fears, or hopes connected to the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write a letter to someone on the opposing side communicating tolerance and acceptance.
• Write a fictional story about an activist for civil rights.
• Write about the American Justice System.
• Write about courage as demonstrated in the Civil Rights movement, civil rights leaders in your family or neighborhood.
• Write a list of how a series of small events can lead to bigger events.
• Write about equality, justice, and human rights.
• Write about race.
• What do you think slavery would be like today?
• Write about a family member who participated in the movement.
• Write about a symbol of the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about a time you had to choose between what you wanted to do and what you thought was right.
• Write about three events in your life. Tell which one had the most influence on your life and why.
• How can people build bridges to cross racial and cultural gaps?
• Write a story about a civil rights leader.
• What civil rights issue is most pressing in America right now? Why?
• Write about sit-ins.
• Write about a fictional character who set off the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about what racism means to you.
• Write a letter from a civil rights activist to a modern day news station or newspaper.
• Write a scene in which a man defends his rights.
• Write a story about inequality.
• If you wrote a play about Rosa Parks, what would it be about?
• Write a poem foretelling the future for equal rights, so we won’t have to remember past history.
• Write about individual prejudice.
• Write about a historical civil rights event that was covered up, and write about the damage it caused.
• Write a story about how racism has affected your life.
• Write a story about a dream
• Write about an identifiable event within the civil rights movement with your families involvement in it.
• Write a dialogue about the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about a summer of love getting peace ready.
• Write about a famous civil rights leader in the news.
• Write about the importance of a person’s civil rights.
• Write about what inspired the freedom riders.
• Write your own letter from Birmingham Jail.
• Write about segregation or integration.
• Write a story about another important individual, male or female, who led the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a story about your grandmother or great grandmother and her stories of life during the segregation era
• Write a story
• Write about being on the wrong side of History.
• Write a story about a woman’s rights.
• Write about injustice in history. Is it harder to say something when you see injustice all around you?
• Write a letter to the president about gun control laws.
• Write about the Bill of Rights and how it applies to you.
• Write a haunted house story about Rosa Parks.
• Write about a turning point in the Civil rights movement.
• Write about a historic figure who did not get his or her “due.”
• Write a story similar to “Howl” by Allen Ginsberg.
• Write a story about Malcolm X or Rosa Parks.
• Write about similarities in human nature.
• Write the story of an activist from the Civil Rights Movement
• Write about what Dr. King would want the United States to do now to eradicate racism.
• Write a story about the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about a time you have experienced unjust treatment or discrimination.
• Write about the challenges and advantages facing immigrants.
• Write about a civil rights activist you admire.
• What are your thoughts on people dying for a cause? Why would they do that?
• Using dialogue, write about a personal conflict the main character has with a friend or teacher about a civil rights issue.
• Write about how a Civil Rights Leader has inspired you.
• Write a time travel story going back to the Civil Rights movement.
• What does equality mean to you?
• Write a poem about tolerance.
• Write about Mothers who make a difference.
• Write about civic activism in your community.
• Write about a time you felt out of place.
• Write about a time when you experienced prejudice.
• Write about a civil rights leader.
• Write about a time you or someone you know has been discriminated against.
• Write an African-American child’s point of view that is not necessarily related to civil rights.
• Write about a time when you feared for your life.
• Write a story about someone who inspires you.
• Who is the most important civil rights leader in your life? How did they influence your life?
• Write about strife and prejudice towards somebody who is different.
• Write about a famous protest in the civil rights movement.
• Write a story about a front-line non-violent protester.
• Write a story about a march participant from any state.
• Write about a current event in the news that you think is important.
• Write about someone who has sacrificed for the rights of others.
• Write about Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about a personal fight for civil rights. What did you do? What was done to you?
• Write a dialogue between a person who disagrees with Dr. King and a person who agrees with Dr. King.
• Write about how the Civil Rights Movement began.
• What did Martin Luther King Jr. change?
• How do you feel about what is happening in Ferguson, Missouri?
• Police brutality. Write a scene about the famous beating of Rodney King.
• Write about a civil rights leader in your community. Where do you live? What is his or her legacy?
• Give a first-hand account of a historic event in the Civil Rights movement.
• When someone believes they are perfect How does race help or hinder achieving their “purpose”
• How has the media portrayed the Civil Rights movement?
• Write about a civil rights hero who is not well known.
• Write about a time you changed your opinion based on someone in your life.
• Write about Stonewall.
• Write a mock letter from Jefferson to a slave, or vice versa.
• What is a community? What can a community do?
• Write about an activist you respect.
• How do you challenge a cultural belief?
• Write about freedom of speech.
• Write about a time when you stepped up and helped someone who was being hurt in some way.
• Write about an experience you’ve had in which someone else handed down a prejudicial judgement.
• Write about the times when you felt hurt because of racism.
• Write about human rights in your country or region.
• How do you respond to people’s aversion to migrant workers? How do you cope with the feelings you inspire?
• Write your own non-fiction article/book about the Civil Rights Movement. Use magazine /journalistic writing formats.
• Write about the misconceptions surrounding violent groups. Think of creative solutions for the two groups to meet.
• Writing about literature
• Write about an unforgettable person.
• Write about a family affected by a prison system.
• Describe the causes of the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a story about the freedom riders.
• Write a scene about your best friend.
• Write about a person from another country who has impacted your life.
• Write a poem about being different.
• Write about a time when someone talked back to discrimination.
• Write about a period of segregation.
• Write about someone using their freedom to do something significant or important.
• Write about a time someone gave you a helping hand.
• Write about a historic non-violent protest.
• describe your idea of a dream world and how the people in it might interact with each other. maybe have most of them with disabilities but that have the same rights as everyone else
• Write about the Civil Rights Act.
• Write a narrative or short story from the point-of-view of a Civil Rights activist.
• Write about a conference in Alabama.
• Write about the dream of equal rights.
• What does freedom mean to you?
• Write a short narrative poem describing a story about the Civil Right movement
• Write a story about a child freedom rider? How does segregation affect this child?
• Write about an act of civil disobedience.
• Who in your family influenced you the most? What was their story?
• Write a story about an incident in the Civil Rights movement you were not a part of.
• Write a protest poem.
• Write about a non-violent protest that changed the world.
• How has your family been affected by racial prejudice?
• Write a character with a racial identity crisis.
• Write one of your own ideas.
• What is equal access?
• Write about meeting a real historical figure.
• Write a poem about democracy.
• Write about someone told by their parents to speak up and speak out.
• Write about “Folk Heroes of the Past” in the United States
• Write about things that show your support for freedom and equality
• Write about a fictional character who is a civil rights activist.
• You have a friend who makes racist jokes. What do you do about it?
• Write about a time you showed that you were a civil rights leader.
• What were some of the biggest obstacles in the way of civil rights changes?
• Tell a story in verse.
• Write a song about racism.
• List some rules a government can and cannot make.
• Write about both the triumphant and tragic parts of the Civil Rights movement.
• What does it mean to be free?
• Write a story about how you have participated in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about coming of age during the Civil Rights movement.
• Online Resources
• Writing prompts are a great way to learn and review and help students write better!
• Write about freedom and perseverance.
• Write a story about Andrew Young.
• What is your favourite civil rights leader and why?
• How do you feel that the Civil Rights Movement has influenced the way that America is today?
• Write about a civil rights violation.
• In your opinion, what makes a “civil rights disaster?”
• Write about your favorite movie or book on the civil rights movement.
• Write a scene in which there is a protest.
• Know any nuns because of your upbring?
• Write something based on riots.
• Write about racism toward women.
• Write about Freedom Summer.
• Write about a Civil Rights leader who is important to you.
• Write about yourself or someone close to you becoming a better person.
• How would you react if suddenly you could no longer use the washrooms where you normally use them?
• What is social justice and what does that mean to you?
• Write about a time you stood up for someone or something.
• How do people find the courage to change?
• All who serve are equal – write about those who serve their nation.
• Write a story about a Civil Rights protest you attended or participated in.
• Write about “freedom riders.”
• Make up a fictional account of a historic event in the United States civil rights movement. The author would not exist.
• Write about a time your community came together.
• Who inspired you the most during Civil rights?
• Write in your point of view.
• Write about freedom in America.
• Write about injustice.
• Write a story about the fictional character, Rosa Parks.
• Write story about the last days of Dr. M
• Write a story about an injustice in the United States.
• Write about the struggle of being different.
• Write about journalism and civil rights.
• Who were the leaders in the Civil Rights movement? Write a story about them.
• Write a story about slavery.
• Write a letter to your ethnicity encouraging them to support Civil Rights Movements.
• Write about a current man or woman fighting for Civil Rights.
• Write about a time when you saw true injustice and sat by silently.
• Write about a Rosa Parks moment.
• How can a single person change the world?
• How did you overcome obstacles?
• Write about what Martin Luther King Jr accomplished.
• What are liberties and freedoms? How did the founding fathers address this topic? How do we today address this topic?
• Write about discrimination again immigrants, refugees, ethnic groups, other races, religions, or genders.
• Write a poem to get across a message about non-violent protest.
• Write a poem about growing up and facing the bigots in your town.
• Is your character a racist or someone who works against racism?
• Write about an individual who has strongly influenced you. How have they inspired or changed you?
• Write a story from the perspective of a Black Journalist.
• Write a story about Rosa Parks’ decision.
• Write the line of history that you keep reading in history books, but what happened before and after?
• What is apathy and why is it bad? Give two examples from your own life.
• Write about a current civil rights issue.
• Write about a time when you stood up for racial equality.
• Write a short story about someone you admire.
• Write about where you were on this day and to consider the impact the Civil Rights had upon your life.
• Transcribe an interview with someone who has experienced racism.
• Write about your favorite civil rights activist.
• Write about the evolution of a character’s sense of humanity or ability to love.
• Write about a current political opportunity to pursue true equality for an underrepresented group.
• Write about the recent murder of Emmett Till.
• Writing about civil rights meant something to you.
• Write about the role music has played in the Black Lives Matter Movement.
• Write about Rosa Parks and her actions that she took in history.
• Write a story about a young person at the time of the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about someone you know who showed courage.
• Tell about a time you stood up for what you believed in.
• Write a diary entry from a character’s time in the Civil Rights movement.
• List everyday conflicts you hear between people from different backgrounds.
• Write about someone you admire who was involved in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about Rosa parks’ stand.
• A poet writes about political issues.
• Describe non-violent protest and write about a person who was committed to non-violence.
• Write about the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.
• Write about someone who chose not to make a difference in the Civil Rights movement
• Write an autobiography about a civil rights activist.
• Write your own story about something relevant to the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about a time where you or someone you know was treated differently because of ethnicity.
• Write about Rosa Parks resistance.
• Write about the black-power movement or the student movement.
• Write about today’s civil rights movement.
• Write another story about the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about people fighting for freedom in your home country or in the country you grew up in.
• Write about how the Civil Rights movement affected the future when you were born.
• Write a story about a modern hero who opposes segregation, such as Rosa parks or Mahatma Gandhi.
• Write about civil rights for a specific group of people.
• Write a nonfiction paper about the Civil Rights movement
• Write a creative story about a famous Civil Rights activist.
• Write about a fault in the American justice system.
• Write about non-violent ways to deal with anger.
• Write a list of the most significant events in a country regarding the Civil Rights movement in that country, and then write a story that involves that list of events.
• Write about disadvantages to being an African-American.
• Write about one injustice in women’s rights.
• Write a story about some kids struggling for a civil rights issue.
• Write about an injustice
• How can people make a difference?
• Write a letter to someone who took part in some event in the Civil Rights movement.
• What is freedom?
• Write in the voice of someone who, like you, grew up in a racist community.
• Write about a foreigner’s reaction to what is being said about America.
• Write a speech.
• Who was the Rosa Parks of your family? Describe a time they used non-violence.
• Discuss the Civil Rights Act in terms of your life. Describe how it has impacted you.
• Write about how nonviolent protests affect people.
• Write a letter about a Constitutional right. What rights do you value?
• Write a story about a private act of racism.
• Write a short story about a girl’s efforts to become an editor, but runs into racism. End with her finding the right editor.
• Write about a letter from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
• Write about a time you’ve/someone’s faced discrimination.
• Invent a character who transitioned from one race to another and has to deal with the day-to-day.
• Write about a time when you experienced racism.
• Write about a time that you believed in what you were doing and were on the right side.
• Write a character sketch of an African-American woman or man who has struggled to win his or their rights.
• Write about the Klu Klux Klan.
• Think about a fortuitous twist of fate in the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about someone who burned books to control their population.
• Write a story about Nelson Mandela.
• Write about a group or a person who influenced the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about a group of people who are discriminated against in your community. How would they like to be treated?
• Write another story about Selma.
• Share a fictional story of a character or family or friend who experienced the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about a violation of your civil rights.
• Write about a Civil Rights Movement event in your home region.
• Write a story in verse about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
• Who are your heroes in the struggle for civil rights? How have they helped inspire you?
• What should we do to stop racism?
• Write about a time when you fought for your rights.
• Write about a current event in the issue of same-sex marriage.
• Is equality possible?
• Write about a civil rights era activist or leader, and how s/he inspired others.
• Write about racism today.
• Write about what you would teach your kids about equality.
• Write about a stereotype you’ve seen in the media.
• Write about a moment when you choose courage over fear.
• Write about people you admire in the Civil Rights movement. How did they show courage? What gave them the courage? Did they have role models?
• Is there political violence now over civil rights issues?
• What do you think? How could you tackle these matters in your young adult novel?
• Write about a Civil Rights Activist in the 1960s.
• What does freedom really mean? How is America expressing these ideals? Write about a historic event in America’s fight for freedom.
• Write a biographical story of Nat Turner, the leader of the violent slave revolt.
• Write a poem or an essay using a dream as its topic and inspiration.
• Write about a problematic time in the past.
• Write a story about an African-American attempting to register to vote.
• Write about tensions between the North and the South after the Civil War.
• Write about a moment when you experienced discrimination.
• Write a story about the Civil Rights Movement.
• Brilliant ideas about Real Civil Rights Issues.
• Write a story that was created by an anti-civil rights activist.
• Write about Emmett Till and his killer.
• Write about how rights are supposed to be protected.
• Write about a time that you or someone you know acted out of love or came close to it.
• What does John F. Kennedy’s call for civil rights mean to you?
• Write about the role the Freedom Movement played in the history of a human rights movement in another culture.
• Write a story from the perspective of someone who didn’t stand up for his rights.
• Write a story about a police brutality case.
• Write about patriotism.
• Write a memoir in which you discuss race relations.
• As a playwright, write a script about the current issues facing people of color, past present and future.
• Write about segregated areas in the time of Martin Luther King Jr.
• Write about a fictional meeting between Martin Luther King and Malcolm X
• Write about the Act of Congress which prohibited racial discrimination in the sale or rental of housing
• Inclusionary practices, Schools desegregation, busing and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 all had an effect on society.
• Write about somebody being beaten and see what the person communicating his opinion a few days or weeks after the attack.
• Writing about Communities of Color
• Write a story about a protester at Woodstock.
• Write about a family member or friend who has recently discovered they are gay.
• Write about something that you must confront.
• Write about a pledge that you would make for the future of civil rights.
• Do you think protesting is a good way to make a cause heard?
• Write a comparison and contrast essay about Dr. Martin Luther King and Malala Yousafzai.
• Write about an oppression endured by a person or a group.
• Write about segregation, racism, prejudice, and ignorance.
• Write about an ongoing situation in the present day on race or equality.
• Write a letter from a southern mayor explaining to the governor why it is necessary to have desegregation and how to accomplish this.
• Describe an important, local historical-cultural site.
• Write about how the Civil Rights movement has changed the United States.
• Write a poem about a historic event in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a letter to an incarcerated person.
• Write about a personal struggle for Civil Rights.
• Where is the line between civil rights and freedom of speech?
• Write a character who supports LGBTQ rights.
• Write about a time when you questioned your faith because of what was happening around you.
• Write about any work of art that portrays the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about the bravery of Civil Rights activists.
• Write a story about the people who lived in the south during the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a story about someone famous who helped the black civil rights movement.
• Write about efforts to improve race relations.
• Write about the Civil Rights movement in a parallel universe.
• Write about the Voting Rights Act.
• Write about a road trip anyone took to participate in this significant movement.
• Write about discrimination in your school, workplace, community.
• Write in the perspective of a person during a dehumanizing moment.
• Write a story featuring an African American woman writer. Write a story about President Obama.
• What does it mean to tell the truth? Write an “Ode to a Black Man”
• Write describing a time when you were impacted by a violation of human rights.
• Write about Rosa Parks’s defiance.
• Write a fantasy story that deals with racial issues.
• Write about a Martin Luther King Jr. speech you remember.
• Write a story about a historic Black man or woman.
• Write about creating change. How did you do this?
• Write about the roles of men and women in this cause.
• Write a story about what could happen if racism came back into society.
• Write about Rosa Parks and how she changed things.
• Write an essay about a civil rights figure.
• Write about Rosa Parks, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and Montgomery Bus Boycott.
• Write about a civil rights rally.
• Create a persuasive speech to convince people they should work for civil rights.
• Write about a time when you felt like the enemy.
• Write a letter to your ancestors discussing their daily lives. Have them share what life was like before and after the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a letter as though to a friend who is against Civil Rights.
• What are you doing every day to fight back?
• Write a story about the youngest person who took part in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a poem in support of civil rights.
• Write a story about someone who changed the world.
• Write a story about two opposing points of view and how they affect people.
• Write a story about your personal experience with civil rights.
• What if you had created an event that changed history?
• Write about your pride in your ethnic identity.
• Start a story about segregation and end with integration.
• Rise up and declare your freedom
• Write about a time when an injustice occurred based on race or gender.
• Write about the principles of non-discrimination and the War on Terror.
• Justify a non-violent response when confronted with police violence.
• Compare the Civil Rights movement to today.
• Write about a “Freedom Ride” or a similar civil rights action.
• Write a story that touches on the history of the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about a significant moment in U.S. history which occurred during your birth year.
• Write about a time when you wanted to stand up for a cause but did not.
• Write a story from the perspective of a Civil Rights leader like Martin Luther King.
• Write about racial profiling. Name three or four examples. Who is affected by racial profiling? How do you feel about racial profiling?
• Write a story about a woman in the Civil Rights movement, such as Diane Nash, Ruby Bridges, or Rosa Parks.
• Inspired by Malcolm X’s thoughts, tell a story about a person dedicated to justice and self-aware of the difficulty in pursuing it.
• How do you define liberty and equality? What is treating all citizens fairly?
• Write about the goals of the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about a historic event that happened at a protest.
• Why did we need a Civil Rights movement? Who were the leaders?
• Explain difficult situations.
• Write a scene from a Civil War battlefield.
• What can you do to help others out?
• What was your reaction when you heard about the Martin Luther King Day Bill becoming law?
• Write about Rosa Parks’s famous moment. or African Americans today.
• Write about an important leader of the Civil Rights movement, for example, Rosa Parks.
• Remember all sides. Everyone has to give up something for others to pursue their dream. No event is a completely negative or positive outcome.
• Write about a time you questioned authority or showed disrespect to an adult.
• Write about the prejudice you face today.
• Write about a famous civil rights leader.
• Write a story about the Freedom Riders and other activists.
• Why do people fear the unknown?
• Write about William C. Gannett
• Write about going to school alone and seeing all the stares you received because of who you were.
• Write about violence and injustice.
• Write a story about Rosa Parks or the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
• What are modern day civil rights issues?
• Write about segregation, and schools and buses
• Write about a 19th century protest.
• Write a love story about a black couple in the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write a story about Rosa parks.
• Write about the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about the Black Power movement.
• Write about voting rights.
• Write about the history of school segregation.
• How important were television, news media and social media in shaping the Civil Rights Movement?
• Write about the Civil Rights movement in your area.
• Talk about a time when people across a particular group were divided.
• Write about overcoming a major obstacle or hardship.
• Do we need a Civil Rights Movement today? Why or why not?
• Write about a problem people face today. How this problem affects people. How people are standing up for a solution.
• Write about someone famous in the Civil Rights movement.
• When you think of an African American elderly couple, what comes to mind?
• Write a story about the railroad industry, an industry that even in the early 1960s was the nation’s largest employer.
• Write about one of your heroes of the Civil Rights movement. Who were they? What did they do? How did they influence you?
• Write a poem about Rosa Parks.
• Write about an example of Civil Rights abuse.
• Write about an event in the History of the Civil Rights movements that changed your life.
• Write about justice and human rights.
• Write about any aspect of the Black Panther movement.
• Write about how war and attempted genocide has affected your people in the past.
• What are your opinions on civil rights today?
• Write a story about an activist from your hometown.
• Write about a person who has demonstrated civil rights, non-violence, or peace.
• Write a story about non-violence.
• Write about the first time you recalled hearing about the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a story about the relationship between a civil rights leader and their cause
• Write about a white person’s encounter with a Civil Rights movement protester. What does this encounter mean for the white person? What does this mean for the Civil Rights protesters as a whole?
• Write a story about a community organizer and how they organized.
• Write about a moment in a historic event.
• Write about one of the many different civil rights movements.
• Write about Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, or Chief Tecumseh.
• Write a letter to your red-headed great-grandmother 10 generations back about why you support civil rights.
• Did women have a role in the Civil Rights movement? Did they take part in sit-in demonstrations and voter registration drives?
• Write about a family that is of mixed race.
• Write a story about yourself at one of the crossroads of the Civil Rights Movement.
• What is a personal experience that you’ve had while struggling for your rights?
• Write a piece about the women in the Civil Rights movement
• Write about a teacher who taught you something special.
• Write a letter to your local or federal legislators about any debate you feel strongly about.
• Write about America today. What are the differences from the time of the Civil Rights movement?
• Write a poem inspired by the Civil Rights Movement.
• How does religion play into social justice?
• Write about a time you observed racism.
• What do you know about the Civil Rights movement?
• Write about a historic or famous person that supported the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a story about a random person or famous person who inspires you. Perhaps that person is very courageous, or a doer of good deeds or a leader.
• Write a letter of one of the women’s leaders.
• What do you think of today’s fight for civil rights?
• False, negative beliefs about minority groups.
• Write a poem about different kinds of bravery.
• Write about someone who’s had an experience similar to Rosa Parks or the Greensboro Four.
• Write about symbols in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a story about Rosa Parks going to jail and inspiring others to fight for civil rights.
• Write an essay about a mayor or police chief and their dedication to a city or town.
• Multicultural literature that includes Civil Rights.
• Write about racism in a contemporary setting.
• Write a story about a more recent leader in the moment – someone who fought for civil rights within the last 100 years.
• Write about a member of the civil rights movement. Who are they? How did they contribute to the movement?
• Write about being different.
• Write about a kid your own age doing good.
• Write about how Dr. King taught civil rights as a non-violent protest.
• What does it look like to pay it forward?
• Write a poem about an important figure in the civil rights movement.
• Write about an early civil rights leader such as Harriet Tubman
• Write about the Golden Rule.
• How have things changed? How have they stayed the same?
• What do you do to stand up for your rights?
• Write about an African American family member.
• Write about a civil rights organization that is working today
• Write about a modern-day struggle for civil rights.
• Write about a social melting pot or cultural melting pot.
• Write about someone who is intolerant of a certain group of people.
• Write a piece that shows how a modern teenager might handle the Civil Rights Movement given past history.
• Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam was a segregate civil rights movement. It differed from the mainstream Civil Rights Movement because of its separatist views. How was it different? What lessons did the Civil Rights movement learn from Nation of Islam for future events? Was it a mistake to not accept them?
• Write about Rosa Parks refusing to move from her seat on the bus.
• Write about a leader or an organization active during the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about an act of treason.
• Write about President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Civil Rights Act.
• Write a story about an oppressed race.
• Write an alternate history story where the Civil War was never ended.
• Write about the symbols of the Civil Rights Movement.
• Who inspired your feelings about civil rights?
• Write about someone who fought to enforce civil rights for all.
• Write about someone in your family who emigrated from another country. What motivated them to leave?
• Write a story about Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus.
• Write about a time when you stood up for someone else
• Write about an event in history that changed your worldview.
• Write a poem about what it means to be a soldier.
• Write about voting rights in your neighborhood.
• Write a paragraph about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Write a dialogue between a white person and a black person about civil rights.
• Write an essay analyzing “Letter from Birmingham jail.”
• Write about a prayer.
• Write about an attribute of Rosa Parks.
• Write a speech for an advocate of racial change.
• Write about two “privileged” groups vying for rights.
• Describe how hard it is to live with a loved one that drinks
• Invent characters who attend a peaceful sit-in at their local Woolworth cafeteria.
• Write about the Women’s Right movement.
• Write about Rosa Parks, who changed the course of history with her courageous walk to freedom.
• Write a story about an event at Selma or Montgomery.
• Write about the legacy of Rosa Parks
• Write about a form of racism that something caused.
• Write about a time when you felt powerless
• Write about a modern-day activist.
• Write about your culture.
• Shall not be infringed…Shall not be infringed… Shall not be infringed. -From the Pledge of Allegiance-
• Write about “invisible” people and experiences that restore humanity
• Write about a civil rights character. Feel free to write a sequel or a prequel to a story
• Write about someone your parents felt required courage.
• Write about racial integration on a college campus.
• How can people help fight against human rights abuses?
• What is your opinion about the war in Iraq?
• Write a story from the point of view of a kid during Civil Rights.
• Write about something in the past that is still true today.
• Compare and contrast the Civil Rights Movement of today with the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s.
• Write about how you would inspire fear in discrimination.
• Write a story about Rosa Parks, a well-known historical figure in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about a historic event in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a conversation between a white and black person.
• Write about being empowered to make social change.
• How did Malcolm X affect the black movement? Write a story about him.
• Write a story about brutality.
• Write about an everyday act of heroism you witnessed.
• About How to Be a Writer
• Write about a fictional family that is faced with segregation when they move to a new town.
• Write a story about someone integrating schools.
• Write a story about a topic you know a lot about. For example, you majored in business.
• Write about a time period in your life where you identified as a minority.
• Write a story about someone using moments and actions in life to protest or plead for civil rights.
• How do you educate others about the Civil Rights movement?
• How did the Civil Rights movement impact your life?
• Write about an issue related to civil rights, such as a current campaign, or a current issue such as global warming or healthcare reform.
• Write an essay about a time in history where you saw a great injustice like racism.
• Write a short story, poem, letter, or opinion piece supporting or arguing against affirmative action.
• Write about a time when you were a victim of discrimination.
• Write about a time when you were persuaded by someone to have a different opinion.
• Write about human rights. In what ways are human beings all equal?
• Write a scene between a teacher and student about civil rights.
• Write about a civil rights protest or demonstration from your community or hometown.
• Write about a current issue involving Civil Rights.
• Write a story about discrimination.
• Write about immigration issues.
• How has your school been affected by desegregation?
• Write a story of a family’s experience in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a haiku about your hero.
• Write about a fictional character who is part of the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about social equality.
• Write about one of the methods used to protest by members of the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write about a civil rights leader you admire.
• Write about an event during the civil rights movement that you find hum
• Write about a time you were mistreated because of the way you were perceived to be different.
• Write about a famous activist in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a poem about inspiration you can find from the Civil Rights movement.
• A group of armed police officers entered Ben’s home late one night. The officers said that they were searching for illegal drugs, but after they left Ben realized that the officers had searched for any objects related to civil rights. How did the officers conduct their search?
• Write about how racism affects you or someone you know.
• Write an alternate history Civil Rights story.
• Write a fictional story about an event in the life of a modern civil rights activist.
• How can one person make a difference?
• Write about how a civil movement has impacted your life.
• What’s the difference between walking softly and walking humbly?
• Write a letter from an elderly, veteran freedom rider to a younger person.
• Write about a place in history that was a key battleground in the Civil Rights Bill. Write about a piece of legislation that helped the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a speech conveying the importance of equal educational opportunities and treatment for public school students.
• How do we show we are equal?
• Write about a modern leader, role model, or hero that inspires you.
• Write about freedom.
• Write about acts of discrimination you have witnessed.
• What would you have done at the bus station on that fateful day in Alabama?
• Write a story about a freedom rider. Write the story from their point of view.
• Write about segregation/integration.
• Write a story about segregation in the South.
• Write a narrative story about your time when Mary Cunningham, a civil rights listener from Silver Spring, Maryland, listened to the words of Martin Luther King Jr. over the radio.
• Write about a mentor.
• Write a story about a historic person that worked for civil rights.
• What motivates people to participate in protests or rallies or any kind of movement for change?
• Write about a child of the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about your own Civil Rights experiences.
• Write a story about students protesting for Civil Rights.
• Write about racism today. Write about the lessons you still have not learned
• Write about your current opinion about a past issue dealing with civil rights.
• What is a Civil Rights leader doing today that most of the public doesn’t know about?
• Write your own Martin Luther King, Jr. speech.
• Write about what it meant to “cross over” or “cross the line.”
• Write about your grandparents or ancestors. How do past injustices affect them?
• Write about a symbol of oppression such as a water fountain.
• Write about a Civil Rights event that took place during childhood.
• Write a story about the pattern of aviators who broke racial barriers,
• How has going to jail been represented in pop culture?
• Write a short biography about an important figure in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a story from the point of view of a slave.
• Write a story about maintaining hope.
• Write a poem about a struggle for freedom.
• Why do you think books have the power to alter the course of history?
• How would your life be different if you were discriminated against?
• Write a story about a civil rights leader that influenced you.
• Write about prejudice or discrimination.
• Write about a person who protected activists in the Civil Rights movement.
• How does your cultural identity affect your identity as a citizen?
• Write about a landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case involving the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a story about a time someone was wrongly imprisoned.
• What do you think Abraham Lincoln thought of slavery?
• Write a story about a real encounter with racism you have had.
• Write a letter to a current leader in the Black Lives Matter movement.
• Write a diary entry as northern and/or southern soldiers during the Civil War.
• Write a story or poem about Rosa Parks.
• Write a poem about racism.
• Write a letter to yourself from a Civil Rights Leader.
• Write an obituary for Rosa Parks.
• Write a story about a peaceful protest.
• Write a poem using the form of a delegate speech delivered at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedoms.
• Write a letter from a slave to his or her master.
• Write a poem about a person who had a great impact on someone close to you.
• Write about a Civil Rights icon.
• Write about an iconic civil rights leader of the past.
• Write a story or poem about being great.
• Write about a time you stood up against racism.
• Write about inspiration you can find in your community.
• Write about prejudice.
• Do you think in this day and age civil rights issues still exist?
• Write about a time that you saw someone behaved courageously.
• Write a letter to a friend protesting an unfair law.
• Write a letter to someone in a time of hunger, or to a hunted person.
• Write a story about a Civil Rights Activist who has always been a hero of yours.
• Educational opportunities are becoming accessible. Write a story about how current advances in technology are improving educational opportunities for persons with disabilities.
• Write about the life of Rosa Parks.
• Write about an important civil rights issue.
• Write a story about Augie Garrido, who was the coach of both Cal Berkeley and U.C. Berkeley baseball teams and who sent four black men to the Major Leagues.
• Write a story about freedom to choose.
• Write about an important civil rights conflict in the United States recently.
• Write about a famous Civil Rights leader.
• Write a character sketch about a civil rights activist.
• Write about a woman who was a role model for Civil rights.
• Write a story about people of color.
• Write about a time and/or place when your freedom was threatened.
• Write a story about a famous civil rights activist.
• Write a story about a Civil Rights activist you admire.
• How can anybody think that segregation is acceptable?
• Write about an act of violence in your neighborhood.
• Write a short story about Mahatma Gandhi.
• How has music influenced the Black Civil Rights Movement?
• Write a poem about a civil right in the United States.
• Write about someone involved in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about four turning points in the Civil Rights movement.
• What is prejudice? What is discrimination?
• Write about the fight for equal justice.
• Write about Rosa parks. Where do you find inspiration from when writing about civil rights?
• Write a story about the Civil Rights movement in a more contemporary setting.
• Write a story about women’s rights.
• What is the difference between a segregated school and an integrated school?
• Write about how the United States is setting the stage for a future with little or no racism.
• Write about a day you remember being discriminated against.
• Write about racial prejudice or discrimination.
• Write about someone who worked to change race relations.
• Write about a favorite civil rights leader.
• Write a story where your protagonist states her/his non-violent activism.
• Write about any episode where you spoke out against racism.
• Write about discrimination in a school.
• What are citizens’ rights?
• Write a story about the Civil Rights in which you participated.
• Write about your ideas of citizenship.
• Write about a demonstration or struggle for civil rights that occurred in the town/nearby town where you live/near where you live.
• Write a story for which you go inside the heads and hearts of the characters in a Civil Rights movement.
• Write about Rosa Parks. You can either imagine how she came to that defining moment or describe how another person inspired by Dr. King could have initiated change in a similar way.
• Write about the conditions that the Black Panthers lived in.
• Write a story from a civil rights hero’s point of view.
• Write about non-violent protest.
• Persuasive or argumentative pieces
• Write about your personal freedom.
• Write about how someone teaches others to respect others.
• Write an alternate historical story, changing the outcome of an event that happened in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about an historic event in African American history.
• Write about when you are treated like everyone else.
• Write a character that participates non-violently in a protest.
• How would you have reacted to the lunch counter sit-ins?
• Write about compromise in a Civil Rights situation.
• Write about people who helped to change the minds of others during the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about problems in society.
• Write about the civil rights movement. Decide if you are going to write in first-person or third-person. Who or what will you write about?
• Write a story about Rosa Parks or someone else who took an important stand to improve the conditions of African Americans living in the USA.
• Write about laws today that serve to limit the freedoms of African-Americans.
• Write about the role of violence in the civil rights movement.
• Write a letter to your relatives from the past or future that were in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about the freedom riders trips in the U.S.
• Look to your personal life for ways your own experience is impacted by civil rights issues.
• Is there a benefit to not talking about racism?
• Write an alternative history of the Civil Rights movement.
• Write five Civil Rights issues that the U.S. still has to deal with today.
• Write about the schools.
• Write a story about an important leader from today.
• Write about what you learned about the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write a story about Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president.
• Write about your experience of race & racism in America.
• Write about segregation in the United States.
• Write about a group that advocated for civil rights.
• Write about a time when you experienced discrimination.
• Write a story about you and a person of color overcoming a hurdle.
• Write a story in which characters are fighting for the civil rights of others.
• Write a letter from a prisoner on Death Row.
• Write about men, women & girls. Mind your mouth.
• Write about a fictional character who contributes to a civil rights movement.
• There are many memorials and sculptures of Martin Luther King Jr. across the United States. Author John Green has created a supplemental Mythbusters video about two memorials in Washington D.C.. The video might spark ideas about what to include in your own statues of Dr. King.
• Write about discrimination. What would you do to stop discrimination?
• Write a letter from a supporter to those who are campaigning for their civil rights?
• What does freedom mean to you? What about equality, justice?
• Write about the Selma March.
• Write about Freedom Riders.
• What are other cultures’ opinions of American freedoms?
• Write about a memory of the Civil Rights Movement.
• Write a poem about the 4 basic freedoms.
• Write an alternate history where Rosa Parks did not say “No.”
• Look at what historical figures can teach us about social justice issues.
• Write a short story about a civil rights leader.
• Write about non-violence.
• Write a story about a police officer you admire.
• Write about the Children’s March.
• Write about something inspirational that someone else said. Then write about what you would say.
• Write an essay about the Civil Rights Movement and church.
• Write a character and place him or her in a civil rights movement.
• In fifty words or less, describe the goals of the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a hypothetical story about a person in the Civil Rights movement.
• Use metaphor to describe a group or situation.
• Write a poem about Selma, Alabama
• Thank you for visiting Teaching Hearts and Minds!
• Write about how you would react if the 15th amendment was voted down.
• How are immigration and cultural changes affecting a community?
• Write about the first time you met somebody black or Hispanic.
• Write about the president and how they handled race.
• What would children like you have helped with in the Civil Rights movement before reaching the age of 18?
• Why did Rosa Parks refuse to give up her seat on a bus to a white man? Who was Rosa Parks?
• Write a story about a brave person in your life.
• Write about the Civil Rights Movement you experienced. Write about how the Civil Rights movement affected a person in your circle of family and friends.
• Introduce an ordinary person to her white neighbors. Have them become friends.
• Write about living your life as your authentic self.
• Write an alternate ending to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech.
• Write about freedom from racism.
• What is race relations and how do you define it?
• Write about a historical protest. What attitudes are revealed in the events taking place in the story?
• Write about a racial slur you’ve heard. Explain what the slur means and why people use it.
• What is the most effective way to get folks to join a cause?
• Write about an activist.
• Write an essay about the modern Civil Rights movement and what the Civil Rights movement is now.
• Write a story about Corretta Scott King.
• Write about how the Civil Rights Movement changed your life.
• Write about what makes someone a hero.
• Write a story about an historic discrimination or hate crime.
• Write about freedom for the African Americans today.
• Write about your family history of racism, prejudices, etc.
• Write a story that doesn’t end with a wedding. Write about something else besides forbidden love, boys that come from other planets, and young adult love stories. Put a fresh spin on love stories.
• Write about a famous president or other leader who cared about civil rights.
• Write an ad or speech asking for peoples’ support of the Civil Rights movement.
• Write about a person who affected your life in a positive way.
• Write about a time when you stood up for yourself or someone else.
• Write a postcard to Civil Rights. What does he/she say?
• Writers need to know a bit about the Civil Rights era in order to write about it. Knowledge of basic facts is necessary before using inspiration to write. Basic facts include why the Civil Rights movement started, under which president was it born, and the allies of the movement.
• Write a scene from your future in the Civil Rights movement.
• Write a story where non-violence is accepted as an answer to conflict.
• How does discrimination change people?
• Write about a judge making a difficult decision about racism in society.
• Write a poem about any civil rights issue.

Recommended Posts:

• 1001 Writing Prompts About Crime
• 1001 Writing Prompts About Bullying
• 1001 Adventure Fiction Writing Prompts

Join the Commaful Storytelling Community

Commaful takes everything you love about stories and makes it a bite-sized, on-the-go experience. Fanfiction? Poetry? Short stories? You’ll find it all!

91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best first amendment topic ideas & essay examples, 👍 good essay topics on first amendment, 🥇 interesting topics to write about first amendment, ❓ first amendment essay questions.

• Cyberbullying and the First Amendment Under the geographical approach, the defendant can argue that since the event in question occurs online and outside of school property, it is covered by the First Amendment and the school has “no authority to […]
• Violent Video Games and First Amendment Protection Violent games appear to be a legitimate type of media with its right for free expression; however, minors should also be protected from the violent and sexual content of video games because they lack media […] We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Analysis of the Case: Violation of the First Amendment History of the case: The candidate filed a lawsuit in the Maryland Circuit Court alleging violations of the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S.
• First Amendment: Religion and Education The right to education is protected by human rights legislation guaranteeing to adapt education to the requirements of individuals and communities that are evolving and to the needs of students in their varied socio-cultural contexts.
• Vaccination in the Context of the First Amendment The purpose of this paper is to review the dilemma in the context of the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion.
• The First Amendment: Free Speech and Education However, this is the case only “unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students”.
• Pornography or Obscenity and the First Amendment Amendment 1 of the US Constitution states that the “Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, […]
• The First Amendment – Religion and Expression In the ruling of Skokie case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the residents of Skokie, although it still allowed the planned marching by the NSP to go no.in this […]
• First Amendment Right of Free Speech in the USA In this case, it is seen that the Public Law of New Hampshire which bans under punishment “any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other […]
• Free Speech in the First Amendment The first amendment of the Constitution states, “Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the […]
• Religious Establishment Clause of the First Amendment Therefore, based on the theoretical application of the Constitution, the chosen case violates the Religious Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S.
• First Amendment in the US Modern Justice System Also, the paper discusses the significance of the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in each case and their relevance or influence on the rights of American citizens today.
• Does Title VII Conflict With the First Amendment The government is not justified to disallow religious expression at workplaces by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Title VII statute and the First Amendment both provide protection for an employee’s religious rights.
• Founding Fathers Religion: The First Amendment Role in the Church-State Separation As a result, a resolute transformation from the Puritan Fathers in 1639, who uphold the religion as a foundation of any society, to the Founding Fathers in 1787, who accepted freedom of religion as an […]
• Journalism, the First Amendment and Egypt This essays suggests that the First Amendment freedom of the press clause has transcended its physical boundaries and now functions as a protective ideological bubble not only for American journalists but for journalists all over […]
• First Amendment: Commercial and Political Free Speech However, the degree to which the First Amendment protects commercial speech is not the same as that for other forms of speech protected by the Amendment.
• What the Founders Meant by the First Amendment? The first amendment was written over 200 years ago by the founders who wanted to protect both the State and religion from interfering in each others tasks.
• Free Speech: First Amendment Obscenity is one of the exceptions, according to the US Miller Test, obscenity is a test used by Supreme Court to determine if an expression or a speech can be termed obscene and whether it […]
• On the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution The freedom that Americans experience comes at a price because there are conflicts and problems that arise from the interpretation and implementation of the First Amendment, however, many legal experts are saying that it is […]
• The Free Exercise Thereof: Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment The Freedom of Religion clause in the First Amendment represents one of the few official documents on the planet that corroborates free will, specifically, the right to choose, in the arena of religion.
• US Constitution Reflections on the First Amendment Paper The first amendments made on the constitution of the United States of America in the year 1789 concerned the bill of rights.
• First Amendment Rights and Access to Opinions
• Censorship and the First Amendment: The American Citizen’s Right to Free Speech
• The First Amendment and Its Impact on Education
• Should the First Amendment Stop Protecting Hate Speech
• The First Amendment Speaks on the Freedoms of Religion
• Interpreting the First Amendment of the Constitution
• Should Racist Speech Enjoy Protection Under the First Amendment
• How the First Amendment Rights Have On Advancing Democracy
• The First Amendment and the Constitutional Freedoms in American Schools
• The First Amendment and Conservative Rulings of the Supreme Court
• Ever-Changing Freedoms: The First Amendment of the American Constitution and Challenges It Faces
• How the First Amendment Protects Freedom of Speech
• The First Amendment and Its Impact on Media
• Case Problems Involving the First Amendment
• The First Amendment and Its Legal Constrains
• Banning Books Goes Against the First Amendment
• Federal District Court Alleging First Amendment Violations
• The First Amendment and Label Drug Promotion
• Discussing Three Freedoms From the First Amendment
• The First Amendment and Its Impact on Language
• Public Safety Outweigh Petitioner’s First Amendment Right
• The Ambiguity and Confusion From the First Amendment
• The First Amendment and the American Judiciary
• Civil Rights and First Amendment
• Cyberbullying and the First Amendment
• Does the First Amendment Affect Your Livelihood
• The First Amendment and Right to Privacy
• Net Neutrality and the First Amendment: Who Has the Right to Free Speech
• Neo-Nazis and Their First Amendment Rights
• Public High School Students Have the First Amendment Right
• Espionage Act Conflicts First Amendment Rights in Wikileaks Case
• Comparing Our First Amendment Rights to the Rights of Those in George Orwell’s 1984
• The Role and Importance of the First Amendment of the Constitution
• First Amendment Rights and Pragmatic Solutions
• The First Amendment: History and Development
• First Amendment Rights, Privacy, and the Paparazzi
• The First Amendment Constitution on the Freedom of Expression
• The Relation Between the First Amendment and Music Censorship
• The First Amendment Anti-discrimination Law
• Does the First Amendment Protect False Campaign Speech
• What Is the Main Purpose of the First Amendment?
• How Free Speech Under the First Amendment Developed?
• What Is the Connection Between Anti-semitism and the First Amendment?
• Does Banning Books Violate the First Amendment?
• Was the First Amendment to the US Constitution Prohibition?
• What Are the First Amendment Issues?
• Does the First Amendment Guarantee the Right of American Citizens to Freedom?
• How Does Censorship Conflict With First Amendment Freedom of Speech?
• What Rights Does the First Amendment Guarantee to Citizens?
• Does the First Amendment Govern Cyberbullying?
• Did President Hoover Limit the First Amendment Rights of the Bonus Army?
• What Are the First Amendment Freedoms?
• Does the Espionage Act Conflict With First Amendment Rights?
• What Changes Did the First Amendment Make to the Constitution?
• How Does the First Amendment Guarantee Freedom of the Press?
• What Is the Significance of the First Amendment to Civil Society?
• What Is the Work of the First Amendment Committee?
• How Does the Supreme Court Interpret the First Amendment?
• What Religious Cases Does the First Amendment Control?
• How Are First Amendment Rights Applied and Limited?
• Does the First Amendment to the US Constitution Regulate Ever-Changing Freedoms?
• How Do First Amendment Rights Affect the Development of Democracy?
• What Is the Interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution?
• Does the First Amendment Affect Your Livelihood?
• Does the First Amendment Limit the Government’s Power?
• What Inappropriate Words Should Be Removed From the First Amendment?
• Does Public Safety Override a Plaintiff’s First Amendment Right?
• Should Rap Songs Be Protected by the First Amendment?
• Does the First Amendment Protect False Campaign Speech?
• Should Racist Speech Enjoy Protection Under the First Amendment?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 24). 91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/first-amendment-essay-topics/

"91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 24 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/first-amendment-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 24 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/first-amendment-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/first-amendment-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/first-amendment-essay-topics/.

• Constitution Research Ideas
• Bill of Rights Research Ideas
• Fifth Amendment Essay Ideas
• Censorship Essay Ideas
• Fourth Amendment Essay Topics
• Electoral College Research Topics
• Freedom Of Expression Questions
• US History Topics
• Freedom of Speech Ideas
• Sixth Amendment Topics
• Freedom Topics
• Tolerance Essay Ideas
• Civil Law Paper Topics
• Human Rights Essay Ideas
• Media Bias Questions

DraftSparks ✨

76+ ‘Speech’ Writing Prompts

Champion of Change

Pen a speech you would give if you were an important leader or an activist trying to make a positive change in society.

Graduation Bliss

Imagine your 8th-grade graduation day and write about it.

Environmental Advocacy

Write a speech that you would deliver to your peers encouraging them to care more about the environment.

Embers of Rebellion

Your character is a leader addressing his/her followers before leading them into a rebellion. Construct a powerful monologue that captures their determination and conviction.

Freedom of Speech in the Digital Age

Examine and pen your thoughts on the role of freedom of speech in today’s digital world.

Dealing with a Crisis

Craft a dialogue between characters facing a life-altering crisis.

Voices for Wildlife

Write a speech aiming to persuade your local community to participate in wildlife conservation efforts.

The Evolution of Valentine’s Day

Write a speech about how Valentine’s Day has changed and evolved over the centuries.

The Power of Love Declarations

Compose a speech that recalls historical love declarations and their impact.

Proclaiming Self-love

Craft a speech that focuses on the importance of self-love on Valentine’s Day.

Ode to My Valentine

Write a speech dedicating Valentine’s Day to a special person in your life.

Expressing Love Publicly

Create a speech for a public gathering that celebrates love and companionship.

Environmental Diplomacy

Imagine a UN conference on Earth Day where world leaders are discussing global environmental issues. Write a speech you would present as a leader.

Bungled Surprise Proposal

Imagine a meticulously planned public proposal that goes terribly wrong.

Character Revelation Through Speech

Construct a short narrative where one character’s personality traits are unveiled only through their words.

Elvish and Dwarvish Dialogue

Create a dialogue between an elf and a dwarf, each explaining their way of life to the other.

The Power of Persuasion

Write a persuasive speech on a topic you’re passionate about.

Caesar’s Public Address

Write the speech that Julius Caesar would have given on the Ides of March if he hadn’t been assassinated.

“Who Am I?”

Draft and present a speech introducing yourself to an audience who knows nothing about you.

Pitching an Invention

Write and deliver a persuasive speech to “sell” an original invention.

Historical Speech Analysis

Write a personal response speech to a famous historical speech.

Championing Change

Prepare a speech persuasively advocating for a cause or change you believe in.

Facing Fears

Write and deliver a speech about a personal fear you’ve overcome.

Call to the Wild

Write a compelling speech urging action to protect endangered species.

The President’s Speech

Imagine you are the president delivering your inaugural address. What would you say?

Freedom of Speech vs. Social Sensitivity

Discuss the ongoing debate between freedom of speech and societal sensitivity in the contemporary world.

Saying Goodbye to Fall

Pen down the speech you would give to bid adieu to fall.

Unearthly Invasion

Create a narrative where the Earth is subtly invaded by aliens, blending in perfectly as humans.

Echoes of the Grammys

The Grammys usually take place in February. Write about a moment from this year’s ceremony that resonated with you.

Intergalactic Politics

Write a political speech for a leader in the Star Wars galaxy, addressing the Senate, the Rebellion, or the First Order.

Voices of the Future

Write a speech as if you are giving a commencement address as the valedictorian of your graduating class year from now.

Hefner’s Legacy

Write a piece either defending or criticizing Hugh Hefner’s (born April 9) influence on media and culture.

Beyond The Words

Pen an essay about the non-verbal aspects of written communication.

Unlocking Linguistic Power

Write about a time when you leveraged your writing skills to communicate something important.

The Power of Speech

Write a research paper about a significant speech in human history, focusing on its cultural, political, or social impact.

March on Washington

Describe what it would’ve been like to attend the iconic March on Washington from a child’s perspective.

Highlighting Positivity

Express gratitude for the support and encouragement you’ve received throughout your high school journey.

Reflections on High School

Write a speech about your most impactful experiences throughout high school.

Decoding A Political Speech

Select a political speech/declaration that has significantly influenced your political perspective and dissect it.

The Talking Pet

Write a story where the household pet suddenly gains the ability to speak like a human.

Whispering Wings

Imagine a conversation between two feathered friends migrating back home in spring.

The Enchanting Forest

Describe a journey through a forest enchanted with ancient magic, where trees can talk and animals understand human speech.

Vanishing Echo

Write about what it feels like to shout something into a deep, empty cavern.

Election Process

Imagine you are running for the president of your school. Write your campaign speech.

Black History Month Tribute

Write an imaginary speech that you would deliver in honour of a figure you admire for Black History Month.

Narrative Through Dialogue

Write a story that’s completely told in dialogue.

Dabble in Dialects

Write a dialogue-heavy scene between characters from different regions, exploring their dialect and speech.

Creating Casts of Characters

Write a vignette centered around a unique character, focusing on their dialogue and actions.

School Uniform Debate

Write a persuasive speech on whether students should wear uniforms to school.

Civil Rights Reversal

Visualize a society where civil rights have been stripped away and citizens are monitored constantly.

Promoting a School Change

Prepare a persuasive speech on a change you would like to see in your school.

Censorship Versus Freedom of Speech

Write about whether censorship limits freedom of speech or protects society from harmful content.

Dissecting Rhetorical Devices

Choose a speech by a renowned public speaker and analyze their use of rhetorical devices.

Pitching the Perfect Pet

Give a persuasive speech on why a certain animal makes the ideal pet.

Awkward Funeral Speech

Compose a story from the perspective of a man who has been asked to deliver a eulogy for a person he barely knew.

Inventing a Word

Create a new, original word and provide its meaning, usage and a short story where it’s being used.

Mars-Driven Motivation

Pen a motivational speech that an Aries would deliver.

Parrot’s Prophecy

Write a story where a parrot character foretells a prophecy that alters the course of a kingdom.

The Power of P.E

Write a speech convincing your principal why physical education should be a daily class.

Haunted House Tour

Write a richly detailed tour guide’s speech for a historically haunted house.

Assertive Resolutions

Describe an instance when you set a firm boundary that resulted in a positive outcome.

Breaking Down Stigmas

Imagine you’ve organized a public talk aimed at breaking down stigmas around depression and suicide – write the speech you would deliver.

Metropolis Moods

Personify a city you have visited, or one you dream of visiting.

The Imaginery Tea Party

Create a vivid scene of attending a sophisticated tea party, using rich similes and metaphors.

Using Words’ Stresses Naturally

Write a poem in iambic pentameter without using the common ‘thee’, ‘thou’ and ‘be’, instead bring in modern everyday speech.

Public Speaking Chronicles

Write about an impactful or memorable speech you have listened to.

Preparation for Disaster

Create an impactful speech to either warn or comfort a community facing an imminent or ongoing disaster.

Eulogy for a Fictional Character

Pen a heartfelt eulogy for a fictional character that impacted you deeply.

Persuasive Plea for a Cause

Write a speech that persuades the audience to support a cause you feel passionately about.

Graduation Address for Future Leaders

As the valedictorian, prepare a speech for your own graduation, focusing on what you feel your peers need to hear as they embark on their post-graduation journeys.

Oratory Hall of Fame

Write a speech for an imaginary event where you are inducting your favorite speaker into the ‘Oratory Hall of Fame’.

Unseen Heroes

Write a compelling speech about the importance of acknowledging and appreciating the unseen heroes in our society.

A Grand Tribute

Write a tribute speech honoring a person who has made a significant difference in your life.

The Powerful Paradigm

Write a speech about a significant paradigm shift in society or a field of study.

Polished Presentations

Write a speech to present a new project or innovation in front of a board of directors.

World of Inanimate Commotion

Give voice to the unvoiced and write from the perspective of an inanimate object in your home.

240 Freedom Essay Topics

On this page, you’ll find thought-provoking freedom essay topics to explore the multifaceted nature of freedom. This concept encompasses many dimensions, from political liberties to human rights. Investigate our freedom essay ideas and prompts for a discussion, speech, or debate. We’ve also included a short example of the “What Is Freedom” essay.

🕊️ TOP 7 Freedom Essay Topics

🏆 best freedom essay topics, 🎓 interesting freedom essay topics for debate, 👍 good topics about freedom, 💡 simple freedom topics, 🔥 hot freedom essay ideas, 📌 freedom topics for discussion, 🔎 freedom essay topics for college, ❓ more topics about freedom, 📝 what is freedom essay – example.

• Freedom of Speech: Right and Responsibility
• “Human Freedom and the Self” by Roderick Chisholm
• Social Media and Freedom of Speech
• Freedom in Kate Chopin’s “Story of an Hour”
• Which Is More Important: Security or Freedom?
• How Social Media Affects Individual Freedom
• Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property Rights
• Freedom in Life and Relationship There are numerous benefits accrued from freedom in a relationship. Setting a partner free in a relationship leads to one becoming responsible and committed to the relationship.
• Freedom of Speech on the Internet The research paper explores freedom of speech, with a specific focus on each person’s right to express their thoughts on the Internet.
• The Freedom of Expression This paper will discuss the limits of freedom of expression, its application on campuses, and the ways to combat hateful instances.
• “Freedom From Want” by Rockwell Thanks to its remarkable implementation and various inherent meanings, Freedom from Want is regarded as a true masterpiece of the American art of all times.
• Religion Freedom and Its Limitation The freedom to believe in something is a fundamental right of a free person, but almost any religion calls for certain actions that can potentially limit other people’s rights.
• Freedom – Comparison of Different Definitions Freedom is a term used to describe various types of individual liberties, such as religious liberty, political liberty, freedom of speech, right of self-defense, and others.
• Freedom in “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill The philosophical work “On Liberty” was written by J. S. Mill in 1859. These are the times of democratic republics’ heyday on the eve of slavery abolition in the US.
• Importance of Expression Freedom and Tolerance Freedom of expression is “the ability to express their beliefs, thoughts, ideas, and emotions about different issues free from government censorship”.
• Student’s Rights: Freedom of Speech Institutional laws depend on the guidelines of student’s constitution while state laws outline individual’s different forms of freedoms.
• Freedom of Speech and Censorship One of the most critical aspects of fighting against cybercrime involves a proper balance between the preservation of people’s right to free speech and censorship.
• Women’s Fight for Freedom The paper describes the history of an abolitionist movement in the 18th century that raised issues of slavery, African American rights, and an end to the oppression of women.
• Life as a Struggle for Freedom Freedom is one of the phenomena that permeate all spheres of human activity. Many philosophers thought about it, trying to understand its essence and necessity for humanity.
• The Power of Fear to Limit Freedom The paper state that fear can have a negative role on society and lead to the imposition of restrictions on freedom which is evidenced by many historical events.
• Balancing Others’ Freedom and Own Happiness One person’s freedom may prevent others from being happy since acting as one pleases does not necessarily mean doing what is right.
• John Brown: Terrorist or Freedom Fighter John Brown was an abolitionist who chose to liberate slaves by force. His actions were extremely controversial, and to this day, they can spark a debate about their righteousness.
• Common Law: Freedom of Expression Proponents of freedom of expression argue that the concept has not been comprehended or interpreted correctly for a long time.
• Freedom of Speech and Restrictions: Pros and Cons Freedom of speech, being naturally controversial, dramatically benefits from balancing its two extreme states – absolute freedom and absolute restriction.
• “God, Freedom and Human Dignity” by Highfield The following paper summarizes the book titled “God, Freedom, and Human Dignity,” written by Ron Highfield and published by IVP Academic.
• East India Company: The Story of India’s Freedom This paper reviews the sixth episode of the BBC documentary series, which is devoted to the history of India’s independence from the influence of other states.
• Marriage Oppression and Freedom Signs The 19th century is characterized by women discrimination in society, whereby the role of women is to offer basic services at home.
• Sartre and Ardent on the Freedom Notion The notion of freedom may be characterized by a multiplicity of interpretations and possible shades of meaning ascribed to it.
• Freedom of the Media: The Near v. Minnesota 1931 Case The paper analysis the Near v. Minnesota 1931 case, when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated state laws that allowed officials to ban the publication of “defamatory” newspapers.
• Freedom and Security in the Contemporary World In the United States, as well as in many other developed and developing countries, the issues of freedom and security play an important role.
• Freedom: Historical Events’ Impact on Modern Society Social changes and the establishment of freedom for all citizens have a substantial impact on modern society up to the present.
• Freedom of Expression in the Post-Apartheid South Africa Undoubtedly, there is a direct link between democracy, freedom of speech, and the diversity of the media. South Africa got in the second “satisfactory” category.
• Positive and Negative Freedom: Distinction and Ethical Problem The paper is devoted to a comparative analysis of the positive and negative concepts of freedom to identify critical points of contact and differences.
• Freedom of Speech in British Universities This report recommends for modern UK students to develop free debates and peaceful demonstrations in specific zones and prove that young minds have to be open.
• Roosevelt’s, Taft’s, Wilson’s Foreign Policies and Freedom This paper explains how americans used the language of freedom when discussing foreign policy. It looks specifically at the foreign policies of T. Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson.
• Discussion: Freedom and Security It is evident that the government jeopardizes individual freedom to ensure national security. Several factors contribute to this, including infringement on individual liberties.
• Sartre’s Freedom and Existentialism Today Sartre in his work devised an important approach to modern-day issues. It has transformed the idea of personal responsibility and free will.
• Contractual Freedom and the Evolution of Corporate Control in Britain, 1862 to 1929
• The United States Constitution and the History of American Freedom
• Commercial Freedom and Sport: Has Sport Lost Its Sporting Edge
• How Has the Concept of Free Will and Individual Freedom?
• American Democracy, Freedom, and the American Revolution
• Freedom Does Not Mean License, but the Wisdom to Choose What Is Right for Oneself
• Freedom for African Americans Along With American History
• Economic Freedom and Institutional Convergence
• How Much the Government Should Restrict Their Freedom?
• Economic Freedom and Income Inequality: Evidence From a Panel of Global Economies
• African Americans: The Loss and Gain of Freedom(1865-1900)
• How the Civil War Sculpted How Americans Viewed Their Nation and Freedom
• Choice, Freedom, and Well-Being: Considerations for Public Policy
• How Gradual Abolition and Process of Emancipation Led Blacks to Freedom
• Wellbeing, Freedom, and Social Justice: The Capability Approach Re-Examined
• Child Welfare, Religion, Freedom, Social Responsibility, and Parental Rights
• Democracy, Economic Freedom, and Taxation in the European Union
• Freedom and Equality Among Men in the Declaration of Independence
• Emotional Freedom Technique and the Benefits to Use in Middle School Classrooms
• Achieving Financial Independence and True Freedom
• Balancing Freedom With Responsibility Can Be a Difficult Task for Any FR
• How the Attitudes and Freedom of Expression Changed for African Americans Over the Years
• Corruption, Economic Freedom and Political Freedom in South America: In Pursuit of the Missing Link
• Issues on Internet: Privacy and Freedom of Speech Two of the issues, namely, privacy and freedom of speech with regards to the Internet have been discussed in this article.
• Classical and Individual Conservatives: Conservative Freedom Classical conservatives define freedom as a privilege that must be controlled from reaching chaotic behaviors.
• Freedom of Speech Peculiarities The paper describes that as much as people exercise their freedom of speech, they have to be censored to protect the interest of those that may be affected by such acts.
• The Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the UK The Freedom of Information Act is an instrument meant to implement and put into place the Freedom of Information legislation and give the same a national outlook in the UK.
• True Freedom Theme in American Short Stories “The Cask of Amontillado” by Poe, “Dark They Were and Golden-Eyed” by Bradbury, and “The Story of an Hour” by Chopin are analyzed through an understanding of true freedom.
• The Meaning of Freedom for Jazz Instrumentalists Jazz appeared at a very important period of time. African American musicians gathering in New Orleans to improvise and share their music could be taken as the founders of this music genre.
• Freedom Ideal in “The Spartans” by Paul Cartledge The Spartans: The World of the Warrior-Heroes of Ancient Greece by Paul Cartledge tracks the outstanding rise and fall of the Spartan society.
• Law: Freedom of Speech and the Right to Offend The current paper aims at evaluating the video with several people discussing the right of the press to offend people and the right of the readers to use bloody techniques to solve their discontents
• Self-Identity and Personal Freedom The paper indicates that due to the influence of stereotypes and one story, people are not free to realize their desires and self-identity.
• Freedom of Speech: The Basic Human Right Freedom of speech allows everyone to receive and impart information. People and communities should articulate their thoughts and ideas without fear of any form of intimidation.
• Emotions: Fear and Freedom The paper tells us that fear and freedom are two opposite ends of the same path. It is fear that is the beginning of an individual who lives in doubt.
• Roderick Chisholm on Human Freedom and the Self Roderick Chisholm adheres to a libertarian position that borders on the incompatibility of free will and determinism doctrine.
• Internet Censorship: Freedom of Expression in the Arts Many countries have embraced this technology and used it to boost their economies and other aspects of life, including education.
• The Relationship Between Economic and Political Freedom Politics and economics have been inextricably linked throughout history, accounting for the rise of some of the world’s most famous empires.
• The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom 1963 August 28, 1963 is considered to be a prominent date for the history of America. It was the turning point for the Civil Rights Movement.
• Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech The diversity in people’s views, mentalities, and cultures might precondition the clash of visions. The rights of people might serve as the source of conflicts.
• Economic Freedom and Schools of Thought Economic freedom is the idea of free markets in which people have freedom to produce, buy and sell products and services both inside and outside one’s borders.
• Iraqi Freedom Operation The paper argues against the Operation Iraqi Freedom that started in 2003 to topple the Saddam Regime and bring positive economic and political change in Iraq.
• Constitutional Law: Freedom of Speech The court’s decision to uphold Sarah Sampson’s right came from case laws whose interpretation of the Constitution clarified the legality of expressions.
• Freedom and a Quest for Greatness in Hawthorn’s Wakefield “Wakefield” is a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It describes the non-trivial life of Mr. Wakefield, who leaves his wife of twenty years to live on a nearby street.
• Thoreau vs. Roosevelt on Individual Freedom The paper states that freedom breeds responsibility, and responsibility directs freedom. Therefore, the more freedom, the more responsibility.
• Freedom Concept in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” The difference between the natural freedom of man and the freedom made possible by the social contract will be described in this paper.
• Censorship as a Way to Limit Freedom of Speech A simple example of censorship is when some people impose their political or moral values ​​on others by suppressing words, images, or ideas they find offensive.
• Freedom of Speech: Restrictions in Social Networks Actions by the US government to influence free speech on Facebook, Twitter, and other such networks are acceptable, but only if they are related to national security.
• Milton Friedman’s Political and Economic Freedom Much of Milton Friedman’s argument or doctrine is built around the desire for free trade, a smaller government, and a steady increase in money supply within a growing economy.
• Restrictions on Freedom of Speech on Social Networks Social networks control modern restrictions on freedom of speech in many ways, affecting all aspects of people’s lives to reduce the existing imbalance and avoid open hatred.
• American Freedom and Human Rights American spirit consists of a dream of innocence and freedom. It is every American’s duty to create justice, and every person has the power to do so.
• Hegel’s Account of Freedom and the Modern State German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is recognized for shaping contemporary philosophical thought.
• Religious Freedom: The Separation Between Church and State The paper indicates that many Christians consider efforts to separate state and religion as an assault on America’s majority religion.
• Article “Escape From Freedom” by Costello et al. This work discusses the hypothetical connection between authoritarianism and determinism. It explains how Costello described the concept of free will as fatalistic determinism.
• Las Pachuchas: Fight for Freedom This paper provides a comprehensive overview of Las Pachuchas’ fight for freedom. It covers the movement’s historical roots and relations to World War II.
• The Essay “Capitalism and Freedom” by Milton Friedman While ‘some’ time has passed since 1962, Milton Friedman’s essay titled “Capitalism and Freedom” remains relevant to this day.
• Freedom of Speech: The Adequate Restrictions It is recognized that free speech must be restricted if an individual’s words are harmful to public health or affect the freedoms of another person.
• Concepts of Revolution and Freedom in United States Freedom was born during the revolution era 1601-1900 CE. The struggle for independence spawned new concepts about freedom and equality.
• Perception of Freedom in Saint Domingue and Haiti This paper aims to explore the concept of freedom of people in Saint Domingue and post-revolutionary Haiti from the perspective of observers of those events.
• Forbidden Freedom Glimpsed Through a Window This paper explores how women’s confinement in domestic space was portrayed in short stories at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century.
• Disconnectedness of Political Freedom and Capitalism The paper is about the disconnectedness of political freedom and capitalism, which indicates that the latter does not promote or guarantee the former.
• The Two Political Ideals of Freedom and Equality Claimed by Long and Roosevelt
• Toward Freedom From Domestic Violence: The Neglected Obvious
• Does Censorship Limit One’s Freedom
• Economic Freedom and Public, Non-market Institutions: Evidence From Criminal Prosecution
• America’s Demand for Freedom and Equality Pushed War at Great Britain’s Doorstep
• African American Literature and the Struggle for Freedom
• Economic Freedom and Government Ideology Across the German States
• Colonial Unity Brought the Freedom to America After the Revolution
• Academic Freedom and Its Impact on Education
• Economic Freedom, per Capita Income, and Economic Growth
• Capitalism and Freedom: Manumissions and the Slave Market in Louisiana, 1725 1820
• Freedom, Consent, and Other Feminist Issues
• Does Modern Technology Restrict or Enhance People’s Rights and Freedom
• Freedom, Enforcement, and the Social Dilemma of Strong Altruism
• How Freedom and Equality Presupposes Each Other in the Natural World
• Create Dangerously: Albert Camus on the Artist as a Voice of Resistance and an Instrument of Freedom
• Trade Freedom and Revenue From Trade Taxes: A Cross-Country Analysis
• Developmental Freedom and Social Order: Rethinking the Relation Between Work and Equality
• How the United States Leaped From the Grasp of England Into a New Era of Freedom?
• Economic Freedom and Migration Flows Between the U.S. States
• Discuss the Conflict Between Bondage and Freedom Faced by African Americans
• Economic Freedom and Employment in India
• Coronavirus Could Trigger a Backslide on Freedom With the emergence and development of states, people began to contemplate the dilemma of liberty and public safety.
• Freedom of Expression in Artworks It is expected of artworks to push the envelope of the socially accepted, introducing viewers to the complexity of certain moral arguments.
• Freedom and Responsibility: Correlation Analysis The chosen issue is the correlation between freedom and responsibility. These two notions are interrelated through social, political, and ethical norms.
• Religious Freedom and Identity of Believers This article is a compilation of perspectives on the relationship between religious freedom and the identity of believers.
• The Freedom of the People: Descartes, De Spinoza Freedom is the essential characteristic of human life, which is revealed based on the unity and interaction of its spiritual and material components.
• Roosevelt: Four Freedom Address Roosevelt is a perfect example of a democratic leader who understands the population’s needs and makes everything possible to meet them.
• French Revolution: The Birth of Freedom and Equality The French Revolution is reasonably deemed one of the most significant events not only in the history of France but also in the whole world.
• Freedom in Action via Cultural Relativism Cultural relativism refers to the approach of not evaluating a culture according to its criteria for determining what is right or wrong, strange or normal.
• The Political Objectives of the Freedom Summer Activists The memory of the tragically dead Cheney, Schwerner, and Goodman is honored and will be kept as long as there is violence in the world.
• Ethical Relativism and Freedom of Speech Ethical relativism has boundaries that need to be clarified. It is essential to find a balance between moral nihilism and ethical absolutism.
• Freedom and Rights in Relation to COVID-19 During the coronavirus pandemic, a mask regime and mandatory vaccination were introduced almost all over the world, limiting the freedoms of numerous people.
• Compatibilist and Libertarian Freedom A significant feature of the libertarian theory of freedom is that it implies circumstantial and metaphysical freedom.
• Marcus Garvey in Black Freedom Struggle History African-American history in the United States has many notable events which forever transformed the society of the country.
• What Is More Impactful: Freedom or Slavery? In modernity, the history of slavery in the United States can primarily be contextualized as the history of abolition.
• Thirst for Freedom: The Art of Bible Translation Exodus is a Greek word that means the exit of a large group and is the second book in the Old Testament. The book bases its story on the movement of Israelites out of Egypt.
• “Freedom Writers”: Immigration and Indigenization Immigration and indigenization in education connect people, being vital in expanding the horizons and perception of the world with its cultural differences.
• Understanding the Concept of Freedom in America The American autonomy of liberty took shape in the 19th century to support industrializing the economy and posing constitutional protection.
• Importance of Freedom of Speech to American Citizens Social networks have become the means of suppressing free thinking since they massively popularize people who express the “right” point of view.
• Issues Related to Freedom and Population Surveillance in China The paper emphasized several vital issues related to freedom and population surveillance in China, the adverse use of technology, and the importance of AI supremacy.
• Determination of Sartre’s Concept of Freedom Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism can significantly positively impact a person who has the will to define themselves.
• Personal Freedom of Thought Concept Despite the common thought that freedom is achieved when the majority supports the opinion, freedom is the capability to act freely, devoid of any external influence.
• African Americans’ and Southern Whites’ Freedom The relation to freedom in African Americans and Southern Whites has always been different, and each race could not understand and accept the ideas of their opponents.
• Arguments Against Masks During Pandemic and Personal Freedom The arguments of mask refusers are invalid. However, their actions lead to a violation of the top human right – the right to life.
• “Law, Morality, and the Freedom of Expression”: Relationship Between Morality and the Law The paper discusses the types of relationship that exists between morality and the law based on the writing “Law, morality and the freedom of expression”.
• The Case Against the Reds: Civil Freedom in the History of the United States The case against the reds can be defined as the occasions’ narration. It is the widest reinterpretation of civil freedom in the history of the United States.
• Freedom of Speech Despite Life Risks Today, the US prides itself on its freedom of speech, with the First Amendment protecting the population from censorship.
• Can One Will Their Own Freedom Without Willing the Freedom of Others? An analysis of human psychology indicates that people act independently and always strive to abide by the decisions that maximize their self-interests.
• Africa’s Freedom: The Events of 1960 The article comprises reflections of individuals whose lives have been directly influenced by the events of 1960. It conveys the message of African unity in the world.
• Philosophical Attitude of God’s Foreknowledge and Human Freedom Omniscience is the state of having full or maximum knowledge and is regarded as an essential feature of an entirely perfect being.
• The Quest for Freedom: William Blake and Fredrick Douglass Romantic poets such as William Blake believed human imagination could counter scientific principles that defined reality using material objects.
• The Use of Emotional Freedom Technique for Test Taking Anxiety Reduction The emotional freedom technique (EFT) is reported to be a prominent method that reduces stress and related negative psychological effects.
• Religious Freedom and Freedoms of Association Whether one chooses to live in utter denial or utmost belief of a religious system, we are all born in one, religion is a matter of the heart.
• Certified Professional Midwifery Practice and the Home Birth Freedom Act The Home Birth Freedom Act seeks to accredit Certified Professional Midwifery practices. The act aims at protecting the CPM practitioners from being prosecuted.
• Constitutional Law Hong Kong: Freedom of Expression This essay will discuss the Freedom of expression as a fundamental right and that it lies in the civil society and of Hong Kong system and way of life.
• The Notions of Misogyny, Feminism, and Sexual Freedom in Sam Mendes’s Skyfall The overall socio-linguistic context of the notion of human sexuality has now generally been vastly misinterpreted by many people regardless of their racial, social, or ethnic affiliation.
• The Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act The Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act, which will unify the rules for the use of marijuana and promote the development and price reduction of this healthcare service.
• The Haitian Revolution: A New Vision of Freedom The paper recaps the background and consequences of the Haitian Revolution, the way it affected people of different nationalities around the world.
• Can Multicultural Urban Schools in Sweden Survive Freedom of Choice Policy
• Academic Autonomy and Freedom Under Pressure: Severely Limited, or Alive and Kicking
• Abstract Expressionism and Its Representation of Individual Freedom and Emotion
• Economic Freedom and Human Flourishing: Perspectives From Political Philosophy
• Freedom and the Strong State: On German Ordoliberalism
• Academic Freedom, Private-Sector Focus, and the Process of Innovation
• Does Liberalism Offer the Most Freedom
• Economic Freedom and the Informal Economy
• Internet Freedom Should Not Be Censored by the Government
• Censorship Conflicts With the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech
• Between Equality and Freedom of Choice: Educational Opportunities for the Least Advantaged
• How Does the Montessori Environment Facilitate and Encourage the Freedom of the Child?
• Freedom and Equality: America’s Pride and Glory
• Freedom: Political Philosophy and Current Societal Setting
• The United States Constitution Stating No Law Prohibiting the Freedom of Speech
• Economic Freedom, Race, and Health Disparities
• Civil Liberties and Multiculturalism: The Freedom of The
• Education: “We Should Cherish Our Children’s Freedom to Think”
• Balancing Criminal Justice and Personal Freedom Assignment
• How Religion Limits the Freedom of Human Beings
• Freedom, Capitalism, and Institutions for Delivering Social Justice
• Economic Freedom and Labor Market Conditions: Evidence From the States
• The Tricky Balance Between the Freedom of Expression and Censorship Plans in the U.S
• The Convention for Safeguarding the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom of the EU Citizens The convention for safeguarding the Human rights and fundamental freedom of the EU citizens were drawn up by the European Council on November 4th, 1950, and enforced in 1953.
• Margaret Sanger and Her Contribution to Women’s Freedom Margaret Sanger is although was focused on contradictory ideas of eugenics and showed racism, significantly affected the fight for women’s equality.
• Freedom of African Americans in the Southern States The abolition of slavery in the United States was a long process rather than a series of amendments to the Constitution.
• Liberty, Freedom, and Equality in America The development of liberty, freedom, and equality in the United States should be considered through the lens of the diversity of nations.
• Universal Qualities of Freedom The short stories by A. Chekhov, H. Quiroga, K. Chopin, and J. Cortazar respectively present the typical freedom quality of allowing people to make their life decisions.
• Freedom of Assembly: The First Amendment Act When exercising this right, individuals are expected to ensure they do infringe on other freedom such as speech, religion, expression, and press.
• The Civil War Lessons: Fight for Freedom and Equal Rights The key moment of U.S. history is the Civil War and its consequences, the persistence of people fighting for freedom, and the strength of minorities experiencing oppression.
• Freedom of Religious Beliefs in the Workplace The workplace is a unique and sensitive environment governed by own rules and policies that must exclude any degrading and hurtful treatment of employees based on their beliefs.
• Freedom of Breath, Foundation of Life: China’s Neonatal Resuscitation Program Review Birth asphyxia remains a major concern in developing countries, with seven deaths per 1000 births caused by asphyxia, compared to less than one death in developed countries.
• Mr. Merrill “Professionalization: Fusion of Media Freedom and Responsibility” Mr. Merrill tells why and how mass media has transcended an ethic line due to freedom traced by national institutions; and how the latter helped mass media become what it is today.
• Freedom and Enslavement in Literature Freedom and enslavement are patterns adopted in the literature that rarely hinders the expressive manner of writers.
• Sustein and Tocqueville: Two Opinions on Freedom of Speech Cass Sustein and Alexis Tocqueville compares the manner in which America and Europe approaches a person’s freedom of speech.
• Can a Case Be Made Against Freedom and Equality? Discussion of question on the example of three cases: Brown v. The board of education, president Kennedy’s prosecution of the Cuban missile crisis, and NOW’s statement of purpose.
• Freedom From Beliefs Native Americans This essay is valuable to the oppressed since through this, the writer gives them courage to face the struggle.
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom The rise of D.F. Roosevelt was connected with his political career and personal development as a national leader. The political career began in 1910-1911 when Roosevelt entered the state house.
• Freedom Information Act 2000 of United Kingdom The Freedom of Information Act 2000 which came into effect in 2005 was outcome of the major electoral manifestations of the labour party in 1997.
• Freedom and Social Status of Blacks in America The majority of White people in America are not quite ready to admit that despite their strive to eradicate racism within themselves they continue to act as subtle racists.
• Answering Freedom’s Call: Life After Emancipation The reunification of the country following the Civil War was a process that contributed to the widespread realization of their rights by a broad stratum.
• How Does the Freedom to Choose Ancestries in One’s Identity Differ for Whites and People of Color This paper compares opportunity to choose their ethnic identity of whites and people of color to show this freedom is inaccessible to racial minorities.
• Emotions and the Perception of Freedom The relationship between man and women has always evoked interest and received attention in numerous literary works.
• Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus Freedom of speech is a vital component of American society and should be protected, but it cannot be utilized either legally or in campus policies when it is used for vicious purposes.
• Woodrow Wilson’s “The New Freedom” Campaign Being famous for his campaign platform known as “The New Freedom,” Woodrow Wilson gained sizeable support from the American population.
• Freedom of Expression: Tinker v. Des Moines The evaluation of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District highlights the areas covered by the First Amendment and the nuances of its application.
• House Freedom Caucus: Legislation Research and Analysis The interest group identified in the research is the House Freedom Caucus. It is a congressional caucus that includes members of the House of Representatives.
• Freedom or the Common Good – What Matters More? The purpose of this paper is to analyze various views and theories on free markets and government regulations.
• “Freedom and Capitalism” by Milton Friedman The principle behind the book “Capitalism and Freedom” was that the government only existed for the will of the people, and thus served as the means towards a goal.
• Freedom of Expression: Jake Baker’s Case The case of Jake Baker (1997) transformed into a full-scale debate on topics ranging from freedom of expression to pornography and obscenity.
• US Gun Control: Losing Freedom or Safeguarding? Gun control has long been among the chief sources of debate in the US. This polarizing topic presents a powerful political tool and extensively used by Democrats and Republicans.
• Natural Freedom in Romantic American Literature There is a common denominator that binds the works of James Fennimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Washington Irving, and Henry David Thoreau.
• Boyz n the Hood and Black Freedom Fighters in Steel Both Boyz n the Hood and Black Freedom Fighters in Steel describe the lives of people of color who are struggling to survive in a world that is aggressively opposed to them.
• Equality, Freedom, and Security Rights in the US The problem is in the fact that rights to equality, freedom, and security reflected in the UDHR should be adopted in different states of the country.
• Freedom in American Countryside and Agriculture This paper portrays how freedom has been eliminated in the countryside by the state agriculture department, and whether the farmer has a moral right to do his farming practices.
• African-American Struggle for Freedom In the 1900’s, African Americans were oppressed by de jure segregation, a social system that has established separate facilities for the minority groups.
• Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964: Whites in the Movement The key goals of the Mississippi freedom summer of 1964 were to ensure that the African Americans were registered as voters in Mississippi.
• Consequences of Religious Freedom in America Today religious freedom is the foremost issue that has incurred as a result of direct democracy which is affecting millions of American citizens.
• Historical Freedom in America America is renowned as a country that espouses freedom in every respect. An important point to note, however, is that this freedom was not easy to come by.
• What Is the Economic Approach to Issues of Religious Freedom?
• What Are the Issues With Freedom and the Relationship With Thailand’s Constitution?
• Does Democracy Ensure Freedom?
• Does the UCTA and UCTTR Impede on the Freedom of Contract?
• Does Censorship Limit One’s Freedom?
• What Is the Distinction Between Positive and Negative Freedom?
• How Do Freedom and Responsibility Affect Individuals and Society?
• How Much the Government Should Restrict Their Personal Freedom?
• Who Is Ralph Emerson and What Is His View on American Freedom?
• What Is the Balance Between Freedom and Order?
• What Freedom Does Literacy Offer in Globalised Society?
• What Does One Define Religious Freedom and Prisoner Rights?
• What Is the Relationship Between Authority, Freedom and Discipline in School?
• What Is the Distance Between Fear and Freedom?
• What Was the Lincoln’s Administration Pursuit of Freedom?
• What Is the Problem With Excessive Religious Freedom?
• Does Australia’s Unfair Contracts Act Limit or Enhance Contractual Freedom?
• What Are the Philosophical Issues in Censorship and Intellectual Freedom?
• Does Economic Freedom Affect the Production Frontier?
• Does Economic Freedom Influence Major Health Indicators in India?
• Does the Law Relating to Obscenity Restict Freedom of Speech?
• What Is the Difference Between Freedom Fighters and Terrorists?
• What Is the Non-parametric Approach to Dynamics of Economic Freedom?
• How Does Rousseau Understand the Concept of Freedom?

In the short sample below, we tried to give a simple and concise explanation of what freedom means. Have a look at how we highlight the importance of balancing individual autonomy with respect for the freedoms of others in creating a harmonious and flourishing society. Continue reading for more freedom essay ideas!

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, September 18). 240 Freedom Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/freedom-essay-topics/

"240 Freedom Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 18 Sept. 2021, studycorgi.com/ideas/freedom-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) '240 Freedom Essay Topics'. 18 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "240 Freedom Essay Topics." September 18, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/freedom-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "240 Freedom Essay Topics." September 18, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/freedom-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "240 Freedom Essay Topics." September 18, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/freedom-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Freedom were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on January 22, 2024 .

freedom of speech

Primary tabs.

Freedom of speech is the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government. The First Amendment protects this right by prohibiting Congress from making laws that would curtail freedom of speech.

Even though freedom of speech is protected from infringement by the government, the government is still free to restrict speech in certain circumstances. Some of these circumstances include:

• Obscenity and Indecency – In Alliance for Community Media v. FCC , the Supreme Court found that obscenity and child pornography have no right to protection from the First Amendment, and as such, the government has the ability to ban this media altogether. But when it comes to indecency, which is generally defined by the courts as something describing or depicting offensive sexual activity, the Supreme Court has found this speech protected. But the government can regulate this speech on radio and television, so long as it’s for a compelling reason and is done in the least restrictive manner. 
• Defamation – Private and public figures are able to sue someone for statements they have made. Public figures must prove that the person made the statement with malice , which means knowing the statement was false or having a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement. (See  New York Times v. Sullivan ) . Private figures must prove the person failed to act with reasonable care when they made the statement. 
• Incitement – If a person has the intention of inciting the violations of laws that is imminent and likely, while directing this incitement at a person or groups of persons, their speech will not be protected under the First Amendment. This test was created by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio . 
• Fighting words  

While the public has a right to freedom of speech when it comes to the U.S. government, the public does not have this right when it comes to private entities. Companies and private employers are able to regulate speech on their platforms and within their workplace since the First Amendment only applies to the government. This right allowed Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to ban President Donald Trump from their sites in 2021 without legal repercussion. Companies like Facebook and YouTube were also able to ban misleading information on Covid-19 during the 2020 pandemic.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed that private entities are not restricted by the First Amendment in the case Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck . Manhattan Neighborhood Network is a nonprofit that was given the authority by New York City to operate public access channels in Manhattan. The organization decided to suspend two of their employees after they received complaints about a film the employees produced. The employees argued that this was a violation of their First Amendment freedom of speech rights because they were being punished due to the content of their film. The Supreme Court held that Manhattan Neighborhood Network was not a government entity or a state actor , so the nonprofit couldn’t be subjected to the First Amendment.

In another case, Nyabwa v. Facebook , the Southern District of Texas also affirmed that private entities are not subject to the First Amendment. There, the plaintiff had a Facebook account, which spoke on President Donald Trump’s business conflicts of interest. Facebook decided to lock the account, so the plaintiff was no longer able to access it. The plaintiff decided to sue Facebook because he believed the company was violating his First Amendment rights. The court dismissed the lawsuit stating that the First Amendment prevents Congress and other government entities from restricting freedom of speech, not private entities. 

[Last updated in June of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team ] 

• Join for Free

• Back to Listing
• Current: Social Studies
• Current: Democratic Values
• Current: U.S. Charters of Freedom

Writing Prompt: Freedom of Speech 1 (upper elem/middle)

What are the advantages and disadvantages of freedom of speech what do you think of this right in terms of its importance, resource tags, similar resources.

Word Game: Government

/ Constitution Day

Media Type PDF

Crossword: Betsy Ross

Reading Comprehension: History: Age of Revolution (H.S.)

/ World History

New to abcteach?

Sign up to Download From 49,000+ Resources

TERMS OF SERVICE

1.1. The abcteach.com public and membership websites have been in operation since about 2000, providing access to downloadable materials for educators and parents.

1.2. The abcteach.com website is owned and operated by ABCTEACH LLC, a Michigan limited liability company. The names "abcteach" and "abctools" are registered trademarks. As used in this Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, "We" and "abcteach" and "Site" refer to all websites and services, whether public or membership, operated or offered by abcteach. Currently we operate under the following base urls: abcteach.com, and members.abcteach.com.

1.3. abcteach is for use by parents, educators, and others over the age of 18. The materials made available by abcteach are intended to be used with and for children and students, among others, at the discretion and under the control, supervision, and direction of the parents, educators, and other adults who are visitors, members, or subscribers to the Site. As used in this Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, "you" refers to such visitors, members, or subscribers.

1.4. By using the Site, you accept and agree to be bound by the following terms. We may, solely at our discretion, modify or revise these terms and conditions at any time by updating this web page, and you agree to be bound by these modifications or revisions. You should visit this page periodically to review the terms. From time to time, we will require that you confirm your agreement to the terms.

2.1. Sharing of password or login information is strictly prohibited. Suspension of account access may result from sharing of this information.

2.2. Worksheets and other materials available on abcteach, including clip art, may be printed or otherwise duplicated for use in your home or your classroom(s). Clip art on abcteach is intended as a resource for you in creating lessons and teaching materials and the like within your permitted usage of the Site. If you are a paid member, our clip art may be: placed on another publication as clip art, or distributed individually on a third-party authorship site, if you as a member give abcteach credit for any clip art intended to be redistributed. Giving credit to abcteach requires you to mention our name and website on any publications in which you use our clip art for redistribution. You may not use our clip art in the design or content of another website; or distribute our clip art electronically or by email or text or by any other media or social media. Furthermore, Members are prohibited from packaging our clip art into their own collections for sale, each clip art illustration used for resale, must be used individually, again giving credit to abcteach.com.

2.3. The abcteach copyright appears on every page; we require that this copyright remain in place on all reproductions.

2.4. Except as provided in section 2.7 below, all of the worksheets and other materials available on abcteach are intended for non-commercial educational purposes.

2.5. You may place links to abcteach from your own education website; however, copying or uploading abcteach resources and documents to your own site is a copyright violation and will be treated as such. Deep linking is not permitted. (A "deep link" is a hyperlink that bypasses a website's home page and takes the user directly to an internal page. For example, instead of linking to the home page of a newspaper, a deep link might take the user directly to a newspaper article within the site.) At abcteach, linking directly to a content page rather than the home page or a directory page is considered deep linking and is not permitted.

2.6. Under no circumstances may any of the documents, resources, clip art, worksheets, or other materials (including text, images, or website design) on abcteach be re-sold or re-distributed without the express permission of abcteach.

2.7. We may permit you to use abcteach materials in your creation and sale of educational materials produced by you individually, on sites such as Teachers Pay Teachers, upon your payment of a separate additional fee and your submission of an executed agreement as stated elsewhere on the Site. This would offer you a limited non-exclusive license to use abcteach materials within the scope of the separate agreement; such permission being terminable at any time by abcteach in our sole discretion; you agree that you will immediately cease the use, or offering for sale, or sale, of any such educational materials in the event we take such action. By using any materials, you acknowledge that other members may be acting under similar permissions and creating similar materials.

2.8. If you desire to use abcteach materials in any other manner, or if you have any questions about permissible uses that are not specifically addressed here, you should address your inquiry to support@abcteach.

3. Responsibility for User-Created Content

3.1. The Site has tools and other features, including but not limited to abctools, the abcWorkshop, and other applications, that facilitate the creation of user-generated word lists, puzzles, worksheets, and other resources. The user-selected content of such user-generated materials is your sole responsibility and not that of abcteach. If any other person, including children or students, uses your member account to access or use abctools or abcWorkshop or any other abcteach application, you agree to and assume responsibility for any such materials.

3.2. You are responsible for assuring that any materials, lists, documents or other documents created with this abcteach tools, resources, and applications, are appropriate, and you will not cause or permit the tool to be used to create harmful, vulgar, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate content.

3.3. If you share an abcteach document or user-generated document, by any means including any of the sharing features or applications or tools found on the Site, you are solely responsible for the content of the transmitted materials or documents.

3.4. If any sensitive materials or information or documents from the Site, or user-generated materials, are shared or provided to a child under the age of 13, you agree that you will first obtain express consent from the child’s parent or guardian(s) to share such documents with the child, and obtain permission and/or releases for the use of any user-generated information concerning the child or the child’s family that may be contained in such documents.

4. License Grant to abcteach

By posting information on or through our Sites, you automatically grant abcteach a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, edit, translate, distribute, perform, and display the information, alone or as part of other works, in any form, media, or technology, whether now known or hereafter developed, and to sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of sub-licensees.

5. Charges, Payments, and Subscription Charges and Cancellation

5.1. We currently offer one-year and two-year individual memberships for single payment, and a monthly plan with payment of an initial setup charge followed by monthly payments. We also offer group memberships to schools, districts, and groups, the details of which are described separately. The terms and prices of individual memberships as they may exist from time to time are stated on the Site. We may choose to offer different membership plans. By becoming an abcteach member, you agree that we may renew your subscription automatically for the same subscription terms on the day your previous subscription ends, and you authorize us to charge you for the subscription term, unless you cancel your account prior to its renewal date through the cancellation process, as provided in sections 5.4 – 5.6 below.

5.2. We use third-party payment providers (such as CyberSource and other providers) for all credit and debit card and PayPal and similar transactions. We do not collect or retain information about user’s credit or debit cards or PayPal accounts or other payment mechanism, all of which information is retained and used according to secure procedures of the third-party payment providers.

5.3. Depending on the plan you choose, you will be charged a fee automatically through our renewal system. By becoming an abcteach member, you are agreeing that we are authorized to charge you the membership fee associated with the type of membership (monthly, yearly, or bi-yearly) that you chose during registration. You agree that we are authorized to charge you the membership fee at the then-current rate to the payment method you provided during registration. Please note that prices and charges are subject to change without notice. Fees each month may be modified using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or other payment methods available through your account. This includes: promotional discounts advertised in our weekly member newsletters, or on-brand promotional ads. Each renewal payment will take place on or about the anniversary of the original date of account registration. If all eligible payments methods we have on file for you are declined, you must provide us a new payment method promptly or your membership will be canceled. If the renewal of your membership fails for any reason, we will attempt to process your renewal for a period up to thirty (10) days.

5.4. Membership Cancellation. You may cancel your membership any time by visiting Your Account and adjusting your settings. If you choose to cancel your subscription or fail to pay any fees, we may stop your membership. If you cancel your membership or are no longer a paid user, you have the option to continue use as a free user.

5.5. UNLESS YOU NOTIFY US BEFORE A SUBSCRIPTION PAYMENT THAT YOU WANT TO CANCEL OR DO NOT WANT TO AUTO RENEW, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR ABCTEACH MEMBERSHIP WILL AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUE AND YOU AUTHORIZE US TO COLLECT THE THEN-APPLICABLE MEMBERSHIP FEE AND ANY APPLICABLE TAXES, USING ANY/ ALL ELIGIBLE PAYMENT METHODS WE HAVE ON RECORD FOR YOUR ACCOUNT.

5.6. ALL FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLE. Termination of your account may include removal of your access to all offerings of the website; including password, information, files, and user content associated with your account, and barring any further use of abcteach membership services and tools.

5.7. We may terminate your membership at our discretion without notice. If we do so, we will provide a prorated refund based on the number of days/months remaining in your membership. However, we will not give any refund for termination related to conduct that we determine, in our discretion, violates these terms or any applicable law, involves fraud or misuse of the membership agreement, or is harmful to our interests or another use.

5.8. By applying for membership, you represent that: you are over the age of 18; that you are competent to enter into a contract; that you are the owner of, or authorized by the owner, to utilize the credit or debit card or other payment mechanism used for the payments; that the information you submit about your location and contact information is correct; that you will promptly notify us of any change in your email address or payment mechanism; and that you have read and agree with the provision of these Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. We reserve the right to decline any application for membership, or to change the terms and/or conditions of any account at any time, for any reason or no reason.

5.9. We may offer, on the Site or through other means, and broadly or to limited groups of potential members, promotional prices, seasonal pricing, free trial memberships, or other special prices and terms. Such promotional activities do not affect existing memberships, and abcteach will not provide or offer such promotional prices to existing members or users, and will not provide refunds or rebates or other price protections.

PRIVACY POLICY

• This Privacy Policy applies to all websites, public and membership, operated by abcteach. By providing information to us or using the Site, you agree to the terms and conditions of this Privacy Policy.
• abcteach will not knowingly send marketing or other messages to children. Nor does abcteach knowingly permit children to communicate through the Site or to provide personal information to us.
• Member Registration Information. abcteach collects and stores certain information that members, subscribers, and users of the Site are required to provide in registering for or subscribing to the Site. Such information can vary depending on the nature of the account, and may include personal identifying information such as name, email address, school or district information, physical address, etc.
• Electronic Payment and Credit Card Information. abcteach currently utilizes third party providers to handle electronic and credit card payment transactions, and abcteach does not itself collect or store information concerning such payments. If you want to review the privacy policies of such third party service providers, please request contact information for those providers by contacting abcteach at the one of the addresses given below.
• Payments by Check or Bank Transfers. When abcteach receives payments by check or bank transfers, most often from schools and districts, we collect and maintain information about such payments.
• Information about Usage of the Site. We collect information on usage of the Site, which may include pages visited, and downloaded, time on site, identifying information about the uses, etc.
• "Cookies" and other Tracking and Technology Information. abcteach and our third party service providers may use cookies and other technologies to retrieve and store information about Site usage, browser type, IP addresses, pages visited, date and time of usage, etc.
• Information derived from use of ABCTOOLS and abcWorkshop and other abcteach services and products. If a member or others introduce information into the system by utilizing any of abcteach's services or products including ABCTOOLS or abcWorkshop, it is possible such information will be gathered or stored. You represent, by using or permitting such use of the Site by yourself or by others or by children, that any personal information that may be included in such usage is used with permission and authority, including parental consent, and that you represent to us and our service providers that we are permitted to use the information.
• Registration and use of the Site.
• Payment for membership or subscriptions or products or services.
• Internal business purposes.
• Newsletters distribution.
• Special offers and marketing relating to abcteach.
• Customer service and problem resolution.
• Enforcement of abcteach intellectual property rights and membership terms and conditions.
• Responding to legal process or governmental requests for information.
• As required under applicable law or regulations.
• In connection with possible future transactions affecting abcteach, such as the sale of the Site, or mergers, sales of assets, reorganizations, etc. , in which event all or a part of stored information including member and user information may be transferred to a successor business or website operator.
• As we may require in connection with specific services and products, current or future.
• Children's Privacy Notice Usage of the Site is limited to adults and children are not permitted to use the Site. Nor do we request that any personal information be provided by or about children including those in your family or classroom. Children under the age of 13 are not requested to provide any personal information while using the Site. However, to comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, if it is brought to our attention that children under 13 years of age intend to use the Site, we reserve the right to require you to seek the consent of Parents in order for children under 13 years of age to use the Site in any manner that could result in the submission of personal information, and to terminate your access to the Site if such consent(s) is not obtained or submitted timely. If a member, teacher, or parent uses the Site or any of its tools or products in a manner by which a child could disclose personal information to others, it shall be a representation by that member, teacher or parent that the child's parent has expressly authorized such use and has expressly authorized abcteach to collect, store, and distribute the child's personal information to other users of the Site. Additionally, such personal information may be collected or stored by the cookies and other technologies described above. Parents may contact abcteach at the addresses provided below.
• Security abcteach attempts to secure its information and that of others by using reasonable safeguards and procedures. However, no internet or electronic data communication, transmission or storage system can be guaranteed to be completely secure. For that reason, abcteach cannot and does not guaranty the security of information transmitted to or shared with us. You use the Site and provide and share information at your own risk. If you have questions or concerns, you should not submit or share personal information or other sensitive information.
• Links to Other Sites abcteach does not ordinarily link to other websites. If such links are used, those websites or applications will be not be covered by this Privacy Policy. Users should review privacy policies of such sites and applications.
• Consent to Transfer of Information to the United States and to the Application of U.S. Law and Jurisdiction. abcteach is operated and managed by ABCTEACH LLC from within the United States. Neither the Site nor its staff nor its owner intend to be governed or subjected to the laws or jurisdiction of any other country other than the United States. Information provided to abcteach or to its third party service providers will be processed, stored, and used in the United States and other countries where the service providers or abcteach or affiliates may have operations. By using the Site, you irrevocably consent to the transfer of information to the United States, or to other countries other than your country of residence, and to the storage and use of the information in the United States. You acknowledge and agree that, to the extent that the laws of the United States differ from those of your country of residence, you consent to the application of the laws of the United States to your information and to the relationship between yourself and us, and you covenant and agree that you will not assert that other law is applicable. Any litigation or court proceedings of any nature concerning the relationship between you and abcteach, or to these terms and conditions, or to the Privacy Policy, or to any other matter relating to abcteach, shall be only and exclusively in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and you irrevocably consent to personal jurisdiction in such forums for any such litigation or proceedings.
• Indemnification and Hold Harmless You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless abcteach, and all related parties and services, from any and all liability, penalties, losses, damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, causes of action, or claims caused by or resulting indirectly from your use of our Sites.
• No Warranties Use of this service is on an "as-is" basis. ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND MERCHANTABILITY, ARE SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED. Any contact with any agents of this service, either in person or through electronic means does not create a warranty.
• Changes to Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy We may change these Terms of Service and Privacy Policy at any time and such changes will become effective when posted to the Site. Your use of the Site following such the posting of any revised Terms of Service and Privacy Policy means that you accept the revised terms and policy.
• Contact Information Regarding Terms of Service and Privacy Policy Legal questions and concerns should be directed to our General Counsel, whose email address is [email protected] . Alternatively, first class mail addressed to General Counsel, ABCTEACH LLC, c/o Bodman PLC, 1901 St. Antoine Street, Detroit, Michigan 48226. Other questions should be directed to Customer Support, whose email address is [email protected] .

REVISION DATE: August 1, 2017

Essays About Freedom: 5 Helpful Examples and 7 Prompts

Freedom seems simple at first; however, it is quite a nuanced topic at a closer glance. If you are writing essays about freedom, read our guide of essay examples and writing prompts.

In a world where we constantly hear about violence, oppression, and war, few things are more important than freedom. It is the ability to act, speak, or think what we want without being controlled or subjected. It can be considered the gateway to achieving our goals, as we can take the necessary steps. 

However, freedom is not always “doing whatever we want.” True freedom means to do what is righteous and reasonable, even if there is the option to do otherwise. Moreover, freedom must come with responsibility; this is why laws are in place to keep society orderly but not too micro-managed, to an extent.

5 Examples of Essays About Freedom

1. essay on “freedom” by pragati ghosh, 2. acceptance is freedom by edmund perry, 3. reflecting on the meaning of freedom by marquita herald.

• 4.  Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

5. What are freedom and liberty? by Yasmin Youssef

1. what is freedom, 2. freedom in the contemporary world, 3. is freedom “not free”, 4. moral and ethical issues concerning freedom, 5. freedom vs. security, 6. free speech and hate speech, 7. an experience of freedom.

“Freedom is non denial of our basic rights as humans. Some freedom is specific to the age group that we fall into. A child is free to be loved and cared by parents and other members of family and play around. So this nurturing may be the idea of freedom to a child. Living in a crime free society in safe surroundings may mean freedom to a bit grown up child.”

In her essay, Ghosh briefly describes what freedom means to her. It is the ability to live your life doing what you want. However, she writes that we must keep in mind the dignity and freedom of others. One cannot simply kill and steal from people in the name of freedom; it is not absolute. She also notes that different cultures and age groups have different notions of freedom. Freedom is a beautiful thing, but it must be exercised in moderation. 

“They demonstrate that true freedom is about being accepted, through the scenarios that Ambrose Flack has written for them to endure. In The Strangers That Came to Town, the Duvitches become truly free at the finale of the story. In our own lives, we must ask: what can we do to help others become truly free?”

Perry’s essay discusses freedom in the context of Ambrose Flack’s short story The Strangers That Came to Town : acceptance is the key to being free. When the immigrant Duvitch family moved into a new town, they were not accepted by the community and were deprived of the freedom to live without shame and ridicule. However, when some townspeople reach out, the Duvitches feel empowered and relieved and are no longer afraid to go out and be themselves. 

“Freedom is many things, but those issues that are often in the forefront of conversations these days include the freedom to choose, to be who you truly are, to express yourself and to live your life as you desire so long as you do not hurt or restrict the personal freedom of others. I’ve compiled a collection of powerful quotations on the meaning of freedom to share with you, and if there is a single unifying theme it is that we must remember at all times that, regardless of where you live, freedom is not carved in stone, nor does it come without a price.”

In her short essay, Herald contemplates on freedom and what it truly means. She embraces her freedom and uses it to live her life to the fullest and to teach those around her. She values freedom and closes her essay with a list of quotations on the meaning of freedom, all with something in common: freedom has a price. With our freedom, we must be responsible. You might also be interested in these essays about consumerism .

4.   Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

“Freedom demands of one, or rather obligates one to concern ourselves with the affairs of the world around us. If you look at the world around a human being, countries where freedom is lacking, the overall population is less concerned with their fellow man, then in a freer society. The same can be said of individuals, the more freedom a human being has, and the more responsible one acts to other, on the whole.”

Carlson writes about freedom from a more religious perspective, saying that it is a right given to us by God. However, authentic freedom is doing what is right and what will help others rather than simply doing what one wants. If freedom were exercised with “doing what we want” in mind, the world would be disorderly. True freedom requires us to care for others and work together to better society. 

“In my opinion, the concepts of freedom and liberty are what makes us moral human beings. They include individual capacities to think, reason, choose and value different situations. It also means taking individual responsibility for ourselves, our decisions and actions. It includes self-governance and self-determination in combination with critical thinking, respect, transparency and tolerance. We should let no stone unturned in the attempt to reach a state of full freedom and liberty, even if it seems unrealistic and utopic.”

Youssef’s essay describes the concepts of freedom and liberty and how they allow us to do what we want without harming others. She notes that respect for others does not always mean agreeing with them. We can disagree, but we should not use our freedom to infringe on that of the people around us. To her, freedom allows us to choose what is good, think critically, and innovate. 

7 Prompts for Essays About Freedom

Freedom is quite a broad topic and can mean different things to different people. For your essay, define freedom and explain what it means to you. For example, freedom could mean having the right to vote, the right to work, or the right to choose your path in life. Then, discuss how you exercise your freedom based on these definitions and views. 

The world as we know it is constantly changing, and so is the entire concept of freedom. Research the state of freedom in the world today and center your essay on the topic of modern freedom. For example, discuss freedom while still needing to work to pay bills and ask, “Can we truly be free when we cannot choose with the constraints of social norms?” You may compare your situation to the state of freedom in other countries and in the past if you wish. 

A common saying goes like this: “Freedom is not free.” Reflect on this quote and write your essay about what it means to you: how do you understand it? In addition, explain whether you believe it to be true or not, depending on your interpretation. 

Many contemporary issues exemplify both the pros and cons of freedom; for example, slavery shows the worst when freedom is taken away, while gun violence exposes the disadvantages of too much freedom. First, discuss one issue regarding freedom and briefly touch on its causes and effects. Then, be sure to explain how it relates to freedom. 

Some believe that more laws curtail the right to freedom and liberty. In contrast, others believe that freedom and regulation can coexist, saying that freedom must come with the responsibility to ensure a safe and orderly society. Take a stand on this issue and argue for your position, supporting your response with adequate details and credible sources. 

Many people, especially online, have used their freedom of speech to attack others based on race and gender, among other things. Many argue that hate speech is still free and should be protected, while others want it regulated. Is it infringing on freedom? You decide and be sure to support your answer adequately. Include a rebuttal of the opposing viewpoint for a more credible argumentative essay. 

For your essay, you can also reflect on a time you felt free. It could be your first time going out alone, moving into a new house, or even going to another country. How did it make you feel? Reflect on your feelings, particularly your sense of freedom, and explain them in detail. 

Check out our guide packed full of transition words for essays .If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

• Not the Mother I Remember
• Accidental Jesus Freak
• Journaling for Dummies
• Week by Week: A Year’s Worth of Journaling Prompts
• Journaling the Chakras
• Journaling Through Relationships
• Times They Were A-Changing
• All Blog Posts
• Journaling Through Grief
• Read Like a Writer
• The Business of Being an Author
• Word for Writers
• Writing Through Change
• Your Best Writing Year Yet
• Memoir & Legacy
• Writing Tips
• Writing Tools
• A Writer’s Life

A Week’s Worth of Journaling Prompts: On Freedom 2

I recently posted an article at womensmemoirs.com about journaling on the concepts of freedom, peace, and happiness . Since then, I’ve continued to think about the topic: what freedom has meant to me in the past and what it means to me now; how my desire for freedom has, in many ways, shaped my desires and many of my decisions; and how it may influence my future.

Before we get into this week’s journaling prompts, let’s take a look at the dictionary definition of freedom as excerpted from dictionary.com (I’ve included only those definitions that refer to personal freedom):

• the state of being at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint;
• exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.;
• exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually followed by from): freedom from fear;
• the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.;
• ease or facility of movement or action;
• the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like;
• the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will;
• the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.

As you can see, personal freedom is a many-faceted concept we can explore from different points of view.

This week’s journaling prompts are designed to help you delve more deeply into your understanding of personal freedom and its influence in your life.

• Write about a past moment in your life when you felt most free. What was it about that event/time/activity that gave you such a sense of freedom? What were its qualities? What were you free from , and what were you free to do ? –
• Thinking about that past moment of freedom, how do you experience (or not experience) that freedom in your life now? –
• On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is completely constrained and 10 is completely free, where do you place yourself today? Write about the reasons you place yourself in that part of the scale. –
• List the qualities of freedom you wrote about in #1 (feel free to add to that list) and prioritize them. Which qualities are most important to you? For example, if my list includes autonomy (not having to answer to anyone else), freedom of movement, and freedom from worry, I might place autonomy first, freedom of movement second, and freedom from worry third. –
• Have you ever had a time in your life where you felt constrained, trapped, or imprisoned in some way? Freewrite about that time and how it affected (and/or continues to affect) your subsequent life decisions. –
• Do you believe that freedom is given to you by others, or made by you? Explain. –
• Finally, how important is freedom to you today? What do you give up for personal freedom, if anything (security, safety, relationships, etc.)? And, what do you think has most influenced your attitudes and beliefs regarding personal freedom?

Can you think of some other ways to write about freedom? We’d love to hear from you — please leave a comment.

________________________________

Image Credit: Baltasar Vischi –

Related Posts:

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

2 thoughts on “ A Week’s Worth of Journaling Prompts: On Freedom ”

Amber, this is such an important topic–personal freedom. I can’t help but refer to the recent interview by Diane Sawyer with Jaycee Lee Dugard who spend eighteen years imprisoned–both physically and mentally–though apparently not spiritually. So many people are imprisoned every day–either through abuse, injustice or illness. Our society does not seem to want to look too deeply into this–as evidenced by the parole officers who didn’t notice anything for all those years, to a society governed by a lot of people who want to remove the support from those in need. As a child, I was imprisoned in a house with my grandmother who wouldn’t let me out, or open the door. I learned how to escape into the moon which I could see in the window. Though I became free eventually as I grew up, the sense of being imprisoned took a long time to heal, because it was embedded in my mind and heart too. As you do, I believe that writing can help us free ourselves from our prisons, once we are physically free. Taking down the story, as Jaycee has done in her brave memoir, and telling our truths open the doors to the light. I have found that to be so in journaling and memoir writing. Thank you for your thoughtful writing prompts! I wrote about Jaycee and her story in my own blog today too. –Linda Joy

Linda Joy, thank you for such a thoughtful response. Your story is poignant and heartrending. And how grateful I am that you found your way to both freedom and healing.

To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.