Arguing over 'free speech' has become a political weapon used by both sides. Each side claims the other is engaging in censorship. While nobody is really sure what the 'free speech' they are fighting for, or against, actually amounts to. But is the problem with free speech itself — or the way we use 'free speech' as a catch-all phrase in many several, very different, situations? From university protests to the courtroom, the battle over what free speech is, and how far we ought to go to protect it, is messy and muddled. Professor Peter Ives argues that free speech isn’t a single principle but a tangled web of competing ideals. Only by untangling this web can we move beyond slogans and reclaim meaningful debate.

The battle ground of free speech may seem hopelessly weaponized and merely about cynical manipulation. Part of the reason for this is that we ask one concept to do too much work. What we need is a clear disambiguation of the diverse goals and principles that are conflated into the single concept of the freedom of expression.

With Trump 2.0 looming large, the news is full of warnings that the so-called free speech President will actually be very detrimental to free speech. He has threatened news outlets for broadcasting stories he doesn’t like and Google for returning search results he does not find sufficiently flattering. Likewise, Elon Musk – having bought Twitter and since transforming it into X – has declared his advocacy of free speech while routinely silencing users he dislikes. He has even allegedly adjusted the algorithm to boost right-wing positions he favors and buries those he doesn’t. Now he will play a prominent role in Trump’s administration, at least as long as their bromance lasts.

___

In our politically divisive environment, we need to understand these contradictions in order to distinguish good-faith claims around free speech from hypocrisy.

___

At the same time, the failed Democratic presidential campaign included Tim Walz’s false claim that the US First Amendment does not protect hate speech, when it most certainly does. During the campaign, news media was filled with stories that a Democrat win would also spell doom for free speech. It may seem that free speech lost all connection to principle, confirming Stanley Fish’s contention that it is not a principle but rather just a ‘prize in the political wars’ to be fought over in endless polarized squabbles. When we wield free speech as a single idea, we may be talking about a number of different conceptions of it. This helps explain why different parties with very different politics will argue for free speech rights in apparently contradictory contexts. In our politically divisive environment, we need to understand these contradictions in order to distinguish good-faith claims around free speech from hypocrisy.