Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is more than an integral part of American life—it is enshrined in the US Constitution. As stated in the First Amendment:

Congress shall 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 right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The types of speech protected in the First Amendment are very broad. Even hate speech, for example—the sort of speech that overtly denigrates, insults, or demonizes other people based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation—is legally protected under the First Amendment as long as it isn’t a direct and “true threat” that causes people to fear imminent physical harm. What the First Amendment doesn’t protect are hate crimes, which are based on actions rather than expressions of an opinion.¹¹

Your freedom to speak is not absolute—if you are met with hostility or heckling, with loud vocal objections, or censorship, your constitutional rights are not being violated. If you purposely lie, distort information, harm and harass others, and cause panic or injuries, you can be sued by those you maligned or unjustly attacked. If your statements about someone are false, unjustified, and/or harmful, you can be sued for defamation—that is, making a false statement that damages a person’s reputation. If you say hateful or inflammatory things about a group or class of people, you may face hostility and harassment from vocal allies of the people you’ve targeted, as well as sharp criticism of your character and competence. If you harass, denigrate, and lie about someone, you may end up in court or facing a hefty fine.

In short, just because speech is free from government interference doesn’t mean that unethical speech must be silently tolerated or that it is without consequences. And as speakers and listeners, we have the right to address unethical communication practices with forceful but well-reasoned and respectfully expressed criticisms when warranted. Consider the “heckler’s veto,” where a group of listeners take actions that cause a speaker to stop speaking or prevent a speaker from having the opportunity to speak. The heckler’s veto has been used as a strategic weapon against hateful, inflammatory, and controversial speech on many college campuses in recent years.

In 2023, for example, students graduating from the City University of New York School of Law turned their backs when New York City mayor Eric Adams began his commencement address. Adams responded quickly by acknowledging their right to protest while also observing, “We’re watching a clear lack of desire to even participate in healthy dialogue.” In the short term, turning away (or away from) a speaker whose views or ideas are harmful, offensive, or hateful may seem like a victory. But remember that silencing speakers you vehemently disagree with by disinviting or heckling them is a tactic that can also be employed against other speakers whose ideas you support. It’s also unethical.

The best protection of your right to free speech is to express your opinions respectfully, back up those opinions with legitimate facts and valid reasoning, and provide defendable responses to audience objections. But if reactions to your presentation are extreme, you may want to reassess the decisions you’ve made and the rhetorical strategies you’ve used. If you conclude that you have been truthful, fair, objective, and respectful—in short, that you have exemplified the qualities of an ethical speaker—you should take comfort in thinking about all the speakers who have come before you whose cause was just and whose ideas eventually prevailed despite attempts to silence them.

As an audience member, you may find it challenging both to defend everyone’s right to speak and to productively oppose unethical communication. Understanding, thinking critically about, and responding to what people say—it’s difficult work. It may not be as immediately gratifying as using incendiary language or disruptive tactics when someone speaks in a way that upset or offends you. But it is the more responsible, ethical, and, in the long run, more effective speechmaking strategy.