Opinion by Adam Calder, National Marketing Manager
“The political extremes can criticize me as much as they want only if they realize that free speech is what gives them the ability to be so vocal- free speech must be cherished by every American for every American.”
— Manu Meel, CEO of BridgeUSA
Few issues ignite spirits in American politics like free speech. It is a foundational value of ours, enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution, yet it now seems to have become a battleground for political and cultural conflict.
But like most complex topics, free speech isn’t just one thing. It is an umbrella term that covers debates over censorship, social consequences, misinformation, and the limits of expression. Too often, we reduce this issue to a binary choice—either you’re for free speech, or you’re for censorship—when in reality, the debate is far more nuanced.
There’s a way to explain some of these nuances without contempt and with the intent of creating understanding. So here’s our take:
Misunderstanding Each Other’s Motives
Some progressives believe that conservatives champion free speech simply to serve as a cover for offensive or harmful rhetoric. Many liberal-leaning thought leaders say that conservatives invoke “free speech” mostly to protect hate speech or misinformation.
On the other hand, many conservatives see progressives’ concerns about misinformation and hate speech as a slippery slope toward authoritarianism. Elon Musk, for example, has repeatedly framed content moderation on social media as a direct attack on free expression, equating it with government overreach.
This dynamic of viewing the other side’s motives through the worst possible lens fuels polarization. In reality, both perspectives contain legitimate concerns.
Free speech is complex, and people arrive at different conclusions for different reasons. Our tendency to assume the worst of our opponents’ intentions only deepens hostility.
Free Speech vs. A Consequence Culture
One of the biggest sources of confusion in the free speech debate is the difference between legal speech rights and social consequences. The First Amendment protects against government censorship, but it does not guarantee protection from criticism, boycotts, or employer reaction.
Conservatives often argue that “cancel culture” has gone too far, punishing people for expressing views that were once mainstream. They worry that a culture of self-censorship is developing, where people fear speaking openly due to potential backlash.
At the same time, progressives argue that free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If someone says something offensive, they believe it’s reasonable for the public to push back. They view this not as censorship but as accountability.
Both of these concerns are valid. A society where people fear being ostracized for minor missteps is concerning, but so is a society where harmful rhetoric goes unchecked.
The challenge is striking a balance—one that allows for open discussion without creating an environment of fear or suppression. That is precisely what our movement is about: We are working to remove harmful rhetoric from our discourse, but without encroaching on people’s ability to speak their minds. This is part of engaging with democracy, understanding that you will hear things you disagree with or even detest in the course of debating to find the right solutions to our problems.
Who Decides What Speech Crosses the Line?
This debate over misinformation has intensified as social media platforms grapple with their role in regulating speech. Many on the left argue that platforms should take stronger action against harmful content, particularly when it involves falsehoods about elections, public health, or marginalized groups.
Conservatives, however, often see these efforts as politically motivated, believing that content moderation disproportionately affects right-leaning voices. They worry that the same institutions controlling speech today could be weaponized against them in the future.
Both concerns should be taken seriously. History shows that suppressing speech can have unintended consequences, often reinforcing the very ideas it seeks to eliminate. Again, the key is finding a balance—one that respects free expression while acknowledging, without suppressing, the real-world impact of speech.
Moving Beyond the Free Speech Wars
For many, the free speech debate feels like an existential struggle. But herein lies our most important question. What if we approached this broad umbrella of concerns not as a battle, but as an ongoing conversation?
Free speech will always be a source of tension because it touches on deeply held values: the right to express ourselves, the responsibility to use that freedom wisely, and the need to coexist in a pluralistic society. Instead of assuming that our opponents want to suppress our views or enable harmful speech, we should take the time to understand their concerns.
At BridgeUSA, we believe that the best way to protect free speech is to use it—to engage with those who disagree with us, to challenge our own assumptions, and to create spaces where open dialogue can flourish.
What We Must Do About It
Free speech debates are not just about what is legally protected but about what kind of culture we want to build. Do we want a society where people are afraid to speak? Do we want one where harmful ideas go unchallenged? The answer is somewhere in the middle—where freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.
Rather than reducing this conversation to a battle of extremes, we must commit to a more thoughtful, principled approach. Free expression is a cornerstone of democracy, but our republic thrives when we listen as well as we speak.
LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS ISSUE:
Rethinking free speech with Peter Ives | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill : chapter two
The Fate of American Democracy Depends on Free Speech | American Academy of Arts and Sciences
What’s Really Behind America’s ‘Free Speech Problem’ | NPR, 30 Minute Listen