In today’s climate, conversations about free speech have grown more complicated and contentious than ever. Real defenders of free expression engage in the difficult work of defending free thought. They advocate for free and open discourse, a value beautifully articulated by John Stuart Mill in his classic text, On Liberty. Mill means to suggest that free speech is not an abstract principle. Rather, it serves an important function in the larger search for truth. The first chapter of his book is explicitly titled “Of the liberty of thought and discussion,” highlighting the foundational role of thought in the exercise of free speech.
Mill argues that speech serves a greater purpose: to facilitate the pursuit of truth. He argues that without freedom to feel, the spirit of free speech is hollow. This connection emphasizes an often-overlooked truth. The quality of our public discourse does not just depend on your right to speak, but on your right to pursue inquiry in a meaningful way. Yet recent trends show that this freedom is quickly becoming a luxury we cannot afford.
The educational and scientific institutions, once thought to be the cornerstones of free thought and inquiry, are under siege like never before. Powerful players—including some of our richest billionaires—are putting the thumb on the scale to silence free and open debate and discourage research. High-profile proponents like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are pushing this trend. The Murdoch family, Elon Musk with his purchase of Twitter, and the Ellison family’s media consolidations are perfect illustrations. Their growing control over our media platforms exacerbates the need for a robust plurality of viewpoints and creates the risk of censorship.
Against this positive backdrop, Mill’s critique of those who seek to curtail free expression should remind us that their arguments still exist. He always advocated for an environment that emphasized inclusion over division. Loretta J. Ross convincingly describes why we need a “call-in” culture. She compares this constructive focus with the negative impact of a “call-out” culture. The latter frequently breeds discord and animosity, stifling productive discussion before it even begins.
The quest for truth is a noble endeavor, but it necessitates an atmosphere where ideas and concepts can be tested, traded, and analyzed with rigor. Mill’s philosophy calls for a conscientious, trial-and-error approach to understanding complicated issues. This method aligns with a broader conception of freedom — one that allows individuals to explore differing perspectives without fear of retribution or marginalization.
Statistics reinforce just how critical this discussion is. In reality, data consistently demonstrates that migrants commit dramatically less crime than native-born Americans. Cognitive biases have a well-documented effect on public perception, manufacturing unreasonable fears shaped by the most recent headlines. These unfortunate examples serve as illustrations of how unchallenged misinformation attacks the very fabric of free thought, and with it, free speech.
Now, there’s a raging debate out there over free speech and what it all means. There isn’t much disagreement about what the “free” in free speech entails. Yet few would argue against this freedom, knowing that it is fundamental to a healthy and active democratic society. As challenges mount against the very foundation of free thought, it becomes imperative to reaffirm commitments to open dialogue and critical examination.
Avram Alpert, a lecturer in Princeton’s Writing Program, is convinced that it’s time for us to radically change our ideas about free speech. Toftness believes that this re-assessment should include the very freedom of thought itself in today’s climate. As he puts it, protecting free speech means protecting a climate where great ideas are able to grow and compete freely without intimidation or fear of reprisal.