The United States Supreme Court has made several rulings over the decades related to free speech. Like all rights, there can be conflicts between different rights and limits to them. In the United States, the Supreme Court has the last say on these matters when cases are brought before them.
It is certainly true that all sorts of totalitarian states have and continue to routinely abuse free speech absolutism arguments to justify their curtailment of free speech.
Questioning and debating the merits of free speech and setting limits to it is a very serious matter in our county. The checks and balances between majority rule and protecting minority rights happens at all levels of government and when it doesn’t it’s because at a very basic level free speech has been undermined. Who is in the minority on any particular issue can vary depending upon the locale and issues being addressed.
Having two senators from every state, congressional districts based on population, the judicial, legislative, and administrative branches of government are more examples of governmental checks and balances to protect majority and minority rights. Many people would argue that these checks and balances are more broken than ever. If they are in need of repair, it would seem open debate based upon freedom of speech would be an essential tool used to decide how to respond to these dysfunctions.
There is a difference between stating your point of view and engaging in debate. In the case of debate you’re trying to justify and persuade others to take a particular action you’re advocating for. Stating your point of view may or may not involve trying to persuade others to agree with you or to take a specific action.
Talking past each other, the willingness to try to understand the perspective and arguments of others, a willingness to change your own perspective, and to reconsider what you’ll support are all factors which depend upon healthy and constructive debate. In a country where there is lots of divisiveness, partisanship, special interest lobbying, and apathy about taking any action to elect or let our representatives know our wishes — it is much more challenging to have constructive debate to enact policies based upon some common ground and the development of consensus.
If everyone agreed on everything, there wouldn’t be much need for debate. In the real world and especially in a large country like the United States, there are frequently significant differences among the citizens. To resolve these differences effectively, a willingness to engage in debate is essential. The alternative is to develop a large enough block of voters whether it’s at the polls or in the legislative bodies to enact policies which must be consistent with the constitution to prevent them from being invalidated by court rulings.
The bottom line is that the more consensus, the more policies can change. The more partisan the approach, the fewer changes which can be made. This applies to people who advocate for the government having a smaller role in our lives as well since it would require new legislation and action by our representatives to make those changes.
Given all of these factors, discussion of free speech issues and its protection is more important than ever.