What is free speech for?

With Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, the actions of Florida’s governor and legislature following Disney’s opposition to the state’s Parental Rights in Education law, and the news that the Biden administration is opening a Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security, free speech is once again up for serious debate and discussion in America. Like other freedoms, we must constantly guard their genuine expression even as we delimit and delineate their proper boundaries.

We can begin by asking: What is free speech for? Why bother with the messiness and complications that inevitably arise from allowing people to freely express themselves? Most regimes throughout world history have thought that free speech was not worth the trouble. They applied the basic power dynamic inherent in fallen human society: the rule of the strong over the weak. Those who had power could speak and be heard, and those who did not had to remain silent.

A robust embrace of freedom of speech, however, arises out of a radically different understanding of the value and worth of every human being, whether born into power, blessed with wealth and prestige, or not. Just as there are limits to the kinds of speech that can be tolerated even in a free and open society, there are also limits on what kinds of restrictions can be imposed on human beings without violating their dignity and thereby fomenting civil unrest.

America has always had a profound respect for free speech precisely because it is a nation founded on a conception of humanity informed by deeply Biblical and philosophical truths. Truth is no respecter of persons, and simply because someone has the power to influence elections, markets, or churches is no guarantee that their expression is more valuable than those who do not enjoy such privileges.

We want expression and speech to be as free as possible because we want people to be their authentic and genuine selves in public as well as in private life. We live in an irreducibly and undeniably plural world, with diverging and often clashing worldviews. When people are free to live following their convictions, we have the possibility for harmony and peace amidst these deep differences. Sometimes we discover unexpected and otherwise unknown points of agreement even as we clarify and often sharpen our disagreements.

The freedoms of speech and expression are thus rooted in some of the most foundational aspects of humanity. Because we all will stand before God to account for our words and deeds, we must be free to live our lives by our deepest convictions, as far as the law allows. The freedoms of belief and worship thus directly correspond to freedoms of association, expression, and speech.

In this way, we must recognize the legal rights of those with whom we disagree, even those who are deeply misled and in error. Certainly, the government, as well as other institutions, have not only the right but the duty to guard the truth. But these responsibilities often mean creating the widest feasible space for disagreement and dialogue. The mandate of truth itself requires such commitment.

There is an unambiguous and direct connection between the convictions of our hearts and the conventions of our speech. As Jesus put it, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34). Soul freedom entails freedom of speech and expression.

A robust commitment to free speech also reflects a deep commitment to God’s ultimate authority. In that same chapter in Matthew, Jesus lays out the consequences of the connection of our hearts and our mouths: “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:36–37).

The freedoms of expression, press, and speech are thus not to be taken lightly. Rather, they are freedoms with great responsibility and even eternal significance. The Dutch Reformed theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) was also an editor and journalist when newspapers were beginning to dominate public discourse. In his reflections on freedom of speech and the press, Kuyper opposed the reduction of newspapers and media to mere servants of other institutional interests, whether the government or other social structures. “The press has a calling of its own,” he contended, “namely, the calling to bear witness based on principles.”

Our speech must be committed to the truth as we understand it and are convicted by it. Free speech recognizes the fundamentally moral nature of human beings. Often, we must answer for what we say and do during our lives in this world, but we also must leave room for the workings of divine providence and God’s judgment in the world to come.