“Free speech isn’t just saying what you want to say; it’s also hearing what you don’t want to hear.”
The line has been attributed to many people over the years — most recently by friends of the late Charlie Kirk — but the truth behind it is timeless. The measure of our commitment to the First Amendment is not whether we allow speech we agree with, but whether we tolerate speech we despise.
Today, that test is before us as never before. Across the country, lawmakers are pushing bills that would demonize or even criminalize so-called “hate speech.” At the same time, the current administration has moved to punish critics and threaten media outlets that give voice to perspectives it finds offensive. Reports of FCC threats against networks, just before ABC removed Jimmy Kimmel from late-night television, serve as an ominous reminder of how quickly political power can turn against dissenting or unpopular expression.
On the surface, some of these efforts may sound appealing. Who wouldn’t want to live in a society free from cruelty, prejudice, or offensive slurs, where our heroes are never questioned or criticized? But the danger is clear: once government claims the authority to decide what speech is acceptable, every voice is at risk. The same tools used to silence one group today can — and will — be used against another tomorrow.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that speech cannot be outlawed simply because it offends. In the 2017 case Matal v. Tam, Justice Samuel Alito wrote plainly: “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”
In the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson, Justice William Brennan was equally clear: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
The Court was not condoning bigotry; it was recognizing the peril of empowering government to decide whose words are permissible. The First Amendment carves out narrow exceptions for direct incitement of violence, true threats, and targeted harassment. Beyond those limits, it holds firm: the government cannot, no matter how noble it might seem, shut you up just because it and others don’t like what you have to say.
We already see the chilling effect when these principles are ignored. In Florida, teachers and librarians are disciplined for having the “wrong” books on their shelves. Public employees lose their jobs over social media posts. Citizens are gaveled down at public meetings because elected officials don’t want to hear their questions or views. Each of these acts, whether done in the name of civility, patriotism, or “community standards,” chips away at the foundation of open debate.
And make no mistake — these dynamics feed corruption. When officials know they can punish critics or hide unflattering information, they are emboldened to act in secrecy and self-interest. Often when speech is silenced, so is government transparency. In Florida today, government information is too often withheld from public scrutiny simply because it is inconvenient to let citizens know what politicians are doing in their name. All of this is made worse when ordinary people fear losing their livelihoods over lawful speech and censor themselves. The result is not harmony but silence and secrecy — the enemies of accountability.
If you think this is alarmist, look abroad. In Hungary, the ruling party has captured nearly every independent news outlet, leaving citizens with propaganda instead of facts. In Poland, judges and journalists who challenged the government’s narrative were harassed and sidelined. In Russia, we see the extreme outcome: opposition voices jailed, journalists murdered, truth itself declared illegal. Each began with the same premise — that the state could define and police “dangerous” speech.
The First Amendment Foundation has spent more than 40 years in Florida defending the public’s right to know and to speak freely. We do not defend hateful words because we endorse them. We defend them because once government has the power to silence “bad” speech, nothing prevents it from silencing yours.
Protecting free expression is not about left versus right, conservative versus progressive. It is about ensuring that every American — regardless of belief — retains the right to speak, question, criticize, and be heard without fear of retaliation. It is about recognizing that speech we find intolerable today may be the same kind of dissent that protects us tomorrow.
Bobby Block is the executive director of the First Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit that fights for free speech and access to government.
