Freedom of speech is one of the most important amendments in America. It’s recently been debated throughout various political discussions whether or not it’s ethical to limit it, purely for the reason of helping stop hate crimes and online bullying. But this is the wrong decision. Similar to the 1913 women’s suffrage protest, which six years later led to the right of all women to vote in 1919. In March 1965, Martin Luther King Jr led a protest from Selma to Montgomery. Later, the National Voting Rights Act became law in August. We can see a clear pattern in history: without protesting, women would not be allowed to vote, and people of color wouldn’t be allowed to vote. The reason these acts weren’t already law was, of course, the history of racism and sexism. So, what would have happened to those millions of protesters without the freedom of speech? They would’ve been silenced by what those in charge would justify as “limits”.
The primary concern with limiting freedom of speech is the question of who gets to determine the limits. We know this is true because of the global history of taking small limits too far. As stated by Amnesty, “In the aftermath of the 2022 ‘Woman Life Freedom’ uprising, authorities further suppressed the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, and intensified their crackdown on women and girls defying compulsory veiling laws.” Since this, women are being killed, tortured, unfairly detained, and even executed for expressing themselves. Limiting freedom of speech can be just the start of restricting basic rights for those being silenced. Women in Iran have to experience this extension of limitations every day.
But there is a question: “If freedom of speech is unlimited, does that mean people will be allowed to do hate speech to other people without consequences?” The answer is yes, yes, it does. Let me elaborate; there are countless cases where hate speech has affected people’s well-being, mental health, and even lives. To me, someone saying something racist is hateful language, but to Iranian authorities, those women protesting for their rights were considered hate speech, or at least that’s what they said it was to silence them. Everyone has a different perspective on what constitutes hate speech and what does not, so how do we determine what’s fair to limit and what is not? For example, during Hitler’s regime, the Weiner Holocaust Library states that “The Nazis, and often wider society, viewed gay people as dangerously non-conformist, and this was motivation for persecution.” Thus, Germany was using their right to limit freedom of speech to torture, rape, and murder millions of innocent Jewish, Queer, and disabled people. No one likes hate speech – when directed towards themselves or their community – but when the right to restrict it is put in the wrong hands, it can end up changing the world in a drastically violent way.
Although we all don’t want to spread, receive, or give hate, there is no “right way” to limit freedom of speech to stop hate speech. What we do need to do instead of restricting is learning. We as a society need to work on better access to education that shows us how to deal with the violent and hateful world we live in today. Because suppressing speech is assuming people can’t think critically, which comes from a lack of fair access to exactly that. The best way to counter hate isn’t censorship, it’s more speech.
Works Cited
“Human rights in Iran: Amnesty International.” Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/iran/report-iran/. Accessed 22 April 2025.
“Persecution of gay people in Nazi Germany.” The Wiener Holocaust Library, 9 February 2021, https://wienerholocaustlibrary.org/2021/02/09/persecution-of-gay-people-in-nazi-germany/. Accessed 22 April 2025.
Skyline Learning Center 