writing and free speech

Speech to Text - Voice Typing & Transcription

Take notes with your voice for free, or automatically transcribe audio & video recordings. secure, accurate & blazing fast..

~ Proudly serving millions of users since 2015 ~

I need to >

Dictate Notes

Start taking notes, on our online voice-enabled notepad right away, for free.

Transcribe Recordings

Automatically transcribe (and optionally translate) audios & videos - upload files from your device or link to an online resource (Drive, YouTube, TikTok or other). Export to text, docx, video subtitles and more.

Speechnotes is a reliable and secure web-based speech-to-text tool that enables you to quickly and accurately transcribe your audio and video recordings, as well as dictate your notes instead of typing, saving you time and effort. With features like voice commands for punctuation and formatting, automatic capitalization, and easy import/export options, Speechnotes provides an efficient and user-friendly dictation and transcription experience. Proudly serving millions of users since 2015, Speechnotes is the go-to tool for anyone who needs fast, accurate & private transcription. Our Portfolio of Complementary Speech-To-Text Tools Includes:

Voice typing - Chrome extension

Dictate instead of typing on any form & text-box across the web. Including on Gmail, and more.

Transcription API & webhooks

Speechnotes' API enables you to send us files via standard POST requests, and get the transcription results sent directly to your server.

Zapier integration

Combine the power of automatic transcriptions with Zapier's automatic processes. Serverless & codeless automation! Connect with your CRM, phone calls, Docs, email & more.

Android Speechnotes app

Speechnotes' notepad for Android, for notes taking on your mobile, battle tested with more than 5Million downloads. Rated 4.3+ ⭐

iOS TextHear app

TextHear for iOS, works great on iPhones, iPads & Macs. Designed specifically to help people with hearing impairment participate in conversations. Please note, this is a sister app - so it has its own pricing plan.

Audio & video converting tools

Tools developed for fast - batch conversions of audio files from one type to another and extracting audio only from videos for minimizing uploads.

Our Sister Apps for Text-To-Speech & Live Captioning

Complementary to Speechnotes

Reads out loud texts, files & web pages

Reads out loud texts, PDFs, e-books & websites for free

Speechlogger

Live Captioning & Translation

Live captions & translations for online meetings, webinars, and conferences.

Need Human Transcription? We Can Offer a 10% Discount Coupon

We do not provide human transcription services ourselves, but, we partnered with a UK company that does. Learn more on human transcription and the 10% discount .

Dictation Notepad

Start taking notes with your voice for free

Speech to Text online notepad. Professional, accurate & free speech recognizing text editor. Distraction-free, fast, easy to use web app for dictation & typing.

Speechnotes is a powerful speech-enabled online notepad, designed to empower your ideas by implementing a clean & efficient design, so you can focus on your thoughts. We strive to provide the best online dictation tool by engaging cutting-edge speech-recognition technology for the most accurate results technology can achieve today, together with incorporating built-in tools (automatic or manual) to increase users' efficiency, productivity and comfort. Works entirely online in your Chrome browser. No download, no install and even no registration needed, so you can start working right away.

Speechnotes is especially designed to provide you a distraction-free environment. Every note, starts with a new clear white paper, so to stimulate your mind with a clean fresh start. All other elements but the text itself are out of sight by fading out, so you can concentrate on the most important part - your own creativity. In addition to that, speaking instead of typing, enables you to think and speak it out fluently, uninterrupted, which again encourages creative, clear thinking. Fonts and colors all over the app were designed to be sharp and have excellent legibility characteristics.

Example use cases

• Voice typing
• Writing notes, thoughts
• Medical forms - dictate
• Transcribers (listen and dictate)

Transcription Service

Start transcribing

Fast turnaround - results within minutes. Includes timestamps, auto punctuation and subtitles at unbeatable price. Protects your privacy: no human in the loop, and (unlike many other vendors) we do NOT keep your audio. Pay per use, no recurring payments. Upload your files or transcribe directly from Google Drive, YouTube or any other online source. Simple. No download or install. Just send us the file and get the results in minutes.

• Transcribe interviews
• Captions for Youtubes & movies
• Auto-transcribe phone calls or voice messages
• Students - transcribe lectures
• Podcasters - enlarge your audience by turning your podcasts into textual content
• Text-index entire audio archives

Key Advantages

Speechnotes is powered by the leading most accurate speech recognition AI engines by Google & Microsoft. We always check - and make sure we still use the best. Accuracy in English is very good and can easily reach 95% accuracy for good quality dictation or recording.

Lightweight & fast

Both Speechnotes dictation & transcription are lightweight-online no install, work out of the box anywhere you are. Dictation works in real time. Transcription will get you results in a matter of minutes.

Super Private & Secure!

Super private - no human handles, sees or listens to your recordings! In addition, we take great measures to protect your privacy. For example, for transcribing your recordings - we pay Google's speech to text engines extra - just so they do not keep your audio for their own research purposes.

Health advantages

Typing may result in different types of Computer Related Repetitive Strain Injuries (RSI). Voice typing is one of the main recommended ways to minimize these risks, as it enables you to sit back comfortably, freeing your arms, hands, shoulders and back altogether.

Saves you time

Need to transcribe a recording? If it's an hour long, transcribing it yourself will take you about 6! hours of work. If you send it to a transcriber - you will get it back in days! Upload it to Speechnotes - it will take you less than a minute, and you will get the results in about 20 minutes to your email.

Saves you money

Speechnotes dictation notepad is completely free - with ads - or a small fee to get it ad-free. Speechnotes transcription is only $0.1/minute, which is X10 times cheaper than a human transcriber! We offer the best deal on the market - whether it's the free dictation notepad ot the pay-as-you-go transcription service.

Dictation - Free

• Online dictation notepad
• Voice typing Chrome extension

Dictation - Premium

• Premium online dictation notepad
• Premium voice typing Chrome extension
• Support from the development team

Transcription

$0.1 /minute.

• Pay as you go - no subscription
• Audio & video recordings
• Speaker diarization in English
• Generate captions .srt files
• REST API, webhooks & Zapier integration

Compare plans

Privacy policy.

We at Speechnotes, Speechlogger, TextHear, Speechkeys value your privacy, and that's why we do not store anything you say or type or in fact any other data about you - unless it is solely needed for the purpose of your operation. We don't share it with 3rd parties, other than Google / Microsoft for the speech-to-text engine.

Privacy - how are the recordings and results handled?

- transcription service.

Our transcription service is probably the most private and secure transcription service available.

• HIPAA compliant.
• No human in the loop. No passing your recording between PCs, emails, employees, etc.
• Secure encrypted communications (https) with and between our servers.
• Recordings are automatically deleted from our servers as soon as the transcription is done.
• Our contract with Google / Microsoft (our speech engines providers) prohibits them from keeping any audio or results.
• Transcription results are securely kept on our secure database. Only you have access to them - only if you sign in (or provide your secret credentials through the API)
• You may choose to delete the transcription results - once you do - no copy remains on our servers.

- Dictation notepad & extension

For dictation, the recording & recognition - is delegated to and done by the browser (Chrome / Edge) or operating system (Android). So, we never even have access to the recorded audio, and Edge's / Chrome's / Android's (depending the one you use) privacy policy apply here.

The results of the dictation are saved locally on your machine - via the browser's / app's local storage. It never gets to our servers. So, as long as your device is private - your notes are private.

Payments method privacy

The whole payments process is delegated to PayPal / Stripe / Google Pay / Play Store / App Store and secured by these providers. We never receive any of your credit card information.

More generic notes regarding our site, cookies, analytics, ads, etc.

• We may use Google Analytics on our site - which is a generic tool to track usage statistics.
• We use cookies - which means we save data on your browser to send to our servers when needed. This is used for instance to sign you in, and then keep you signed in.
• For the dictation tool - we use your browser's local storage to store your notes, so you can access them later.
• Non premium dictation tool serves ads by Google. Users may opt out of personalized advertising by visiting Ads Settings . Alternatively, users can opt out of a third-party vendor's use of cookies for personalized advertising by visiting https://youradchoices.com/
• In case you would like to upload files to Google Drive directly from Speechnotes - we'll ask for your permission to do so. We will use that permission for that purpose only - syncing your speech-notes to your Google Drive, per your request.

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:

• Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”). Tinker v. Des Moines , 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
• To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages. Cohen v. California , 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
• To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo , 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
• To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions). Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council , 425 U.S. 748 (1976);  Bates v. State Bar of Arizona , 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
• To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson , 491 U.S. 397 (1989);  United States v. Eichman , 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

• To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States , 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien , 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser , 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Disclaimer: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for use in educational activities only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on legislation. 

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

• Top Courses
• Online Degrees
• Find your New Career
• Join for Free

Fundamentals of Speechwriting

Taught in English

Financial aid available

Gain insight into a topic and learn the fundamentals

Instructor: Laura Ewing

Included with Coursera Plus

Recommended experience

Beginner level

Some experience—even if minimal—in writing and delivering speeches. 

Skills you'll gain

• Speechwriting
• Public Speaking

Details to know

Add to your LinkedIn profile

See how employees at top companies are mastering in-demand skills

Earn a career certificate

Add this credential to your LinkedIn profile, resume, or CV

Share it on social media and in your performance review

There is 1 module in this course

Fundamentals of Speechwriting is a course that enhances speechwriting skills by deepening learners’ understanding of the impact of key elements on developing coherent and impactful speeches. It is aimed at learners with experience writing and speaking who wish to enhance their current skills. This course covers strategies for analyzing audience and purpose, selecting style and tone, and incorporating rhetorical appeals and storytelling. Learners will craft openings and closings, build structured outlines, review effective rehearsal techniques, and examine methods for editing and revising. This comprehensive course prepares participants to deliver powerful and persuasive speeches.

By the end of this course, learners will be able to: -Identify the elements of speechwriting -Identify common advanced writing techniques for speeches -Identify the parts of a structured speech outline -Identify the role of speech rehearsal, editing, and revising in speechwriting

This is a single-module short course. This module covers the three stages of speechwriting: prewriting, drafting, and editing and revising.

What's included

10 videos 1 reading 4 quizzes

10 videos • Total 61 minutes

• Welcome to Fundamentals of Speechwriting • 3 minutes • Preview module
• Asking "Who?" and "Why?" • 8 minutes
• The Best Way to Say It • 5 minutes
• Appealing to Your Audience • 8 minutes
• Where to Start? • 6 minutes
• Connecting Your Ideas • 5 minutes
• Wrapping Up • 6 minutes
• The Power of Practice • 5 minutes
• Editing vs. Revising • 8 minutes
• Pulling it All Together • 3 minutes

1 reading • Total 5 minutes

• Welcome • 5 minutes

4 quizzes • Total 60 minutes

• Final Assessment • 30 minutes
• New Quiz • 10 minutes
• Writing a Speech • 10 minutes
• Refining a Speech • 10 minutes

The Coursera Instructor Network is a select group of instructors who have demonstrated expertise in specific tools or skills through their industry experience or academic backgrounds in the topics of their courses.

Recommended if you're interested in Personal Development

Coursera Project Network

Create an Affinity Diagram Using Creately

Guided Project

University of California, Santa Cruz

Ecosystems of California

University of California San Diego

Communicating with the Public

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Sports Turf Management: Best Practices

Why people choose coursera for their career.

New to Personal Development? Start here.

Open new doors with Coursera Plus

Unlimited access to 7,000+ world-class courses, hands-on projects, and job-ready certificate programs - all included in your subscription

Advance your career with an online degree

Earn a degree from world-class universities - 100% online

Join over 3,400 global companies that choose Coursera for Business

Upskill your employees to excel in the digital economy

Frequently asked questions

When will i have access to the lectures and assignments.

Access to lectures and assignments depends on your type of enrollment. If you take a course in audit mode, you will be able to see most course materials for free. To access graded assignments and to earn a Certificate, you will need to purchase the Certificate experience, during or after your audit. If you don't see the audit option:

The course may not offer an audit option. You can try a Free Trial instead, or apply for Financial Aid.

The course may offer 'Full Course, No Certificate' instead. This option lets you see all course materials, submit required assessments, and get a final grade. This also means that you will not be able to purchase a Certificate experience.

What will I get if I purchase the Certificate?

When you purchase a Certificate you get access to all course materials, including graded assignments. Upon completing the course, your electronic Certificate will be added to your Accomplishments page - from there, you can print your Certificate or add it to your LinkedIn profile. If you only want to read and view the course content, you can audit the course for free.

What is the refund policy?

You will be eligible for a full refund until two weeks after your payment date, or (for courses that have just launched) until two weeks after the first session of the course begins, whichever is later. You cannot receive a refund once you’ve earned a Course Certificate, even if you complete the course within the two-week refund period. See our full refund policy Opens in a new tab .

Is financial aid available?

Yes. In select learning programs, you can apply for financial aid or a scholarship if you can’t afford the enrollment fee. If fin aid or scholarship is available for your learning program selection, you’ll find a link to apply on the description page.

More questions

• Games, topic printables & more
• The 4 main speech types
• Example speeches
• Commemorative
• Declamation
• Demonstration
• Informative
• Introduction
• Student Council
• Speech topics
• Poems to read aloud
• How to write a speech
• Using props/visual aids
• Acute anxiety help
• Breathing exercises
• Letting go - free e-course
• Using self-hypnosis
• Delivery overview
• 4 modes of delivery
• How to make cue cards
• How to read a speech
• 9 vocal aspects
• Vocal variety
• Diction/articulation
• Pronunciation
• Speaking rate
• How to use pauses
• Eye contact
• Body language
• Voice image
• Voice health
• Public speaking activities and games
• About me/contact

How to write a good speech in 7 steps

By:  Susan Dugdale  

- an easily followed format for writing a great speech

Did you know writing a speech doesn't have be an anxious, nail biting experience?

Unsure? Don't be.

You may have lived with the idea you were never good with words for a long time. Or perhaps giving speeches at school brought you out in cold sweats.

However learning how to write a speech is relatively straight forward when you learn to write out loud.

And that's the journey I am offering to take you on: step by step.

To learn quickly, go slow

Take all the time you need. This speech format has 7 steps, each building on the next.

Walk, rather than run, your way through all of them. Don't be tempted to rush. Familiarize yourself with the ideas. Try them out.

I know there are well-advertised short cuts and promises of 'write a speech in 5 minutes'. However in reality they only truly work for somebody who already has the basic foundations of speech writing in place.

The foundation of good speech writing 

These steps are the backbone of sound speech preparation. Learn and follow them well at the outset and yes, given more experience and practice you could probably flick something together quickly. Like any skill, the more it's used, the easier it gets.

In the meantime...

Step 1: Begin with a speech overview or outline

Are you in a hurry? Without time to read a whole page? Grab ... The Quick How to Write a Speech Checklist And come back to get the details later.

• WHO you are writing your speech for (your target audience)
• WHY you are preparing this speech. What's the main purpose of your speech? Is it to inform or tell your audience about something? To teach them a new skill or demonstrate something? To persuade or to entertain? (See 4 types of speeches: informative, demonstrative, persuasive and special occasion or entertaining for more.) What do you want them to think, feel or do as a result of listening the speech?
• WHAT your speech is going to be about (its topic) - You'll want to have thought through your main points and have ranked them in order of importance. And have sorted the supporting research you need to make those points effectively.
• HOW much time you have for your speech eg. 3 minutes, 5 minutes... The amount of time you've been allocated dictates how much content you need. If you're unsure check this page: how many words per minute in a speech: a quick reference guide . You'll find estimates of the number of words required for 1 - 10 minute speeches by slow, medium and fast talkers.

Use an outline

The best way to make sure you deliver a perfect speech is to start by carefully completing a speech outline covering the essentials: WHO, WHY, WHAT and HOW.

Beginning to write without thinking your speech through is a bit like heading off on a journey not knowing why you're traveling or where you're going to end up. You can find yourself lost in a deep, dark, murky muddle of ideas very quickly!

Pulling together a speech overview or outline is a much safer option. It's the map you'll follow to get where you want to go.

Get a blank speech outline template to complete

Click the link to find out a whole lot more about preparing a speech outline . ☺ You'll also find a free printable blank speech outline template.  I recommend using it!

Understanding speech construction

Before you begin to write, using your completed outline as a guide, let's briefly look at what you're aiming to prepare.

• an opening or introduction
• the body where the bulk of the information is given
• and an ending (or summary).

Imagine your speech as a sandwich

If you think of a speech as a sandwich you'll get the idea.

The opening and ending are the slices of bread holding the filling (the major points or the body of your speech) together.

You can build yourself a simple sandwich with one filling (one big idea) or you could go gourmet and add up to three or, even five. The choice is yours.

But whatever you choose to serve, as a good cook, you need to consider who is going to eat it! And that's your audience.

So let's find out who they are before we do anything else. 

Step 2: Know who you are talking to

Understanding your audience.

Did you know a  good speech is never written from the speaker's point of view?  ( If you need to know more about why check out this page on  building rapport .)

Begin with the most important idea/point on your outline.

Consider HOW you can explain (show, tell) that to your audience in the most effective way for them to easily understand it.   

Writing from the audience's point of view

To help you write from an audience point of view, it's a good idea to identify either a real person or the type of person who is most likely to be listening to you.

Make sure you select someone who represents the "majority" of the people who will be in your audience. That is they are neither struggling to comprehend you at the bottom of your scale or light-years ahead at the top.

Now imagine they are sitting next to you eagerly waiting to hear what you're going to say. Give them a name, for example, Joe, to help make them real.

Ask yourself

• How do I need to tailor my information to meet Joe's needs? For example, do you tell personal stories to illustrate your main points? Absolutely! Yes. This is a very powerful technique. (Click storytelling in speeches to find out more.)
• What type or level of language is right for Joe as well as my topic? For example if I use jargon (activity, industry or profession specific vocabulary) will it be understood?

Step 3: Writing as you speak

Writing oral language.

Write down what you want to say about your first main point as if you were talking directly to Joe.

If it helps, say it all out loud before you write it down and/or record it.

Use the information below as a guide

(Click to download The Characteristics of Spoken Language  as a pdf.) 

You do not have to write absolutely everything you're going to say down * but you do need to write down, or outline, the sequence of ideas to ensure they are logical and easily followed.

Remember too, to explain or illustrate your point with examples from your research. 

( * Tip: If this is your first speech the safety net of having everything written down could be just what you need. It's easier to recover from a patch of jitters when you have a word by word manuscript than if you have either none, or a bare outline. Your call!)

Step 4: Checking tone and language

The focus of this step is re-working what you've done in Step 2 and 3.

You identified who you were talking to (Step 2) and in Step 3, wrote up your first main point.  Is it right? Have you made yourself clear?  Check it.

How well you complete this step depends on how well you understand the needs of the people who are going to listen to your speech.

Please do not assume because you know what you're talking about the person (Joe) you've chosen to represent your audience will too. Joe is not a mind-reader!

How to check what you've prepared

• Check the "tone" of your language . Is it right for the occasion, subject matter and your audience?
• Check the length of your sentences. You need short sentences. If they're too long or complicated you risk losing your listeners.

Check for jargon too. These are industry, activity or group exclusive words.

For instance take the phrase: authentic learning . This comes from teaching and refers to connecting lessons to the daily life of students. Authentic learning is learning that is relevant and meaningful for students. If you're not a teacher you may not understand the phrase.

The use of any vocabulary requiring insider knowledge needs to be thought through from the audience perspective. Jargon can close people out.

• Read what you've written out loud. If it flows naturally, in a logical manner, continue the process with your next main idea. If it doesn't, rework.

We use whole sentences and part ones, and we mix them up with asides or appeals e.g. "Did you get that? Of course you did. Right...Let's move it along. I was saying ..."

Click for more about the differences between spoken and written language .

And now repeat the process

Repeat this process for the remainder of your main ideas.

Because you've done the first one carefully, the rest should follow fairly easily.

Step 5: Use transitions

Providing links or transitions between main ideas.

Between each of your main ideas you need to provide a bridge or pathway for your audience. The clearer the pathway or bridge, the easier it is for them to make the transition from one idea to the next.

If your speech contains more than three main ideas and each is building on the last, then consider using a "catch-up" or summary as part of your transitions.

Is your speech being evaluated? Find out exactly what aspects you're being assessed on using this standard speech evaluation form

Link/transition examples

A link can be as simple as:

"We've explored one scenario for the ending of Block Buster 111, but let's consider another. This time..."

What follows this transition is the introduction of Main Idea Two.

Here's a summarizing link/transition example:

"We've ended Blockbuster 111 four ways so far. In the first, everybody died. In the second, everybody died BUT their ghosts remained to haunt the area. In the third, one villain died. His partner reformed and after a fight-out with the hero, they both strode off into the sunset, friends forever. In the fourth, the hero dies in a major battle but is reborn sometime in the future.

And now what about one more? What if nobody died? The fifth possibility..."

Go back through your main ideas checking the links. Remember Joe as you go. Try each transition or link out loud and really listen to yourself. Is it obvious? Easily followed?

Keep them if they are clear and concise.

For more about transitions (with examples) see Andrew Dlugan's excellent article, Speech Transitions: Magical words and Phrases .

Step 6: The end of your speech

The ideal ending is highly memorable . You want it to live on in the minds of your listeners long after your speech is finished. Often it combines a call to action with a summary of major points.

Example speech endings

Example 1: The desired outcome of a speech persuading people to vote for you in an upcoming election is that they get out there on voting day and do so. You can help that outcome along by calling them to register their support by signing a prepared pledge statement as they leave.

"We're agreed we want change. You can help us give it to you by signing this pledge statement as you leave. Be part of the change you want to see!

Example 2: The desired outcome is increased sales figures. The call to action is made urgent with the introduction of time specific incentives.

"You have three weeks from the time you leave this hall to make that dream family holiday in New Zealand yours. Can you do it? Will you do it? The kids will love it. Your wife will love it. Do it now!"

How to figure out the right call to action

A clue for working out what the most appropriate call to action might be, is to go back to your original purpose for giving the speech.

• Was it to motivate or inspire?
• Was it to persuade to a particular point of view?
• Was it to share specialist information?
• Was it to celebrate a person, a place, time or event?

Ask yourself what you want people to do as a result of having listened to your speech.

For more about ending speeches

Visit this page for more about how to end a speech effectively . You'll find two additional types of speech endings with examples.

Write and test

Write your ending and test it out loud. Try it out on a friend, or two. Is it good? Does it work?

Step 7: The introduction

Once you've got the filling (main ideas) the linking and the ending in place, it's time to focus on the introduction.

The introduction comes last as it's the most important part of your speech. This is the bit that either has people sitting up alert or slumped and waiting for you to end. It's the tone setter!

What makes a great speech opening?

Ideally you want an opening that makes listening to you the only thing the 'Joes' in the audience want to do.

You want them to forget they're hungry or that their chair is hard or that their bills need paying.

The way to do that is to capture their interest straight away. You do this with a "hook".

Hooks to catch your audience's attention

Hooks come in as many forms as there are speeches and audiences. Your task is work out what specific hook is needed to catch your audience.

Go back to the purpose. Why are you giving this speech?

Once you have your answer, consider your call to action. What do you want the audience to do, and, or take away, as a result of listening to you?

Next think about the imaginary or real person you wrote for when you were focusing on your main ideas.

Choosing the best hook

• Is it humor?
• Would shock tactics work?
• Is it a rhetorical question?
• Is it formality or informality?
• Is it an outline or overview of what you're going to cover, including the call to action?
• Or is it a mix of all these elements?

A hook example

Here's an example from a fictional political speech. The speaker is lobbying for votes. His audience are predominately workers whose future's are not secure.

"How's your imagination this morning? Good? (Pause for response from audience) Great, I'm glad. Because we're going to put it to work starting right now.

I want you to see your future. What does it look like? Are you happy? Is everything as you want it to be? No? Let's change that. We could do it. And we could do it today.

At the end of this speech you're going to be given the opportunity to change your world, for a better one ...

No, I'm not a magician. Or a simpleton with big ideas and precious little commonsense. I'm an ordinary man, just like you. And I have a plan to share!"

And then our speaker is off into his main points supported by examples. The end, which he has already foreshadowed in his opening, is the call to vote for him.

Prepare several hooks

Experiment with several openings until you've found the one that serves your audience, your subject matter and your purpose best.

For many more examples of speech openings go to: how to write a speech introduction . You'll find 12 of the very best ways to start a speech.

That completes the initial seven steps towards writing your speech. If you've followed them all the way through, congratulations, you now have the text of your speech!

Although you might have the words, you're still a couple of steps away from being ready to deliver them. Both of them are essential if you want the very best outcome possible. They are below. Please take them.

Step 8: Checking content and timing

This step pulls everything together.

Check once, check twice, check three times & then once more!

Go through your speech really carefully.

On the first read through check you've got your main points in their correct order with supporting material, plus an effective introduction and ending.

On the second read through check the linking passages or transitions making sure they are clear and easily followed.

On the third reading check your sentence structure, language use and tone.

Double, triple check the timing

Now go though once more.

This time read it aloud slowly and time yourself.

If it's too long for the time allowance you've been given make the necessary cuts.

Start by looking at your examples rather than the main ideas themselves. If you've used several examples to illustrate one principal idea, cut the least important out.

Also look to see if you've repeated yourself unnecessarily or, gone off track. If it's not relevant, cut it.

Repeat the process, condensing until your speech fits the required length, preferably coming in just under your time limit.

You can also find out how approximately long it will take you to say the words you have by using this very handy words to minutes converter . It's an excellent tool, one I frequently use. While it can't give you a precise time, it does provide a reasonable estimate.

Step 9: Rehearsing your speech

And NOW you are finished with writing the speech, and are ready for REHEARSAL .

Please don't be tempted to skip this step. It is not an extra thrown in for good measure. It's essential.

The "not-so-secret" secret of successful speeches combines good writing with practice, practice and then, practicing some more.

Go to how to practice public speaking and you'll find rehearsal techniques and suggestions to boost your speech delivery from ordinary to extraordinary.

The Quick How to Write a Speech Checklist

Before you begin writing you need:.

• Your speech OUTLINE with your main ideas ranked in the order you're going to present them. (If you haven't done one complete this 4 step sample speech outline . It will make the writing process much easier.)
• Your RESEARCH
• You also need to know WHO you're speaking to, the PURPOSE of the speech and HOW long you're speaking for

The basic format

• the body where you present your main ideas

Split your time allowance so that you spend approximately 70% on the body and 15% each on the introduction and ending.

How to write the speech

• Write your main ideas out incorporating your examples and research
• Link them together making sure each flows in a smooth, logical progression
• Write your ending, summarizing your main ideas briefly and end with a call for action
• Write your introduction considering the 'hook' you're going to use to get your audience listening
• An often quoted saying to explain the process is: Tell them what you're going to tell them (Introduction) Tell them (Body of your speech - the main ideas plus examples) Tell them what you told them (The ending)

TEST before presenting. Read aloud several times to check the flow of material, the suitability of language and the timing.

• Return to top

speaking out loud 

Subscribe for  FREE weekly alerts about what's new For more see  speaking out loud  

Top 10 popular pages

• Welcome speech
• Demonstration speech topics
• Impromptu speech topic cards
• Thank you quotes
• Impromptu public speaking topics
• Farewell speeches
• Phrases for welcome speeches
• Student council speeches
• Free sample eulogies

From fear to fun in 28 ways

A complete one stop resource to scuttle fear in the best of all possible ways - with laughter.

Useful pages

• Search this site
• About me & Contact
• Blogging Aloud
• Free e-course
• Privacy policy

©Copyright 2006-24 www.write-out-loud.com

Designed and built by Clickstream Designs

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom of Speech

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: December 4, 2017

Freedom of speech—the right to express opinions without government restraint—is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are—and aren’t—protected under U.S. law.

The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word “parrhesia” means “free speech,” or “to speak candidly.” The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution . The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

Flag Burning

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court , in 1990, reversed a Texas court’s conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

When Isn’t Speech Protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that aren’t protected include:

• Obscene material such as child pornography
• Plagiarism of copyrighted material
• Defamation (libel and slander)
• True threats

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren’t protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I . The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the “clear and present danger” standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called “content neutrality.” Content neutrality means the government can’t censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free Speech in Schools

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa , organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didn’t bite—they ruled in favor of the students’ right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District . The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don’t apply in private schools.

What does free speech mean?; United States Courts . Tinker v. Des Moines; United States Courts . Freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment; ACLU .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Free Speech

Protecting free speech means protecting a free press, the democratic process, diversity of thought, and so much more. The ACLU has worked since 1920 to ensure that freedom of speech is protected for everyone.

What you need to know

10 Advocates on Why They Won’t Stand for Classroom Censorship

People across the country shared their thoughts about why inclusive education is crucial for students.

Ask an Expert: Is My Tweet Protected Speech?

Ask an expert: what are my speech rights at school.

10 Books Politicians Don’t Want You to Read

Defending Our Right to Learn

Explore more, what we're focused on.

Artistic Expression

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

Campaign Finance Reform

Employee speech and whistleblowers, freedom of the press, intellectual property, internet speech, photographers' rights, rights of protesters, student speech and privacy, what's at stake.

“Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.”

—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut

Freedom of speech, the press, association, assembly, and petition: This set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. It is the foundation of a vibrant democracy, and without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither away.

The fight for freedom of speech has been a bedrock of the ACLU’s mission since the organization was founded in 1920, driven by the need to protect the constitutional rights of conscientious objectors and anti-war protesters. The organization’s work quickly spread to combating censorship, securing the right to assembly, and promoting free speech in schools.

Almost a century later, these battles have taken on new forms, but they persist. The ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project continues to champion freedom of expression in its myriad forms — whether through protest, media, online speech, or the arts — in the face of new threats. For example, new avenues for censorship have arisen alongside the wealth of opportunities for speech afforded by the Internet. The threat of mass government surveillance chills the free expression of ordinary citizens, legislators routinely attempt to place new restrictions on online activity, and journalism is criminalized in the name of national security. The ACLU is always on guard to ensure that the First Amendment’s protections remain robust — in times of war or peace, for bloggers or the institutional press, online or off.

Over the years, the ACLU has represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone.

Some examples of our free speech work from recent years include:

• In 2019, we filed a petition of certiorari on behalf of DeRay Mckesson, a prominent civil rights activist and Black Lives Matter movement organizer, urging the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that, if left standing, would dismantle civil rights era speech protections safeguarding the First Amendment right to protest.
• In 2019, we successfully challenged a spate of state anti-protest laws aimed at Indigenous and climate activists opposing pipeline construction.
• We’ve called on big social media companies to resist calls for censorship.
• We’re representing five former intelligence agency employees and military personnel in a lawsuit challenging the government’s pre-publication review system, which prohibits millions of former intelligence agency employees and military personnel from writing or speaking about topics related to their government service without first obtaining government approval.
• In 2018, we filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the NRA’s lawsuit alleging that the state of New York violated its First Amendment rights should be allowed to proceed.
• In 2016, the we defended the First Amendment rights of environmental and racial justice activists in Uniontown, Alabama, who were sued for defamation after they organized against the town’s hazardous coal ash landfill.
• In 2014, the ACLU of Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that the police violated the First Amendment by ejecting an anti-Muslim group called Bible Believers from a street festival based on others’ violent reactions to their speech.

Today, years of hard-fought civil liberty protections are under threat.

To influence lawmakers, we need everyone to get involved. Here is 1 action you can take today:

SpeechTexter is a free multilingual speech-to-text application aimed at assisting you with transcription of notes, documents, books, reports or blog posts by using your voice. This app also features a customizable voice commands list, allowing users to add punctuation marks, frequently used phrases, and some app actions (undo, redo, make a new paragraph).

SpeechTexter is used daily by students, teachers, writers, bloggers around the world.

It will assist you in minimizing your writing efforts significantly.

Voice-to-text software is exceptionally valuable for people who have difficulty using their hands due to trauma, people with dyslexia or disabilities that limit the use of conventional input devices. Speech to text technology can also be used to improve accessibility for those with hearing impairments, as it can convert speech into text.

It can also be used as a tool for learning a proper pronunciation of words in the foreign language, in addition to helping a person develop fluency with their speaking skills.

Accuracy levels higher than 90% should be expected. It varies depending on the language and the speaker.

No download, installation or registration is required. Just click the microphone button and start dictating.

Speech to text technology is quickly becoming an essential tool for those looking to save time and increase their productivity.

Powerful real-time continuous speech recognition

Creation of text notes, emails, blog posts, reports and more.

Custom voice commands

More than 70 languages supported

SpeechTexter is using Google Speech recognition to convert the speech into text in real-time. This technology is supported by Chrome browser (for desktop) and some browsers on Android OS. Other browsers have not implemented speech recognition yet.

Note: iPhones and iPads are not supported

List of supported languages:

Afrikaans, Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Basque, Bengali, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Burmese, Catalan, Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese), Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Filipino, Finnish, French, Galician, Georgian, German, Greek, Gujarati, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Icelandic, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Javanese, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Korean, Lao, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Malay, Malayalam, Marathi, Mongolian, Nepali, Norwegian Bokmål, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Sinhala, Slovak, Slovenian, Southern Sotho, Spanish, Sundanese, Swahili, Swati, Swedish, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Tsonga, Tswana, Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uzbek, Venda, Vietnamese, Xhosa, Zulu.

Instructions for web app on desktop (Windows, Mac, Linux OS)

Requirements: the latest version of the Google Chrome [↗] browser (other browsers are not supported).

1. Connect a high-quality microphone to your computer.

2. Make sure your microphone is set as the default recording device on your browser.

To go directly to microphone's settings paste the line below into Chrome's URL bar.

chrome://settings/content/microphone

To capture speech from video/audio content on the web or from a file stored on your device, select 'Stereo Mix' as the default audio input.

3. Select the language you would like to speak (Click the button on the top right corner).

4. Click the "microphone" button. Chrome browser will request your permission to access your microphone. Choose "allow".

5. You can start dictating!

Instructions for the web app on a mobile and for the android app

Requirements: - Google app [↗] installed on your Android device. - Any of the supported browsers if you choose to use the web app.

Supported android browsers (not a full list): Chrome browser (recommended), Edge, Opera, Brave, Vivaldi.

1. Tap the button with the language name (on a web app) or language code (on android app) on the top right corner to select your language.

2. Tap the microphone button. The SpeechTexter app will ask for permission to record audio. Choose 'allow' to enable microphone access.

3. You can start dictating!

Common problems on a desktop (Windows, Mac, Linux OS)

Error: 'speechtexter cannot access your microphone'..

Please give permission to access your microphone.

Click on the "padlock" icon next to the URL bar, find the "microphone" option, and choose "allow".

Error: 'No speech was detected. Please try again'.

If you get this error while you are speaking, make sure your microphone is set as the default recording device on your browser [see step 2].

If you're using a headset, make sure the mute switch on the cord is off.

Error: 'Network error'

The internet connection is poor. Please try again later.

The result won't transfer to the "editor".

The result confidence is not high enough or there is a background noise. An accumulation of long text in the buffer can also make the engine stop responding, please make some pauses in the speech.

The results are wrong.

Please speak loudly and clearly. Speaking clearly and consistently will help the software accurately recognize your words.

Reduce background noise. Background noise from fans, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. can drop the accuracy significantly. Try to reduce background noise as much as possible.

Speak directly into the microphone. Speaking directly into the microphone enhances the accuracy of the software. Avoid speaking too far away from the microphone.

Speak in complete sentences. Speaking in complete sentences will help the software better recognize the context of your words.

Can I upload an audio file and get the transcription?

No, this feature is not available.

How do I transcribe an audio (video) file on my PC or from the web?

Playback your file in any player and hit the 'mic' button on the SpeechTexter website to start capturing the speech. For better results select "Stereo Mix" as the default recording device on your browser, if you are accessing SpeechTexter and the file from the same device.

I don't see the "Stereo mix" option (Windows OS)

"Stereo Mix" might be hidden or it's not supported by your system. If you are a Windows user go to 'Control panel' → Hardware and Sound → Sound → 'Recording' tab. Right-click on a blank area in the pane and make sure both "View Disabled Devices" and "View Disconnected Devices" options are checked. If "Stereo Mix" appears, you can enable it by right clicking on it and choosing 'enable'. If "Stereo Mix" hasn't appeared, it means it's not supported by your system. You can try using a third-party program such as "Virtual Audio Cable" or "VB-Audio Virtual Cable" to create a virtual audio device that includes "Stereo Mix" functionality.

How to use the voice commands list?

The voice commands list allows you to insert the punctuation, some text, or run some preset functions using only your voice. On the first column you enter your voice command. On the second column you enter a punctuation mark or a function. Voice commands are case-sensitive. Available functions: #newparagraph (add a new paragraph), #undo (undo the last change), #redo (redo the last change)

To use the function above make a pause in your speech until all previous dictated speech appears in your note, then say "insert a new paragraph" and wait for the command execution.

Found a mistake in the voice commands list or want to suggest an update? Follow the steps below:

• Navigate to the voice commands list [↑] on this website.
• Click on the edit button to update or add new punctuation marks you think other users might find useful in your language.
• Click on the "Export" button located above the voice commands list to save your list in JSON format to your device.

Next, send us your file as an attachment via email. You can find the email address at the bottom of the page. Feel free to include a brief description of the mistake or the updates you're suggesting in the email body.

Your contribution to the improvement of the services is appreciated.

Can I prevent my custom voice commands from disappearing after closing the browser?

SpeechTexter by default saves your data inside your browser's cache. If your browsers clears the cache your data will be deleted. However, you can export your custom voice commands to your device and import them when you need them by clicking the corresponding buttons above the list. SpeechTexter is using JSON format to store your voice commands. You can create a .txt file in this format on your device and then import it into SpeechTexter. An example of JSON format is shown below:

{ "period": ".", "full stop": ".", "question mark": "?", "new paragraph": "#newparagraph" }

I lost my dictated work after closing the browser.

SpeechTexter doesn't store any text that you dictate. Please use the "autosave" option or click the "download" button (recommended). The "autosave" option will try to store your work inside your browser's cache, where it will remain until you switch the "text autosave" option off, clear the cache manually, or if your browser clears the cache on exit.

Common problems on the Android app

I get the message: 'speech recognition is not available'..

'Google app' from Play store is required for SpeechTexter to work. download [↗]

Where does SpeechTexter store the saved files?

Version 1.5 and above stores the files in the internal memory.

Version 1.4.9 and below stores the files inside the "SpeechTexter" folder at the root directory of your device.

After updating the app from version 1.x.x to version 2.x.x my files have disappeared

As a result of recent updates, the Android operating system has implemented restrictions that prevent users from accessing folders within the Android root directory, including SpeechTexter's folder. However, your old files can still be imported manually by selecting the "import" button within the Speechtexter application.

Common problems on the mobile web app

Tap on the "padlock" icon next to the URL bar, find the "microphone" option and choose "allow".

• TERMS OF USE
• PRIVACY POLICY
• Play Store [↗]

copyright © 2014 - 2024 www.speechtexter.com . All Rights Reserved.

AI Speech Writer

Craft compelling speeches with ai.

• Deliver a keynote address: Create an inspiring and memorable speech for conferences or events.
• Present a persuasive argument: Develop a compelling speech that effectively communicates your point of view.
• Teach or inform an audience: Craft an informative speech that engages listeners and helps them understand complex topics.
• Accept an award or honor: Write a heartfelt and gracious speech to express gratitude and share your journey.
• Commemorate special occasions: Generate a touching and memorable speech for weddings, anniversaries, or other celebrations.

New & Trending Tools

Ai text generator, webpage text extractor ai.

What this handout is about

This handout will help you create an effective speech by establishing the purpose of your speech and making it easily understandable. It will also help you to analyze your audience and keep the audience interested.

What’s different about a speech?

Writing for public speaking isn’t so different from other types of writing. You want to engage your audience’s attention, convey your ideas in a logical manner and use reliable evidence to support your point. But the conditions for public speaking favor some writing qualities over others. When you write a speech, your audience is made up of listeners. They have only one chance to comprehend the information as you read it, so your speech must be well-organized and easily understood. In addition, the content of the speech and your delivery must fit the audience.

What’s your purpose?

People have gathered to hear you speak on a specific issue, and they expect to get something out of it immediately. And you, the speaker, hope to have an immediate effect on your audience. The purpose of your speech is to get the response you want. Most speeches invite audiences to react in one of three ways: feeling, thinking, or acting. For example, eulogies encourage emotional response from the audience; college lectures stimulate listeners to think about a topic from a different perspective; protest speeches in the Pit recommend actions the audience can take.

As you establish your purpose, ask yourself these questions:

• What do you want the audience to learn or do?
• If you are making an argument, why do you want them to agree with you?
• If they already agree with you, why are you giving the speech?
• How can your audience benefit from what you have to say?

Audience analysis

If your purpose is to get a certain response from your audience, you must consider who they are (or who you’re pretending they are). If you can identify ways to connect with your listeners, you can make your speech interesting and useful.

As you think of ways to appeal to your audience, ask yourself:

• What do they have in common? Age? Interests? Ethnicity? Gender?
• Do they know as much about your topic as you, or will you be introducing them to new ideas?
• Why are these people listening to you? What are they looking for?
• What level of detail will be effective for them?
• What tone will be most effective in conveying your message?
• What might offend or alienate them?

For more help, see our handout on audience .

Creating an effective introduction

Get their attention, otherwise known as “the hook”.

Think about how you can relate to these listeners and get them to relate to you or your topic. Appealing to your audience on a personal level captures their attention and concern, increasing the chances of a successful speech. Speakers often begin with anecdotes to hook their audience’s attention. Other methods include presenting shocking statistics, asking direct questions of the audience, or enlisting audience participation.

Establish context and/or motive

Explain why your topic is important. Consider your purpose and how you came to speak to this audience. You may also want to connect the material to related or larger issues as well, especially those that may be important to your audience.

Get to the point

Tell your listeners your thesis right away and explain how you will support it. Don’t spend as much time developing your introductory paragraph and leading up to the thesis statement as you would in a research paper for a course. Moving from the intro into the body of the speech quickly will help keep your audience interested. You may be tempted to create suspense by keeping the audience guessing about your thesis until the end, then springing the implications of your discussion on them. But if you do so, they will most likely become bored or confused.

For more help, see our handout on introductions .

Making your speech easy to understand

Repeat crucial points and buzzwords.

Especially in longer speeches, it’s a good idea to keep reminding your audience of the main points you’ve made. For example, you could link an earlier main point or key term as you transition into or wrap up a new point. You could also address the relationship between earlier points and new points through discussion within a body paragraph. Using buzzwords or key terms throughout your paper is also a good idea. If your thesis says you’re going to expose unethical behavior of medical insurance companies, make sure the use of “ethics” recurs instead of switching to “immoral” or simply “wrong.” Repetition of key terms makes it easier for your audience to take in and connect information.

Incorporate previews and summaries into the speech

For example:

“I’m here today to talk to you about three issues that threaten our educational system: First, … Second, … Third,”

“I’ve talked to you today about such and such.”

These kinds of verbal cues permit the people in the audience to put together the pieces of your speech without thinking too hard, so they can spend more time paying attention to its content.

Use especially strong transitions

This will help your listeners see how new information relates to what they’ve heard so far. If you set up a counterargument in one paragraph so you can demolish it in the next, begin the demolition by saying something like,

“But this argument makes no sense when you consider that . . . .”

If you’re providing additional information to support your main point, you could say,

“Another fact that supports my main point is . . . .”

Helping your audience listen

Rely on shorter, simpler sentence structures.

Don’t get too complicated when you’re asking an audience to remember everything you say. Avoid using too many subordinate clauses, and place subjects and verbs close together.

Too complicated:

The product, which was invented in 1908 by Orville Z. McGillicuddy in Des Moines, Iowa, and which was on store shelves approximately one year later, still sells well.

Easier to understand:

Orville Z. McGillicuddy invented the product in 1908 and introduced it into stores shortly afterward. Almost a century later, the product still sells well.

Limit pronoun use

Listeners may have a hard time remembering or figuring out what “it,” “they,” or “this” refers to. Be specific by using a key noun instead of unclear pronouns.

Pronoun problem:

The U.S. government has failed to protect us from the scourge of so-called reality television, which exploits sex, violence, and petty conflict, and calls it human nature. This cannot continue.

Why the last sentence is unclear: “This” what? The government’s failure? Reality TV? Human nature?

More specific:

The U.S. government has failed to protect us from the scourge of so-called reality television, which exploits sex, violence, and petty conflict, and calls it human nature. This failure cannot continue.

Keeping audience interest

Incorporate the rhetorical strategies of ethos, pathos, and logos.

When arguing a point, using ethos, pathos, and logos can help convince your audience to believe you and make your argument stronger. Ethos refers to an appeal to your audience by establishing your authenticity and trustworthiness as a speaker. If you employ pathos, you appeal to your audience’s emotions. Using logos includes the support of hard facts, statistics, and logical argumentation. The most effective speeches usually present a combination these rhetorical strategies.

Use statistics and quotations sparingly

Include only the most striking factual material to support your perspective, things that would likely stick in the listeners’ minds long after you’ve finished speaking. Otherwise, you run the risk of overwhelming your listeners with too much information.

Watch your tone

Be careful not to talk over the heads of your audience. On the other hand, don’t be condescending either. And as for grabbing their attention, yelling, cursing, using inappropriate humor, or brandishing a potentially offensive prop (say, autopsy photos) will only make the audience tune you out.

Creating an effective conclusion

Restate your main points, but don’t repeat them.

“I asked earlier why we should care about the rain forest. Now I hope it’s clear that . . .” “Remember how Mrs. Smith couldn’t afford her prescriptions? Under our plan, . . .”

Call to action

Speeches often close with an appeal to the audience to take action based on their new knowledge or understanding. If you do this, be sure the action you recommend is specific and realistic. For example, although your audience may not be able to affect foreign policy directly, they can vote or work for candidates whose foreign policy views they support. Relating the purpose of your speech to their lives not only creates a connection with your audience, but also reiterates the importance of your topic to them in particular or “the bigger picture.”

Practicing for effective presentation

Once you’ve completed a draft, read your speech to a friend or in front of a mirror. When you’ve finished reading, ask the following questions:

• Which pieces of information are clearest?
• Where did I connect with the audience?
• Where might listeners lose the thread of my argument or description?
• Where might listeners become bored?
• Where did I have trouble speaking clearly and/or emphatically?
• Did I stay within my time limit?

Other resources

• Toastmasters International is a nonprofit group that provides communication and leadership training.
• Allyn & Bacon Publishing’s Essence of Public Speaking Series is an extensive treatment of speech writing and delivery, including books on using humor, motivating your audience, word choice and presentation.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Boone, Louis E., David L. Kurtz, and Judy R. Block. 1997. Contemporary Business Communication . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ehrlich, Henry. 1994. Writing Effective Speeches . New York: Marlowe.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Freedom of Speech

[ Editor’s Note: The following new entry by Jeffrey W. Howard replaces the former entry on this topic by the previous author. ]

Human beings have significant interests in communicating what they think to others, and in listening to what others have to say. These interests make it difficult to justify coercive restrictions on people’s communications, plausibly grounding a moral right to speak (and listen) to others that is properly protected by law. That there ought to be such legal protections for speech is uncontroversial among political and legal philosophers. But disagreement arises when we turn to the details. What are the interests or values that justify this presumption against restricting speech? And what, if anything, counts as an adequate justification for overcoming the presumption? This entry is chiefly concerned with exploring the philosophical literature on these questions.

The entry begins by distinguishing different ideas to which the term “freedom of speech” can refer. It then reviews the variety of concerns taken to justify freedom of speech. Next, the entry considers the proper limits of freedom of speech, cataloging different views on when and why restrictions on communication can be morally justified, and what considerations are relevant when evaluating restrictions. Finally, it considers the role of speech intermediaries in a philosophical analysis of freedom of speech, with special attention to internet platforms.

1. What is Freedom of Speech?

2.1 listener theories, 2.2 speaker theories, 2.3 democracy theories, 2.4 thinker theories, 2.5 toleration theories, 2.6 instrumental theories: political abuse and slippery slopes, 2.7 free speech skepticism, 3.1 absoluteness, coverage, and protection, 3.2 the limits of free speech: external constraints, 3.3 the limits of free speech: internal constraints, 3.4 proportionality: chilling effects and political abuse, 3.5 necessity: the counter-speech alternative, 4. the future of free speech theory: platform ethics, other internet resources, related entries.

In the philosophical literature, the terms “freedom of speech”, “free speech”, “freedom of expression”, and “freedom of communication” are mostly used equivalently. This entry will follow that convention, notwithstanding the fact that these formulations evoke subtly different phenomena. For example, it is widely understood that artistic expressions, such as dancing and painting, fall within the ambit of this freedom, even though they don’t straightforwardly seem to qualify as speech , which intuitively connotes some kind of linguistic utterance (see Tushnet, Chen, & Blocher 2017 for discussion). Still, they plainly qualify as communicative activity, conveying some kind of message, however vague or open to interpretation it may be.

Yet the extension of “free speech” is not fruitfully specified through conceptual analysis alone. The quest to distinguish speech from conduct, for the purpose of excluding the latter from protection, is notoriously thorny (Fish 1994: 106), despite some notable attempts (such as Greenawalt 1989: 58ff). As John Hart Ely writes concerning Vietnam War protesters who incinerated their draft cards, such activity is “100% action and 100% expression” (1975: 1495). It is only once we understand why we should care about free speech in the first place—the values it instantiates or serves—that we can evaluate whether a law banning the burning of draft cards (or whatever else) violates free speech. It is the task of a normative conception of free speech to offer an account of the values at stake, which in turn can illuminate the kinds of activities wherein those values are realized, and the kinds of restrictions that manifest hostility to those values. For example, if free speech is justified by the value of respecting citizens’ prerogative to hear many points of view and to make up their own minds, then banning the burning of draft cards to limit the views to which citizens will be exposed is manifestly incompatible with that purpose. If, in contrast, such activity is banned as part of a generally applied ordinance restricting fires in public, it would likely raise no free-speech concerns. (For a recent analysis of this issue, see Kramer 2021: 25ff).

Accordingly, the next section discusses different conceptions of free speech that arise in the philosophical literature, each oriented to some underlying moral or political value. Before turning to the discussion of those conceptions, some further preliminary distinctions will be useful.

First, we can distinguish between the morality of free speech and the law of free speech. In political philosophy, one standard approach is to theorize free speech as a requirement of morality, tracing the implications of such a theory for law and policy. Note that while this is the order of justification, it need not be the order of investigation; it is perfectly sensible to begin by studying an existing legal protection for speech (such as the First Amendment in the U.S.) and then asking what could justify such a protection (or something like it).

But of course morality and law can diverge. The most obvious way they can diverge is when the law is unjust. Existing legal protections for speech, embodied in the positive law of particular jurisdictions, may be misguided in various ways. In other words, a justified legal right to free speech, and the actual legal right to free speech in the positive law of a particular jurisdiction, can come apart. In some cases, positive legal rights might protect too little speech. For example, some jurisdictions’ speech laws make exceptions for blasphemy, such that criminalizing blasphemy does not breach the legal right to free speech within that legal system. But clearly one could argue that a justified legal right to free speech would not include any such exception. In other cases, positive legal rights might perhaps protect too much speech. Consider the fact that, as a matter of U.S. constitutional precedent, the First Amendment broadly protects speech that expresses or incites racial or religious hatred. Plainly we could agree that this is so as a matter of positive law while disagreeing about whether it ought to be so. (This is most straightforwardly true if we are legal positivists. These distinctions are muddied by moralistic theories of constitutional interpretation, which enjoin us to interpret positive legal rights in a constitutional text partly through the prism of our favorite normative political theory; see Dworkin 1996.)

Second, we can distinguish rights-based theories of free speech from non-rights-based theories. For many liberals, the legal right to free speech is justified by appealing to an underlying moral right to free speech, understood as a natural right held by all persons. (Some use the term human right equivalently—e.g., Alexander 2005—though the appropriate usage of that term is contested.) The operative notion of a moral right here is that of a claim-right (to invoke the influential analysis of Hohfeld 1917); it thereby correlates to moral duties held by others (paradigmatically, the state) to respect or protect the right. Such a right is natural in that it exerts normative force independently of whether anyone thinks it does, and regardless of whether it is codified into the law. A tyrannical state that imprisons dissidents acts unjustly, violating moral rights, even if there is no legal right to freedom of expression in its legal system.

For others, the underlying moral justification for free speech law need not come in the form of a natural moral right. For example, consequentialists might favor a legal right to free speech (on, e.g., welfare-maximizing grounds) without thinking that it tracks any underlying natural right. Or consider democratic theorists who have defended legal protections for free speech as central to democracy. Such theorists may think there is an underlying natural moral right to free speech, but they need not (especially if they hold an instrumental justification for democracy). Or consider deontologists who have argued that free speech functions as a kind of side-constraint on legitimate state action, requiring that the state always justify its decisions in a manner that respects citizens’ autonomy (Scanlon 1972). This theory does not cast free speech as a right, but rather as a principle that forbids the creation of laws that restrict speech on certain grounds. In the Hohfeldian analysis (Hohfeld 1917), such a principle may be understood as an immunity rather than a claim-right (Scanlon 2013: 402). Finally, some “minimalists” (to use a designation in Cohen 1993) favor legal protection for speech principally in response to government malice, corruption, and incompetence (see Schauer 1982; Epstein 1992; Leiter 2016). Such theorists need not recognize any fundamental moral right, either.

Third, among those who do ground free speech in a natural moral right, there is scope for disagreement about how tightly the law should mirror that right (as with any right; see Buchanan 2013). It is an open question what the precise legal codification of the moral right to free speech should involve. A justified legal right to freedom of speech may not mirror the precise contours of the natural moral right to freedom of speech. A raft of instrumental concerns enters the downstream analysis of what any justified legal right should look like; hence a defensible legal right to free speech may protect more speech (or indeed less speech) than the underlying moral right that justifies it. For example, even if the moral right to free speech does not protect so-called hate speech, such speech may still merit legal protection in the final analysis (say, because it would be too risky to entrust states with the power to limit those communications).

2. Justifying Free Speech

I will now examine several of the morally significant considerations taken to justify freedom of expression. Note that while many theorists have built whole conceptions of free speech out of a single interest or value alone, pluralism in this domain remains an option. It may well be that a plurality of interests serves to justify freedom of expression, properly understood (see, influentially, Emerson 1970 and Cohen 1993).

Suppose a state bans certain books on the grounds that it does not want us to hear the messages or arguments contained within them. Such censorship seems to involve some kind of insult or disrespect to citizens—treating us like children instead of adults who have a right to make up our own minds. This insight is fundamental in the free speech tradition. On this view, the state wrongs citizens by arrogating to itself the authority to decide what messages they ought to hear. That is so even if the state thinks that the speech will cause harm. As one author puts it,

the government may not suppress speech on the ground that the speech is likely to persuade people to do something that the government considers harmful. (Strauss 1991: 335)

Why are restrictions on persuasive speech objectionable? For some scholars, the relevant wrong here is a form of disrespect for citizens’ basic capacities (Dworkin 1996: 200; Nagel 2002: 44). For others, the wrong here inheres in a violation of the kind of relationship the state should have with its people: namely, that it should always act from a view of them as autonomous, and so entitled to make up their own minds (Scanlon 1972). It would simply be incompatible with a view of ourselves as autonomous—as authors of our own lives and choices—to grant the state the authority to pre-screen which opinions, arguments, and perspectives we should be allowed to think through, allowing us access only to those of which it approves.

This position is especially well-suited to justify some central doctrines of First Amendment jurisprudence. First, it justifies the claim that freedom of expression especially implicates the purposes with which the state acts. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why the state might restrict speech (so-called “time, place, and manner” restrictions)—for example, noise curfews in residential neighborhoods, which do not raise serious free speech concerns. Yet when the state restricts speech with the purpose of manipulating the communicative environment and controlling the views to which citizens are exposed, free speech is directly affronted (Rubenfeld 2001; Alexander 2005; Kramer 2021). To be sure, purposes are not all that matter for free speech theory. For example, the chilling effects of otherwise justified speech regulations (discussed below) are seldom intended. But they undoubtedly matter.

Second, this view justifies the related doctrines of content neutrality and viewpoint neutrality (see G. Stone 1983 and 1987) . Content neutrality is violated when the state bans discussion of certain topics (“no discussion of abortion”), whereas viewpoint neutrality is violated when the state bans advocacy of certain views (“no pro-choice views may be expressed”). Both affront free speech, though viewpoint-discrimination is especially egregious and so even harder to justify. While listener autonomy theories are not the only theories that can ground these commitments, they are in a strong position to account for their plausibility. Note that while these doctrines are central to the American approach to free speech, they are less central to other states’ jurisprudence (see A. Stone 2017).

Third, this approach helps us see that free speech is potentially implicated whenever the state seeks to control our thoughts and the processes through which we form beliefs. Consider an attempt to ban Marx’s Capital . As Marx is deceased, he is probably not wronged through such censorship. But even if one held idiosyncratic views about posthumous rights, such that Marx were wronged, it would be curious to think this was the central objection to such censorship. Those with the gravest complaint would be the living adults who have the prerogative to read the book and make up their own minds about it. Indeed free speech may even be implicated if the state banned watching sunsets or playing video games on the grounds that is disapproved of the thoughts to which such experiences might give rise (Alexander 2005: 8–9; Kramer 2021: 22).

These arguments emphasize the noninstrumental imperative of respecting listener autonomy. But there is an instrumental version of the view. Our autonomy interests are not merely respected by free speech; they are promoted by an environment in which we learn what others have to say. Our interests in access to information is served by exposure to a wide range of viewpoints about both empirical and normative issues (Cohen 1993: 229), which help us reflect on what goals to choose and how best to pursue them. These informational interests are monumental. As Raz suggests, if we had to choose whether to express our own views on some question, or listen to the rest of humanity’s views on that question, we would choose the latter; it is our interest as listeners in the public good of a vibrant public discourse that, he thinks, centrally justifies free speech (1991).

Such an interest in acquiring justified beliefs, or in accessing truth, can be defended as part of a fully consequentialist political philosophy. J.S. Mill famously defends free speech instrumentally, appealing to its epistemic benefits in On Liberty . Mill believes that, given our fallibility, we should routinely keep an open mind as to whether a seemingly false view may actually be true, or at least contain some valuable grain of truth. And even where a proposition is manifestly false, there is value in allowing its expression so that we can better apprehend why we take it to be false (1859: chapter 2), enabled through discursive conflict (cf. Simpson 2021). Mill’s argument focuses especially on the benefits to audiences:

It is is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect. (1859: chapter 2, p. 94)

These views are sometimes associated with the idea of a “marketplace of ideas”, whereby the open clash of views inevitably leads to the correct ones winning out in debate. Few in the contemporary literature holds such a strong teleological thesis about the consequences of unrestricted debate (e.g., see Brietzke 1997; cf. Volokh 2011). Much evidence from behavioral economics and social psychology, as well as insights about epistemic injustice from feminist epistemology, strongly suggest that human beings’ rational powers are seriously limited. Smug confidence in the marketplace of ideas belies this. Yet it is doubtful that Mill held such a strong teleological thesis (Gordon 1997). Mill’s point was not that unrestricted discussion necessarily leads people to acquire the truth. Rather, it is simply the best mechanism available for ascertaining the truth, relative to alternatives in which some arbiter declares what he sees as true and suppresses what he sees as false (see also Leiter 2016).

Note that Mill’s views on free speech in chapter 2 in On Liberty are not simply the application of the general liberty principle defended in chapter 1 of that work; his view is not that speech is anodyne and therefore seldom runs afoul of the harm principle. The reason a separate argument is necessary in chapter 2 is precisely that he is carving out a partial qualification of the harm principle for speech (on this issue see Jacobson 2000, Schauer 2011b, and Turner 2014). On Mill’s view, plenty of harmful speech should still be allowed. Imminently dangerous speech, where there is no time for discussion before harm eventuates, may be restricted; but where there is time for discussion, it must be allowed. Hence Mill’s famous example that vociferous criticism of corn dealers as

starvers of the poor…ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer. (1859: chapter 3, p. 100)

The point is not that such speech is harmless; it’s that the instrumental benefits of permitting its expressions—and exposing its falsehood through public argument—justify the (remaining) costs.

Many authors have unsurprisingly argued that free speech is justified by our interests as speakers . This family of arguments emphasizes the role of speech in the development and exercise of our personal autonomy—our capacity to be the reflective authors of our own lives (Baker 1989; Redish 1982; Rawls 2005). Here an emphasis on freedom of expression is apt; we have an “expressive interest” (Cohen 1993: 224) in declaring our views—about the good life, about justice, about our identity, and about other aspects of the truth as we see it.

Our interests in self-expression may not always depend on the availability of a willing audience; we may have interests simply in shouting from the rooftops to declare who we are and what we believe, regardless of who else hears us. Hence communications to oneself—for example, in a diary or journal—are plausibly protected from interference (Redish 1992: 30–1; Shiffrin 2014: 83, 93; Kramer 2021: 23).

Yet we also have distinctive interests in sharing what we think with others. Part of how we develop our conceptions of the good life, forming judgments about how to live, is precisely through talking through the matter with others. This “deliberative interest” in directly served through opportunities to tell others what we think, so that we can learn from their feedback (Cohen 1993). Such encounters also offer opportunities to persuade others to adopt our views, and indeed to learn through such discussions who else already shares our views (Raz 1991).

Speech also seems like a central way in which we develop our capacities. This, too, is central to J.S. Mill’s defense of free speech, enabling people to explore different perspectives and points of view (1859). Hence it seems that when children engage in speech, to figure out what they think and to use their imagination to try out different ways of being in the world, they are directly engaging this interest. That explains the intuition that children, and not just adults, merit at least some protection under a principle of freedom of speech.

Note that while it is common to refer to speaker autonomy , we could simply refer to speakers’ capacities. Some political liberals hold that an emphasis on autonomy is objectionably Kantian or otherwise perfectionist, valorizing autonomy as a comprehensive moral ideal in a manner that is inappropriate for a liberal state (Cohen 1993: 229; Quong 2011). For such theorists, an undue emphasis on autonomy is incompatible with ideals of liberal neutrality toward different comprehensive conceptions of the good life (though cf. Shiffrin 2014: 81).

If free speech is justified by the importance of our interests in expressing ourselves, this justifies negative duties to refrain from interfering with speakers without adequate justification. Just as with listener theories, a strong presumption against content-based restrictions, and especially against viewpoint discrimination, is a clear requirement of the view. For the state to restrict citizens’ speech on the grounds that it disfavors what they have to say would affront the equal freedom of citizens. Imagine the state were to disallow the expression of Muslim or Jewish views, but allow the expression of Christian views. This would plainly transgress the right to freedom of expression, by valuing certain speakers’ interests in expressing themselves over others.

Many arguments for the right to free speech center on its special significance for democracy (Cohen 1993; Heinze 2016: Heyman 2009; Sunstein 1993; Weinstein 2011; Post 1991, 2009, 2011). It is possible to defend free speech on the noninstrumental ground that it is necessary to respect agents as democratic citizens. To restrict citizens’ speech is to disrespect their status as free and equal moral agents, who have a moral right to debate and decide the law for themselves (Rawls 2005).

Alternatively (or additionally), one can defend free speech on the instrumental ground that free speech promotes democracy, or whatever values democracy is meant to serve. So, for example, suppose the purpose of democracy is the republican one of establishing a state of non-domination between relationally egalitarian citizens; free speech can be defended as promoting that relation (Whitten 2022; Bonotti & Seglow 2022). Or suppose that democracy is valuable because of its role in promoting just outcomes (Arneson 2009) or tending to track those outcomes in a manner than is publicly justifiable (Estlund 2008) or is otherwise epistemically valuable (Landemore 2013).

Perhaps free speech doesn’t merely respect or promote democracy; another framing is that it is constitutive of it (Meiklejohn 1948, 1960; Heinze 2016). As Rawls says: “to restrict or suppress free political speech…always implies at least a partial suspension of democracy” (2005: 254). On this view, to be committed to democracy just is , in part, to be committed to free speech. Deliberative democrats famously contend that voting merely punctuates a larger process defined by a commitment to open deliberation among free and equal citizens (Gutmann & Thompson 2008). Such an unrestricted discussion is marked not by considerations of instrumental rationality and market forces, but rather, as Habermas puts it, “the unforced force of the better argument” (1992 [1996: 37]). One crucial way in which free speech might be constitutive of democracy is if it serves as a legitimation condition . On this view, without a process of open public discourse, the outcomes of the democratic decision-making process lack legitimacy (Dworkin 2009, Brettschneider 2012: 75–78, Cohen 1997, and Heinze 2016).

Those who justify free speech on democratic grounds may view this as a special application of a more general insight. For example, Scanlon’s listener theory (discussed above) contends that the state must always respect its citizens as capable of making up their own minds (1972)—a position with clear democratic implications. Likewise, Baker is adamant that both free speech and democracy are justified by the same underlying value of autonomy (2009). And while Rawls sees the democratic role of free speech as worthy of emphasis, he is clear that free speech is one of several basic liberties that enable the development and exercise of our moral powers: our capacities for a sense of justice and for the rational pursuit a lifeplan (2005). In this way, many theorists see the continuity between free speech and our broader interests as moral agents as a virtue, not a drawback (e.g., Kendrick 2017).

Even so, some democracy theorists hold that democracy has a special role in a theory of free speech, such that political speech in particular merits special protection (for an overview, see Barendt 2005: 154ff). One consequence of such views is that contributions to public discourse on political questions merit greater protection under the law (Sunstein 1993; cf. Cohen 1993: 227; Alexander 2005: 137–8). For some scholars, this may reflect instrumental anxieties about the special danger that the state will restrict the political speech of opponents and dissenters. But for others, an emphasis on political speech seems to reflect a normative claim that such speech is genuinely of greater significance, meriting greater protection, than other kinds of speech.

While conventional in the free speech literature, it is artificial to separate out our interests as speakers, listeners, and democratic citizens. Communication, and the thinking that feeds into it and that it enables, invariably engages our interests and activities across all these capacities. This insight is central to Seana Shiffrin’s groundbreaking thinker-based theory of freedom of speech, which seeks to unify the range of considerations that have informed the traditional theories (2014). Like other theories (e.g., Scanlon 1978, Cohen 1993), Shiffrin’s theory is pluralist in the range of interests it appeals to. But it offers a unifying framework that explains why this range of interests merits protection together.

On Shiffrin’s view, freedom of speech is best understood as encompassing both freedom of communication and freedom of thought, which while logically distinct are mutually reinforcing and interdependent (Shiffrin 2014: 79). Shiffrin’s account involves several profound claims about the relation between communication and thought. A central contention is that “free speech is essential to the development, functioning, and operation of thinkers” (2014: 91). This is, in part, because we must often externalize our ideas to articulate them precisely and hold them at a distance where we can evaluate them (p. 89). It is also because we work out what we think largely by talking it through with others. Such communicative processes may be monological, but they are typically dialogical; speaker and listener interests are thereby mutually engaged in an ongoing manner that cannot be neatly disentangled, as ideas are ping-ponged back and forth. Moreover, such discussions may concern democratic politics—engaging our interests as democratic citizens—but of course they need not. Aesthetics, music, local sports, the existence of God—these all are encompassed (2014: 92–93). Pace prevailing democratic theories,

One’s thoughts about political affairs are intrinsically and ex ante no more and no less central to the human self than thoughts about one’s mortality or one’s friends. (Shiffrin 2014: 93)

The other central aspect of Shiffrin’s view appeals to the necessity of communication for successfully exercising our moral agency. Sincere communication enables us

to share needs, emotions, intentions, convictions, ambitions, desires, fantasies, disappointments, and judgments. Thereby, we are enabled to form and execute complex cooperative plans, to understand one another, to appreciate and negotiate around our differences. (2014: 1)

Without clear and precise communication of the sort that only speech can provide, we cannot cooperate to discharge our collective obligations. Nor can we exercise our normative powers (such as consenting, waiving, or promising). Our moral agency thus depends upon protected channels through which we can relay our sincere thoughts to one another. The central role of free speech is to protect those channels, by ensuring agents are free to share what they are thinking without fear of sanction.

The thinker-based view has wide-ranging normative implications. For example, by emphasizing the continuity of speech and thought (a connection also noted in Macklem 2006 and Gilmore 2011), Shiffrin’s view powerfully explains the First Amendment doctrine that compelled speech also constitutes a violation of freedom of expression. Traditional listener- and speaker-focused theories seemingly cannot explain what is fundamentally objectionable with forcing someone to declare a commitment to something, as with children compelled to pledge allegiance to the American flag ( West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943). “What seems most troubling about the compelled pledge”, Shiffrin writes,

is that the motive behind the regulation, and its possible effect, is to interfere with the autonomous thought processes of the compelled speaker. (2014: 94)

Further, Shiffrin’s view explains why a concern for free speech does not merely correlate to negative duties not to interfere with expression; it also supports positive responsibilities on the part of the state to educate citizens, encouraging and supporting their development and exercise as thinking beings (2014: 107).

Consider briefly one final family of free speech theories, which appeal to the role of toleration or self-restraint. On one argument, freedom of speech is important because it develops our character as liberal citizens, helping us tame our illiberal impulses. The underlying idea of Lee Bollinger’s view is that liberalism is difficult; we recurrently face temptation to punish those who hold contrary views. Freedom of speech helps us to practice the general ethos of toleration in a manner than fortifies our liberal convictions (1986). Deeply offensive speech, like pro-Nazi speech, is protected precisely because toleration in these enormously difficult cases promotes “a general social ethic” of toleration more generally (1986: 248), thereby restraining unjust exercises of state power overall. This consequentialist argument treats the protection of offensive speech not as a tricky borderline case, but as “integral to the central functions of the principle of free speech” (1986: 133). It is precisely because tolerating evil speech involves “extraordinary self-restraint” (1986: 10) that it works its salutary effects on society generally.

The idea of self-restraint arises, too, in Matthew Kramer’s recent defense of free speech. Like listener theories, Kramer’s strongly deontological theory condemns censorship aimed at protecting audiences from exposure to misguided views. At the core of his theory is the thesis that the state’s paramount moral responsibility is to furnish the social conditions that serve the development and maintenance of citizens’ self-respect and respect for others. The achievement of such an ethically resilient citizenry, on Kramer’s view, has the effect of neutering the harmfulness of countless harmful communications. “Securely in a position of ethical strength”, the state “can treat the wares of pornographers and the maunderings of bigots as execrable chirps that are to be endured with contempt” (Kramer 2021: 147). In contrast, in a society where the state has failed to do its duty of inculcating a robust liberal-egalitarian ethos, the communication of illiberal creeds may well pose a substantial threat. Yet for the state then to react by banning such speech is

overweening because with them the system’s officials take control of communications that should have been defused (through the system’s fulfillment of its moral obligations) without prohibitory or preventative impositions. (2021: 147)

(One might agree with Kramer that this is so, but diverge by arguing that the state—having failed in its initial duty—ought to take measures to prevent the harms that flow from that failure.)

These theories are striking in that they assume that a chief task of free speech theory is to explain why harmful speech ought to be protected. This is in contrast to those who think that the chief task of free speech theory is to explain our interests in communicating with others, treating the further issue of whether (wrongfully) harmful communications should be protected as an open question, with different reasonable answers available (Kendrick 2017). In this way, toleration theories—alongside a lot of philosophical work on free speech—seem designed to vindicate the demanding American legal position on free speech, one unshared by virtually all other liberal democracies.

One final family of arguments for free speech appeals to the danger of granting the state powers it may abuse. On this view, we protect free speech chiefly because if we didn’t, it would be far easier for the state to silence its political opponents and enact unjust policies. On this view, a state with censorial powers is likely to abuse them. As Richard Epstein notes, focusing on the American case,

the entire structure of federalism, divided government, and the system of checks and balances at the federal level shows that the theme of distrust has worked itself into the warp and woof of our constitutional structure.

“The protection of speech”, he writes, “…should be read in light of these political concerns” (Epstein 1992: 49).

This view is not merely a restatement of the democracy theory; it does not affirm free speech as an element of valuable self-governance. Nor does it reduce to the uncontroversial thought that citizens need freedom of speech to check the behavior of fallible government agents (Blasi 1977). One need not imagine human beings to be particularly sinister to insist (as democracy theorists do) that the decisions of those entrusted with great power be subject to public discussion and scrutiny. The argument under consideration here is more pessimistic about human nature. It is an argument about the slippery slope that we create even when enacting (otherwise justified) speech restrictions; we set an unacceptable precedent for future conduct by the state (see Schauer 1985). While this argument is theoretical, there is clearly historical evidence for it, as in the manifold cases in which bans on dangerous sedition were used to suppress legitimate war protest. (For a sweeping canonical study of the uses and abuses of speech regulations during wartime, with a focus on U.S. history, see G. Stone 2004.)

These instrumental concerns could potentially justify the legal protection for free speech. But they do not to attempt to justify why we should care about free speech as a positive moral ideal (Shiffrin 2014: 83n); they are, in Cohen’s helpful terminology, “minimalist” rather than “maximalist” (Cohen 1993: 210). Accordingly, they cannot explain why free speech is something that even the most trustworthy, morally competent administrations, with little risk of corruption or degeneration, ought to respect. Of course, minimalists will deny that accounting for speech’s positive value is a requirement of a theory of free speech, and that critiquing them for this omission begs the question.

Pluralists may see instrumental concerns as valuably supplementing or qualifying noninstrumental views. For example, instrumental concerns may play a role in justifying deviations between the moral right to free communication, on the one hand, and a properly specified legal right to free communication, on the other. Suppose that there is no moral right to engage in certain forms of harmful expression (such as hate speech), and that there is in fact a moral duty to refrain from such expression. Even so, it does not follow automatically that such a right ought to be legally enforced. Concerns about the dangers of granting the state such power plausibly militate against the enforcement of at least some of our communicative duties—at least in those jurisdictions that lack robust and competently administered liberal-democratic safeguards.

This entry has canvassed a range of views about what justifies freedom of expression, with particular attention to theories that conceive free speech as a natural moral right. Clearly, the proponents of such views believe that they succeed in this justificatory effort. But others dissent, doubting that the case for a bona fide moral right to free speech comes through. Let us briefly note the nature of this challenge from free speech skeptics , exploring a prominent line of reply.

The challenge from skeptics is generally understood as that of showing that free speech is a special right . As Leslie Kendrick notes,

the term “special right” generally requires that a special right be entirely distinct from other rights and activities and that it receive a very high degree of protection. (2017: 90)

(Note that this usage is not to be confused from the alternative usage of “special right”, referring to conditional rights arising out of particular relationships; see Hart 1955.)

Take each aspect in turn. First, to vindicate free speech as a special right, it must serve some distinctive value or interest (Schauer 2015). Suppose free speech were just an implication of a general principle not to interfere in people’s liberty without justification. As Joel Feinberg puts it, “Liberty should be the norm; coercion always needs some special justification” (1984: 9). In such a case, then while there still might be contingent, historical reasons to single speech out in law as worthy of protection (Alexander 2005: 186), such reasons would not track anything especially distinctive about speech as an underlying moral matter. Second, to count as a special right, free speech must be robust in what it protects, such that only a compelling justification can override it (Dworkin 2013: 131). This captures the conviction, prominent among American constitutional theorists, that “any robust free speech principle must protect at least some harmful speech despite the harm it may cause” (Schauer 2011b: 81; see also Schauer 1982).

If the task of justifying a moral right to free speech requires surmounting both hurdles, it is a tall order. Skeptics about a special right to free speech doubt that the order can be met, and so deny that a natural moral right to freedom of expression can be justified (Schauer 2015; Alexander & Horton 1983; Alexander 2005; Husak 1985). But these theorists may be demanding too much (Kendrick 2017). Start with the claim that free speech must be distinctive. We can accept that free speech be more than simply one implication of a general presumption of liberty. But need it be wholly distinctive? Consider the thesis that free speech is justified by our autonomy interests—interests that justify other rights such as freedom of religion and association. Is it a problem if free speech is justified by interests that are continuous with, or overlap with, interests that justify other rights? Pace the free speech skeptics, maybe not. So long as such claims deserve special recognition, and are worth distinguishing by name, this may be enough (Kendrick 2017: 101). Many of the views canvassed above share normative bases with other important rights. For example, Rawls is clear that he thinks all the basic liberties constitute

essential social conditions for the adequate development and full exercise of the two powers of moral personality over a complete life. (Rawls 2005: 293)

The debate, then, is whether such a shared basis is a theoretical virtue (or at least theoretically unproblematic) or whether it is a theoretical vice, as the skeptics avow.

As for the claim that free speech must be robust, protecting harmful speech, “it is not necessary for a free speech right to protect harmful speech in order for it to be called a free speech right” (Kendrick 2017: 102). We do not tend to think that religious liberty must protect harmful religious activities for it to count as a special right. So it would be strange to insist that the right to free speech must meet this burden to count as a special right. Most of the theorists mentioned above take themselves to be offering views that protect quite a lot of harmful speech. Yet we can question whether this feature is a necessary component of their views, or whether we could imagine variations without this result.

3. Justifying Speech Restrictions

When, and why, can restrictions on speech be justified? It is common in public debate on free speech to hear the provocative claim that free speech is absolute . But the plausibility of such a claim depends on what is exactly meant by it. If understood to mean that no communications between humans can ever be restricted, such a view is held by no one in the philosophical debate. When I threaten to kill you unless you hand me your money; when I offer to bribe the security guard to let me access the bank vault; when I disclose insider information that the company in which you’re heavily invested is about to go bust; when I defame you by falsely posting online that you’re a child abuser; when I endanger you by labeling a drug as safe despite its potentially fatal side-effects; when I reveal your whereabouts to assist a murderer intent on killing you—across all these cases, communications may be uncontroversially restricted. But there are different views as to why.

To help organize such views, consider a set of distinctions influentially defended by Schauer (from 1982 onward). The first category involves uncovered speech : speech that does not even presumptively fall within the scope of a principle of free expression. Many of the speech-acts just canvassed, such as the speech involved in making a threat or insider training, plausibly count as uncovered speech. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said of fighting words (e.g., insults calculated to provoke a street fight),

such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. ( Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942)

The general idea here is that some speech simply has negligible—and often no —value as free speech, in light of its utter disconnection from the values that justify free speech in the first place. (For discussion of so-called “low-value speech” in the U.S. context, see Sunstein 1989 and Lakier 2015.) Accordingly, when such low-value speech is harmful, it is particularly easy to justify its curtailment. Hence the Court’s view that “the prevention and punishment of [this speech] have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem”. For legislation restricting such speech, the U.S. Supreme Court applies a “rational basis” test, which is very easy to meet, as it simply asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. (Note that it is widely held that it would still be impermissible to selectively ban low-value speech on a viewpoint-discriminatory basis—e.g., if a state only banned fighting words from left-wing activists while allowing them from right-wing activists.)

Schauer’s next category concerns speech that is covered but unprotected . This is speech that engages the values that underpin free speech; yet the countervailing harm of the speech justifies its restriction. In such cases, while there is real value in such expression as free speech, that value is outweighed by competing normative concerns (or even, as we will see below, on behalf of the very values that underpin free speech). In U.S. constitutional jurisprudence, this category encompasses those extremely rare cases in which restrictions on political speech pass the “strict scrutiny” test, whereby narrow restrictions on high-value speech can be justified due to the compelling state interests thereby served. Consider Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 2010, in which the Court held that an NGO’s legal advice to a terrorist organization on how to pursue peaceful legal channels were legitimately criminalized under a counter-terrorism statute. While such speech had value as free speech (at least on one interpretation of this contested ruling), the imperative of counter-terrorism justified its restriction. (Arguably, commercial speech, while sometimes called low-value speech by scholars, falls into the covered but unprotected category. Under U.S. law, legislation restricting it receives “intermediate scrutiny” by courts—requiring restrictions to be narrowly drawn to advance a substantial government interest. Such a test suggests that commercial speech has bona fide free-speech value, making it harder to justify regulations on it than regulations on genuinely low-value speech like fighting words. It simply doesn’t have as much free-speech value as categories like political speech, religious speech, or press speech, all of which trigger the strict scrutiny test when restricted.)

As a philosophical matter, we can reasonably disagree about what speech qualifies as covered but unprotected (and need not treat the verdicts of the U.S. Supreme Court as philosophically decisive). For example, consider politically-inflected hate speech, which advances repugnant ideas about the inferior status of certain groups. One could concur that there is substantial free-speech value in such expression, just because it involves the sincere expression of views about central questions of politics and justice (however misguided the views doubtlessly are). Yet one could nevertheless hold that such speech should not be protected in virtue of the substantial harms to which it can lead. In such cases, the free-speech value is outweighed. Many scholars who defend the permissibility of legal restrictions on hate speech hold such a view (e.g., Parekh 2012; Waldron 2012). (More radically, one could hold that such speech’s value is corrupted by its evil, such that it qualifies as genuinely low-value; Howard 2019a.)

The final category of speech encompasses expression that is covered and protected . To declare that speech is protected just is to conclude that it is immune from restriction. A preponderance of human communications fall into this category. This does not mean that such speech can never be regulated ; content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations (e.g., prohibiting loud nighttime protests) can certainly be justified (G. Stone 1987). But such regulations must not be viewpoint discriminatory; they must apply even-handedly across all forms of protected speech.

Schauer’s taxonomy offers a useful organizing framework for how we should think about different forms of speech. Where does it leave the claim that free speech is absolute? The possibility of speech that is covered but unprotected suggests that free speech should sometimes be restricted on account of rival normative concerns. Of course, one could contend that such a category, while logically possible, is substantively an empty set; such a position would involve some kind of absoluteness about free speech (holding that where free-speech values are engaged by expression, no countervailing values can ever be weighty enough to override them). Such a position would be absolutist in a certain sense while granting the permissibility of restrictions on speech that do not engage the free-speech values. (For a recent critique of Schauer’s framework, arguing that governmental designation of some speech as low-value is incompatible with the very ideal of free speech, see Kramer 2021: 31.)

In what follows, this entry will focus on Schauer’s second category: speech that is covered by a free speech principle, but is nevertheless unprotected because of the harms it causes. How do we determine what speech falls into this category? How, in other words, do we determine the limits of free speech? Unsurprisingly, this is where most of the controversy lies.

Most legal systems that protect free speech recognize that the right has limits. Consider, for example, international human rights law, which emphatically protects the freedom of speech as a fundamental human right while also affirming specific restrictions on certain seriously harmful speech. Article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights declares that “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”—but then immediately notes that this right “carries with it special duties and responsibilities”. The subsequent ICCPR article proceeds to endorse legal restrictions on “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, as well as speech constituting “propaganda for war” (ICCPR). While such restrictions would plainly be struck down as unconstitutional affronts to free speech in the U.S., this more restrictive approach prevails in most liberal democracies’ treatment of harmful speech.

Set aside the legal issue for now. How should we think about how to determine the limits of the moral right free speech? Those seeking to justify limits on speech tend to appeal to one of two strategies (Howard and Simpson forthcoming). The first strategy appeals to the importance of balancing free speech against other moral values when they come into conflict. This strategy involves external limits on free speech. (The next strategy, discussed below, invokes free speech itself, or the values that justify it, as limit-setting rationales; it thus involves internal limits on free speech.)

A balancing approach recognizes a moral conflict between unfettered communication and external values. Consider again the case of hate speech, understood as expression that attacks members of socially vulnerable groups as inferior or dangerous. On all of the theories canvassed above, there are grounds for thinking that restrictions on hate speech are prima facie in violation of the moral right to free speech. Banning hate speech to prevent people from hearing ideas that might incline them to bigotry plainly seems to disrespect listener autonomy. Further, even when speakers are expressing prejudiced views, they are still engaging their autonomous faculties. Certainly, they are expressing views on questions of public political concern, even false ones. And as thinkers they are engaged in the communication of sincere testimony to others. On many of the leading theories, the values underpinning free speech seem to be militate against bans on hate speech.

Even so, other values matter. Consider, for example, the value of upholding the equal dignity of all citizens. A central insight of critical race theory is that public expressions of white supremacy, for example, attack and undermine that equal dignity (Matsuda, Lawrence, Delgado, & Crenshaw 1993). On Jeremy Waldron’s view (2012), hate speech is best understood as a form of group defamation, launching spurious attacks on others’ reputations and thereby undermining their standing as respected equals in their own community (relatedly, see Beauharnais v. Illinois 1952).

Countries that ban hate speech, accordingly, are plausibly understood not as opposed to free speech, but as recognizing the importance that it be balanced when conflicting with other values. Such balancing can be understood in different ways. In European human rights law, for example, the relevant idea is that the right to free speech is balanced against other rights ; the relevant task, accordingly, is to specify what counts as a proportionate balance between these rights (see Alexy 2003; J. Greene 2021).

For others, the very idea of balancing rights undermines their deontic character. This alternative framing holds that the balancing occurs before we specify what rights are; on this view, we balance interests against each other, and only once we’ve undertaken that balancing do we proceed to define what our rights protect. As Scanlon puts it,

The only balancing is balancing of interests. Rights are not balanced, but are defined, or redefined, in the light of the balance of interests and of empirical facts about how these interests can best be protected. (2008: 78)

This balancing need not come in the form of some crude consequentialism; otherwise it would be acceptable to limit the rights of the few to secure trivial benefits for the many. On a contractualist moral theory such as Scanlon’s, the test is to assess the strength of any given individual’s reason to engage in (or access) the speech, against the strength of any given individual’s reason to oppose it.

Note that those who engage in balancing need not give up on the idea of viewpoint neutrality; they can accept that, as a general principle, the state should not restrict speech on the grounds that it disapproves of its message and dislikes that others will hear it. The point, instead, is that this commitment is defeasible; it is possible to be overridden.

One final comment is apt. Those who are keen to balance free speech against other values tend to be motivated by the concern that speech can cause harm, either directly or indirectly (on this distinction, see Schauer 1993). But to justify restrictions on speech, it is not sufficient (and perhaps not even necessary) to show that such speech imposes or risks imposing harm. The crucial point is that the speech is wrongful (or, perhaps, wrongfully harmful or risky) , breaching a moral duty that speakers owe to others. Yet very few in the free speech literature think that the mere offensiveness of speech is sufficient to justify restrictions on it. Even Joel Feinberg, who thinks offensiveness can sometimes be grounds for restricting conduct, makes a sweeping exception for

[e]xpressions of opinion, especially about matters of public policy, but also about matters of empirical fact, and about historical, scientific, theological, philosophical, political, and moral questions. (1985: 44)

And in many cases, offensive speech may be actively salutary, as when racists are offended by defenses of racial equality (Waldron 1987). Accordingly, despite how large it looms in public debate, discussion of offensive speech will not play a major role in the discussion here.

We saw that one way to justify limits on free speech is to balance it against other values. On that approach, free speech is externally constrained. A second approach, in contrast, is internally constrained. On this approach, the very values that justify free speech themselves determine its own limits. This is a revisionist approach to free speech since, unlike orthodox thinking, it contends that a commitment to free speech values can counterintuitively support the restriction of speech—a surprising inversion of traditional thinking on the topic (see Howard and Simpson forthcoming). This move—justifying restrictions on speech by appealing to the values that underpin free speech—is now prevalent in the philosophical literature (for an overview, see Barendt 2005: 1ff).

Consider, for example, the claim that free speech is justified by concerns of listener autonomy. On such a view, as we saw above, autonomous citizens have interests in exposure to a wide range of viewpoints, so that they can decide for themselves what to believe. But many have pointed out that this is not autonomous citizens’ only interest; they also have interests in not getting murdered by those incited by incendiary speakers (Amdur 1980). Likewise, insofar as being targeted by hate speech undermines the exercise of one’s autonomous capacities, appeal to the underlying value of autonomy could well support restrictions on such speech (Brison 1998; see also Brink 2001). What’s more, if our interests as listeners in acquiring accurate information is undermined by fraudulent information, then restrictions on such information could well be compatible with our status as autonomous; this was one of the insights that led Scanlon to complicate his theory of free speech (1978).

Or consider the theory that free speech is justified because of its role in enabling autonomous speakers to express themselves. But as Japa Pallikkathayil has argued, some speech can intimidate its audiences into staying silent (as with some hate speech), out of fear for what will happen if they speak up (Pallikkathayil 2020). In principle, then, restrictions on hate speech may serve to support the value of speaker expression, rather than undermine it (see also Langton 2018; Maitra 2009; Maitra & McGowan 2007; and Matsuda 1989: 2337). Indeed, among the most prominent claims in feminist critiques of pornography is precisely that it silences women—not merely through its (perlocutionary) effects in inspiring rape, but more insidiously through its (illocutionary) effects in altering the force of the word “no” (see MacKinnon 1984; Langton 1993; and West 204 [2022]; McGowan 2003 and 2019; cf. Kramer 2021, pp. 160ff).

Now consider democracy theories. On the one hand, democracy theorists are adamant that citizens should be free to discuss any proposals, even the destruction of democracy itself (e.g., Meiklejohn 1948: 65–66). On the other hand, it isn’t obvious why citizens’ duties as democratic citizens could not set a limit to their democratic speech rights (Howard 2019a). The Nazi propagandist Goebbels is said to have remarked:

This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed. (as quoted in Fox & Nolte 1995: 1)

But it is not clear why this is necessarily so. Why should we insist on a conception of democracy that contains a self-destruct mechanism? Merely stipulating that democracy requires this is not enough (see A. Greene and Simpson 2017).

Finally, consider Shiffrin’s thinker-based theory. Shiffrin’s view is especially well-placed to explain why varieties of harmful communications are protected speech; what the theory values is the sincere transmission of veridical testimony, whereby speakers disclose what they genuinely believe to others, even if what they believe is wrongheaded and dangerous. Yet because the sincere testimony of thinkers is what qualifies some communication for protection, Shiffrin is adamant that lying falls outside the protective ambit of freedom of expression (2014) This, then, sets an internal limit on her own theory (even if she herself disfavors all lies’ outright prohibition for reasons of tolerance). The claim that lying falls outside the protective ambit of free speech is itself a recurrent suggestion in the literature (Strauss 1991: 355; Brown 2023). In an era of rampant disinformation, this internal limit is of substantial practical significance.

Suppose the moral right (or principle) of free speech is limited, as most think, such that not all communications fall within its protective ambit (either for external reasons, internal reasons, or both). Even so, it does not follow that laws banning such unprotected speech can be justified all-things-considered. Further moral tests must be passed before any particular policy restricting speech can be justified. This sub-section focuses on the requirement that speech restrictions be proportionate .

The idea that laws implicating fundamental rights must be proportionate is central in many jurisdictions’ constitutional law, as well as in the international law of human rights. As a representative example, consider the specification of proportionality offered by the Supreme Court of Canada:

First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair, or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair “as little as possible” the right or freedom in question[…] Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of “sufficient importance” ( R v. Oakes 1986).

It is this third element (often called “proportionality stricto sensu ”) on which we will concentrate here; this is the focused sense of proportionality that roughly tracks how the term is used in the philosophical literatures on defensive harm and war, as well as (with some relevant differences) criminal punishment. (The strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny tests of U.S. constitutional law are arguably variations of the proportionality test; but set aside this complication for now as it distracts from the core philosophical issues. For relevant legal discussion, see Tsesis 2020.)

Proportionality, in the strict sense, concerns the relation between the costs or harms imposed by some measure and the benefits that the measure is designed to secure. The organizing distinction in recent philosophical literature (albeit largely missing in the literature on free speech) is one between narrow proportionality and wide proportionality . While there are different ways to cut up the terrain between these terms, let us stipulatively define them as follows. An interference is narrowly proportionate just in case the intended target of the interference is liable to bear the costs of that interference. An interference is widely proportionate just in case the collateral costs that the interference unintentionally imposes on others can be justified. (This distinction largely follows the literature in just war theory and the ethics of defensive force; see McMahan 2009.) While the distinction is historically absent from free speech theory, it has powerful payoffs in helping to structure this chaotic debate (as argued in Howard 2019a).

So start with the idea that restrictions on communication must be narrowly proportionate . For a restriction to be narrowly proportionate, those whose communications are restricted must be liable to bear their costs, such that they are not wronged by their imposition. One standard way to be liable to bear certain costs is to have a moral duty to bear them (Tadros 2012). So, for example, if speakers have a moral duty to refrain from libel, hate speech, or some other form of harmful speech, they are liable to bear at least some costs involved in the enforcement of that duty. Those costs cannot be unlimited; a policy of executing hate speakers could not plausibly be justified. Typically, in both defensive and punitive contexts, wrongdoers’ liability is determined by their culpability, the severity of their wrong, or some combination of the two. While it is difficult to say in the abstract what the precise maximal cost ceiling is for any given restriction, as it depends hugely on the details, the point is simply that there is some ceiling above which a speech restriction (like any restriction) imposes unacceptably high costs, even on wrongdoers.

Second, for a speech restriction to be justified, we must also show that it would be widely proportionate . Suppose a speaker is liable to bear the costs of some policy restricting her communication, such that she is not wronged by its imposition. It may be that the collateral costs of such a policy would render it unacceptable. One set of costs is chilling effects , the “overdeterrence of benign conduct that occurs incidentally to a law’s legitimate purpose or scope” (Kendrick 2013: 1649). The core idea is that laws targeting unprotected, legitimately proscribed expression may nevertheless end up having a deleterious impact on protected expression. This is because laws are often vague, overbroad, and in any case are likely to be misapplied by fallible officials (Schauer 1978: 699).

Note that if a speech restriction produces chilling effects, it does not follow that the restriction should not exist at all. Rather, concern about chilling effects instead suggests that speech restrictions should be under-inclusive—restricting less speech than is actually harmful—in order to create “breathing space”, or “a buffer zone of strategic protection” (Schauer 1978: 710) for legitimate expression and so reduce unwanted self-censorship. For example, some have argued that even though speech can cause harm recklessly or negligently, we should insist on specific intent as the mens rea of speech crimes in order to reduce any chilling effects that could follow (Alexander 1995: 21–128; Schauer 1978: 707; cf. Kendrick 2013).

But chilling effects are not the only sort of collateral effects to which speech restrictions could lead. Earlier we noted the risk that states might abuse their censorial powers. This, too, could militate in favor of underinclusive speech restrictions. Or the implication could be more radical. Consider the problem that it is difficult to author restrictions on hate speech in a tightly specified way; the language involved is open-ended in a manner that enables states to exercise considerable judgment in deciding what speech-acts, in fact, count as violations (see Strossen 2018). Given the danger that the state will misuse or abuse these laws to punish legitimate speech, some might think this renders their enactment widely disproportionate. Indeed, even if the law were well-crafted and would be judiciously applied by current officials, the point is that those in the future may not be so trustworthy.

Those inclined to accept such a position might simply draw the conclusion that legislatures ought to refrain from enacting laws against hate speech. A more radical conclusion is that the legal right to free speech ought to be specified so that hate speech is constitutionally protected. In other words, we ought to give speakers a legal right to violate their moral duties, since enforcing those moral duties through law is simply too risky. By appealing to this logic, it is conceivable that the First Amendment position on hate speech could be justified all-things-considered—not because the underlying moral right to free speech protects hate speech, but because hate speech must be protected for instrumental reasons of preventing future abuses of power (Howard 2019a).

Suppose certain restrictions on harmful speech can be justified as proportionate, in both the narrow and wide senses. This is still not sufficient to justify them all-things-considered. Additionally, they must be justified as necessary . (Note that some conceptions of proportionality in human rights law encompass the necessity requirement, but this entry follows the prevailing philosophical convention by treating them as distinct.)

Why might restrictions on harmful speech be unnecessary? One of the standard claims in the free speech literature is that we should respond to harmful speech not by banning it, but by arguing back against it. Counter-speech—not censorship—is the appropriate solution. This line of reasoning is old. As John Milton put it in 1644: “Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” The insistence on counter-speech as the remedy for harmful speech is similarly found, as noted above, throughout chapter 2 of Mill’s On Liberty .

For many scholars, this line of reply is justified by the fact that they think the harmful speech in question is protected by the moral right to free speech. For such scholars, counter-speech is the right response because censorship is morally off the table. For other scholars, the recourse to counter-speech has a plausible distinct rationale (although it is seldom articulated): its possibility renders legal restrictions unnecessary. And because it is objectionable to use gratuitous coercion, legal restrictions are therefore impermissible (Howard 2019a). Such a view could plausibly justify Mill’s aforementioned analysis in the corn dealer example, whereby censorship is permissible but only when there’s no time for counter-speech—a view that is also endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

Whether this argument succeeds depends upon a wide range of further assumptions—about the comparable effectiveness of counter-speech relative to law; about the burdens that counter-speech imposes on prospective counter-speakers. Supposing that the argument succeeds, it invites a range of further normative questions about the ethics of counter-speech. For example, it is important who has the duty to engage in counter-speech, who its intended audience is, and what specific forms the counter-speech ought to take—especially in order to maximize its persuasive effectiveness (Brettschneider 2012; Cepollaro, Lepoutre, & Simpson 2023; Howard 2021b; Lepoutre 2021; Badano & Nuti 2017). It is also important to ask questions about the moral limits of counter-speech. For example, insofar as publicly shaming wrongful speakers has become a prominent form of counter-speech, it is crucial to interrogate its permissibility (e.g., Billingham and Parr 2020).

This final section canvasses the young philosophical debate concerning freedom of speech on the internet. With some important exceptions (e.g., Barendt 2005: 451ff), this issue has only recently accelerated (for an excellent edited collection, see Brison & Gelber 2019). There are many normative questions to be asked about the moral rights and obligations of internet platforms. Here are three. First, do internet platforms have moral duties to respect the free speech of their users? Second, do internet platforms have moral duties to restrict (or at least refrain from amplifying) harmful speech posted by their users? And finally, if platforms do indeed have moral duties to restrict harmful speech, should those duties be legally enforced?

The reference to internet platforms , is a deliberate focus on large-scale social media platforms, through which people can discover and publicly share user-generated content. We set aside other entities such as search engines (Whitney & Simpson 2019), important though they are. That is simply because the central political controversies, on which philosophical input is most urgent, concern the large social-media platforms.

Consider the question of whether internet platforms have moral duties to respect the free speech of their users. One dominant view in the public discourse holds that the answer is no . On this view, platforms are private entities, and as such enjoy the prerogative to host whatever speech they like. This would arguably be a function of them having free speech rights themselves. Just as the free speech rights of the New York Times give it the authority to publish whatever op-eds it sees fit, the free speech rights of platforms give them the authority to exercise editorial or curatorial judgment about what speech to allow. On this view, if Facebook were to decide to become a Buddhist forum, amplifying the speech of Buddhist users and promoting Buddhist perspectives and ideas, and banning speech promoting other religions, it would be entirely within its moral (and thus proper legal) rights to do so. So, too, if it were to decide to become an atheist forum.

A radical alternative view holds that internet platforms constitute a public forum , a term of art from U.S. free speech jurisprudence used to designate spaces “designed for and dedicated to expressive activities” ( Southeastern Promotions Ltd., v. Conrad 1975). As Kramer has argued:

social-media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and YouTube have become public fora. Although the companies that create and run those platforms are not morally obligated to sustain them in existence at all, the role of controlling a public forum morally obligates each such company to comply with the principle of freedom of expression while performing that role. No constraints that deviate from the kinds of neutrality required under that principle are morally legitimate. (Kramer 2021: 58–59)

On this demanding view, platforms’ duties to respect speech are (roughly) identical to the duties of states. Accordingly, if efforts by the state to restrict hate speech, pornography, and public health misinformation (for example) are objectionable affronts to free speech, so too are platforms’ content moderation rules for such content. A more moderate view does not hold that platforms are public forums as such, but holds that government channels or pages qualify as public forums (the claim at issue in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2019).)

Even if we deny that platforms constitute public forums, it is plausible that they engage in a governance function of some kind (Klonick 2018). As Jack Balkin has argued, the traditional model of free speech, which sees it as a relation between speakers and the state, is today plausibly supplanted by a triadic model, involving a more complex relation between speakers, governments, and intermediaries (2004, 2009, 2018, 2021). If platforms do indeed have some kind of governance function, it may well trigger responsibilities for transparency and accountability (as with new legislation such as the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act).

Second, consider the question of whether platforms have a duty to remove harmful content posted by users. Even those who regard them as public forums could agree that platforms may have a moral responsibility to remove illegal unprotected speech. Yet a dominant view in the public debate has historically defended platforms’ place as mere conduits for others’ speech. This is the current position under U.S. law (as with 47 U.S. Code §230), which broadly exempts platforms from liability for much illegal speech, such as defamation. On this view, we should view platforms as akin to bulletin boards: blame whoever posts wrongful content, but don’t hold the owner of the board responsible.

This view is under strain. Even under current U.S. law, platforms are liable for removing some content, such as child sexual abuse material and copyright infringements, suggesting that it is appropriate to demand some accountability for the wrongful content posted by others. An increasing body of philosophical work explores the idea that platforms are indeed morally responsible for removing extreme content. For example, some have argued that platforms have a special responsibility to prevent the radicalization that occurs on their networks, given the ways in which extreme content is amplified to susceptible users (Barnes 2022). Without engaging in moderation (i.e., removal) of harmful content, platforms are plausibly complicit with the wrongful harms perpetrated by users (Howard forthcoming).

Yet it remains an open question what a responsible content moderation policy ought to involve. Many are tempted by a juridical model, whereby platforms remove speech in accordance with clearly announced rules, with user appeals mechanisms in place for individual speech decisions to ensure they are correctly made (critiqued in Douek 2022b). Yet platforms have billions of users and remove millions of pieces of content per week. Accordingly, perfection is not possible. Moving quickly to remove harmful content during a crisis—e.g., Covid misinformation—will inevitably increase the number of false positives (i.e., legitimate speech taken down as collateral damage). It is plausible that the individualistic model of speech decisions adopted by courts is decidedly implausible to help us govern online content moderation; as noted in Douek 2021 and 2022a, what is needed is analysis of how the overall system should operate at scale, with a focus on achieving proportionality between benefits and costs. Alternatively, one might double down and insist that the juridical model is appropriate, given the normative significance of speech. And if it is infeasible for social-media companies to meet its demands given their size, then all the worse for social-media companies. On this view, it is they who must bend to meet the moral demands of free speech theory, not the other way around.

Substantial philosophical work needs to be done to deliver on this goal. The work is complicated by the fact that artificial intelligence (AI) is central to the processes of content moderation; human moderators, themselves subjected to terrible working conditions at long hours, work in conjunction with machine learning tools to identify and remove content that platforms have restricted. Yet AI systems notoriously are as biased as their training data. Further, their “black box” decisions are cryptic and cannot be easily understood. Given that countless speech decisions will necessarily be made without human involvement, it is right to ask whether it is reasonable to expect users to accept the deliverances of machines (e.g., see Vredenburgh 2022; Lazar forthcoming a). Note that machine intelligence is used not merely for content moderation, narrowly understood as the enforcement of rules about what speech is allowed. It is also deployed for the broader practice of content curation, determining what speech gets amplified — raising the question of what normative principles should govern such amplification; see Lazar forthcoming b).

Finally, there is the question of legal enforcement. Showing that platforms have the moral responsibility to engage in content moderation is necessary to justifying its codification into a legal responsibility. Yet it is not sufficient; one could accept that platforms have moral duties to moderate (some) harmful speech while also denying that those moral duties ought to be legally enforced. A strong, noninstrumental version of such a view would hold that while speakers have moral duties to refrain from wrongful speech, and platforms have duties not to platform or amplify it, the coercive enforcement of such duties would violate the moral right to freedom of expression. A more contingent, instrumental version of the view would hold that legal enforcement is not in principle impermissible; but in practice, it is simply too risky to grant the state the authority to enforce platforms’ and speakers’ moral duties, given the potential for abuse and overreach.

Liberals who champion the orthodox interpretation of the First Amendment, yet insist on robust content moderation, likely hold one or both of these views. Yet globally such views seem to be in the minority. Serious legislation is imminent that will subject social-media companies to burdensome regulation, in the form of such laws as the Digital Services Act in the European Union and the Online Safety Bill in the UK. Normatively evaluating such legislation is a pressing task. So, too, is the task of designing normative theories to guide the design of content moderation systems, and the wider governance of the digital public sphere. On both fronts, political philosophers should get back to work.

• Alexander, Larry [Lawrence], 1995, “Free Speech and Speaker’s Intent”, Constitutional Commentary , 12(1): 21–28.
• –––, 2005, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? , (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Alexander, Lawrence and Paul Horton, 1983, “The Impossibility of a Free Speech Principle Review Essay”, Northwestern University Law Review , 78(5): 1319–1358.
• Alexy, Robert, 2003, “Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality”, Ratio Juris , 16(2): 131–140. doi:10.1111/1467-9337.00228
• Amdur, Robert, 1980, “Scanlon on Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 9(3): 287–300.
• Arneson, Richard, 2009, “Democracy is Not Intrinsically Just”, in Justice and Democracy , Keith Dowding, Robert E. Goodin, and Carole Pateman (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–58.
• Baker, C. Edwin, 1989, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2009, “Autonomy and Hate Speech”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 139–157 (ch. 8). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0009
• Balkin, Jack M., 2004, “Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society”, New York University Law Review , 79(1): 1–55.
• –––, 2009, “The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age Free Speech and Press in the Digital Age”, Pepperdine Law Review , 36(2): 427–444.
• –––, 2018, “Free Speech Is a Triangle Essays”, Columbia Law Review , 118(7): 2011–2056.
• –––, 2021, “How to Regulate (and Not Regulate) Social Media”, Journal of Free Speech Law , 1(1): 71–96. [ Balkin 2021 available online (pdf) ]
• Barendt, Eric M., 2005, Freedom of Speech , second edition, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225811.001.0001
• Barnes, Michael Randall, 2022, “Online Extremism, AI, and (Human) Content Moderation”, Feminist Philosophy Quarterly , 8(3/4): article 6. [ Barnes 2022 available online ]
• Beauharnais v. Illinois 343 U.S. 250 (1952).
• Billingham, Paul and Tom Parr, 2020, “Enforcing Social Norms: The Morality of Public Shaming”, European Journal of Philosophy , 28(4): 997–1016. doi:10.1111/ejop.12543
• Blasi, Vincent, 1977, “The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory”, American Bar Foundation Research Journal 3: 521–649.
• –––, 2004, “Holmes and the Marketplace of Ideas”, The Supreme Court Review , 2004: 1–46.
• Brettschneider, Corey Lang, 2012, When the State Speaks, What Should It Say? How Democracies Can Protect Expression and Promote Equality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Brietzke, Paul H., 1997, “How and Why the Marketplace of Ideas Fails”, Valparaiso University Law Review , 31(3): 951–970.
• Bollinger, Lee C., 1986, The Tolerant Society: Free Speech and Extremist Speech in America , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bonotti, Matteo and Jonathan Seglow, 2022, “Freedom of Speech: A Relational Defence”, Philosophy & Social Criticism , 48(4): 515–529.
• Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• Brink, David O., 2001, “Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech”, Legal Theory , 7(2): 119–157. doi:10.1017/S1352325201072019
• Brison, Susan J., 1998, “The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech”, Ethics , 108(2): 312–339. doi:10.1086/233807
• Brison, Susan J. and Katharine Gelber (eds), 2019, Free Speech in the Digital Age , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190883591.001.0001
• Brown, Étienne, 2023, “Free Speech and the Legal Prohibition of Fake News”, Social Theory and Practice , 49(1): 29–55. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract202333179
• Buchanan, Allen E., 2013, The Heart of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199325382.001.0001
• Cepollaro, Bianca, Maxime Lepoutre, and Robert Mark Simpson, 2023, “Counterspeech”, Philosophy Compass , 18(1): e12890. doi:10.1111/phc3.12890
• Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
• Cohen, Joshua, 1993, “Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 22(3): 207–263.
• –––, 1997, “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy”, in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics , James Bohman and William Rehg (eds), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 67–92.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1981, “Is There a Right to Pornography?”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 1(2): 177–212. doi:10.1093/ojls/1.2.177
• –––, 1996, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2006, “A New Map of Censorship”, Index on Censorship , 35(1): 130–133. doi:10.1080/03064220500532412
• –––, 2009, “Forward.” In Extreme Speech and Democracy , ed. J. Weinstein and I. Hare, pp. v-ix. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013, Religion without God , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Douek, Evelyn, 2021, “Governing Online Speech: From ‘Posts-as-Trumps’ to Proportionality and Probability”, Columbia Law Review , 121(3): 759–834.
• –––, 2022a, “Content Moderation as Systems Thinking”, Harvard Law Review , 136(2): 526–607.
• –––, 2022b, “The Siren Call of Content Moderation Formalism”, in Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of Our Democracy , Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 139–156 (ch. 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780197621080.003.0009
• Ely, John Hart, 1975, “Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment Analysis”, Harvard Law Review , 88: 1482–1508.
• Emerson, Thomas I., 1970, The System of Freedom of Expression , New York: Random House.
• Epstein, Richard A., 1992, “Property, Speech, and the Politics of Distrust”, University of Chicago Law Review , 59(1): 41–90.
• Estlund, David, 2008, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Feinberg, Joel, 1984, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Volume 1: Harm to Others , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195046641.001.0001
• –––, 1985, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Volume 2: Offense to Others , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195052153.001.0001
• Fish, Stanley Eugene, 1994, There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Fox, Gregory H. and Georg Nolte, 1995, “Intolerant Democracies”, Harvard International Law Journal , 36(1): 1–70.
• Gelber, Katharine, 2010, “Freedom of Political Speech, Hate Speech and the Argument from Democracy: The Transformative Contribution of Capabilities Theory”, Contemporary Political Theory , 9(3): 304–324. doi:10.1057/cpt.2009.8
• Gilmore, Jonathan, 2011, “Expression as Realization: Speakers’ Interests in Freedom of Speech”, Law and Philosophy , 30(5): 517–539. doi:10.1007/s10982-011-9096-z
• Gordon, Jill, 1997, “John Stuart Mill and the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’:”, Social Theory and Practice , 23(2): 235–249. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract199723210
• Greenawalt, Kent, 1989, Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Greene, Amanda R. and Robert Mark Simpson, 2017, “Tolerating Hate in the Name of Democracy”, The Modern Law Review , 80(4): 746–765. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12283
• Greene, Jamal, 2021, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession with Rights Is Tearing America Apart , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2008, Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
• Hare, Ivan and James Weinstein (eds), 2009, Extreme Speech and Democracy , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.001.0001
• Hart, H. L. A., 1955, “Are There Any Natural Rights?”, The Philosophical Review , 64(2): 175–191. doi:10.2307/2182586
• Heinze, Eric, 2016, Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759027.001.0001
• Heyman, Steven J., 2009, “Hate Speech, Public Discourse, and the First Amendment”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 158–181 (ch. 9). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0010
• Hohfeld, Wesley, 1917, “Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,” Yale Law Journal 26(8): 710–770.
• Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 561 U.S. 1 (2010).
• Hornsby, Jennifer, 1995, “Disempowered Speech”, Philosophical Topics , 23(2): 127–147. doi:10.5840/philtopics199523211
• Howard, Jeffrey W., 2019a, “Dangerous Speech”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 47(2): 208–254. doi:10.1111/papa.12145
• –––, 2019b, “Free Speech and Hate Speech”, Annual Review of Political Science , 22: 93–109. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343
• –––, 2021, “Terror, Hate and the Demands of Counter-Speech”, British Journal of Political Science , 51(3): 924–939. doi:10.1017/S000712341900053X
• –––, forthcoming a, “The Ethics of Social Media: Why Content Moderation is a Moral Duty”, Journal of Practical Ethics .
• Howard, Jeffrey W. and Robert Simpson, forthcoming b, “Freedom of Speech”, in Issues in Political Theory , fifth edition, Catriona McKinnon, Patrick Tomlin, and Robert Jubb (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Husak, Douglas N., 1985, “What Is so Special about [Free] Speech?”, Law and Philosophy , 4(1): 1–15. doi:10.1007/BF00208258
• Jacobson, Daniel, 2000, “Mill on Liberty, Speech, and the Free Society”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 29(3): 276–309. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00276.x
• Kendrick, Leslie, 2013, “Speech, Intent, and the Chilling Effect”, William & Mary Law Review , 54(5): 1633–1692.
• –––, 2017, “Free Speech as a Special Right”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 45(2): 87–117. doi:10.1111/papa.12087
• Klonick, Kate, 2018, “The New Governors”, Harvard Law Review 131: 1589–1670.
• Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump 928 F.3d 226 (2019).
• Kramer, Matthew H., 2021, Freedom of Expression as Self-Restraint , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lakier, Genevieve, 2015, “The Invention of Low-Value Speech”, Harvard Law Review , 128(8): 2166–2233.
• Landemore, Hélène, 2013, Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Langton, Rae, 1993, “Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 22(4): 293–330.
• –––, 2018, “The Authority of Hate Speech”, in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law (Volume 3), John Gardner, Leslie Green, and Brian Leiter (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: ch. 4. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198828174.003.0004
• Lazar, Seth, forthcoming, “Legitimacy, Authority, and the Public Value of Explanations”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 10), Steven Wall (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, forthcoming, Connected by Code: Algorithmic Intermediaries and Political Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Leiter, Brian, 2016, “The Case against Free Speech”, Sydney Law Review , 38(4): 407–439.
• Lepoutre, Maxime, 2021, Democratic Speech in Divided Times , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
• MacKinnon, Catharine A., 1984 [1987], “Not a Moral Issue”, Yale Law & Policy Review , 2(2): 321–345. Reprinted in her Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987, 146–162 (ch. 13).
• Macklem, Timothy, 2006, Independence of Mind , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535446.001.0001
• Maitra, Ishani, 2009, “Silencing Speech”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 39(2): 309–338. doi:10.1353/cjp.0.0050
• Maitra, Ishani and Mary Kate McGowan, 2007, “The Limits of Free Speech: Pornography and the Question of Coverage”, Legal Theory , 13(1): 41–68. doi:10.1017/S1352325207070024
• Matsuda, Mari J., 1989, “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story Legal Storytelling”, Michigan Law Review , 87(8): 2320–2381.
• Matsuda, Mari J., Charles R. Lawrence, Richard Delgado, and Kimberlè Williams Crenshaw, 1993, Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment (New Perspectives on Law, Culture, and Society), Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Reprinted 2018, Abingdon: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429502941
• McGowan, Mary Kate, 2003, “Conversational Exercitives and the Force of Pornography”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 31(2): 155–189. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00155.x
• –––, 2019, Just Words: On Speech and Hidden Harm , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829706.001.0001
• McMahan, Jeff, 2009, Killing in War , (Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics), Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548668.001.0001
• Milton, John, 1644, “Areopagitica”, London. [ Milton 1644 available online ]
• Meiklejohn, Alexander, 1948, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government , New York: Harper.
• –––, 1960, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People , New York: Harper.
• Mill, John Stuart, 1859, On Liberty , London: John W. Parker and Son. [ Mill 1859 available online ]
• Nagel, Thomas, 2002, Concealment and Exposure , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Pallikkathayil, Japa, 2020, “Free Speech and the Embodied Self”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 6), David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 61–84 (ch. 3). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198852636.003.0003
• Parekh, Bhikhu, 2012, “Is There a Case for Banning Hate Speech?”, in The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses , Michael Herz and Peter Molnar (eds.), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 37–56. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139042871.006
• Post, Robert C., 1991, “Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment Free Speech and Religious, Racial, and Sexual Harassment”, William and Mary Law Review , 32(2): 267–328.
• –––, 2000, “Reconciling Theory and Doctrine in First Amendment Jurisprudence Symposium of the Law in the Twentieth Century”, California Law Review , 88(6): 2353–2374.
• –––, 2009, “Hate Speech”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 123–138 (ch. 7). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0008
• –––, 2011, “Participatory Democracy as a Theory of Free Speech: A Reply Replies”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 617–632.
• Quong, Jonathan, 2011, Liberalism without Perfection , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199594870.001.0001
• R v. Oakes , 1 SCR 103 (1986).
• Rawls, John, 2005, Political Liberalism , expanded edition, (Columbia Classics in Philosophy), New York: Columbia University Press.
• Raz, Joseph, 1991 [1994], “Free Expression and Personal Identification”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 11(3): 303–324. Collected in his Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 146–169 (ch. 7).
• Redish, Martin H., 1982, “Value of Free Speech”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review , 130(3): 591–645.
• Rubenfeld, Jed, 2001, “The First Amendment’s Purpose”, Stanford Law Review , 53(4): 767–832.
• Scanlon, Thomas, 1972, “A Theory of Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 1(2): 204–226.
• –––, 1978, “Freedom of Expression and Categories of Expression ”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review , 40(4): 519–550.
• –––, 2008, “Rights and Interests”, in Arguments for a Better World: Essays in Honor of Amartya Sen , Kaushik Basu and Ravi Kanbur (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68–79 (ch. 5). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239115.003.0006
• –––, 2013, “Reply to Wenar”, Journal of Moral Philosophy 10: 400–406
• Schauer, Frederick, 1978, “Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the Chilling Effect”, Boston University Law Review , 58(5): 685–732.
• –––, 1982, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1985, “Slippery Slopes”, Harvard Law Review , 99(2): 361–383.
• –––, 1993, “The Phenomenology of Speech and Harm”, Ethics , 103(4): 635–653. doi:10.1086/293546
• –––, 2004, “The Boundaries of the First Amendment: A Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience”, Harvard Law Review , 117(6): 1765–1809.
• –––, 2009, “Is It Better to Be Safe than Sorry: Free Speech and the Precautionary Principle Free Speech in an Era of Terrorism”, Pepperdine Law Review , 36(2): 301–316.
• –––, 2010, “Facts and the First Amendment”, UCLA Law Review , 57(4): 897–920.
• –––, 2011a, “On the Relation between Chapters One and Two of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty ”, Capital University Law Review , 39(3): 571–592.
• –––, 2011b, “Harm(s) and the First Amendment”, The Supreme Court Review , 2011: 81–111. doi:10.1086/665583
• –––, 2015, “Free Speech on Tuesdays”, Law and Philosophy , 34(2): 119–140. doi:10.1007/s10982-014-9220-y
• Shiffrin, Seana Valentine, 2014, Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality, and the Law (Carl G. Hempel Lecture Series), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Simpson, Robert Mark, 2016, “Defining ‘Speech’: Subtraction, Addition, and Division”, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , 29(2): 457–494. doi:10.1017/cjlj.2016.20
• –––, 2021, “‘Lost, Enfeebled, and Deprived of Its Vital Effect’: Mill’s Exaggerated View of the Relation Between Conflict and Vitality”, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume , 95: 97–114. doi:10.1093/arisup/akab006
• Southeastern Promotions Ltd., v. Conrad , 420 U.S. 546 (1975).
• Sparrow, Robert and Robert E. Goodin, 2001, “The Competition of Ideas: Market or Garden?”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 4(2): 45–58. doi:10.1080/13698230108403349
• Stone, Adrienne, 2017, “Viewpoint Discrimination, Hate Speech Laws, and the Double-Sided Nature of Freedom of Speech”, Constitutional Commentary , 32(3): 687–696.
• Stone, Geoffrey R., 1983, “Content Regulation and the First Amendment”, William and Mary Law Review , 25(2): 189–252.
• –––, 1987, “Content-Neutral Restrictions”, University of Chicago Law Review , 54(1): 46–118.
• –––, 2004, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism , New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Strauss, David A., 1991, “Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression”, Columbia Law Review , 91(2): 334–371.
• Strossen, Nadine, 2018, Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship , New York: Oxford University Press
• Sunstein, Cass R., 1986, “Pornography and the First Amendment”, Duke Law Journal , 1986(4): 589–627.
• –––, 1989, “Low Value Speech Revisited Commentaries”, Northwestern University Law Review , 83(3): 555–561.
• –––, 1993, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech , New York: The Free Press.
• –––, 2017, #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Tadros, Victor, 2012, “Duty and Liability”, Utilitas , 24(2): 259–277.
• Turner, Piers Norris, 2014, “‘Harm’ and Mill’s Harm Principle”, Ethics , 124(2): 299–326. doi:10.1086/673436
• Tushnet, Mark, Alan Chen, and Joseph Blocher, 2017, Free Speech beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment , New York: New York University Press.
• Volokh, Eugene, 2011, “In Defense of the Marketplace of Ideas/Search for Truth as a Theory of Free Speech Protection Responses”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 595–602.
• Vredenburgh, Kate, 2022, “The Right to Explanation”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 30(2): 209–229. doi:10.1111/jopp.12262
• Waldron, Jeremy, 1987, “Mill and the Value of Moral Distress”, Political Studies , 35(3): 410–423. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1987.tb00197.x
• –––, 2012, The Harm in Hate Speech (The Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures, 2009), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Weinstein, James, 2011, “Participatory Democracy as the Central Value of American Free Speech Doctrine”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 491–514.
• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Whitten, Suzanne, 2022, A Republican Theory of Free Speech: Critical Civility , Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78631-1
• Whitney, Heather M. and Robert Mark Simpson, 2019, “Search Engines and Free Speech Coverage”, in Free Speech in the Digital Age , Susan J. Brison and Katharine Gelber (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33–51 (ch. 2). doi:10.1093/oso/9780190883591.003.0003
• West, Caroline, 2004 [2022], “Pornography and Censorship”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 edition), Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/pornography-censorship/ >.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) , adopted: 16 December 1966; Entry into force: 23 March 1976.
• Free Speech Debate
• Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
• van Mill, David, “Freedom of Speech”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/freedom-speech/ >. [This was the previous entry on this topic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – see the version history .]

ethics: search engines and | hate speech | legal rights | liberalism | Mill, John Stuart | Mill, John Stuart: moral and political philosophy | pornography: and censorship | rights | social networking and ethics | toleration

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the editors and anonymous referees of this Encyclopedia for helpful feedback. I am greatly indebted to Robert Mark Simpson for many incisive suggestions, which substantially improved the entry. This entry was written while on a fellowship funded by UK Research & Innovation (grant reference MR/V025600/1); I am thankful to UKRI for the support.

Copyright © 2024 by Jeffrey W. Howard < jeffrey . howard @ ucl . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Share full article

The Unlikely Birth of Free Speech

Writing a century ago this weekend, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. created our modern understanding of the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes around 1924. Credit... Library of Congress

Supported by

By Thomas Healy

Mr. Healy is a professor at Seton Hall University School of Law and the author of “The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind — and Changed the History of Free Speech in America.”

• Nov. 9, 2019

For all the horrors that marked 1919 in America — the race riots, the terrorist attacks, the labor unrest — there was one unquestionably positive development. On Nov. 10, a hundred years ago Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes issued a remarkable opinion that gave birth to our modern understanding of free speech.

It was a complicated delivery. Despite its centrality to our culture today, the First Amendment in the early 20th century was largely a dead letter. The Supreme Court had never upheld a free speech claim, and lower courts had approved the censorship of books and films, the prohibition of street-corner speeches and bans on labor protests and profanity. Even criticism of the government could be punished, the courts had ruled, if it threatened public order and morality.

The low point was World War I. Two months after declaring war, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which made it a crime to obstruct the draft or cause insubordination in the military. A year later, it passed the Sedition Act, outlawing any speech that the authorities deemed “disloyal” or “scurrilous,” as well as any speech intended to encourage resistance to the war, curtail the production of arms or obstruct the sale of war bonds.

Federal prosecutors vigorously enforced these acts, bringing nearly 2,000 indictments, many on the thinnest of pretexts. One person was convicted for forwarding a chain letter that called for an immediate end to the war. Another was jailed for asserting that the war benefited capitalists. And the courts largely acquiesced, ruling that the First Amendment offered no protection for speech with a “bad tendency” — essentially, any speech the government disliked.

The suppression continued after the war, as the fear of German sympathizers was transformed into a fear of Bolshevists. Congress allocated half a million dollars to investigate seditious activities. In the fall of 1919, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer ordered a series of raids on the homes and workplaces of Russian immigrants. And a Senate committee released a list of 62 “radicals” who were said to be enemies of the state, including such respected figures as the social reformer Jane Addams, the historian Charles Beard and Frederic Howe, the commissioner of immigration at Ellis Island.

Justice Holmes, who believed strongly in the will of the majority, was an unlikely defender of free speech.

It was in the midst of this hysteria that Holmes breathed new life into the First Amendment. He was an unlikely midwife. Holmes, 78 at the time, was descended from one of the oldest families in America. He was a graduate of Harvard Law School, a veteran of the Civil War and a member of the intellectual aristocracy that his father, a famous author, had labeled the “Brahmin caste of New England.” More to the point, he had done as much as any judge to render free speech meaningless.

As a state court judge in Massachusetts, he had ruled that there is no right to speak on public property or while working as a public employee. And after joining the United States Supreme Court, in 1902, he had embraced the cramped English view that free speech protects only against prior censorship but places no limits on the government’s power to punish speakers after the fact.

These rulings reflected Holmes’s long-held belief that free speech was “logically indefensible” — that just as government should be permitted to punish actions that cause harm, so it should be permitted to punish words that cause harm. But his indifference to free speech also stemmed from a deeper commitment to majority rule and judicial restraint. Holmes believed that the majority, acting through its elected representatives, should be allowed to pursue whatever policies it wanted. And he, as an unelected judge, had no business standing in the way. “If my fellow citizens want to go to hell, I will help them,” he liked to say. “It’s my job.”

But the events of 1919 changed Holmes. A contrarian with a love of books and a fondness for debate, he was troubled by the wave of persecution that swept the country once the dangers of war had passed. He was especially troubled when that wave threatened to engulf two of his own friends, a legal scholar named Felix Frankfurter and a British political theorist named Harold Laski.

Frankfurter and Laski would later achieve their own fame: Frankfurter was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1939, and Laski was elected chairman of England’s Labour Party at the end of World War II. But in 1919, they were young academics (Frankfurter was 37, Laski 26) still making names for themselves. They were also part of a circle of younger intellectuals who worshiped Holmes for his willingness to uphold progressive labor legislation despite his own doubts about the wisdom of such laws. This circle, which included two of the founding editors of The New Republic, Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann, published tributes to Holmes, feted him with parties and dinners, and passed around his opinions like sacred texts.

Holmes was buoyed by the admiration of these acolytes, believing he was finally receiving the recognition he had long desired as nothing less than the “greatest jurist in the world.” He also developed a genuine affection for the “young lads,” as he called them, treating Frankfurter and Laski like the sons he never had.

So when the two men came under attack for their “radical” views — Frankfurter for his support of labor unions, Laski for his socialist leanings — Holmes sprang to their defense. He wrote to the president of Harvard, where both men taught, and sought help from the Harvard Law School alumni association.

He also began to rethink his stance on the First Amendment, an endeavor his young friends encouraged. For more than a year, they waged an intense behind-the-scenes campaign to strengthen Holmes’s appreciation for free speech. They fed him books on political liberalism, wrote him long letters on the value of tolerance and engaged him in impassioned debates. At one point, Laski even arranged a meeting at his summer bungalow between Holmes and Zechariah Chafee, a Harvard law professor who had written an article criticizing the justice’s views. “You won’t forget that you are coming down on Saturday for the week-end,” Laski wrote Chafee. “Holmes is coming to tea, and I want you to arrive in good time. For I have given him your article and we must fight on it.”

Holmes did not change his mind all at once. In March 1919, he wrote three opinions for the court upholding the convictions of socialists for criticizing the war. These opinions hinted at an internal struggle. Holmes retreated from his earlier belief that free speech protects only against prior restraints. And he rejected the “bad tendency” test, writing that speech can be punished only if it poses a “clear and present danger.” But he failed to explain how the defendants’ speech met that test, falling back instead on his commitment to majority rule and judicial restraint.

Eight months later, when the court heard another case under the Espionage and Sedition acts, Holmes’s conversion was complete. By this point, Laski was in serious trouble, having spoken out in support of a labor strike by Boston police officers. The strike was a disaster; with no officers on duty, the city descended into chaos, and the soldiers who were brought in to restore order killed eight people. Laski’s support for the strike thus won him the enmity of the entire New England establishment. The press denounced him as an “boudoir Bolshevist,” while the Harvard Board of Overseers opened an investigation to determine whether he was fit to teach.

It was against this backdrop that Holmes wrote his famous defense of free speech. A majority of the court voted to uphold the latest convictions under the Espionage and Sedition acts. But Holmes, joined by his close friend Justice Louis Brandeis, dissented. Acknowledging the appeal of persecution, which he had once himself embraced, he now offered a powerful rebuttal:

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

With those words, Holmes provided a justification for free speech that fit with his conception of democracy. We should protect speech not to promote the liberty of the individual over the interests of the majority. We should protect speech because doing so promotes the collective interest — in other words, the interests of us all.

Holmes’s young friends were elated. Viewing his opinion not just as a defense of free speech but also as a defense of them, they wrote one by one to express their gratitude and to predict that his dissent would one day prevail.

They were right. Although Holmes was in the minority, the power of his words and the force of his personality gave his opinion an authority beyond the usual judicial dissent. Civil libertarians soon embraced it as an article of faith, and ultimately the rest of the country did, too.

That didn’t happen overnight — the second Red Scare and McCarthyism were still to come. And Holmes was not the only person responsible for the development; Brandeis wrote several eloquent opinions defending free speech, and the contributions of lawyers and scholars such as Chafee were invaluable. But it was the figure of Holmes, the old soldier and enlightened aristocrat, who gave the movement its legitimacy and inspiration. And by the late 1960s, his tribute to “free trade in ideas,” along with his insistence that speech can be punished only if it poses a “clear and present danger,” had become not only cultural catchphrases but the law of the land.

Holmes’s dissent did not answer all the questions about free speech. His market metaphor has sparked intense disagreement about the extent to which laissez-faire economic principles should guide First Amendment law. The public reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which struck down a ban on corporate campaign spending, is the most prominent example of that dispute.

Holmes himself would have been distressed to see his metaphor taken literally. In another famous dissent, he explained that “general propositions do not decide concrete cases,” by which he meant that the law is not a game of logic in which judges reason abstractly from some “articulate major premise.” Decisions, he believed, depend on “more subtle” intuitions and judgments that are informed by experience.

But whatever one thinks of the market metaphor, Holmes’s conversion offers a valuable lesson in our own time of discord. It illustrates the power of free and fearless debate to change the course of history — and the importance of a judiciary willing to protect our most fundamental rights.

Thomas Healy is a professor at Seton Hall University School of Law and the author of “The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind — and Changed the History of Free Speech in America.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

Advertisement

Free Random Speech Generator

Write down the points you want to discuss in body paragraphs

Want to create powerful speeches that will effectively persuade, captivate, and entertain your audience? If so, you’ve come to the right place!

We present to you our new revolutionary speech generator. It has an AI-powered core that can instantly create outstanding drafts for speeches 100% free.

• ️🎉 How to Use This Generator
• ️🔥 Why Use Our Tool?
• ️📢 Main Types of Speeches
• ️✍️ How to Write a Speech
• ️🔗 References

🎉 How to Use Our Speech Generator

Using our tool is very easy. Just follow these 6 steps:

• Type in the topic of your speech.
• Choose between entertainment, informative, persuasive, or demonstrative speech types.
• Enter the specific purpose of your speech.
• Select the number of body paragraphs that you want it to have.
• Adjust the additional settings, like the audience type or the points you want to express.
• Press “Generate” and get an outstanding result.

🔥 Why Use Our Random Speech Generator

Our automatic speech generator is one of the best tools you can find online. Here’re all of its benefits:

📢 Main Types of Speeches

Our generator can create all types of speeches. But what are these types exactly? Let’s learn more about each of them.

✍️ How to Write a Speech

The process of writing a good speech is more complex than it seems. There are many things on which its success will depend. The handy guide below will help you write an unforgettable speech—check it out!

1. Choose a Topic

Choosing a perfect topic is the first step. Even if you already have a rough concept of what you want to discuss, you can still make it more interesting by focusing on a few additional themes or one overarching subject.

Make a list of every potential topic that you may include in your speech. After that, review your options and cross off anything too dull or unnecessary until your draft has been reduced to a few key points. Additionally, do some preliminary research. Statistics, case studies, and graphs can be the perfect basis for your arguments.

Don't know what to write about? Here are some of the hottest speech topic ideas for you:

• The joy of playing the guitar.
• Homage to a trainer speech.
• The problem of global migration .
• Careers in tech and engineering .
• How cryptocurrency shapes modern trade relations .
• The value of the theory of self-actualizing personality .
• Your views on independence and personal development.
• The evolution of tourism from ancient Rome to the present day.
• The perspective of using AI to replace human labor .

2. Analyze Your Audience

The audience is the main factor determining how you approach a topic. To analyze your listeners, spend some time thinking through the following questions:

• Is the audience already familiar with the issue?
• Why can they be interested in learning about it?
• What are their personal thoughts and opinions on the matter?
• How does the topic relate to their lives?

These questions will help you decide how to convey your material. For instance, if most of the audience is unfamiliar with the subject, your speech can be educational.

3. Make an Outline

For a good speech, it is crucial to stay on topic. Make sure to avoid forgetting any important information or repeating yourself while talking. That’s why it’s essential to outline your drafts and structure your arguments. Create a plan and note all the key ideas that you want to include in your speech. Also, be sure to add the sources of statistics and quotes so that you can quickly make a reference if the audience asks you about them.

4. Make a Strong Opening Sentence

The first two minutes at the beginning of a speech is the only chance you get to grab the audience’s attention . That’s why it’s critical to put your main idea or primal objective into the first statement that you'll say. The best technique is starting with a distinct concept and quickly explaining its importance. You can also attract the audience by telling a funny joke related to the topic or showing a picture on the screen if you have such an opportunity.

5. Make It Interesting

Your main goal throughout the speech is to keep your audience interested and entertained. Don’t let them get bored because once they do, they’ll stop listening.

Here’s a list of things to try if you want to keep your audience attentive:

• Use visuals and audio or even physical props.
• Add some emotions and try to engage your audience in the discussions.
• Include personal elements and life stories.
• Joke around a little bit, but don’t go overboard.
• Address different topic-oriented questions to your audience.
• Use body language to empower your statements.

We’re sure that with our free generator, you’ll be able to make an excellent speech. You’ll see how easier it becomes once you try this fantastic tool. Good luck on your path to becoming a pro in the art of speech!

We also recommend using our business tools such as Porter’s Five Forces template and VRIO analysis tool .

❓ Random Speech Generator FAQ

❓ what are the different types of speeches.

The 4 main types of speeches are persuasive, informative, entertainment, and demonstrative speech. Each of them has its own goals and objectives. There are also many minor kinds of speeches, but they're all based on these 4 main types.

❓ What are some good topics to write a speech on?

Here’re some good ideas for a speech:

• The problem of school bullying.
• How to overcome embarrassment and show your true self.
• Should children be taught religion from an early age?
• The issue of modern-day discrimination.
• The benefits of staying optimistic.

❓ How do you write a persuasive speech?

The first thing to write a persuasive speech is to gather arguments and facts to strengthen your viewpoint. Afterward, we advise you to create an outline and write a draft based on your plan. Finally, proofread your draft and make a visual presentation, if necessary.

❓ What are some examples of persuasive speech?

The most notable examples of persuasive speeches are:

• I Have a Dream by Martin Luther King Jr.
• The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln.
• Woman’s Rights to the Suffrage by Susan B Anthony.
• Nobel Lecture by Mother Teresa.
• The Struggle for Human Rights by Eleanor Roosevelt.

🔗 References

• Speech Writing and Types of Speeches: University of Florida
• Speeches: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• 13 Main Types of Speeches (With Examples and Tips): Indeed
• 10 Keys to Writing A Speech: Forbes
• Persuasive Speaking: University of Pittsburgh

freedom of speech

Primary tabs.

Freedom of speech is the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government. The First Amendment protects this right by prohibiting Congress from making laws that would curtail freedom of speech.

Even though freedom of speech is protected from infringement by the government, the government is still free to restrict speech in certain circumstances. Some of these circumstances include:

• Obscenity and Indecency – In Alliance for Community Media v. FCC , the Supreme Court found that obscenity and child pornography have no right to protection from the First Amendment, and as such, the government has the ability to ban this media altogether. But when it comes to indecency, which is generally defined by the courts as something describing or depicting offensive sexual activity, the Supreme Court has found this speech protected. But the government can regulate this speech on radio and television, so long as it’s for a compelling reason and is done in the least restrictive manner. 
• Defamation – Private and public figures are able to sue someone for statements they have made. Public figures must prove that the person made the statement with malice , which means knowing the statement was false or having a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement. (See  New York Times v. Sullivan ) . Private figures must prove the person failed to act with reasonable care when they made the statement. 
• Incitement – If a person has the intention of inciting the violations of laws that is imminent and likely, while directing this incitement at a person or groups of persons, their speech will not be protected under the First Amendment. This test was created by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio . 
• Fighting words  

While the public has a right to freedom of speech when it comes to the U.S. government, the public does not have this right when it comes to private entities. Companies and private employers are able to regulate speech on their platforms and within their workplace since the First Amendment only applies to the government. This right allowed Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to ban President Donald Trump from their sites in 2021 without legal repercussion. Companies like Facebook and YouTube were also able to ban misleading information on Covid-19 during the 2020 pandemic.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed that private entities are not restricted by the First Amendment in the case Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck . Manhattan Neighborhood Network is a nonprofit that was given the authority by New York City to operate public access channels in Manhattan. The organization decided to suspend two of their employees after they received complaints about a film the employees produced. The employees argued that this was a violation of their First Amendment freedom of speech rights because they were being punished due to the content of their film. The Supreme Court held that Manhattan Neighborhood Network was not a government entity or a state actor , so the nonprofit couldn’t be subjected to the First Amendment.

In another case, Nyabwa v. Facebook , the Southern District of Texas also affirmed that private entities are not subject to the First Amendment. There, the plaintiff had a Facebook account, which spoke on President Donald Trump’s business conflicts of interest. Facebook decided to lock the account, so the plaintiff was no longer able to access it. The plaintiff decided to sue Facebook because he believed the company was violating his First Amendment rights. The court dismissed the lawsuit stating that the First Amendment prevents Congress and other government entities from restricting freedom of speech, not private entities. 

[Last updated in June of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team ] 

A Short Introduction to Free Indirect Style

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

Free indirect style, alternatively known as free indirect speech or free indirect discourse, is a narrative style which requires some explanation and unpicking, since it is subtle and sometimes difficult to spot in a work of fiction. However, it is one of the most powerful tools a writer possesses, and has been used to great effect by writers as diverse as Jane Austen , James Joyce , and D. H. Lawrence .

What Is Free Indirect Style?

What is free indirect style (free indirect speech/free indirect discourse)? Put simply, free indirect style is when the voice of a third-person narrator takes on the style and ‘voice’ of one of the characters within the story or novel. It is, if you will, as if a detached third-person narrator has begun to turn into a first-person narrator, i.e. one of the characters within the story (or novel). The objectivity and detachment we associate with third-person narrators dissolves into the subjective and personal style of a character.

Let’s look at a hypothetical example.

Imagine we have a story narrated in the third person. In this particular scene, the protagonist, Bob, is watching his cat, Dribbles, who is meowing urgently at him. A conventional third-person narrator might ‘report’ or narrate this as follows:

Bob looked at his cat, Dribbles, who was meowing at him. He wondered what the cat wanted.

This second sentence, ‘He wondered what the cat wanted’, is a simple statement or summary of Bob’s thought. We might report this slightly differently, as follows:

Bob looked at his cat, Dribbles, who was meowing at him. What does the cat want? he wondered.

Here, in that second sentence, rather than simply summarising Bob’s thought, we have it framed as the question Bob would have ‘asked’ to himself, in his mind. We know this is Bob’s thought because we have the helpful tag provided: ‘he wondered’. But what if we removed that tag, so that the thought was, as it were, floating free of the narrator?

Bob looked at his cat, Dribbles, who was meowing at him. What did the cat want?

This has now become free indirect style, because that helpful tag, a kind of ‘stabiliser’ which makes it explicit to the reader that what we are reading is Bob’s thought rather than the narrator’s question, has been removed. Instead, we’re left in some doubt (though not too much) as to whose question that is . Is the narrator still speaking in his/her own words, or has the narrator’s voice been co-opted by the character, Bob? Is the narrator now ventriloquising Bob’s inner monologue?

This would be even clearer if the phrasing of that second question made it obvious that the rational, detached voice of the third-person narrator had given way to something more subjective and personal. What if we allowed a little more of Bob’s thoughts and feelings to show in that question?

Bob looked at his cat, Dribbles, who was meowing at him. What on earth did the thing want now?

As mentioned before, third-person narrators tend to be (though not always, it’s true) rational, detached, objective. They report what happened in the story, and tend not to pass personal judgments on people’s cats. It would be a weird kind of third-person narrator who suddenly described Bob’s cat as a ‘thing’ rather than a creature or animal, and the rather frustrated tone of the question (‘What on earth…’) sounds like Bob’s impatience rather than the narrator’s.

Here, then, we have moved from the detached reporting of the third-person narrator in the first sentence (‘Bob looked at his cat’) to the altogether more personal thoughts and feelings of Bob (‘What on earth did the thing want now?’), and Bob’s thoughts and feelings are being given to us in his own words . The narrator isn’t merely summarising Bob’s thoughts (‘What did the cat want? he wondered’), but is relaying Bob’s state of mind to us in the precise words that Bob is using in his own head.

This, in essence, is the nature of free indirect style.

Why Use Free Indirect Style?

This provides a clue to the purpose of free indirect speech: it can bring us closer to the character, and it can even give us a clearer sense of their personality. We know from that simple sentence quoted above that Bob is frustrated at his cat; perhaps he is not especially fond of the animal (‘the thing’ strips poor Dribbles of his animate qualities, rendering him an object rather than a living creature; and who on earth calls their poor cat ‘Dribbles’ anyway?), and perhaps he is not an altogether nice person.

Perhaps he is a good man, but we’ve merely caught him in a moment of frustration. The rest of the narrative will probably allow us to form a firmer judgment about him.

Let’s turn from a made-up illustrative example of free indirect discourse to some examples of the real thing, taken from proper writers who’ve actually written works of literature and such. First, consider this example, the opening paragraphs from Katherine Mansfield’s short story ‘Bliss’ (1918):

Although Bertha Young was thirty she still had moments like this when she wanted to run instead of walk, to take dancing steps on and off the pavement, to bowl a hoop, to throw something up in the air and catch it again, or to stand still and laugh at – nothing – at nothing, simply.

What can you do if you are thirty and, turning the corner of your own street, you are overcome, suddenly by a feeling of bliss – absolute bliss! – as though you’d suddenly swallowed a bright piece of that late afternoon sun and it burned in your bosom, sending out a little shower of sparks into every particle, into every finger and toe? …

Oh, is there no way you can express it without being ‘drunk and disorderly’? How idiotic civilisation is! Why be given a body if you have to keep it shut up in a case like a rare, rare fiddle?

One of the easiest ways of spotting free indirect style in a work of fiction is the use of questions and exclamations. So-called ‘omniscient’ third-person narrators, as the word ‘omniscient’ indicates, are supposed to know everything, so they have little use for questions (although it’s true they may use rhetorical questions occasionally).

Exclamations, similarly, can sound too emotional, and therefore not in keeping with the usually dry, detached, level-headed ‘voice’ of an impersonal third-person narrator.

We can see from the excerpt above that although the narrative voice begins with conventional reporting (‘Although Bertha Young was thirty she still had moments like this when she wanted to run instead of walk’), it quickly begins to take on the ‘feel’ and sound of a different person’s idiom: Bertha’s own:

What can you do if you are thirty and, turning the corner of your own street, you are overcome, suddenly by a feeling of bliss – absolute bliss! – as though you’d suddenly swallowed a bright piece of that late afternoon sun and it burned in your bosom, sending out a little shower of sparks into every particle, into every finger and toe?

Here questions and exclamations suggest that we are reading, not the words of the narrator, but the thoughts and opinions of Bertha, which are being channelled through the narrator. But the narrator is not going to ‘tidy’ these up for us by saying, for instance, ‘Bertha thought of how wonderful it was to be overcome by a feeling of absolute bliss. She reflected that it was like suddenly swallowing a bright piece of late afternoon sun…’).

Instead, the narrator is going to pass on Bertha’s thoughts to us – a little messy, repetitive, verging on being out of control – as they tumble into her head, unfiltered, unedited. That’s free indirect speech.

Free Indirect Style: a case study

Free indirect style can sometimes be put to even greater use by a writer – indeed, it can change our entire interpretation of the story. Rudyard Kipling’s short story ‘ Mary Postgate ’ (1915), written during the First World War, focuses on a woman who works as a servant for a family in England. The son, Wynn – whom, we gather, Mary Postgate secretly loves – signs up and goes off to train with the army, but before he can see any action he is killed in a practice flight. Mary is distraught.

When an airman crash-lands in the family’s garden, Mary is the first on the scene, as she is out there burning Wynn’s books and other belongings. Seeing that the man who has crashed is a German pilot and therefore the enemy, Mary decides to deny him medical treatment and instead watch him slowly die of his injuries. This is how Kipling describes the scene:

By its light she saw, half hidden behind a laurel not five paces away, a bare-headed man sitting very stiffly at the foot of one of the oaks. A broken branch lay across his lap — one booted leg protruding from beneath it. His head moved ceaselessly from side to side, but his body was as still as the tree’s trunk. He was dressed — she moved sideways to look more closely – in a uniform something like Wynn’s with a flap buttoned across the chest. For an instant she had some idea that it might be one of the young flying men she had met at the funeral. But their heads were dark and glassy. This man’s was as pale as a baby’s, and so closely cropped that she could see the disgusting pink skin beneath. His lips moved.

‘What do you say?’ Mary moved towards him and stooped.

‘Laty! Laty! Laty!’ he muttered, while his hands picked at the dead wet leaves. There was no doubt as to his nationality. It made her so angry that she strode back to the destructor, though it was still too hot to use the poker there. Wynn’s books seemed to be catching well.

Of course, there is a question mark hanging over Mary’s actions. Is letting the man die in agony the moral thing to do, even though he’s the enemy? Wouldn’t it be morally right to fetch the authorities and have the man treated so he can stand trial or be dealt with by the British army?

But there is another doubt here. Is the man even the enemy?

At no point in the story does the third-person narrator tell us in a reliable voice that the airman is German. He speaks with a foreign accent, but then that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s German: he might be French and therefore an ally of the British. How good is Mary Postgate at distinguishing between foreign accents?

Note how this strange airman is wearing ‘a uniform something like Wynn’s’ (suggesting he’s on the same side, after all?) and that she initially assumes he is one of Wynn’s fellow British soldiers (again, implying that this man is no German but on ‘Mary’s’ side).

And then there is the masterstroke, that piece of free indirect discourse: ‘“Laty! Laty! Laty!” he muttered, while his hands picked at the dead wet leaves. There was no doubt as to his nationality.’

But sufficient doubt has already been cast on his nationality, so we assume that this is Mary’s pronouncement rather than the narrator’s. And she is wrong. The airman may well be German, but it is not true that there is no doubt about it. We have just been given several insinuations that his nationality is very much in some doubt. Mary’s certainty is deadly, but the irony of it can easily be missed by a reader of Kipling’s story.

I suspect that was his intention: ‘Mary Postgate’ can thus be read as a patriotic story about a woman who exacts revenge on the German enemy, or a subtler, more morally ambiguous tale about a woman who condemns a possibly innocent man to death. And much of this ambiguity is created thanks to the role played by free indirect speech in the story.

The problem here – we say ‘problem’ but of course it’s quite deliberate on the part of Kipling, and part of the ingenuity of his handling of narration here – is that the story is heavily focalised through Mary’s eyes.

Focalisation is, essentially, another name for ‘point of view’: it relates to whose eyes we see the story through, and how closely the narrator ‘follows’ that character, at the expense of the bigger, more objective picture. (A good example here is George R. R. Martin ’s A Song of Ice and Fire or ‘ Game of Thrones ’: each chapter is focalised in a very limited way through one specific character, so we learn what they learn and see what they see, but don’t learn something if that character misses it.)

In summary, then, to conclude this short(ish) introduction to free indirect style: free indirect speech can be used to bring us closer to a character through giving us an insight into not just what they’re thinking, but how they think it.

But free indirect discourse can be difficult to identify and analyse, because it can sometimes be difficult to identify where the narrator’s words end and the character’s interior monologue begins. But therein lies its power.

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

Type your email…

10 thoughts on “A Short Introduction to Free Indirect Style”

Great post! The four versions of the sentence about Dribbles really clarify the concept.

• Pingback: A Short Introduction to Free Indirect Style | collect magazine

I don’t think Kipling intended the identity of the dying man to be ambiguous. He has already been introduced as the pilot of the German plane who jettisoned his bombs over the village and killed a child. Mary tells him “‘Ich haben der todt Kinder gesehn,” although her real motive is clearly that she was in love with the son of the house who died before he could kill the enemy for himself, (he too would have been a pilot, an irony which Kipling actually misses).

Is the dying man really the same man as the pilot, though? Or is this what we’re led to assume, following the story, as we are, very closely through Mary’s eyes (and inflected by her strong feelings for Wyn and her grief at his death)? I’m not sure…

• Pingback: May Sinclair’s Modernist Masterpiece: The Life and Death of Harriett Frean | Interesting Literature
• Pingback: A Summary and Analysis of James Joyce’s ‘A Painful Case’ | Interesting Literature
• Pingback: A Short Analysis of Katherine Mansfield’s ‘The Daughters of the Late Colonel’ | Interesting Literature

Great Post! I shall refer to this page when teaching this to my students 😊

That’s great to hear! I hope they find it useful – it’s something I’ve been meaning to blog about for a while :)

• Pingback: Craft of Writing: How Brent Weeks Uses Third Person Limited Point of View (POV) – Stephen Taylor

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Why Type When You Can Talk?

Lilyspeech is a free* speech to text dictation application for windows with support for 51 languages   experience the freedom of typing with your voice today..

Just click or press Ctrl+D  to instantly start typing with your voice anywhere on your Windows Desktop or Laptop. Dictate, emails, documents, web searches… anything!

Powered by google’s 99.5% accurate  chrome speech to text service..

99.5%  Accurate!

LilySpeech is powered by Google Chrome’s amazing speech to text service  which is 99.5% accurate. If you’ve been sending text messages with your voice on your Android phone, then you already know how well it works.

Watch the video below to see a demonstration of just how accurate LilySpeech is.

Custom Words

You can customize LilySpeech to recognize custom words. This might be business names, web addresses, the correct spelling of peoples names, industry specific terms. Anything you wish.

Even for people in specialized Industries, LilySpeech shines with its ability to recognize unusual vocabulary.

Lightweight

LilySpeech is an extremely lightweight application which will not slow down your computer or hog your computer’s memory.

This is made possible by the fact that the actual speech-to-text conversion occurs in the cloud and does not use your local machines resources.

LilySpeech is Free* and fully functional without limitations. Read more about how this free version is possible.

Other speech recognition software costs hundreds of dollars. Start typing with your voice today for free. Download now.

See it in Action!

LilySpeech Speech Recognition Demo

LilySpeech is truly a joy to use. Click or press Ctrl+D and start dictating absolutely anything on your computer in real time.

In this demonstration we see:

• Text dictated in real time
• Customization of display in settings
• Various punctuation

The ease of use is amazing and the time savings will have you jumping for joy!

Recent Posts

• Real Estate - Rent Management Software
• Best Personal Finance and Budget Apps
• One of the keys to success in life is taking as much as you can out of...
• ReEngage Software Review
• https://lilyspeech.com/loc/
• Type With My Voice In Microsoft Word
• Type With My Voice In Microsoft Works Word Processor
• Type With My Voice In Microsoft Write
• Type With My Voice In Nisus Writer
• Type With My Voice In Nota Bene
• Type With My Voice In Polaris Office
• Type With My Voice In Polyedit
• Type With My Voice In Quickoffice
• Type With My Voice In Scrivener
• Type With My Voice In Techwriter
• Type With My Voice In Textmaker
• Type With My Voice In Thinkfree Office Write
• Type With My Voice In Ulysses
• Type With My Voice In Wordpad
• Type With My Voice In Wordperfect
• Type With My Voice In Freeware
• Type With My Voice In Atlantis Nova
• Type With My Voice In Baraha
• Type With My Voice In Bean
• Type With My Voice In Jarte
• Type With My Voice In Kingsoft Writer Personal Edition
• Type With My Voice In Madhyam
• Type With My Voice In Online
• Type With My Voice In Apple Pages
• Type With My Voice In Authorea
• Type With My Voice In Collabora Online Writer
• Type With My Voice In Google Docs
• Type With My Voice In Libreoffice Online Writer
• Type With My Voice In Microsoft Word Online
• Type With My Voice In Onlyoffice
• Type With My Voice In Writeonline
• Type With My Voice In Xaitporter
• Dictation Feature For Gmail
• Dictation Feature For Outlook
• Dictation Feature For Fastmail
• Dictation Feature For Facebook
• Dictation Feature For Tick Tock
• Dictation Feature For Pinterest
• Dictation Feature For Instagram
• Dictation Feature For Notepad++
• Dictation Feature For Aol Email
• Dictation Feature For Yahoo Email
• Dictation Feature For Zoho Mail
• Dictation Feature For Abiword
• Dictation Feature For Apache Openoffice Writer
• Dictation Feature For Calligra Words
• Dictation Feature For Collabora Office Writer
• Dictation Feature For Collabora Online Writer
• Dictation Feature For Etherpad
• Dictation Feature For Gnu Texmacs
• Dictation Feature For Groff
• Dictation Feature For Jwpce
• Dictation Feature For Kword
• Dictation Feature For Libreoffice Writer
• Dictation Feature For Libreoffice Online Writer
• Dictation Feature For Lyx
• Dictation Feature For Onlyoffice Desktop Editors
• Dictation Feature For Ted
• Dictation Feature For Trelby
• Dictation Feature For Apple Pages
• Dictation Feature For Applix Word
• Dictation Feature For Atlantis Word Processor
• Dictation Feature For Documents To Go
• Dictation Feature For Final Draft
• Dictation Feature For Framemaker
• Dictation Feature For Gobe Productive Word Processor
• Dictation Feature For Hangul (also Known As Hwp)
• Dictation Feature For Ia Writer
• Dictation Feature For Ibm Displaywrite
• Dictation Feature For Ibm Script
• Dictation Feature For Ibm Script/vs
• Dictation Feature For Ichitaro
• Dictation Feature For Incopy
• https://lilyspeech.com/loc2/
• Galego Speech Recognition Software
• Hrvatski Speech Recognition Software
• Isizulu Speech Recognition Software
• Islenska Speech Recognition Software
• Magyar Speech Recognition Software
• Nederlands Speech Recognition Software
• Norsk Bokmal Speech Recognition Software
• Polski Speech Recognition Software
• Romana Speech Recognition Software
• Slovencina Speech Recognition Software
• Suomi Speech Recognition Software
• Svenska Speech Recognition Software
• English Voice To Text Software
• Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Italiano Voice To Text Software
• Portugues Voice To Text Software
• Australia English Voice To Text Software
• Canada English Voice To Text Software
• India English Voice To Text Software
• New Zealand English Voice To Text Software
• South Africa English Voice To Text Software
• United Kingdom English Voice To Text Software
• United States English Voice To Text Software
• Argentina Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Bolivia Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Chile Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Colombia Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Costa Rica Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Ecuador Spanish Voice To Text Software
• El Salvador Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Espana Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Estados Unidos Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Guatemala Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Honduras Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Mexico Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Nicaragua Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Panama Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Paraguay Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Peru Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Puerto Rico Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Republica Dominicana Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Uruguay Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Venezuela Spanish Voice To Text Software
• Italia Italiano Voice To Text Software
• Svizzera Italiano Voice To Text Software
• Brasil Portugues Voice To Text Software
• Portugal Portugues Voice To Text Software
• Afrikaans Voice To Text Software
• Bahasa Indonesia Voice To Text Software
• Bahasa Melayu Voice To Text Software
• Catala Voice To Text Software
• Cectina Voice To Text Software
• Deutsch Voice To Text Software
• Euskara Voice To Text Software
• Francais Voice To Text Software
• Galego Voice To Text Software
• Hrvatski Voice To Text Software
• Isizulu Voice To Text Software
• Islenska Voice To Text Software
• Magyar Voice To Text Software
• Nederlands Voice To Text Software
• Norsk Bokmal Voice To Text Software
• Polski Voice To Text Software
• Romana Voice To Text Software
• Slovencina Voice To Text Software
• Suomi Voice To Text Software
• Svenska Voice To Text Software
• Dictate Emails With Gmail
• Dictate Emails With Outlook
• Dictate Emails With Fastmail
• Dictate Emails With Facebook
• Dictate Emails With Tick Tock
• Dictate Emails With Pinterest
• Dictate Emails With Instagram
• Dictate Emails With Notepad++
• https://lilyspeech.com/loc3/

Speech recognition software voice recognition software. Speech to text software voice to text software dictation software voice software best voice recognition software text to speech software voice typing software best speech recognition software voice activated software voice dictation software speech software best speech to text software. Voice transcription software text to speech program? Text to voice software voice recognition software free. Speak to text software best dictation software recognition software voice command software best voice to text software. Talk to text software automatic speech recognition software speech transcription software speech typing software free speech to text software speak and type software speech to text software free free voice to text software word recognition software speaking software voice recognition program. Speech recognition program? Free text to speech software voice identification software talk to type software voice control software best text to speech software voice recognition typing software voice activated software for pc software speech to text text reading software voice recognition software download voice activated computer software. Voice recognition software for pc speech to text program voice activated typing software speech to text software free download. Speech to text free download speak to type software speak recognition software voice detection software talk and type software best voice dictation software dictation program the best voice recognition software computer voice recognition software free voice recognition software. The best speech recognition software voice recognition dictation software pc voice recognition software. Dictation software for pc voice to text software free. Tts software software voice recognition best dictation software for pc. Voice to type software voice recognition transcription software voice to text program speech recognition software free software voice to text voice software for pc speak and write software medical speech recognition software. Voice recognition download voice speech recognition software naturally speaking software? Speech dictation software speech recognition download. Talk type software. Text to speech free software text to speech program online download voice recognition software free speech recognition software voice recognition software pc! Best speech recognition software for pc. Top voice recognition software. Voice speaking software. Speech to type software dictation to text software text to speech software free voice to text software free download speech recognition software free download voice typing software free voice recognition software for word voice to word software naturally speaking! Best voice recognition software for pc speech to text recognition software? Free voice to text software download voice activated computer programs voice to text recognition software vocal recognition software voice command software for pc speech to text free software best voice typing software? Speak typing software voice recognition to text software compare voice recognition software voice control computer software. Speech detection software. Download speech recognition speak to write software cost of voice recognition software medical voice recognition software voice recognition software programs top speech recognition software speech to text software for pc free text to speech program voice typing software for pc software for speech to text? Free voice dictation software speech activated software best voice command software voice recognition software online text speech software talk to text software for pc. Best voice software voice to text software for pc the best speech to text software talking software voice recognition software comparison download speech recognition software speech recognition software for pc convert voice to text software? Voice recognition software open source top 10 voice recognition software. Software for voice recognition. Voice to speech software voice command computer software language recognition software voice recognition software companies dictate software list of speech recognition software voice recognition software medical voice recognition website voice computer software open source voice recognition software. Text speech program. Voice recognition software app free voice typing software voice to text free software online voice recognition software software voice. Text to voice program pc speech recognition software software dictation? Voice dictation software free voice dictation dictation software pc talk to text program speech recognition software download type to speech software. Pc voice control software! Speech recognition tools. Computer voice software. Text to talk software speech recognition software comparison a text to speech program speech recognition softwares voice recognition app. Voice input software! Speech to word software software to convert voice to text talk to text computer software online speech recognition software software voice to text converter voice control software for pc dictation programs for pc voice activated typing program top 10 speech recognition software speech to text dictation software software text to speech voice text software voice typing software free download open source speech recognition software voice activated writing software speech recognition software open source software recognition speech text software free text to voice software free talk to text software best speech software voice input software for pc voice programs for computer best free voice recognition software talk to text software free free voice software voice recognition text to speech software free download convert speech to text software. Voice to print software the best dictation software text to speech program free software for voice to text speak and type software free download top speech to text software speech to text converter software speech recognition best talk to text software voice typing program voice recognition software transcription voice speech software best speech to text program speech processing software. Best tts software free voice to text software for pc speech to text best software. Download speech to text software free speak to text software? Voice automation software? Software to convert speech to text voice to text free download speech recognition website. Speech to text software download? Speak to text software for pc free voice recognition software speech to text voice to text dictation software speech to print software speak and type software free download voice recognition software speak to type. Dictation program for pc voice to text computer software voice typing for pc. Speech recognition software online software for dictation to text voice recognition software reviews automatic speech recognition! Voice activated email software. Speech recognition free software. Voice recognition software free download voice command typing software natural speaking free download speech to text software convert speech to text! Best talk to type software text to speech and speech to text software. Voice to notes software free speak and type software voice recognition free software. Text to speech best software free speech to text program. Speak text software professional text to speech software? Speech software for pc voice recognition technology voice recognition typing software free download speak to text software free download best speak to text software voice to text conversion software. The best voice to text software text speaking software software to speak text. Free voice recognition typing software? Program voice to text type and speak software. Voice recognition for pc software to read text. Speech to text converter software free download computer speech program text to speech software for pc. Speaking writing software voice tag software voice to print software free speak to text program voice recognition system speech typing software free download best text to voice software. Word to text software talk and type program voice to type programs! Voice to type software free pc dictation software text to voice software free? Software that converts speech to text. Online text to voice software voice recognizer software voice to text converter. Open source voice to text software text to speech with download texting programs for pc typing by voice software. Voice converter to text software free download speaking software for pc online dictation software? Speech to text program free. Voice to text software download. Talk and write software word to speech software text to speech software best. Talk to text computer program speech to text software online word speaking software voice to typing software free download voice recognition tools voice reading software google voice recognition best free voice to text software speech recognition api speech to write software download voice control typing with voice recognition software text to voice free software. Text to speech software reviews talk to type software free type and talk software. Download voice to text software free online text to speech software voice recognition typing software free speech to type software free best voice control software speak and write software free download speech to text converter. Software for text to speech. Recorded voice to text software. Voice recognition and typing software free tts software free software speech to text speech recognition typing software download text to speech software read text software text to speech free program free talk to type software speech and type software? Text to speech software download. Write and speak software speech recognition software reviews text to speech software online voice recognition programs free speech recognition microphone voice to text typing software text narrator software activate software? Voice recognition microphone free download voice recognition software! Pdf to speech software voice activated typing. Speech to type software free download! Voice typing software download free speech to text download speak to type software free google speech recognition? Best speech recognition software free free text to speech software with natural voices? Voice control download text to speech and download good text to speech software talk to write software best speaking software text to software download free speech to text software program text to speech type and speak software free download voice to text download voice recognizer free speaking software pc voice software text voice software text to speech pc software talk and type software free download speaking typing software free download speech to text free open source speech recognition voice convert to text software free download natural speech what is voice recognition? Voice recorder audio recognition software sound recognition free text reading software best speech to text software free speak typing software free download! Speech recognition online? Voice to writing software speech engine speech to write software free download how does voice recognition work speech recognition headset sound recognition software speach recognition. Typing voice software. Voice command pc. Open source voice recognition voice recognition online speech technology free voice command software sound recognition app. Dictation for pc download text to speech voice control pc recognition speech dictation typing software dictation to text software free voice recognition device voice command program free download speech recognition software? Voice recognition headset? Speach to text software. English text to speech software free download. Speech dictation linux voice recognition speech to text conversion software speech recognition for pc. Medical speech recognition voice command for pc online speech recognition best text to speech software with natural voices dictation software online top 10 speech to text software voice program software to convert speech into text. Speech recognition technology text to speech apps high quality text to speech software voice recognition phone speech recognition open source speach recognition software what is the best voice recognition software best open source speech recognition software. Talk to text for computer. Voice writer software free download voice recognition hardware voice control computer voice recognition chip voice recognition dictation? Online voice recognition. Voice recognition ic voice talking software download voice to text what is speech recognition recorded speech to text software recognition software free best free text to speech program speech recognition system medical voice recognition naturally speaking download software read text text to speech converter software natural voices software speech transcription software free. Speech recognizer. Voice command computer voice recognition typing! Tts software free tts text to speech voice control pc software free download? Voice activated typing software free download text speech software free download voice dictation software free download software to convert text to speech. Voice identification software free download. Free voice recognition app? Pc voice control. Speech dictation software free software to convert voice to text free download open source speech to text voice command typing software free download computer voice recognition computer voice control text to speech chinese. Text to speech software with different voices speech recognition pdf. Dictate program speech recognition engine speech recognition algorithm speech to text conversion software free download speech to text software reviews? What is voice recognition software voice to text software reviews speak recognition voice recognition transcription speech recognition device download free text to speech software speech to text open source computer dictation. Voice recognition open source text to voice software free download voice activated computer free voice recognition speech recognition sdk linux speech recognition voice speech recognition speech recognition applications! Speech to text conversion speak to type software free download medical voice recognition software reviews free speech recognition computer speech recognition speech recognition chip convert text to speech software voice recognition computer. Dictate and type software voice software free pc voice recognition talk and type software free text to speech service speech recognition free pdf text to speech software? Software that converts voice to text fundamentals of speech recognition voice reconition best text to speech software free download voice recognition free computer voice command what is speech recognition software free speech dictation software convert text to voice software free download voice control computer software free download voice recognition applications free text to speech natural voices speech typing what is the best speech recognition software speech recognition microphones. What is voice activated software talk to speech software speech recognition solutions voice typer for computer? Speach software speech recognition hardware dictation speech to text! Convert text to speech free download sound to text software tts software download speech recognition dictation voice typing software free download pc? Best voice recognition software that reads text to you voice recognition laptop best voice recognition app google voice to text for pc convert text to speech software free download naturally speaking review voice to text for pc speech recognition linux. Google speech to text for pc? Automated speech recognition best speech to text voice command software for pc free download voice recognition to text voice recognization speaking program voice recognition security voice recognition pc free online text to speech software word to voice converter software download voice recognition microphones talk to type programs voice recognition transcription software free speech to text recognition voice to text software com. Speech to text for pc voice speech software free download voice activated dictation. Best free tts voices speech recognition companies voice operated computer? Web text to speech control pc with voice voice recognition software for pc free download voice control for computer speech input text to speech software for pc free download! Language recognition app how does voice recognition software work. Voice activated pc voice command recognition best recognition programs text to speech system what is the best speech to text software audio recognition app voice recognition library. Speech app? Win 7 speech recognition free speech to text. Voice recognition engine phone voice recognition. How does speech recognition work speech control laptops with voice recognition. Pc voice command word recognition software free dictate speech to text. English Dictation Software,Spanish Dictation Software,Italiano Dictation Software,Portugues Dictation Software,Australia English Dictation Software,Canada English Dictation Software,India English Dictation Software,New Zealand English Dictation Software,South Africa English Dictation Software,United Kingdom English Dictation Software,United States English Dictation Software,Argentina Spanish Dictation Software,Bolivia Spanish Dictation Software,Chile Spanish Dictation Software,Colombia Spanish Dictation Software,Costa Rica Spanish Dictation Software,Ecuador Spanish Dictation Software,El Salvador Spanish Dictation Software,Espana Spanish Dictation Software,Estados Unidos Spanish Dictation Software,Guatemala Spanish Dictation Software,Honduras Spanish Dictation Software,Mexico Spanish Dictation Software,Nicaragua Spanish Dictation Software,Panama Spanish Dictation Software,Paraguay Spanish Dictation Software,Peru Spanish Dictation Software,Puerto Rico Spanish Dictation Software,Republica Dominicana Spanish Dictation Software,Uruguay Spanish Dictation Software,Venezuela Spanish Dictation Software,Italia Italiano Dictation Software,Svizzera Italiano Dictation Software,Brasil Portugues Dictation Software,Portugal Portugues Dictation Software,Afrikaans Dictation Software,Bahasa Indonesia Dictation Software,Bahasa Melayu Dictation Software,Catala Dictation Software,Cectina Dictation Software,Deutsch Dictation Software,Euskara Dictation Software,Francais Dictation Software,Galego Dictation Software,Hrvatski Dictation Software,Isizulu Dictation Software,Islenska Dictation Software,Magyar Dictation Software,Nederlands Dictation Software,Norsk Bokmal Dictation Software,Polski Dictation Software,Romana Dictation Software,Slovencina Dictation Software,Suomi Dictation Software,Svenska Dictation Software,English Speech Recognition Software,Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Italiano Speech Recognition Software,Portugues Speech Recognition Software,Australia English Speech Recognition Software,Canada English Speech Recognition Software,India English Speech Recognition Software,New Zealand English Speech Recognition Software,South Africa English Speech Recognition Software,United Kingdom English Speech Recognition Software,United States English Speech Recognition Software,Argentina Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Bolivia Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Chile Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Colombia Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Costa Rica Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Ecuador Spanish Speech Recognition Software,El Salvador Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Espana Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Estados Unidos Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Guatemala Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Honduras Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Mexico Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Nicaragua Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Panama Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Paraguay Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Peru Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Puerto Rico Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Republica Dominicana Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Uruguay Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Venezuela Spanish Speech Recognition Software,Italia Italiano Speech Recognition Software,Svizzera Italiano Speech Recognition Software,Brasil Portugues Speech Recognition Software,Portugal Portugues Speech Recognition Software,Afrikaans Speech Recognition Software,Bahasa Indonesia Speech Recognition Software,Bahasa Melayu Speech Recognition Software,Catala Speech Recognition Software,Cectina Speech Recognition Software,Deutsch Speech Recognition Software,Euskara Speech Recognition Software,Francais Speech Recognition Software,Galego Speech Recognition Software,Hrvatski Speech Recognition Software,Isizulu Speech Recognition Software,Islenska Speech Recognition Software,Magyar Speech Recognition Software,Nederlands Speech Recognition Software,Norsk Bokmal Speech Recognition Software,Polski Speech Recognition Software,Romana Speech Recognition Software,Slovencina Speech Recognition Software,Suomi Speech Recognition Software,Svenska Speech Recognition Software,English Voice To Text Software,Spanish Voice To Text Software,Italiano Voice To Text Software,Portugues Voice To Text Software,Australia English Voice To Text Software,Canada English Voice To Text Software,India English Voice To Text Software,New Zealand English Voice To Text Software,South Africa English Voice To Text Software,United Kingdom English Voice To Text Software,United States English Voice To Text Software,Argentina Spanish Voice To Text Software,Bolivia Spanish Voice To Text Software,Chile Spanish Voice To Text Software,Colombia Spanish Voice To Text Software,Costa Rica Spanish Voice To Text Software,Ecuador Spanish Voice To Text Software,El Salvador Spanish Voice To Text Software,Espana Spanish Voice To Text Software,Estados Unidos Spanish Voice To Text Software,Guatemala Spanish Voice To Text Software,Honduras Spanish Voice To Text Software,Mexico Spanish Voice To Text Software,Nicaragua Spanish Voice To Text Software,Panama Spanish Voice To Text Software,Paraguay Spanish Voice To Text Software,Peru Spanish Voice To Text Software,Puerto Rico Spanish Voice To Text Software,Republica Dominicana Spanish Voice To Text Software,Uruguay Spanish Voice To Text Software,Venezuela Spanish Voice To Text Software,Italia Italiano Voice To Text Software,Svizzera Italiano Voice To Text Software,Brasil Portugues Voice To Text Software,Portugal Portugues Voice To Text Software,Afrikaans Voice To Text Software,Bahasa Indonesia Voice To Text Software,Bahasa Melayu Voice To Text Software,Catala Voice To Text Software,Cectina Voice To Text Software,Deutsch Voice To Text Software,Euskara Voice To Text Software,Francais Voice To Text Software,Galego Voice To Text Software,Hrvatski Voice To Text Software,Isizulu Voice To Text Software,Islenska Voice To Text Software,Magyar Voice To Text Software,Nederlands Voice To Text Software,Norsk Bokmal Voice To Text Software,Polski Voice To Text Software,Romana Voice To Text Software,Slovencina Voice To Text Software,Suomi Voice To Text Software,Svenska Voice To Text Software. Dictate Emails With Gmail,Dictate Emails With Outlook,Dictate Emails With Fastmail,Dictate Emails With Facebook,Dictate Emails With Tick Tock,Dictate Emails With Pinterest,Dictate Emails With Instagram,Dictate Emails With Notepad++,Dictate Emails With Aol Email,Dictate Emails With Yahoo Email,Dictate Emails With Zoho Mail,Dictate Emails With Abiword,Dictate Emails With Apache Openoffice Writer,Dictate Emails With Calligra Words,Dictate Emails With Collabora Office Writer,Dictate Emails With Collabora Online Writer,Dictate Emails With Etherpad,Dictate Emails With Gnu Texmacs,Dictate Emails With Groff,Dictate Emails With Jwpce,Dictate Emails With Kword,Dictate Emails With Libreoffice Writer,Dictate Emails With Libreoffice Online Writer,Dictate Emails With Lyx,Dictate Emails With Onlyoffice Desktop Editors,Dictate Emails With Ted,Dictate Emails With Trelby,Dictate Emails With Apple Pages,Dictate Emails With Applix Word,Dictate Emails With Atlantis Word Processor,Dictate Emails With Documents To Go,Dictate Emails With Final Draft,Dictate Emails With Framemaker,Dictate Emails With Gobe Productive Word Processor,Dictate Emails With Hangul (also Known As Hwp),Dictate Emails With Ia Writer,Dictate Emails With Ibm Displaywrite,Dictate Emails With Ibm Script,Dictate Emails With Ibm Script/vs,Dictate Emails With Ichitaro,Dictate Emails With Incopy,Dictate Emails With Intellitalk,Dictate Emails With Istudio Publisher,Dictate Emails With Kingsoft Writer,Dictate Emails With Mariner Write,Dictate Emails With Mathematica,Dictate Emails With Mellel,Dictate Emails With Microsoft Word,Dictate Emails With Microsoft Works Word Processor,Dictate Emails With Microsoft Write,Dictate Emails With Nisus Writer,Dictate Emails With Nota Bene,Dictate Emails With Polaris Office,Dictate Emails With Polyedit,Dictate Emails With Quickoffice,Dictate Emails With Scrivener,Dictate Emails With Techwriter,Dictate Emails With Textmaker,Dictate Emails With Thinkfree Office Write,Dictate Emails With Ulysses,Dictate Emails With Wordpad,Dictate Emails With Wordperfect,Dictate Emails With Freeware,Dictate Emails With Atlantis Nova,Dictate Emails With Baraha,Dictate Emails With Bean,Dictate Emails With Jarte,Dictate Emails With Kingsoft Writer Personal Edition,Dictate Emails With Madhyam,Dictate Emails With Textmaker,Dictate Emails With Online,Dictate Emails With Apple Pages,Dictate Emails With Authorea,Dictate Emails With Collabora Online Writer,Dictate Emails With Google Docs,Dictate Emails With Libreoffice Online Writer,Dictate Emails With Microsoft Word Online,Dictate Emails With Onlyoffice,Dictate Emails With Thinkfree Office Write,Dictate Emails With Writeonline,Dictate Emails With Xaitporter,Dictate Messages With Gmail,Dictate Messages With Outlook,Dictate Messages With Fastmail,Dictate Messages With Facebook,Dictate Messages With Tick Tock,Dictate Messages With Pinterest,Dictate Messages With Instagram,Dictate Messages With Notepad++,Dictate Messages With Aol Email,Dictate Messages With Yahoo Email,Dictate Messages With Zoho Mail,Dictate Messages With Abiword,Dictate Messages With Apache Openoffice Writer,Dictate Messages With Calligra Words,Dictate Messages With Collabora Office Writer,Dictate Messages With Collabora Online Writer,Dictate Messages With Etherpad,Dictate Messages With Gnu Texmacs,Dictate Messages With Groff,Dictate Messages With Jwpce,Dictate Messages With Kword,Dictate Messages With Libreoffice Writer,Dictate Messages With Libreoffice Online Writer,Dictate Messages With Lyx,Dictate Messages With Onlyoffice Desktop Editors,Dictate Messages With Ted,Dictate Messages With Trelby,Dictate Messages With Apple Pages,Dictate Messages With Applix Word,Dictate Messages With Atlantis Word Processor,Dictate Messages With Documents To Go,Dictate Messages With Final Draft,Dictate Messages With Framemaker,Dictate Messages With Gobe Productive Word Processor,Dictate Messages With Hangul (also Known As Hwp),Dictate Messages With Ia Writer,Dictate Messages With Ibm Displaywrite,Dictate Messages With Ibm Script,Dictate Messages With Ibm Script/vs,Dictate Messages With Ichitaro,Dictate Messages With Incopy,Dictate Messages With Intellitalk,Dictate Messages With Istudio Publisher,Dictate Messages With Kingsoft Writer,Dictate Messages With Mariner Write,Dictate Messages With Mathematica,Dictate Messages With Mellel,Dictate Messages With Microsoft Word,Dictate Messages With Microsoft Works Word Processor,Dictate Messages With Microsoft Write,Dictate Messages With Nisus Writer,Dictate Messages With Nota Bene,Dictate Messages With Polaris Office,Dictate Messages With Polyedit,Dictate Messages With Quickoffice,Dictate Messages With Scrivener,Dictate Messages With Techwriter,Dictate Messages With Textmaker,Dictate Messages With Thinkfree Office Write,Dictate Messages With Ulysses,Dictate Messages With Wordpad,Dictate Messages With Wordperfect,Dictate Messages With Freeware,Dictate Messages With Atlantis Nova,Dictate Messages With Baraha,Dictate Messages With Bean,Dictate Messages With Jarte,Dictate Messages With Kingsoft Writer Personal Edition,Dictate Messages With Madhyam,Dictate Messages With Textmaker,Dictate Messages With Online,Dictate Messages With Apple Pages,Dictate Messages With Authorea,Dictate Messages With Collabora Online Writer,Dictate Messages With Google Docs,Dictate Messages With Libreoffice Online Writer,Dictate Messages With Microsoft Word Online,Dictate Messages With Onlyoffice,Dictate Messages With Thinkfree Office Write,Dictate Messages With Writeonline,Dictate Messages With Xaitporter,Voice To Text For Gmail,Voice To Text For Outlook,Voice To Text For Fastmail,Voice To Text For Facebook,Voice To Text For Tick Tock,Voice To Text For Pinterest,Voice To Text For Instagram,Voice To Text For Notepad++,Voice To Text For Aol Email,Voice To Text For Yahoo Email,Voice To Text For Zoho Mail,Voice To Text For Abiword,Voice To Text For Apache Openoffice Writer,Voice To Text For Calligra Words,Voice To Text For Collabora Office Writer,Voice To Text For Collabora Online Writer,Voice To Text For Etherpad,Voice To Text For Gnu Texmacs,Voice To Text For Groff,Voice To Text For Jwpce,Voice To Text For Kword,Voice To Text For Libreoffice Writer,Voice To Text For Libreoffice Online Writer,Voice To Text For Lyx,Voice To Text For Onlyoffice Desktop Editors,Voice To Text For Ted,Voice To Text For Trelby,Voice To Text For Apple Pages,Voice To Text For Applix Word,Voice To Text For Atlantis Word Processor,Voice To Text For Documents To Go,Voice To Text For Final Draft,Voice To Text For Framemaker,Voice To Text For Gobe Productive Word Processor,Voice To Text For Hangul (also Known As Hwp),Voice To Text For Ia Writer,Voice To Text For Ibm Displaywrite,Voice To Text For Ibm Script,Voice To Text For Ibm Script/vs,Voice To Text For Ichitaro,Voice To Text For Incopy,Voice To Text For Intellitalk,Voice To Text For Istudio Publisher,Voice To Text For Kingsoft Writer,Voice To Text For Mariner Write,Voice To Text For Mathematica,Voice To Text For Mellel,Voice To Text For Microsoft Word,Voice To Text For Microsoft Works Word Processor,Voice To Text For Microsoft Write,Voice To Text For Nisus Writer,Voice To Text For Nota Bene,Voice To Text For Polaris Office,Voice To Text For Polyedit,Voice To Text For Quickoffice,Voice To Text For Scrivener,Voice To Text For Techwriter,Voice To Text For Textmaker,Voice To Text For Thinkfree Office Write,Voice To Text For Ulysses,Voice To Text For Wordpad,Voice To Text For Wordperfect,Voice To Text For Freeware,Voice To Text For Atlantis Nova,Voice To Text For Baraha,Voice To Text For Bean,Voice To Text For Jarte,Voice To Text For Kingsoft Writer Personal Edition,Voice To Text For Madhyam,Voice To Text For Textmaker,Voice To Text For Online,Voice To Text For Apple Pages,Voice To Text For Authorea,Voice To Text For Collabora Online Writer,Voice To Text For Google Docs,Voice To Text For Libreoffice Online Writer,Voice To Text For Microsoft Word Online,Voice To Text For Onlyoffice,Voice To Text For Thinkfree Office Write,Voice To Text For Writeonline,Voice To Text For Xaitporter,Type With My Voice In Gmail,Type With My Voice In Outlook,Type With My Voice In Fastmail,Type With My Voice In Facebook,Type With My Voice In Tick Tock,Type With My Voice In Pinterest,Type With My Voice In Instagram,Type With My Voice In Notepad++,Type With My Voice In Aol Email,Type With My Voice In Yahoo Email,Type With My Voice In Zoho Mail,Type With My Voice In Abiword,Type With My Voice In Apache Openoffice Writer,Type With My Voice In Calligra Words,Type With My Voice In Collabora Office Writer,Type With My Voice In Collabora Online Writer,Type With My Voice In Etherpad,Type With My Voice In Gnu Texmacs,Type With My Voice In Groff,Type With My Voice In Jwpce,Type With My Voice In Kword,Type With My Voice In Libreoffice Writer,Type With My Voice In Libreoffice Online Writer,Type With My Voice In Lyx,Type With My Voice In Onlyoffice Desktop Editors,Type With My Voice In Ted,Type With My Voice In Trelby,Type With My Voice In Apple Pages,Type With My Voice In Applix Word,Type With My Voice In Atlantis Word Processor,Type With My Voice In Documents To Go,Type With My Voice In Final Draft,Type With My Voice In Framemaker,Type With My Voice In Gobe Productive Word Processor,Type With My Voice In Hangul (also Known As Hwp),Type With My Voice In Ia Writer,Type With My Voice In Ibm Displaywrite,Type With My Voice In Ibm Script,Type With My Voice In Ibm Script/vs,Type With My Voice In Ichitaro,Type With My Voice In Incopy,Type With My Voice In Intellitalk,Type With My Voice In Istudio Publisher,Type With My Voice In Kingsoft Writer,Type With My Voice In Mariner Write,Type With My Voice In Mathematica,Type With My Voice In Mellel,Type With My Voice In Microsoft Word,Type With My Voice In Microsoft Works Word Processor,Type With My Voice In Microsoft Write,Type With My Voice In Nisus Writer,Type With My Voice In Nota Bene,Type With My Voice In Polaris Office,Type With My Voice In Polyedit,Type With My Voice In Quickoffice,Type With My Voice In Scrivener,Type With My Voice In Techwriter,Type With My Voice In Textmaker,Type With My Voice In Thinkfree Office Write,Type With My Voice In Ulysses,Type With My Voice In Wordpad,Type With My Voice In Wordperfect,Type With My Voice In Freeware,Type With My Voice In Atlantis Nova,Type With My Voice In Baraha,Type With My Voice In Bean,Type With My Voice In Jarte,Type With My Voice In Kingsoft Writer Personal Edition,Type With My Voice In Madhyam,Type With My Voice In Textmaker,Type With My Voice In Online,Type With My Voice In Apple Pages,Type With My Voice In Authorea,Type With My Voice In Collabora Online Writer,Type With My Voice In Google Docs,Type With My Voice In Libreoffice Online Writer,Type With My Voice In Microsoft Word Online,Type With My Voice In Onlyoffice,Type With My Voice In Thinkfree Office Write,Type With My Voice In Writeonline,Type With My Voice In Xaitporter,Dictation Feature For Gmail,Dictation Feature For Outlook,Dictation Feature For Fastmail,Dictation Feature For Facebook,Dictation Feature For Tick Tock,Dictation Feature For Pinterest,Dictation Feature For Instagram,Dictation Feature For Notepad++,Dictation Feature For Aol Email,Dictation Feature For Yahoo Email,Dictation Feature For Zoho Mail,Dictation Feature For Abiword,Dictation Feature For Apache Openoffice Writer,Dictation Feature For Calligra Words,Dictation Feature For Collabora Office Writer,Dictation Feature For Collabora Online Writer,Dictation Feature For Etherpad,Dictation Feature For Gnu Texmacs,Dictation Feature For Groff,Dictation Feature For Jwpce,Dictation Feature For Kword,Dictation Feature For Libreoffice Writer,Dictation Feature For Libreoffice Online Writer,Dictation Feature For Lyx,Dictation Feature For Onlyoffice Desktop Editors,Dictation Feature For Ted,Dictation Feature For Trelby,Dictation Feature For Apple Pages,Dictation Feature For Applix Word,Dictation Feature For Atlantis Word Processor,Dictation Feature For Documents To Go,Dictation Feature For Final Draft,Dictation Feature For Framemaker,Dictation Feature For Gobe Productive Word Processor,Dictation Feature For Hangul (also Known As Hwp),Dictation Feature For Ia Writer,Dictation Feature For Ibm Displaywrite,Dictation Feature For Ibm Script,Dictation Feature For Ibm Script/vs,Dictation Feature For Ichitaro,Dictation Feature For Incopy,Dictation Feature For Intellitalk,Dictation Feature For Istudio Publisher,Dictation Feature For Kingsoft Writer,Dictation Feature For Mariner Write,Dictation Feature For Mathematica,Dictation Feature For Mellel,Dictation Feature For Microsoft Word,Dictation Feature For Microsoft Works Word Processor,Dictation Feature For Microsoft Write,Dictation Feature For Nisus Writer,Dictation Feature For Nota Bene,Dictation Feature For Polaris Office,Dictation Feature For Polyedit,Dictation Feature For Quickoffice,Dictation Feature For Scrivener,Dictation Feature For Techwriter,Dictation Feature For Textmaker,Dictation Feature For Thinkfree Office Write,Dictation Feature For Ulysses,Dictation Feature For Wordpad,Dictation Feature For Wordperfect,Dictation Feature For Freeware,Dictation Feature For Atlantis Nova,Dictation Feature For Baraha,Dictation Feature For Bean,Dictation Feature For Jarte,Dictation Feature For Kingsoft Writer Personal Edition,Dictation Feature For Madhyam,Dictation Feature For Textmaker,Dictation Feature For Online,Dictation Feature For Apple Pages,Dictation Feature For Authorea,Dictation Feature For Collabora Online Writer,Dictation Feature For Google Docs,Dictation Feature For Libreoffice Online Writer,Dictation Feature For Microsoft Word Online,Dictation Feature For Onlyoffice,Dictation Feature For Thinkfree Office Write,Dictation Feature For Writeonline,Dictation Feature For Xaitporter,Gmail,Outlook,Fastmail,Facebook,Tick Tock,Pinterest,Instagram,Notepad++,Aol Email,Yahoo Email,Zoho Mail,Abiword,Apache Openoffice Writer,Calligra Words,Collabora Office Writer,Collabora Online Writer,Etherpad,Gnu Texmacs,Groff,Jwpce,Kword,Libreoffice Writer,Libreoffice Online Writer,Lyx,Onlyoffice Desktop Editors,Ted,Trelby,Apple Pages,Applix Word,Atlantis Word Processor,Documents To Go,Final Draft,Framemaker,Gobe Productive Word Processor,Hangul (also Known As Hwp),Ia Writer,Ibm Displaywrite,Ibm Script,Ibm Script/vs,Ichitaro,Incopy,Intellitalk,Istudio Publisher,Kingsoft Writer,Mariner Write,Mathematica,Mellel,Microsoft Word,Microsoft Works Word Processor,Microsoft Write,Nisus Writer,Nota Bene,Polaris Office,Polyedit,Quickoffice,Scrivener,Techwriter,Textmaker,Thinkfree Office Write,Ulysses,Wordpad,Wordperfect,Freeware,Atlantis Nova,Baraha,Bean,Jarte,Kingsoft Writer Personal Edition,Madhyam,Textmaker,Online,Apple Pages,Authorea,Collabora Online Writer,Google Docs,Libreoffice Online Writer,Microsoft Word Online,Onlyoffice,Thinkfree Office Write,Writeonline,Xaitporter.

Martin Weiler Serving Dundas Ontario Faithfully

MB Food Equipment

School of Writing, Literature, and Film

• BA in English
• BA in Creative Writing
• About Film Studies
• Film Faculty
• Minor in Film Studies
• Film Studies at Work
• Minor in English
• Minor in Writing
• Minor in Applied Journalism
• Scientific, Technical, and Professional Communication Certificate
• Academic Advising
• Student Resources
• Scholarships
• MA in English
• MFA in Creative Writing
• Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies (MAIS)
• Low Residency MFA in Creative Writing
• Undergraduate Course Descriptions
• Graduate Course Descriptions- Spring 2024
• Faculty & Staff Directory
• Faculty by Fields of Focus
• Faculty Notes Submission Form
• Promoting Your Research
• 2024 Spring Newsletter
• Commitment to DEI
• Twitter News Feed
• 2022 Spring Newsletter
• OSU - University of Warsaw Faculty Exchange Program
• SWLF Media Channel
• Student Work
• View All Events
• The Stone Award
• Conference for Antiracist Teaching, Language and Assessment
• Continuing Education
• Alumni Notes
• Featured Alumni
• Donor Information
• Support SWLF

What is Free Indirect Discourse? || Definition & Examples

"what is free indirect discourse: a literary guide for english students and teachers.

View the full series: The Oregon State Guide to English Literary Terms

• Guide to Literary Terms
• BA in English Degree
• BA in Creative Writing Degree
• Oregon State Admissions Info

What is Free Indirect Discourse - Transcript (English & Spanish Subtitles Available in Video, Click HERE for Spanish Transcript)

By Raymond Malewitz , Oregon State University Associate Professor of American Literature

1 June 2020

Seeing the world as another person sees it can be surprising, confusing, and delightful.  It can also show us the limitations in our own worldview, which may differ in substantial ways from our world as it really is. This is one of the reasons that we read fiction: stories offer us the opportunity to not only travel to different worlds and different time periods but also to inhabit different worldviews.

The easiest way to convey a character’s worldview is directly, through a first-person perspective.  This is a common point of view in which a character in the story also serves as its narrator.  First-person narrators are described in our “ What is a Narrator? ” and “ What is an Unreliable Narrator? ” videos, and both lessons give you a good sense of the differences between how these narrators see the world and how the world often is. If you haven’t seen these videos, you may want to check them out before we get into today’s lesson on free indirect discourse.

A second way to deliver a character’s worldview is indirectly from a third-person perspective. In this point-of-view , the narrator may choose to describe the thoughts of a given character from an outside perspective.  In the following passage from Flannery O’Connor’s short story “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” we get an indirect sense of the grandmother’s worldview as she prepares for an ill-fated family car trip to Florida:

free_indirect_discourse_oconnor.jpg

"The next morning the grandmother was the first one in the car; ready to go.  She had her big black valise[…]in one corner, and underneath it she was hiding a basket with Pitty Sing, the cat, in it. She didn’t intend for the cat to be left alone in the house for three days because he would miss her too much and she was afraid he might brush up against one of the gas burners and accidentally asphyxiate himself."

From this passage, you can get a sense of what the grandmother cares about (her cat) and how she values herself (her cat loves her). But you don’t really see her worldview in the same way that you see the worldview of a first-person narrator; instead, you have that worldview described for you by an intermediary: the third-person narrator.

Today, I want to talk to you about a fascinating point-of-view that blends first and third person perspectives: free indirect discourse.  In this point of view, a third-person narrator stops describing the worldview of a given character—telling us what he or she thinks—and instead presents that worldview as if it were the narrator’s.  As I like to think of it, free indirect discourse describes moments in a third-person narrative when the narrator becomes infected by the perspective of one of its characters. Here’s one example.  In John Steinbeck’s novella “The Red Pony,” the third chapter begins with the following description:

"In a mid-afternoon of spring, the little boy Jody walked martially along the brush-lined road toward his home ranch. Banging his knee against the golden lard bucket he used for school lunch, he contrived a good bass drum, while his tongue fluttered sharply against the teeth to fill in snare drums and occasional trumpets. Some time back the other members of the squad that walked so smartly from the school had turned into the various little canyons and taken the wagon roads to their own home ranches. Now Jody marched seemingly alone, with high lifted knees and pounding feet; but behind him there was a phantom army with great flags and swords, silent but deadly."

This passage starts in a traditional third-person way, in which an outside narrator describes the actions of a character—Jody. But the last line of this passage does something different.  Instead of describing to us what Jody is imagining—that he pretends he is marching in front of a “phantom army”—the narrator presents that army as if it were actually there—“silent, but deadly.” In other words, at this moment, we’re not seeing the world of a third-person narrator; we’re seeing the delightfully boyish worldview of Jody.

free_indirect_discourse_steinbeck.jpg

Free indirect discourse has been an important feature of Western narratives for over a hundred years, but spotting it is not always easy.  Consider this example: the opening to Joyce Carol Oates’ short story “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?”, which introduces us to a teenage girl named Connie.  See if you can spot the moments where the third person perspective becomes infected with her worldview and becomes free indirect discourse:

"Her name was Connie.  She was fifteen and she had a quick, nervous giggling habit of craning her neck to glance into mirrors or checking other people’s faces to make sure her own was all right. Her mother, who noticed everything and knew everything and hadn’t much reason any longer to look at her own face, always scolded Connie about it. “Stop gawking at yourself. Who are you? You think you’re so pretty” she would say. Connie would raise her eyebrows at these familiar old complaints and look right through her mother, into a shadowy vision of herself as she was right at the moment: she knew she was pretty and that was everything. Her mother had been pretty once too, if you could believe those old snapshots in the album, but now her looks were gone and that was why she was always after Connie."

This is, to say the least, a very strange narrative perspective.  The third-person narrator seems to think Connie’s mother “notices everything” and “knew everything”—but that’s, of course, impossible! The narrator also has a strange familiarity with the family’s photograph album and seems absolutely obsessed with beauty.  These strange details are signs that Oates has written this passage in free indirect discourse.  The narrator isn’t describing Connie’s worldview from an outsider’s perspective; she’s inhabiting Connie’s worldview.

free_indirect_discourse_oates.jpg

If this were a conventional third-person point of view, we’d get some division between the narrator and Connie, which might look something like this: “Connie thought she was pretty and she believed that was the most important thing she could be.”  But instead, with free indirect discourse, we see the world as Connie sees it, even from the third-person perspective: “She knew she was pretty and that was everything.”

So why would you want to identify this strange point-of-view while you are reading?  One reason is simply to know what the author is doing to provoke certain responses from readers.  When we read Jody’s and Connie’s stories, we’re immediately drawn to these characters, and we feel what they feel in large part because we are momentarily seeing the world as they are seeing it.

Another reason I like to identify free indirect discourse in stories is that this narrative mode, like first-person narration, is often ironic , introducing us to moments when the world and a given character’s worldview are at odds with one another.  These moments are fruitful places to analyze in your literary essays.  Let me leave you with one example from Toni Morrison’s novel Beloved that I hope you’ll explore on your own.

The vast majority of Beloved is told from a third-person point of view that will frequently drop into free indirect discourse to convey the worldview of the novel’s protagonist, Sethe, as she struggles with the aftereffects of her enslavement.  In chapter 16 of that novel, however, everything changes, and we drop into free indirect discourse of a very different kind—the worldview of a brutal owner of enslaved people whom the novel calls “Schoolteacher.” Inhabiting this worldview, seeing how that worldview dehumanizes the person whom we are closest to in this story, and having the central event of the novel described from this monstrous person’s perspective, produces a complex ironic reaction in readers that goes to the very heart of this incredibly important novel.

Want to cite this?

MLA Citation: Malewitz, Raymond. "What is Free Indirect Discourse?" Oregon State Guide to English Literary Terms, 1 Jun. 2020, Oregon State University, https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/wlf/what-free-indirect-discourse. Accessed [insert date].

Further Resources for Teachers

Our " What is Point of View " video offers another example of free indirect discourse in John Larison's discussion of "close third-person." Other examples suitable for high school instruction might be Leila Aboulela's short story "The Museum," Kate Chopin's very short story "The Story of an Hour," and William Faulkner's "Barn Burning." More advanced students can find F.I.D. being used in a manner similar to Morrison's Beloved at a few crucial moments in Colson Whitehead's novel Underground Railroad . Like Oates's and Morrison's stories, these other stories' complex ironies can be partially unpacked by attending to the free indirect discourse through which they are told.

Writing prompt: Identify moments of free indirect discourse in Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour" (or any of the other examples mentioned above). How do these moments shed light on the central conflict of the story?

Interested in more video lessons? View the full series:

The oregon state guide to english literary terms, contact info.

Email: [email protected]

College of Liberal Arts Student Services 214 Bexell Hall 541-737-0561

Deans Office 200 Bexell Hall 541-737-4582

Corvallis, OR 97331-8600

liberalartsosu liberalartsosu liberalartsosu liberalartsosu CLA LinkedIn

• Dean's Office
• Faculty & Staff Resources
• Research Support
• Featured Stories
• Undergraduate Students
• Transfer Students
• Graduate Students
• Career Services
• Internships
• Financial Aid
• Honors Student Profiles
• Degrees and Programs
• Centers and Initiatives
• School of Communication
• School of History, Philosophy and Religion
• School of Language, Culture and Society
• School of Psychological Science
• School of Public Policy
• School of Visual, Performing and Design Arts
• School of Writing, Literature and Film
• Give to CLA

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Salman Rushdie warns young people against forgetting value of free speech

Author also discusses prospect of second Trump presidency and writing about his stabbing in launch event for his book Knife

Salman Rushdie has warned young people against forgetting the value of free speech and discussed the “very big and negative” impact of a second Trump presidency in a rare public appearance since his stabbing.

The Indian-born British-American author of books including the Satanic Verses and Midnight’s Children also discussed the attack in 2022 that left him blind in one eye during a Q&A at an English PEN event at the Southbank Centre .

“I have a very old-fashioned view about [free speech],” said Rushdie, appearing by video from his home in New York to mark the launch of his new memoir, Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder . “The defence of free expression begins at the point at which somebody says something you don’t like.

“It’s a very simple thing, but it’s being forgotten. That is what’s enshrined in the first amendment … In the US, you feel there’s a younger generation that’s kind of forgetting the value of that. Often, for reasons they would believe to be virtuous, they’re prepared to suppress kinds of speech with which they don’t sympathise. It’s a slippery slope. And look out, because the person slipping down that slope could be you.”

Rushdie said academia in America was “in serious trouble … because of colossal political divisions. And everybody is so angry that it seems very difficult to find a common place.”

The Booker-prize-winning author, whose books have been translated into more than 40 languages, discussed the prospect of a second Trump presidency with the author and critic Erica Wagner and encouraged young people in the US to “not make the mistake of not voting”.

He said: “The impact would be very big and negative. He’d be worse a second time around, because he’d be unleashed and vengeful. All he talks about is revenge. And that’s a bad policy platform, that you want to be president to deal revenge against your enemies.

“In New York, people had got the point of Donald Trump long before he ever tried to run for office. Everybody knew that he was a buffoon and a liar. And unfortunately, America had to find out the hard way. I just hope they don’t fall for it again.”

Rushdie was about to give a talk at the Chautauqua Institution in New York state on 12 August 2022 when a man rushed on stage and stabbed him about 10 times. “I saw the man in black running toward me down the right-hand side of the seating area,” he recalls in his new book . The writer was hospitalised for six weeks.

On Sunday, he said he hadn’t been able to think about writing for six months, but then it struck him that it would be “ludicrous” to write about anything else.

He described the difficulty of penning the first chapter, “in which I have to describe in some detail the exact nature of the attack. It was very hard to do.”

Knife, the writer said, was the “only book I’ve ever written with the help of a therapist. It gave me back control of the narrative. Instead of being a man lying on the stage with a pool of blood, I’m a man writing a book about a man live on stage with a pool of blood. That felt good.”

Rushdie also spoke about the postponement of the trial of his attacker, Hadi Matar . He said Matar’s not-guilty plea was “an absurdity” and that he would testify at any future trial. “It doesn’t bother me to be in the courtroom with him. It should bother him.”

after newsletter promotion

In Knife, Matar is not named, but referred to as “the A”. Rushdie said he was inspired by a Margaret Thatcher line about “wanting to deny the terrorists what she called the oxygen of publicity. That phrase stuck in my head. I thought, ‘This guy had his 27 seconds of fame. And now he should go back to being nobody.’

“I use this initial A because I thought there were many things he was: a would-be assassin, an assailant, an adversary … an ass.”

However, Rushdie said, “the most interesting” part of the book to write was the 30 pages of imagined dialogue between him and his attacker.

“I actually wanted to meet him and ask him some questions. Then I read about this incident where Samuel Beckett was the victim of a knife attack in Paris by a pimp. He went to the man’s trial, and at the end of it said to him: ‘Why did you do it?’ And the only thing the man said was: ‘I don’t know, I’m sorry.’ I thought: if I actually were to meet this guy, I would get some banality.”

So Rushdie decided it would “be better to try to imagine myself” into the head of a person who chose to attack a stranger despite reading “no more than two pages of something I’d written”.

‘There is in my mind an absence in his story,” he said. “This is somebody who was 24 years old. He must have known that he was going to be wrecking his life as well as mine, and yet he was willing to commit murder. He’s somebody with no previous criminal record and not on any kind of terrorism watch list. Just a kid in Fairview, New Jersey. And to go from that to murder is a very big jump.”

• Salman Rushdie
• Southbank Centre

More on this story

Knife by Salman Rushdie review – a life interrupted

‘Why didn’t I fight? Why didn’t I run?’: 10 things we learned from Salman Rushdie’s Knife

Knife by Salman Rushdie review – a story of hatred defeated by love

‘I can’t explain it’: Salman Rushdie says his survival in knife attack was a miracle

Salman Rushdie has lost sight in one eye and use of one hand, says agent

Drastic rethink of security likely in wake of Salman Rushdie attack

Salman Rushdie’s grave fears for Indian democracy published in PEN anthology

Iran denies role in Salman Rushdie attack but claims author is to blame

Salman Rushdie ‘road to recovery has begun’ but ‘will be long,’ agent says

If we don’t defend free speech, we live in tyranny: Salman Rushdie shows us that

Most viewed.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

As protests consume college campuses, where's the line between safety, free speech?

NPR's Michel Martin speaks with Daniel Diermeier, Chancellor of Vanderbilt University, about campus protests, free speech and student safety.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

As we've just heard, a lot of focus is on student protests in New York City, where protests at Columbia and New York University have resulted in arrests and drawn the attention of officials from the mayor of New York to President Biden to House Speaker Mike Johnson. But similar protests, including encampments and calls for divestment, have been sprouting up across the country. Last month, a group of students at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., were arrested, suspended, and some were actually expelled after a protest that administrators said crossed a line. Daniel Diermeier is the chancellor of Vanderbilt, and we called him to hear more about how he and other university leaders are thinking about and responding to this moment. Good morning, Chancellor.

DANIEL DIERMEIER: Good morning.

MARTIN: I just want to mention that you wrote about this in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal earlier this month, so people can read that for more in your thinking. But just so we can hear from you, what was behind the decision to have students arrested? I understand that there were about 27 involved in a sit in to the administration building, two left early on their own, 25 were escorted out, three were arrested. So what was the decision behind calling for arrests?

DIERMEIER: Yeah. Sure. So we have, since October 7, had lots of expressions by the students that, you know, made their voices heard. We had vigils. We had displays of, like, the families killed in Gaza and the hostages. We had protests. And then, you know, just last Monday, for example, we had a Passover celebration with 400 members of our community on the main lawn. So most of the - for most of the time, things were great and students were expressing their opinion and engaging in civil discourse.

We then had a small group of students that made it clear that they were not interested in discourse and that they wanted to force the university to boycott and divest from Israel. A month ago, they forced their way into a building. It's the main administrative building on campus, which was closed to the public because we're still doing minor construction there. They ran over a security guard. The security guard was injured, had to seek medical attention in the hospital. He was out for two weeks. He's back on duty.

They then ran upstairs where my office is, tried to force their way into the office, pushed staff around. They were then restrained from entering my office and they're set in the lobby, you know, shouting profanities to our staff for about 20 hours. At 5:00 a.m., the three students that had ran over the security guard were charged - were arrested. They had been charged by the magistrate with assault before. Another student had smashed a window. So that was for...

MARTIN: So the line that was crossed I want to get to some of the broader...

DIERMEIER: Yeah. Sure.

MARTIN: So what you're telling me is the line that was crossed was what? You feel injuring someone and destroying property. Is that the line?

DIERMEIER: Yeah. One hundred percent.

MARTIN: OK.

DIERMEIER: I mean, we have - whenever you have protests, universities will define the time, manner and way in which it's done. So for example, you're not allowed to disrupt classes, and you're not - you know, injuring a security guard and forcing your way into a closed building is not an expression of free speech.

MARTIN: So the argument at some of the universities seems to revolve around the question of safety because none of that happened at some of these other institutions that we're talking about. It seems to revolve around safety and that whether these demonstrations themselves create a - sort of an unwelcoming environment for Jewish students, and that is in contrast to this whole question around free speech. You don't...

DIERMEIER: Yeah.

MARTIN: ...Say that that's the issue at Vanderbilt. You don't...

DIERMEIER: No. There was...

MARTIN: ...Think that's the issue there?

DIERMEIER: No. That was not the issue at Vanderbilt. The issue at Vanderbilt was the way I described it. And we were - there is - this is - to me, it really is not a free speech issue because you are - if you're forcing your way into a closed building, you're engaging in vandalism, and that's all - that's not an expression of free speech.

MARTIN: The other issue here does around - and this - the whole issue of the boycott, investment issue that BDS moving is such a big issue we don't have time to resolve here.

DIERMEIER: Sure.

MARTIN: But one of the issues that the students say is that they wanted to advance this in a student-led kind of referendum and that this was removed.

MARTIN: This option to even vote on it was removed from them, and they would argue that this is a nonviolent protest, whether people agree or disagree. But, boy, if corporate spending is speech, then withholding corporate spending is also speech and that this is something that should have been debated. How do you respond to that?

DIERMEIER: Yeah. So two aspects to that. So the first thing is is that we have a commitment at the university to institutional neutrality. So our three commitments are free speech, or we call it open form, institutional neutrality, which means that the university will not take policy positions unless they directly affect the operating of the university. So we don't take a position on foreign policy, and a commitment to civil discourse. Now, calling for BDS, for a boycott of Israel, is inconsistent with institutional neutrality. So from our values point, we're not going to go there.

Then there's a separate issue, is that the state of Tennessee has a law prohibiting BDS activities. It's a very strict law, and if it is - if we are not compliant with that, we will lose research funding from the state. So our analysis made very clear that even the vote by the students would violate the law because the law does not distinguish - that does not consider our student government as an independent entity. They're in the weeds...

MARTIN: But can they talk about it?

DIERMEIER: ...But that's it.

MARTIN: They can talk about it. But they can talk about it.

DIERMEIER: They can talk about it. Absolutely.

MARTIN: They can talk about it, but your argument is they can't take an official action that would take this position.

DIERMEIER: Exactly. Yeah.

MARTIN: OK. So in the time that we have left, and, again, this is a very complex topic that deserves sort of more time, you know, University demonstrations have been central to history making movements in the United States. I mean, the movement to desegregate public spaces started with, you know, freshman at North Carolina A&T, the Civil Rights Movement, efforts to abolish apartheid, many of these have been centered in universities. Are there some lessons that you think colleges and universities should take from the past that are relevant to the current moment, or do you think this moment stands alone for some reason?

DIERMEIER: No, I don't think it stands alone. I think it's part of that. Number one - I think lesson number one is to be very clear about what the guidelines are and to encourage students to express themselves, but in a matter that doesn't include safety concerns or violate the operations, it makes it impossible for the university to operate. So that's piece one. Second piece, I think what we've seen it as very - it is a very wise commitment of universities to institutional neutrality so that they're not being dragged into these conflicts that are passionate, but where universities overall mission is to provide a forum for debate and not take an official position that attempts to settle it.

DIERMEIER: There are only a few universities that have really made that commitment. We're one of them. We already made it in the '60s and '70s. University of Chicago, where I worked before us another one. My sense is that it's a very, very good idea for universities to be clear that they will not have these policy positions so that they're not constantly part of this political battle, and we resisted the attempt to be polarized and politicized.

MARTIN: But for those who argue that the BDS whole question of outlawing that is itself sort of a restriction of speech, which should not be permitted - I mean, obviously, we're not going to resolve that here. You're saying that's the law in Tennessee, but for the sake of argument, if it were not?

DIERMEIER: If it were not, then they could - then they can vote on it, you know, then...

MARTIN: Talk about it.

DIERMEIER: ...Has to look through what the things are, but it's...

DIERMEIER: ...Inconsistent with our values anyway.

MARTIN: That is Daniel Diermeier. He is the chancellor at Vanderbilt University. Chancellor Diermeier, thank you so much for speaking with us.

DIERMEIER: Thank you.

Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Use this Online Speech Generator to Help You Quickly Create a Good Speech

How to use this tool.

• Select what you would like. To generate free speech topics or free speech content.
• Select the type of speech e.g. "Explanatory", "Motivational".
• Enter your speech topic.
• Enter the additional instructions for better results.
• Click "Generate Speech" and wait 1 minute to get the speech.
• You can generate again when you are not satisfied with the speech or the topics.

Are your assignments troubling you?

Get your troublesome papers finished by our competent writers now!

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

How Does Our Speech Creator Work?

You can use our tool to find a good topic and generate a good speech. To find a good speech topic, you need to enter the keyword, and the tool will generate the necessary topics related to your keywords.

To generate speech essays, enter your prompt, and the tool will generate a speech essay. After the tool has generated the speech, you don't have to download the speech; you copy and paste it into the documents and make the necessary edits to suit what you were looking for.

You can also hire our speech homework helpers to help you craft a great speech that will move your audience.

Benefits of Using Our Speech Maker

Our online speech generator has several advantages. They include:

• Quick document turnaround. Unlike handwritten speech, which takes much time to complete, our speech generator provides you with a speech within a short period.
• Guarantee speech quality . Our speech maker guarantees accuracy and quality in the generated text content. Our tool examines many human speeches to understand the meaning of words and human communication to determine the correct response.
• Increased Scalability and Flexibility . Our speech generator is versatile and caters for multiple uses. Whether you want a business presentation or a graduation speech, you can get a customized speech from our speech creator.
• Eradicate workflow inefficiencies . Speech-making is labor-intensive and time-consuming. You can use our speech maker to simplify and streamline your workflow, including brainstorming ideas for your research project.
• It is 100% free . You don't have to register or subscribe to any plan to use our speech generator.

What Makes a Good Speech

The following are the major components of a good speech:

• It should be concise . You should not take much time with lengthy introductions and irrelevant details.
• It should be clear . Your speech should be easy for the audience to comprehend and understand. So, avoid complex terms and pick the right delivery style.
• Avoid bias. Your speech should be objective. Avoid being over-emotional, base your opinions on facts, and avoid biased opinions.
• It should be relevant. Your speech topic should be perfectly relevant and interesting to your audience. Avoid much information that does not relate to the main topic.

Good Speech Examples

• Organ Donation Persuasive Speech
• Informative Speech about Stress Management
• Informative Speech about Stress Management among Students
• Speech on the Importance of Reading

How to Choose a Good Speech Topic

• Specify Your Goals. Establish the occasion and the message you want to convey to your audience.
• Assess Your Audience. Research your audience's knowledge, interests, needs, and background.
• Think of What You Can Offer Your Audience . Avoid shortlisted topics which you are not passionate about. And then ensure you have enough resources and knowledge on the topic you have chosen.

Random Speech Topics

Informative speech topics.

• Evolution of the human species
• Are male victims of domestic violence as well?
• Should gay couples be allowed to adopt?
• A guide for creating a strong profile on LinkedIn
• The drawbacks of vegan diets

Persuasive Speech Topics

• Foreign labor slows down the economy
• Voting rights should not be universal
• Google is the death of libraries
• Government should regulate internet usage
• Fashion is an important part of society

Informative vs Persuasive Speeches

An informative speech is a speech where the speaker is a professional and intends to transfer their knowledge or inform the audience about a specific topic. In a persuasive speech, the speaker aims to persuade the listeners to change their point of view.,

• An informative speech aims to deliver new information, while a persuasive speech aims to convince the audience to believe or do something specific.
• The informative speech presents facts and information to the audience, while the persuasive speech is based on logic and emotions.
• Informative speech does not rely on emotions to motivate the audience, but emotions are highly applicable in persuasive speeches.
• In an informative speech, the speaker acts as a teacher, while in persuasive speeches, the speaker is the leader.

No matter the type of speech you are writing, you must identify the purpose and maintain the focus. For informative speeches, you should remain objective and unbiased and present facts only. In a persuasive speech , you aim to persuade the audience to agree with your opinion. Use our speech generator to craft speech in any category.

Our words to time tool will help you estimate the time it will take to deliver your speech.

Other Popular Tools

• Free Essay Generator (Powered by AI)
• Free Plagiarism Checker
• Free Thesis Generator Tool
• Free Paraphrasing Tool
• Free Essay Title Generator
• Free Speech Generator
• Free Summarizer Tool
• Words To Page
• Words To Time
• Random Debate Topic Generator

University shares new free speech policies with ASSU

The Undergraduate Senate (UGS) heard from Bernadette Meyler, who chairs the University’s Ad Hoc Committee on Free Speech, about the aims and goals behind newly proposed free speech policies slated to be presented to the Faculty Senate (FacSen) on May 30. 

The committee first delivered an interim report in January and continued to delve into questions about how universities should approach free speech obligations. The committee also suggested policies to strengthen the role of the faculty and preserve academic speech. 

“Stanford is notoriously decentralized, and that sometimes has an effect on how speech policies are implemented in different places on campus,” Meyler said.

Meyler proposed three main pillars to tackle free speech policy at Stanford: mirroring an academic statement released in 1974 and creating two new statements on freedom of expression and institutional restraint. 

In response to Meyler’s proposal, senator Ritwik Tati ’25 questioned the University’s guidelines on distinguishing between hate speech and free speech, based on previous University decisions .

“We want to protect freedom of expression, which can sometimes include hate speech but our freedom of expression policy is designed for different contexts,” Meyler said. 

Stanford falls under the jurisdiction of Title VI and Title IX, which protect discrimination based on race, color, national origin and gender respectively, which is why the committee is trying to take account of those responsibilities and not engage in discrimination against groups, Meyler said. 

UGS co-chair Diego Kagurabadza ’25 raised student concerns over recent crackdowns on student protest at Columbia and Yale, asking if Meyler’s committee will implement policies to protect student activists or set administrative guidelines to handle disruptive speech.

According to Meyler, the committee has been concerned about “vague policies or …vague language” that can lead to “unpredictable or disparate” enforcement across “different times or groups.” The committee’s recommendations hope to provide an explicit framework that ensures uniform enforcement. 

Community member Sebastian Strawser ’26, who a Daily opinions writer, called for more student contribution to the committee as students’ voices are not currently included, due to its nature as a faculty committee. 

In response to Strawser, Meyler said that the committee considered several perspectives and spoke to many students about experiences with different offices and processes. She said they will continue to welcome discussions from student communities as policies are developed. 

The UGS also debated a new bill to amend On Call Café funding resources and student organization status as it starts to make a profit. Senator Carmen Kang ’26 also published the first round of student discounts, which included restaurants on University Avenue — like 15% off from the boba shop T4 and discounts from nearby nail salons and boutiques. 

The Stanford Daily hosts debate between Senate candidates tomorrow at the Daily building at 7 p.m. The ASSU election starts April 25.

Login or create an account

Apply to the daily’s high school summer program, deadline extended to april 28.

• JOURNALISM WORKSHOP
• MULTIMEDIA & TECH BOOTCAMPS
• GUEST SPEAKERS
• FINANCIAL AID AVAILABLE

Office of the President

• For the Media

Our commitment to campus safety, peaceful assembly, and civil discourse

Dear Members of the Yale Community,

I write regarding the protests on Hewitt Quadrangle (Beinecke Plaza) and other parts of campus. These protests have grown significantly over the weekend, and some members of the broader community have joined our students.

Faculty and staff have been providing the students resources for free expression, health, and well-being, and have made clear that the university supports free speech and civil discourse. At the same time, we are focused intently on campus safety and maintaining university operations and the full use of university facilities, which support the work we all do to advance teaching, learning, research, and scholarship.

Yale College and graduate school deans and other university leaders have spoken multiple times with students participating in the protests to make clear university policies and guidelines , including the importance of maintaining open passageways in the event of a fire or other emergencies, the role of the university’s postering and chalking policy in fostering the exchange of ideas, and the need to allow other members of the community to use campus spaces. Putting up structures, defying the directives of university officials, staying in campus spaces past allowed times, and other acts that violate university policies and guidelines create safety hazards and impede the work of our university. We are continuing to speak with students who are participating in protests, so they understand the disciplinary consequences of actions that violate Yale’s policies. Yale will pursue disciplinary actions according to its policies.

Many of the students participating in the protests, including those conducting counterprotests, have done so peacefully. However, I am aware of reports of egregious behavior, such as intimidation and harassment, pushing those in crowds, removal of the plaza flag, and other harmful acts. Yale does not tolerate actions, including remarks, that threaten, harass, or intimidate members of the university’s Jewish, Muslim, and other communities. The Yale Police Department is investigating each report, and we will take action when appropriate, including making referrals for student discipline. We are providing support to affected students.

We do not agree on everything, but we all have a responsibility to do our part in fostering a community in which we can have open, civil discussions about any topic, no matter how complex and how difficult. As members of a university committed to learning and the search for truth, we can do no less.

Each of us deserves to be heard and to have the chance to speak. To that end, I have listened to many members of our community in recent weeks, and I understand that some disagree with the Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility’s (ACIR’s) decision to not recommend a policy of divestment from military weapons manufacturers. The ACIR—a committee of faculty, students, staff, and alumni—arrived at this conclusion after hearing from student presenters and engaging in careful deliberation. This is part of a formal process and relies on the university’s guide to ethical investing that has served Yale well for decades. Any member of the Yale community is invited to write to the ACIR or to attend future open meetings. There are available pathways to continue this discussion with openness and civility, and I urge those with suggestions to follow them.

At a time when so many in the world are suffering and when so many lives have been cut short cruelly by violence, we must stand firmly against hatred and recommit ourselves to engaging in civil discourse free from intimidation or coercion. As I have said to all of you, we must hold tight to our common values. Now more than ever, we must commit to working together with compassion and understanding.

Peter Salovey President Chris Argyris Professor of Psychology