The Evolution of Free Speech

From Tribes to SocietiesFree speech is often treated as though it were some modern invention, a principle discovered during the Enlightenment or cemented in post-war declarations. But in truth, speech has always carried consequences. In small hunter–gatherer tribes, words could heal or harm, unite or divide. A careless comment could bring ostracism—the most feared punishment of all. Being cast out from the group was not simply an inconvenience; it was often a death sentence.Hadza Tribe, Tanzania | Photo: Indrek KasesaluIn those early human settings people had free speech—they could say what they wanted—but they knew it was not without consequences. Effective use of speech was not a “right” per se, but a survival skill—carefully choosing what to say, when to say it, and to whom.The Rise of ControlAs societies grew more complex, speech became a battleground for power. Kings, emperors, priests, and later governments all devised ways to control the spoken and written word. From blasphemy laws to censorship offices, speech was rarely “free.” Printing presses were smashed, heretics burned, and dissidents silenced. Speech that challenged authority often carried not just social but lethal consequences.The Free Speech MovementIt was only after centuries of suppression that the modern free speech movement emerged. The Enlightenment brought with it the radical notion that individuals had an inherent right to voice their thoughts. Later, documents like the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and international agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined the principle that freedom of speech was a human right—even if that human right is now often misunderstood.The Hard-Won Nature of FreedomFreedom of speech is not something given to us by governments; it is something that was fought for, at great cost, by those who came before us. And freedom is always that way: one generation struggles and sacrifices to achieve it, while the next generation—often in the name of safety or civility—allows it to be eroded until it must be fought for again. In my estimation, we should fight that erosion strongly.Today we are seeing familiar patterns. Many argue that certain kinds of speech—hate speech in particular—should be outlawed. On the surface this seems reasonable. After all, why allow hatred to spread? The problem is this: who decides what is “hate” and what is merely “offensive”? Who is trusted with the power to define and police those categories?The moment we hand governments the authority to control or compel speech, we begin a dangerous cycle. History shows us again and again where that road leads. Nowhere good.Consider the United Kingdom, where one might assume speech is free. Yet the UK now has some of the highest rates in the world of arrests for nothing more than “offensive” material posted—or even reposted—online. A government that can jail you for sharing an unpopular opinion is not protecting freedom of speech; it is dismantling it.What Free Speech IsAt its core, free speech is protection from government silencing. It means that, barring narrow exceptions (incitement, direct threats, etc.), the state may not jail you, punish you, or execute you for your words. It is the idea that ideas must be free to compete in the open marketplace.What Free Speech Is NotWhere confusion arises is when people imagine that “free speech” also means freedom from consequence. It doesn’t.Free speech does not guarantee:1. That you will keep your job if you say something your employer finds unacceptable.Jimmy Kimmel falsely implied that Charlie Kirk’s killer was a ‘maga’ supporter. His employer decided they no longer wanted to provide him a platform to spread misinformation.Roseanne Barr lost her television show overnight after a single offensive tweet. Her employer decided they didn’t want her words associated with their brand.2. That a social media platform must continue to host your content if it violates their rules.Donald Trump was banned from Twitter (now X) after the platform concluded his posts were contributing to violence and unrest.Kathy Griffin was banned from Twitter for posting a doctored photo of Elon Musk, illustrating that platforms enforce rules regardless of politics when they believe terms of service are violated.3. That you will be free from criticism, ridicule, or rebuttal.J.K. Rowling has faced intense public criticism, ridicule, and organized boycotts for her comments on gender and sex.Ben Shapiro is regularly targeted with ridicule and rebuttals for his outspoken conservative positions. Neither are silenced by the government, but both pay a social cost for their words.4. That you will still be welcome in someone else’s home if you use that space to insult them or their beliefs.James Corden insulted restaurant staff at Balthazar in New York, and the owner banned him from returning until he apologized. Words have consequences, even in private establishments.Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from multiple conservative conferences after his own words about controversial topics made organizers unwilling to host him again.5. That another country must admit you if you openly disparage its government or its people.Michael Moore has faced bans and restrictions on entering countries like Cuba due to his outspoken criticisms and political activism.Michael Ben-Ari, a far-right Israeli politician, was denied entry to the U.S. over his extremist remarks. The U.S. exercised its sovereign right to say, “not welcome.”A House Is Not a Public SquareIf you walk into your father-in-law’s house and loudly proclaim all the ways you disagree with him, he has every right not to invite you back. The same principle applies to companies, platforms, and even nations.Nations and BordersIf you want to visit or immigrate to another country, you should expect to honor its laws, customs, and culture. That country has no obligation to welcome someone who openly disrespects its people or leadership. As Arnold Schwarzenegger once said, when you are a visitor or immigrant, you should be a gracious and respectful guest—work hard, add value, and honor the invitation you’ve been given.It amazes me how often people around the world speak as though they should be free to insult the United States—its government, its leaders, its people—and still expect a warm welcome at the border. Ironically, many of these same people are not even free to criticize their own governments at home. The United States has not been shy about exercising its own right to refuse entry. While it is currently popular to blame this practice on Trump, the truth is it has been going on for decades. During the Cold War, left-leaning writers and scholars were barred for their political views; in the 1980s, musician Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) was denied entry after comments on Salman Rushdie; in the 2000s, Cuban and Iranian academics were excluded. Trump and his detractors have made the practice more visible, but it long predates him.Countries That Punish Their Own Citizens for SpeechChina – Political criticism online can mean disappearing accounts, blacklisting, or prison.Thailand – Insulting the king (lèse-majesté) can carry up to 15 years in prison.Saudi Arabia – Dissidents and activists face long prison terms—or worse—for speaking out.Malaysia – Criticism of the monarchy or Islam can lead to fines or imprisonment under the Sedition Act. Even “liking” or reposting content has led to charges.Russia – Critics of the war in Ukraine face arrests, fines, or exile.Turkey – Thousands have been prosecuted for “insulting the president.”India – Journalists and activists face sedition charges or harassment for criticizing government policies.Countries That May Deny Entry or Revoke Visas Over SpeechCuba – Has restricted entry for outspoken critics like Michael Moore.India – Foreigners critical of its handling of Kashmir or religious tensions have had visas canceled.United Kingdom – Has barred controversial speakers, both left and right, for statements deemed extremist or offensive.United Arab Emirates – Has deported and denied entry to visitors who posted critical content about the country, even if posted abroad.Israel – Has denied visas to activists who supported the BDS (boycott, divest, sanctions) movement.And yet, some citizens of these same nations freely criticize the U.S. or other Western democracies while abroad, expecting those nations to extend freedoms their own governments never would.The Real StandardFree speech is one of humanity’s most important rights. It is what allows us to criticize power, to test ideas, to push society forward. But it is not a magic shield against consequence.The real test of free speech is whether your government lets you say what you want without throwing you in prison or worse.Everything else—the criticism, the job losses, the travel bans, the social ostracism—is not a violation of free speech.That is not the violation of free speech—it is the price of free speech in a free society.Edit: Kimmel didn’t say the shooter was MAGA; he implied it by presupposition.