On free speech

After reading Rupa Subramanya’s piece on free speech, I found myself conflicted. I’ve always supported open expression, but I also believe there are limits—especially when speech causes real harm. Still, I didn’t want to dismiss her perspective too quickly, so I asked a few people around me to help me explore the other side.

Here are some of the arguments that were raised...and my honest reflections:

1. Unpopular ≠ Harmful: Subramanya warns that “unpopular” opinions are being silenced. But I think we need to be precise: not all unpopular views are harmful, and not all harmful speech is simply unpopular. I fully support challenging ideas, but I draw the line when speech causes harm.

2. Harm is subjective: One challenge with regulating speech is that harm isn’t always easy to define. What offends one person may seem harmless to another. I get that. But I still think there’s a difference between discomfort and genuine harm, especially when speech dehumanises or incites hatred.

3. Institutional responses are tricky, but not always wrong: I do think individuals should be held accountable for how they behave (even by institutions) if they cross a line. Living in society comes with responsibilities, and I believe it’s fair to expect a baseline of respectful conduct in return for the benefits we all share. That said, I understand the concern: who decides what’s “acceptable”? Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s good or harmless. That’s where I come back to my earlier point: if it causes real harm, I think it’s reasonable to intervene. There’s so much more to unpack here... maybe it’s time we host a Think Again session on this?

4. Free speech is a principle, not a popularity contest: Some argue we must defend all speech, even the stuff we hate, because once we start filtering, bias creeps in. I understand the purist view, but in practice, I think that position can ignore the very real consequences of harmful speech.

5. Protect the right, not the message:This one challenged me: the idea is that defending free speech means defending the right to speak, not endorsing what’s said. I get the intent, but I still wonder: what are we protecting, and at what cost?

I went into this genuinely hoping to see more nuance. Some arguments resonated, others felt too black-and-white or lacked depth. I’m still evolving in my thinking, but for now, I land on this: free speech matters deeply, but we need to draw the line when it stops being constructive for humanity. Not everything deserves a microphone. There’s a lot of noise out there—mean-spirited, belittling, dehumanising noise—that we can and should shut down. We have to start somewhere. What do you think?

https://www.thefp.com/p/rupa-subramanya-congress-free-speech-testimony