I. Introduction — How “Free Speech” Became a Side to Root For
If you only learned about free speech from American politics in the last 25 years, you could be forgiven for thinking it’s a partisan brand rather than a constitutional principle. One election cycle, free speech is a conservative rallying cry against “cancel culture” and “Big Tech censorship.” Another cycle, it’s a progressive slogan against government surveillance, bans on books, or gag orders on teachers. The banners keep changing color, but free speech is supposed to live in the rulebook, not on one side’s uniform.
Underneath those shifting slogans, though, something quieter has been happening. Both major parties have grown increasingly comfortable with the idea that certain kinds of speech are too dangerous, too destabilizing, or simply too offensive to tolerate. What changes is not the impulse to restrict, but the justification: national security, public safety, preventing harm, fighting disinformation, protecting children, defending democracy. The list changes, but the move is the same: carve out one more exception when speech cuts against your own side.
The irony is that the legal First Amendment regime in the United States remains, historically speaking, very strong. Supreme Court cases like Cohen v. California—the one that protected a guy wearing a jacket that said “Fuck the Draft” in a courthouse corridor—are still the background law of the land. In that case, the Court held that the state could not punish him just for a four-letter word that offended people; offense alone was not a sufficient reason to criminalize speech. (Legal note: Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).)
But law is not the whole story. Over the last quarter-century, official policy, informal pressure, and cultural norms have converged on a subtler, bipartisan pattern: free speech for me, not for thee. What counts as “dangerous speech” just depends on which tribe you ask.
This essay tries to trace that evolution: how the post-9/11 security state chilled speech from the right’s side of the aisle, how the rise of identity-based politics and the “speech is harm” frame reshaped attitudes on the left, how the age of platforms and populism produced a “woke right” with its own taboos, and who, amid all of this, actually tried to apply free speech consistently. Along the way, we’ll look at what this has done to everyday civic life—and whether the future is as bleak as it sometimes feels.
II. What the First Amendment Does (and Doesn’t) Promise
Before diving into the party dynamics, it’s worth being painfully clear about what the First Amendment actually covers.
Legally, the First Amendment restricts the government, not your boss, your college, your social-media platforms, or your neighbors. It forbids Congress (and by incorporation, state and local governments) from abridging freedom of speech, press, assembly, and so on. Courts have interpreted that to mean the government can’t punish you for your views, with narrow exceptions: true threats, incitement to imminent violence, targeted harassment, and a few others.
That is why Cohen v. California is such a useful landmark. The Supreme Court explicitly refused to let the state criminalize a political slogan just because it was vulgar and upsetting. In one line that should be tattooed above every cable-news set, the Court wrote that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” Free speech in that sense is not a gold star for polite behavior; it’s a rule that lets a pluralistic society function when people deeply disagree.
At the same time, the law is only one layer. Above it sit:
- Surveillance and data collection that chill what people are willing to say.
- Informal pressures from officials to platforms, media, or schools.
- Social and professional costs imposed by employers, mobs, or institutions.
The First Amendment does not magically stop any of that. And it is precisely in those gray zones—“legal, but costly”—that both parties have done much of their work over the last 25 years.
III. 2001–2008: The Security Right and the Suspicious State
The first big turn in the last 25 years came after September 11, 2001. In the shock and fear that followed, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, dramatically expanding surveillance powers in the name of fighting terrorism. Civil libertarians quickly warned that the law endangered not just privacy but First Amendment rights like freedom of political association and expression. Organizations such as the ACLU and EFF argued that the Act’s broad definitions could discourage lawful dissent and advocacy.
The atmosphere around dissent changed. Criticizing the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq could get you branded “unpatriotic.” Muslim communities found themselves under heavy scrutiny. The American Library Association and other groups fretted that the Act had a chilling effect on which books people felt safe checking out, especially on sensitive topics. Mosques saw drops in attendance and giving, in part because people feared their names would end up in a government database.
The Republican Party of that era often presented this tradeoff as a regrettable but necessary cost of security. Critics, many of them on the left or in libertarian circles, argued that the state was slowly normalizing tools that could be turned against any unpopular group.
On paper, the legal standard of what you were allowed to say didn’t change. In practice, when you know your calls, donations, travel, and online reading habits might be swept into a dragnet, you think twice before joining certain organizations or voicing certain opinions. The First Amendment never promised you freedom from fear—and fear is an excellent way to control speech without ever passing a “censorship law.”
IV. 2008–2016: The Cultural Left and the “Harm” Frame
If the first decade after 9/11 saw the right prioritize security over civil liberties, the late 2000s and 2010s saw a different kind of tension emerge on the left.
On one side, progressives were some of the loudest critics of Bush-era overreach. They attacked warrantless wiretapping, secret surveillance programs, and military tribunals. Civil liberties groups with roots in the left challenged the PATRIOT Act in court and in public, warning that extraordinary measures taken to fight terrorism had a way of sticking around long after the crisis.
On the other side, especially on campuses and in cultural institutions, a new moral vocabulary began to reshape how people talked about speech. The old liberal line—“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”—started to sound naïve in the face of identity-based harms. If speech reinforced racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of structural oppression, was it really just “speech”? Or was it a form of violence?
Universities became the most visible laboratory for this new approach. Student groups and administrators increasingly disinvited controversial speakers or pressured them to withdraw. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) tracked a rising number of “disinvitation attempts” from 2000 to 2014, as well as the spread of restrictive “free speech zones” and vague policies against “offensive” or “demeaning” speech. Their long-running campus speech reports show how policies and norms slowly tightened around what could be said without institutional trouble.
By the mid-2010s, high-profile showdowns over speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos, Charles Murray, and others drew national attention. Universities sometimes spent hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on security for controversial events, while at the same time trying to impose special fees or restrictions that courts later found unconstitutional.
The result was a split personality. On one channel, the mainstream left defended whistleblowers, privacy, and journalistic freedom against state surveillance. On another, it adopted a more paternalistic model in cultural spaces: restrain or exclude speech seen as harmful to marginalized groups. Free speech was still valued—but often subordinated to a higher priority: creating “safe” environments.
This shift didn’t mean the right became speech absolutists. But it did give conservatives an opening to recast themselves as the embattled defenders of open debate, at least in the context of universities and media. The narrative was simple and powerful: “We’re being silenced by the woke campus left.” It was not the whole truth, but it had enough truth in it to stick.
V. 2016–2025: Platforms, Populism, and the “Woke Right”
The 2016 election and the explosion of social media as a political battlefield supercharged everything.
Suddenly, debates over speech weren’t just about what the government could do or what a university should tolerate. They were about what responsibilities giant platforms—Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok—had to police what billions of people said online. The list of things to worry about grew: Russian trolls, “fake news,” Covid misinformation, election denial, harassment campaigns, deepfakes.
Governments, including the U.S. government, began pressuring platforms to do more to curb harmful content. The Biden administration, for example, engaged in extensive communications with social media companies about removing or demoting posts seen as Covid or election misinformation—efforts that sparked lawsuits claiming unconstitutional coercion. In 2024, the Supreme Court ultimately rejected one such challenge on standing grounds, but the public controversy made clear how blurry the line between “jawboning” and censorship had become. (Legal reference: Murthy v. Missouri (2024), which dealt with government communications to platforms.)
On the corporate side, platforms experimented with fact-checking labels, content removals, demonetization, and bans. They faced criticism from the left for not doing enough to stop harassment and misinformation, and from the right for allegedly silencing conservative voices. The backlash has been strong enough that companies like Meta have begun rethinking and scaling back some after-the-fact fact-checking efforts, shifting toward systems like “community notes” and other less centralized approaches.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party itself was changing. The Trump-era right discovered its own version of “speech is harm”—just with a different set of harms. State-level laws aimed at restricting how teachers talk about race, gender, and sexuality; book bans in school libraries; efforts to regulate what corporations, universities, or DEI offices could say or sponsor. These weren’t just symbolic gestures; they were statutes that punished or chilled certain viewpoints in the name of protecting children or defending tradition.
On campuses, FIRE’s more recent surveys show a broad, cross-partisan problem: students of many ideological stripes are increasingly open to shouting down speakers, disinviting them, or even using violence in some cases to stop speech they find offensive. Some recent analyses suggest that roughly a third of students say that violence could be acceptable in at least limited cases to silence a campus speaker, and support for disallowing controversial speakers altogether has become a majority position in some surveys.
In other words, the “woke right” and the censorious left now resemble funhouse mirrors of each other. Both sides have discovered that if you define someone else’s ideas as a fundamental threat—whether to democracy, to children, to marginalized communities, or to the nation—you can justify strong measures against their speech. The logic is the same; only the list of forbidden topics and villains changes.
VI. The Unfashionable People Who Tried to Be Consistent
Against this backdrop, it’s worth asking: who actually tried to defend free speech in principle, even when it cut against their tribe?
The list is not glamorous, but it exists. Civil liberties organizations like the ACLU, EFF, and FIRE have repeatedly taken on cases where the speaker was nobody’s idea of a sympathetic client: Nazis marching in Skokie, white nationalists on campus, radical Islamists under surveillance, controversial professors with offensive tweets. FIRE’s long-running documentation of campus speech environments and disinvitation attempts is one example of this unglamorous work: they treat patterns of censorship as a problem regardless of the speaker’s politics.
There is also a small but persistent coalition of libertarians, old-school civil libertarian liberals, and a handful of conservatives and socialists who share a weird, narrow overlap: they all believe that the best response to bad ideas is better ideas, not bans. They often frustrate their own allies by defending the speech rights of people seen as traitors, bigots, or crackpots.
These actors are not immune from error or capture. The ACLU itself has faced internal debates over how much to prioritize equality and “anti-hate” work versus “content-neutral” free speech defense. But the fact that these debates were so bitter tells you something: free speech as a principled commitment is increasingly at odds with the emotional logic of online-era politics, which is all about sorting friends and enemies.
VII. Free Speech as a Lost Civic Skill
All of this might sound abstract until you look at what it has done to everyday life.
When speech becomes dangerous—not in law, but in reputation—the safest strategy is silence. People learn to avoid sensitive subjects at work, at school, even with friends. Poll after poll finds high levels of self-censorship across the political spectrum: not because the police are listening, but because someone might screenshot, report, or ostracize them.
That has two corrosive effects.
First, it hollows out the public square. Instead of genuine disagreement, we get curated performances for our own side. People save their real opinions for private group chats, where they radicalize each other in peace. The middle disappears, or at least goes quiet.
Second, it atrophies our ability to disagree without dehumanizing. If every argument is treated as an attack on your identity or an existential threat to the republic, then the only sane reaction is to either withdraw or escalate. You don’t learn how to say, “I think you’re wrong, and here’s why,” and then go back to grilling together.
This is one of the most underappreciated side-effects of turning free speech into a partisan chip. When both parties describe the other side’s ideas as not just wrong but illegitimate—too hateful, too dangerous, too un-American to be heard—ordinary citizens get the message. You are not supposed to argue with those people; you are supposed to stop them.
The result, paradoxically, is more polarization, not less. The more people are afraid to speak honestly in mixed company, the more extreme the caricatures in each camp become. You never actually meet the thoughtful version of the other side; you only meet their loudest or most offensive representatives.
VIII. Where Free Speech Goes From Here
So is the outlook for free speech in the United States as bleak as it sometimes feels?
It depends on which layer you look at.
At the constitutional level, the doctrine remains robust. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed strong protections for political speech, offensive speech, and even deeply unpopular groups. Cases like Cohen still anchor the idea that mere offense is not enough to justify government suppression. Many countries do not have anything like that bedrock.
At the policy and institutional level, the picture is more mixed. Governments around the world, including the U.S. government, are still tempted to lean on platforms or pass broad laws in the name of combating disinformation, extremism, or harm. Universities, schools, and workplaces continue to struggle with how to balance inclusion, safety, and expression; student support for disruptive or even violent tactics against controversial speakers is trending the wrong way in several surveys.
At the cultural level, though, there are also reasons for cautious hope. There is a growing, cross-ideological weariness with purity culture and hair-trigger outrage. People who have been personally burned by cancellation dynamics—or by top-down attempts to manage speech—often become more sympathetic to robust free speech afterward. There is a small but steady renaissance of heterodox forums, podcasts, and publications that try to model good-faith disagreement instead of team sports.
The crucial question is whether Americans are willing to reclaim free speech as a nonpartisan civic habit rather than a partisan weapon. That means a few uncomfortable commitments:
- Defending the speech rights of people you deeply dislike.
- Resisting the urge to demand institutional punishment as the first response to offensive opinions.
- Re-learning how to debate ideas without immediately treating the other person as an enemy.
In everyday life, it might be as simple as this: start one more honest conversation than feels comfortable, and handle it better than the internet would. Ask a neighbor why they believe what they do; don’t jump straight to accusations. Treat bad arguments as something to be answered, not exiled.
If the last 25 years have taught us anything, it’s that neither major political party can be trusted with free speech when it becomes convenient to restrict it. The First Amendment’s promise was never “free speech, as long as my side is winning.” It was that in a noisy, messy, contradictory republic, we are stuck with one another—and we are allowed to say so out loud.
Free speech, in that sense, is not a team sport. It’s the rulebook that lets the game go on at all.
Zscaler’s daily closing price shows the sharp post-earnings selloff and the rebound that followed.
