Open inquiry and free speech are a critical part of campus life. When students cannot ask the questions on their mind, their curiosity is smothered and they end up learning less. When faculty do not feel free to speak their minds openly, the classroom becomes shallow and guarded, and the process of sharing knowledge suffers as a result.

For college to be all that it is supposed to be, students and faculty must feel the excitement of unbridled inquiry and the rush of unfettered thought. For the university to remain the place where our minds grow and our thoughts gain depth, everyone must be free to express their ideas, no matter how wild or unconventional these may be.

Below are several videos featuring professors from a range of disciplines speaking on why they find free speech to be valuable.

Free Speech On Campus

What About Offensive Speech?

Speech and Academic Freedom

We will not always agree with what others think; we may even be offended by their notions of truth and goodness. But the most important part of a higher education is to learn to communicate your own ideas persuasively, and exposure to those who disagree with you is a precondition to developing this skill.

You can start a conversation about free speech on your campus, Heterodox Academy can help:

Keep Learning

Click here to watch more free speech videos from Learn Liberty.

If reading is more your style, you can find a host of literature, new and old, surrounding free speech and open inquiry below. We recommend this selection of readings if you want to explore the topic of free speech more in-depth:

This first section contains many of the most important and well-known statements of the moral and theoretical foundations of an open society. From Socrates’s immortal defense of his right to pursue the truth unhindered by societal standards of piety, to the classical liberal defense of toleration and open inquiry in the writings of Locke, Hume, and Mill, to Tocqueville’s warning of the dangers of intellectual conformity, readers of this section will see how the greatest minds of the past viewed the vital importance of free speech and open inquiry for creating a rational and just society.

John Milton, Areopagitica

John Locke, Letters Concerning Toleration

David Hume, “Of the Liberty of the Press”

Immanuel Kant, “What is Enlightenment?”

Alexis de Tocqueville, “Of the Omnipotence of the Majority in the United States and Its Effects” from Democracy in America

John Stuart Mill, “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion,” from On Liberty

Frederick Douglass, “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston, 1860”


This section features classic statements of the importance of free speech from two of America’s preeminent statesmen-scholars, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Whether defending the right of the people to uncensored public information, standing up against the abridgement of free speech by the Alien and Sedition Acts passed during the Adams administration, or discussing the fundamental importance of education in a free society, these writings show that free speech and open inquiry are necessary ingredients for a just and free political system.

Thomas Jefferson

To Edward Carrington (01/16/1787)

First Inaugural Address (03/04/1801)

To Elijah Boardman (07/03/1801)

To John Norvell (06/14/1807)

James Madison

Report on the Virginia Resolutions (01/1800)

To W.T. Barry (08/04/1822)

In this section, the readings focus on the jurisprudence of free speech. Two historical themes stand out. First, freedom of speech has tended to become more protected by jurisprudence over the decades, especially in the United States. Second, though free speech jurisprudence is highly protective—though with important exceptions—it is often embattled by emergent agendas and crusades, what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. called “fighting faiths” in his famous dissent in Abrams v. United States. Just where authorities and society should draw the line between protected and unprotected speech is a matter of constant interest and academic engagement.

William Blackstone, from Commentaries

Joseph Story, from Commentaries on the Constitution

Sedition and Danger
A core question in free speech jurisprudence is when the government may punish speech because it poses a threat to the political order or to the law. The early “clear and present danger test” created by Justice Holmes was the first major specific test intended to deal with this question. Before this, courts relied upon a vague “bad tendency” test. But Holmes’ first use of this test in Schenck proved to be less protective than it appeared, so Holmes and Justice Brandeis—in dissent—moved toward more protective tests that protected “advocacy” of illegal action so long as it fell short of “direct incitement.” It was not until Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) that the Court (unanimously) as a whole adopted a test that remains among the most protective free speech tests in the world in this doctrinal domain. Government may punish the advocacy of lawless action unless the speech constitutes a direct incitement to imminent lawless action that is likely to occur.

Schenck v. United States (Holmes majority) [1919]

Abrams v. United States (Holmes dissent) [1919]

Gitlow v. New York (Holmes dissent) [1925]

Whitney v. California (Brandeis concurrence) [1927]

Dennis v. United States (Douglas dissent) [1951]

Brandenburg v. Ohio (Per Curiam decision, Douglas Concurrence) [1969]

“Fighting Words”
The Supreme Court has long ruled that so-called “fighting words” are not protected by the First Amendment. Fighting words are face-to-face words that are so insulting that they cause a direct breach of the peace or inflict severe emotional harm. Though fighting words remain unprotected in theory, beginning with the Cohen case of 1971, the Court has progressively narrowed the meaning of fighting words over time in order to accommodate vibrant discourse in a pluralistic society. Today, fighting words are limited to extreme provocations and direct threats to the safety of persons.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (Murphy majority) [1942]

Cohen v. California (Harlan majority) [1971]

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (Per Curiam decision) [1977]

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (Scalia majority) [1992]

Virginia v. Black (O’Connor majority; Thomas dissent) [2003]

Snyder v. Phelps (Roberts majority) [2011]

Civil Rights and the First Amendment
Several Supreme Court decisions extended First Amendment rights to civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s. These decisions helped to open the door to civil rights claims. The Supreme Court held that civil rights organizations could maintain the privacy of their membership lists, thereby protecting members from retaliation. And it enhanced the right to demonstrate in the public forum, which secured a crucial vehicle for less wealthy groups to persuade and pressure the public. In the 1980s and 1990s the Supreme Court limited public forum rights somewhat, but it still maintain the essence of the doctrine.

NAACP v. Button (Brennen majority) [1963]

Brown v. Louisiana (Fortas plurality) [1966]

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (Stewart majority) [1969]

A majority of the Supreme Court never even considered the First Amendment protection of “obscenity” until the Roth case in 1957. Before that time, the Court simply assumed that the first Amendment did not protect obscenity, so obscenity cases in the courts mainly involved applying obscenity statutes rather than constitutional analysis. In Roth the Court declared that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but that non-“prurient” portrayal of sexuality and sexual themes is protected. Moving in a libertarian direction, the Court narrowed the constitutional definition of “obscenity” in Miller v. California (1973), which protects sexual depictions that fall short of being “hard core” pornography. Miller remains the basic First Amendment standard for obscenity to this day. In the 1980s lower federal courts rejected a new model for the restriction of sexual expression, the so-called “feminist civil rights ordinance” created by radical feminists Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. Eschewing the traditional morality logic of obscenity law, the feminist ordinance targeted “pornography,” which it defined as the “sexually explicit subordination of women.” Courts ruled that the ordinance fell afoul of the First Amendment because it targeted not just obscenity, but also ideas regarding gender relations.

United States v. One Book Called Ulysses [1933]

Roth v. United States (Brennen majority; Douglas dissent) [1957]

Miller v. California (Burger majority) [1973]

American Booksellers Association v. Hudnet [1985]

Speech in Public Schools
Extending First Amendment rights to pre-college students was an important aspect of the Supreme Court’s liberalization project in the 1950s and 1960s. In subsequent decades, the Court has allowed more leeway for school officials to balance speech rights with other pedagogical values, such as the inculcation of civility and order. Courts have also distinguished primary and secondary public education from education in colleges and universities, extending greater First Amendment protection to the latter. In the 1990s, lower federal courts struck down so-called “speech codes” designed to limit expression of students in the name of sensitivity and civility. Finally, the Supreme Court has declared that the academic freedom of teachers and students enjoys basic, if nuanced, First Amendment protection.

Sweezy v. New Hampshire (Warren majority; Frankfurter concurrence) [1957]

Keyishian v. Board of Regents (Brennen majority) [1967]

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (Fortas majority) [1969]

UWM Post v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin [1991]

Morse v. Frederick (Roberts majority; Stevens dissent) [2007]

This final section features readings relating to current free speech controversies on university campuses, both in America and abroad. Arguments are presented on both sides of the question, from critiques of political correctness, to arguments holding that academic freedom must be forsaken in the name of “academic justice.” This section gives readers a feeling for the state of the debate as it exists on college campuses today.

Joanna Williams, “Teaching Students to Fear Free Speech,” Spiked 12/9/2013

Joanna Williams, “Teaching Students not to Think,” Spiked 1/6/2014

Sandra Y.L. Korn, “The Doctrine of Academic Freedom” Harvard Crimson, February 18, 2014

Eric Posner, “Universities are Right—and Within Their Rights—to Crack Down on Speech and Behavior,” Slate 2/12/2015

Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” The Atlantic, September 2015