The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making a law that infringes on the right to free speech. Yet free speech is a topic of ongoing controversy and discussion in the country. U.S. courts have long been tasked with determining what constitutes free speech, both in terms of words and symbolic actions, and Americans continue to debate to what degree free speech ought to be upheld as a cultural value, such as by private entities like social media companies.

Supporters of unabated free speech argue that individuals have the right to say whatever they want — regardless of whether the speech is inflammatory, incorrect, or a bad idea — without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal action. They argue that freedom of speech is equivalent to freedom of thought, and that free speech is essential to society because it allows the best ideas to win out in a “marketplace of ideas.”

On the other side, some argue there are ideas and rhetoric that are too unsavory, ridiculous or distasteful to be allowed in public, debated or provided a platform. They often focus on “hate speech,” which they say should be repressed, outlawed or disallowed in society. Some believe speech is equivalent to violence, because speech represents ideas that could lead to violence.

The debate over free speech plays out in many realms. The First Amendment bars governments from enacting laws that would infringe on freedom of speech, but non-government entities, like private companies, are free to adopt policies that do so. Some believe that private entities, such as social media companies, online forums, and college campuses, should ban certain speech. Online speech and campus speech are ongoing topics of debate. Companies such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook have received criticism for banning certain commentators or political personalities under “hate speech” guidelines or justifications.

Free speech supporters argue that censorship is not effective or moral because it is impossible to objectively define what hate speech is. They argue that there should be no authority on which ideas are acceptable and which are not — often, ideas that are initially considered “hateful,” unpopular, or that go against the current establishment end up being moral, effective, or true. They argue that there is a clear line between speech and physical violence. They also argue that free speech relieves pressure — when speech is suppressed, it goes underground and is marginalized. The dissenters, desperate to be heard and lacking adequate checks on their ideas, may become more extremist, inflammatory, or emotional.

People who support free speech often argue that “the answer to speech you don’t like is more speech” and “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” meaning society is better off when we keep ideas in the open so we can understand them and combat them if necessary, rather than trying to protect one another from an idea we might not like.

Those who are concerned with hate speech assert that hateful dialogue can hurt or marginalize people and lead to violence against or inequality among certain groups. They say that people’s ideas influence and direct their behavior, so if someone is speaking unseemly ideas, shutting down that speech means stopping potential violence that could result from those ideas. They argue that even when speech does not lead to physical violence, emotional or psychological pain is inflicted on others and has a negative, destructive impact. Hate speech opponents say individuals should be protected from such harm, in the form of bans or censorship.