Supporters of these measures argue that they are necessary to protect vulnerable groups and maintain public order.  Critics, by contrast, suggest that they risk silencing uncomfortable or unpopular opinions rather than encouraging them to be challenged and tested.  It is striking that both sides often frame their arguments as a defence of free speech, even though they disagree profoundly about where its limits should lie.

These debates remind us that freedom of speech is rarely a neutral concept. It is frequently defended in principle, yet contested in practice, particularly when it challenges our own assumptions or beliefs.  This raises important questions not only for politicians and commentators, but for schools and families as well.

The idea that people should be free to speak their minds is, in historical terms, relatively modern.  Until comparatively recently, criticising a monarch, a government, or even a religious authority could result in imprisonment, or worse!

In the early eighteenth century, two English writers, John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon published a series of essays known as Cato’s Letters. In them, they argued that freedom of speech was essential to liberty and wisdom:

‘Without freedom of thought…there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.’

At the time, this was a radical idea.  Free speech, they suggested, was not a privilege granted by those in power, but a right belonging to every individual.

Over the centuries that followed, this idea gradually became embedded in Western culture and law. It found expression in Britain’s Bill of Rights of 1689, in the American Constitution, and later in the European Convention on Human Rights.  Article 10 of that Convention, now part of UK law through the Human Rights Act, guarantees ‘the right to freedom of expression’, while also acknowledging that this right may be subject to restrictions.

The law therefore recognises that freedom of speech is not absolute.  In the UK, limits exist to prevent incitement to violence or hatred, to protect national security, and to guard against defamation and harassment. Some argue that the sheer number of exceptions risks undermining the principle itself; others contend that these boundaries are necessary if freedom is to be exercised responsibly.

One of the most influential defences of free speech was written by the nineteenth-century philosopher John Stuart Mill.  In On Liberty, Mill argued that open discussion is essential to the pursuit of truth.  Even opinions that turn out to be mistaken, play an important role, by forcing us to examine and refine our own beliefs.

Mill famously wrote that silencing a minority voice is never justified.

‘If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.’

Truth, Mill argued, is discovered through engagement with alternative views, rather than preserved by supressing them.  He warned that idea which are not ‘fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed’ risk becoming what he called ‘dead dogma’, accepted unthinkingly rather than understood.

However, even Mill did not argue that freedom of speech was unlimited.  He maintained that the only legitimate reason to restrict individual expression is to prevent real harm to others, the ‘harm principle’. Disagreement or offence alone, he contended, is not sufficient justification for silencing someone:

‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.’

John Stuart Mill – On Liberty

Determining which speech is harmful remains one of the most challenging aspects of the contemporary debate.  Words can cause harm. Bullying, harassment, and deliberate cruelty can have serious and lasting effects.  Yet there is danger in assuming that all discomfort and offence constitute harm. A society committed to learning and progress must be able to tolerate respectful disagreement, even when it challenges deeply held views.

For schools, these questions are not abstract.  Young people encounter them daily, in classrooms, online, and in social settings.  Learning how to express views thoughtfully, how to listen carefully, and how to disagree respectfully are essential skills, both for academic life and responsible citizenship.

Freedom of speech is not simply the right to say whatever you like without consequence, it carries significant responsibility; it means using your voice considerately; to question not to wound; to seek truth, not to score points; to seek to understand as well as persuade, and to treat others with dignity, even in disagreement.

As Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in her biography of Voltaire, famously put it:

‘I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’

It is a noble sentiment, but harder to live by than to applaud.  It requires both conviction and generosity of spirit. 

In a world that prizes quick opinions and strong reactions and too rarely rewards careful nuanced thought, education has a vital role to play in fostering reflective dialogue. True freedom of speech depends not only on the courage to speak honestly, but also on the wisdom to listen with respect.

As a school community, our shared task is to nurture both: to speak with integrity, to listen with patience and, to remember that words, like our freedoms, are powerful and precious.