The political left lacks any subtlety in its attitudes toward free speech and the First Amendment. Indeed, whenever liberals cite the First Amendment, they inevitably argue for downgrading it from the pinnacle of constitutional provisions. Although the left once stood up for speech rights, now it seems to think of the First Amendment’s protections not as a command, but simply a consideration.

　　The left’s shifting attitudes towards free speech have become blatant in the last five years. From the widespread call for censoring covid dissenters to the repression of the Hunter Biden laptop story to the assault on conservative social media to the intensifying campaign for a dragnet censorship against “misinformation,” liberals have greatly narrowed the protections they believe speech deserves.

　　What makes this change so sad is that it was always liberals who advocated for free speech. As the US Supreme Court developed its free speech jurisprudence in the decades following World War II, for example, liberals consistently pushed for expanded protections. Understanding this original position will illustrate the tragedy of the way left-wingers abandoned their earlier position.

　　In the 1950s and 1960s, censorship campaigns arose in response to the Cold War and the danger of communist infiltration and influence. These high-profile campaigns were followed in the 1970s and 1980s by efforts to control the burgeoning flood of violent and sexually explicit media speech available to children. Generally speaking, conservatives supported these censorship efforts, or at least acquiesced to them. Behind the banner of the Free Speech Movement that began in California in the 1960s, however, it was liberals who stood as staunch allies of free speech, regardless of how repulsive or destructive that speech seemed.

　　This defense of free speech prevailed throughout the social and political tumult of the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and the Watergate crisis. Liberals continued their support of free speech through the 1990s and 2000s, although cracks began to appear as they began succumbing to speech codes and political correctness. It was liberals who strongly resisted a congressional attempt to regulate Internet pornography accessed by children, as well as state attempts to protect children from graphically violent video games. Sadly, though, the liberal position on free speech has eroded considerably for at least the past decade or two, to the point where the political left has become the primary advocate for censorship across an array of speech issues.

　　Now, except when it comes to the speech of favored interest groups, the left no longer advocates a consistent defense of free speech. Indeed, the only way to mount a principled defense of speech is to defend the speech of those with whom one disagrees. To the left, censorship is no longer a speech issue. It has become a tool within their arsenal of political weaponry.

　　Instances of leftist-inspired speech harassment span the spectrum of contemporary life. A pro-life position can subject you to FBI harassment. A skepticism on lockdowns or mandated vaccines can brand you as a social outcast. And an adherence to certain religious views can subject you to innumerable sanctions.

　　Twenty-five years ago, liberals vehemently opposed any regulation of online content, warning that government interference could stunt the growth of the Internet. The way in which American businesses converted the Internet into a growth engine that has reshaped culture and society should be cause for celebration on the left. Instead, its adherents see this triumph of private entrepreneurship as a prompt for greater government control and activism.

　　Recent events and disclosures have demonstrated the concerted efforts by the federal government to censor the content of social media. But perhaps the most concerning and dangerous liberal stance on speech involves the intensifying censorship campaign against “misinformation.” In fact, California recently passed a law prohibiting AI-generated “deep fake” political communications ahead of elections.

　　There exists no objective definition of “misinformation,” other than speech with which one disagrees. Therefore, a censorship crusade against “misinformation” threatens to suffocate the marketplace of ideas that has inspired nearly a century of First Amendment jurisprudence.

　　The phrase marketplace of ideas has for more than a century been used to describe the nature and purpose of the First Amendment’s free speech protection. This phrase was famously articulated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in his dissenting opinion in the US Supreme Court case of Abrams v. United States.

　　The issue in Abrams was whether the First Amendment protected Jacob Abrams from prosecution under the Espionage Act for distributing leaflets criticizing the dispatch of American troops to Russia and calling for a general strike in the United States. The Supreme Court upheld Abrams’ conviction, ruling that his behavior posed a “clear and present danger” to the national security interests of the United States. Justice Holmes, however, disagreed. In a dissent that would later cast him as a defender of free speech and the First Amendment, Holmes wrote that the “best test of truth” of particular ideas is not the approval of government but the power of that speech “to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

　　According to Holmes, speech should not be prohibited by law just because it might be problematic or even contrary to government policy. Instead, he argued the speech’s ability to gain approval in the social marketplace of ideas should determine its worth and staying power. Only through the open competition of free and unhindered speech can society discover the truth necessary to govern itself as a democracy.

　　Perhaps the marketplace of ideas metaphor has lost favor because contemporary liberalism has lost faith in democracy.

　　It would be nearly a half-century before the Supreme Court would accept the theory put forth by Justice Holmes in his 1919 Abrams dissent. Courts would come to value free speech as both a social and constitutional goal, and government restrictions on speech would be struck down as unconstitutional constraints on the marketplace of ideas. The constitutional protections of speech would not hinge on the government’s evaluation of the value or desirability of the speech, because only through competition in the marketplace of ideas can speech be properly judged by a democratic society. Consequently, to value truth is to value free speech; for without free speech, there can be no truth.

　　The enduring legacy of Holmes’ marketplace of ideas metaphor lay in its broadening of the justification for free speech. Before Holmes’ Abramss dissent, speech was looked upon as strictly an individual value. Thus, the only justification for protecting speech was the individual interest in being able to say whatever he or she wanted to say. At that point in America’s history, individual freedom to do or say whatever one felt like doing or saying was not highly valued. If a democracy was to survive and prosper, individuals had to conform to social norms and not be free to flaunt the needs of society and government just for the sake of individual whim.

　　Through his marketplace metaphor, Holmes demonstrated that free speech was not simply an individual value and that the reason for protecting free speech was not simply to grant unrestricted freedom to individuals. Instead, free speech was a necessary component of an effective and thriving democracy. Without an open marketplace of ideas, the public could not come to a full and agreed-upon appreciation of social truth, which was the very foundation of self-government.

　　This marketplace principle is violated today when unwanted speech is labeled “misinformation” and then censored. Under Justice Holmes’ metaphor, truth or falsity (information or “misinformation”) is to be determined in the marketplace, not by the dictating hand of government.

　　Under the marketplace of ideas metaphor, free speech is seen as a necessary condition for the attainment of truth. But with its relativistic outlook—an outlook that has become entrenched over the past half-century—the left no longer believes in truth or an objective reality. Consequently, it no longer believes in the need for a marketplace of ideas.

　　Instead of a belief in truth, the progressive left promotes scientific and bureaucratic expertise. This advocacy of technocratic expertise flourished during the New Deal and continues to characterize the progressive left in the United States, as exemplified in the Covid lockdowns and the climate change debates. However, this reliance on expertise—rather than a belief in the broader concept of truth—renders the marketplace of ideas irrelevant, since the general population by definition does not possess a specialized scientific or technical expertise.

　　With its loss of faith in truth or in principles of unity that transcend the divergent interest groups in society, the left possesses no message that can unify a diverse society. Assimilation no longer constitutes a social model for the left, which cannot advocate any unifying principles to which all society can adhere. Consequently, without a positive message, the left retains only the negative message of opposition. And this message of opposition finds expression through censorship campaigns aimed at unwanted speech. As I argue in An American Paradox: Censorship in a Nation of Free Speech, censorship thrives when societies or communities are weak, unstable, or fragmented. In such societies, censorship becomes the only way to achieve a superficial sense of unity.

　　Even if the left still believes in truth, they may think it holds a monopoly on such truth and that its ideas are the only correct and enlightened ideas. And there is no need for a marketplace of ideas if one side already has a monopoly on truth. This attitude may explain the growing liberal intolerance for dissent—an intolerance that can even condone violence, as exemplified by the university professor who called for all men who did not vote for Kamala Harris to be lined up and shot.

　　Finally, perhaps the marketplace of ideas metaphor has lost favor because contemporary liberalism has lost faith in democracy. Indeed, free speech attitudes on the left began to change just about the time that Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 1994 for the first time in forty years. No longer would Democrats have the kind of longstanding legislative power they enjoyed since the early 1930s. Hence, the progressive left turned away from a commitment to democratic processes.

　　Through the latter part of the twentieth century, the left often relied on the courts to achieve their social and cultural agenda. And with the Clinton, Obama, and now Biden presidencies, the left increasingly implemented their policy goals through executive action. Consequently, with a loss of faith in democracy, the left also weakened in their commitment to free speech.

　　Since 2020, the left has continually preached the fragility of American democracy, as if it could disappear immediately through the actions of one man. Looking at democracy this way, after it has survived for nearly two and a half centuries, through a Civil War, a Great Depression, and two world wars, only reveals the left’s lack of trust in democracy.

　　Americans have always believed that free speech and democratic health are intimately connected. As Justice Holmes argued, one cannot value speech if one does not value democracy. And if one does not value democracy, one will never protect free speech. Perhaps this relationship explains the left’s current disregard for free speech principles.