Attitudes toward free speech have changed significantly in recent history. Just a century ago, writers from Russia, like Nobel Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, were imprisoned for simply voicing criticism against Soviet rule. In Solzhenitsyn’s case, he was detained for criticizing Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, in a letter to a friend. The fact that a personal exchange could result in years of imprisonment shows how restricted free expression once was. Today, many countries formally recognize freedom of speech as a fundamental right, but the idea is still often misunderstood. Despite sounding straightforward, it remains a complex and argued-over principle.

This peculiar term’s sophistication has always fascinated me. Does it mean we can say or write anything our heart desires, no matter how obscene, or can we only say or write something that is not offensive to anyone? The former suggests shouting racial slurs or propagating lies is fair game. This could mean we could falsely accuse a random stranger of a serious crime, and we would have every right to do so. This could cause actual harm via social ostracism or job loss; therefore, absolute free speech should not exist without limits. On the other hand, if free speech had too many restrictions, it would go against its basic meaning: the free and open expression of ideas. 

Needless to say, absolute freedom of speech is not a realistic possibility. There needs to be restrictions to an extent, as, in my opinion, the right of one person's physical well-being always trumps the right of another person's freedom of speech. This means freedom of speech should entail respectfully stating your opinions and thoughts without putting anyone in distress or danger. Freedom of speech should include challenging someone’s ideology and speaking your mind, but it should not include false accusations and discriminatory slurs, which can cause damage to individuals.

That being said, other aspects of free speech are often overlooked, but without them, free speech can lose its meaning. Alan Haworth's thought experiment explained in his book ‘Free Speech’, expertly explains these aspects and their significance. In the thought experiment, a government announces, after years of severe censorship laws, that they are going to deliver on its promise of granting free speech to all citizens, but only through “free speech booths.” Citizens can enter one at a time and say anything they want, even if it is critical of the government, but it has to be in the confines of these soundproof booths. Outside these booths, censorship laws will not cease to exist.

It is easy to see that the citizens in this thought experiment are not being given actual free speech but rather the illusion of free speech. For free speech to be effective, the right to speak whenever and wherever is just as important as the right to speak whatever. Ultimately, the right of free speech does not only mean the right to say something, but it also includes the right to say it to whoever and whenever we please. 

With this, we come to a complete definition of free speech. Free speech is the right to express one’s thoughts freely, at any time, to any audience, without fear of punishment and external pressure, provided it does not cause actual harm. Free speech is not just a right but a responsibility. Understanding free speech as a balance between freedom and harm reminds us that what we say matters. It’s not enough to simply exercise our right; we must use it thoughtfully, and not take it for granted.