The prize of free speech

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

One of the most enduring ideas associated with free speech is often attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Whether Voltaire actually wrote those exact words is contested. But this quote continues to resonate because it captures something powerful about freedom of expression. The strong belief that disagreeability alone should not justify suppression of this constitutional right.

Our Supreme Court in Chavez vs. Gonzalez fleshed out this core principle. Free speech is more than just approving “existing political beliefs”. It is profoundly more about the “articulation of the unorthodox view, though it be hostile to or derided by others”. Constitutional protection is for ideas that even “stirs people to anger”. This constitutional right is precisely for “those who question, who do not conform, who differ.”  Indeed, it is “freedom for the thought that we hate, no less than for the thought that agrees with us”.

However, this appeal to absolutism has also led to freedom of expression being interpreted as a license to say whatever one wants, whenever one wants, however one wants. But this mentality is actually a bastardization of the constitutional right. Free speech protects a person’s liberty against unjustified coercion. It is not a guarantee that speech is consequence-free, nor is it a declaration that every form of expression deserves an audience.

At its core, freedom of speech rests on an important premise: government cannot control what people think. The state cannot prescribe beliefs or compel ideological conformity. It cannot simply dictate what citizens may or may not say because it disagrees with their views. That principle remains foundational.

But outside that relationship between citizen and state, life becomes more complex and nuanced. People do not exist only as isolated constitutional actors. They belong to schools, workplaces, churches, professional organizations, families, and communities. These associations develop norms and expectations that shape expression.

If a person voluntarily joins a group, conditions on participation may be imposed. A newsroom may enforce editorial standards. A university may regulate classroom conduct. Professional organizations may discipline members for breaches of ethics. Communities establish expectations about respect and decorum. These are not necessarily violations of free speech. They are often conditions of community life.

Even governments may regulate speech under specific circumstances. Constitutional democracies have long recognized that certain forms of speech can create harms serious enough to justify intervention. Our jurisprudence, following established constitutional traditions, has recognized the clear and present danger standard to justify suppression of speech. These pertain to situations where expression creates a substantive and imminent threat to legitimate public interests.

But the price of free speech is something else entirely. Here we refer to the words of Frederick Douglass in A Plea for Freedom of Speech in Boston: “Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

Free speech was never simply about speaking. It was about creating conditions where people could encounter one another as equals. To speak assumes someone else may answer. Accordingly, to demand freedom for one’s own voice requires accepting that others possess the same freedom—including the freedom to disagree, reject, criticize, or refuse.

Listening is the price of free speech, but it does not mean surrendering convictions. It does not require agreement. It just means treating expression as an invitation to dialogue rather than a contest for dominance. When people speak and listen in good faith, communities become stronger. Differences become more manageable. Disagreement becomes less threatening. And thus, the prize of free speech is the strengthening of community bonds.

Free speech is more than just about individual liberty. In its most fundamental sense, it is a primordial element in the practice of living together. Therefore, the challenge for democratic societies today may no longer be whether people are willing to defend the right to speak. It is whether they are equally willing to bear the obligations that speech demands. That is to listen to understand, not just to respond.