🏛️ Politics & SocietyMedium🗣️ Out loud

How to argue about the limits of free speech

The situation

A binary has just been dropped on you: all speech or none. You think there are limits, and you think that's obviously right, but "obviously" isn't an argument. What do you say?

They open with: “Either you believe in free speech or you don't. You can't have it with exceptions.

Why it's hard: You've been handed a binary — all speech or none — and "obviously there are limits" feels true but isn't yet an argument.

Two things you could say

  • You already accept limits — you can't shout fire in a theatre, you can't threaten someone, fraud is illegal. So we agree there's a line. The whole argument is where it goes, not whether it exists.

    Breaking the binary with cases they already accept turns an unwinnable all-or-nothing into a conversation about where, which is ground you can actually reason on.

  • What's the harm you're worried about if we draw the line where I'm suggesting? Let's argue about that specific harm rather than the abstract principle — that's where the real disagreement is.

    Moving from the principle to the concrete harm stops both of you defending slogans and gets you arguing about the actual case, which is where minds occasionally move.

What to avoid

"So you basically want censorship." — putting words in their mouth is a strawman that forces them to defend a position they didn't take, and now you're both arguing about a caricature.

The principle

Break the binary with a case they already accept — fraud, threats, shouting fire — and then the argument becomes about WHERE the line is, which is a conversation, not a war.

The skill underneath it

More politics & society moments

All 54 situations →

You'll know what to say. Saying it is the part that needs practice.

In FlowTalk this one talks back — you make your case, the other side answers, and a coach reads what you actually said.

Try this one free