Freedom of Speech in the United States: An Overview

Freedom of speech is one of America’s core political culture values, meaning the vast majority of citizens—of all political persuasions—agree with the concept. But, while most Americans agree with freedom of speech in general, there is little agreement on what the exceptions should be. When can, or should, speech (a generalized term that includes the media, artistic expression, and public gatherings) be limited by governments?

Throughout US history, leaders have tried to impose limits on the freedom of speech from both conservative and liberal viewpoints. From the 1780s to social media, here’s a look at key US election cycles where freedom of speech became a hot topic and affected voters.

The early American republic was far from a world power and was often targeted for abuse on the high seas by Britain and France. Although France was a former ally from the American Revolutionary War, the French Revolution changed both political and trade dynamics between the two countries. As Britain went to war against France during the French Revolutionary Wars, America attempted to remain neutral, and as it smoothed relations with Britain, tensions spiked with France. This created the Quasi-War between France and the US, with French privateers seizing American ships in 1796 and 1797.

Two years later, Democratic-Republican Vice President Thomas Jefferson defeated Adams in the presidential election, and many thought public opposition to the Acts helped clinch Jefferson’s victory. He allowed the controversial law to expire and pardoned those convicted of violating it.

1864 Election: The Civil War and Limits on Protest

The American Civil War (1861-65) involved a great deal of limits on free speech, especially since the opposing sides shared a common language and, to a great extent, a common culture. Both the Union and the Confederacy limited speech and press that was considered favorable to the other side, lest citizens of each slacken their resolve and support for the conflict. Supporters of censorship argued that sympathizers of the enemy could use free speech and the press to spread harmful disinformation or propaganda that might confuse troops and drive down enlistments.

US President Abraham Lincoln is widely known for suspending habeas corpus, or the right to appeal one’s imprisonment, in border states. Controversially, the Lincoln administration seized some newspapers in 1864 that were known for opposing the president. These papers were printing dubious information, specifically a hoax about a large military draft that allegedly harmed the war effort…but were Lincoln’s actions still suppression of the free press? Ultimately, Lincoln won re-election that autumn by a solid margin, with late-in-the-war battlefield victories bolstering his popularity at crucial moments.

After the Civil War, America rapidly urbanized and industrialized in the northeast, fueled by rapid immigration from Europe. During the Gilded Age, unethically close relationships existed between industries and politicians. Most government jobs were filled through patronage, also known as the spoils system, with winners of elections appointing their friends and allies to positions in the public sector regardless of skill or aptitude. Some journalists began criticizing this system and worked to expose corruption.

The press helped publicize a scandal that sank US President Ulysses S. Grant’s hope of a third term in 1876. In 1875, journalists reported on the Whiskey Ring scandal involving fraud to avoid paying taxes (by using bribery) on whiskey production. Grant’s personal secretary, Orville Babcock, was found to be complicit in the scandal. Combined with other scandals in Grant’s administration (though not involving the president himself), the Republican Party decided not to run the former general-in-chief for a third term as president. Free speech in the form of the free press, therefore, led to Grant being sidelined and replaced by Rutherford B. Hayes.

1920 Election: WWI-Era Espionage and Sedition Acts

Nationwide mobilization for war, including a draft, erupted fifty years after the Civil War with America’s entry into World War I. With imperial Germany targeting American ships on the high seas, the government wanted to ensure that no information about US shipping or ports would fall into enemy hands. The Espionage Act of 1917 punished those who leaked valuable information about the American war effort. A year later, the Espionage Act deepened restrictions on speech by allowing the government to punish those who undermined the war effort, such as by protesting America’s involvement.

In the summer of 1918, a socialist labor reformer named Eugene Debs was arrested and imprisoned for a speech criticizing the wartime draft. Although World War I ended soon afterward with an Allied victory, Debs remained in prison. He famously campaigned for president in 1920 from his prison cell and received just over three percent of the popular vote. Although the Supreme Court had ruled against Debs in 1919, keeping him in prison, the socialist reformer was released from prison by election victor Warren G. Harding in 1921.

Government censorship of the press was eased during World War II, as fewer people protested the war, and the government felt that more active media coverage would deepen public support. Allied victory in the war in 1945 quickly revealed a new threat: the communist Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a growing superpower that actively supported the spread of communism around the globe…including among its wartime allies. Quickly, the American public was engulfed by the Second Red Scare during the early Cold War era.

During the election cycles from 1948 to 1960, free speech was informally suppressed by public condemnations of socialism, communism, and alleged sympathizers. Politicians and celebrities who were suspected of past sympathies with any strain of Marxism were often rejected by voters, viewers, and even employers. Many felt that the Red Scare advantaged Republican presidential candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower, a World War II hero, due to his public image as a tough, military-minded leader. Although the Red Scare cooled after 1954 and the collapse of McCarthyism, anti-communism remained a dominant theme over which presidential candidates competed in 1956 and 1960.

1948-1964: Civil Rights and Attempts at Suppression

Suspected communists were not the only voices suppressed in the 1950s through often informal intimidation and condemnation. Minorities who fought for civil rights during this parallel era also faced widespread backlash from powerful figures and institutions, mostly in the South. Local and state governments often ignored First Amendment protections of freedom of speech, press, religion, and peaceable assembly by arresting African American activists for alleged disruptions of the peace. Sometimes, authorities tried to infringe on civil rights activists by labeling them communists.

The political effects of the Civil Rights Movement on presidential elections were complex. Although national Democratic leaders like presidents Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson supported civil rights, Southern Democrats largely opposed them. This gave popular Republicans like President Dwight D. Eisenhower an opening to court Black voters in the North, helping him easily win re-election in 1956. Eight years later, after Kennedy pushed hard on civil rights, even a repressed Black vote in the South helped Democratic nominee Lyndon B. Johnson win big in 1964. The next year, Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law, ending states’ use of biased literacy tests for voter registration in the South.

Johnson’s landslide presidential election victory in 1964 was largely due to his staunch support for civil rights and economic reforms. Beginning the following year, however, Johnson’s popularity began to wane as he continually escalated American military involvement in the Vietnam War. Ongoing protests over civil rights were quickly joined by anti-war and anti-draft protests, with many young activists belonging to both movements. Government attempts to limit anti-war views were limited by new technology: television. Journalists could get news from the ground instead of relying on government reports that were favorable to the Johnson administration.

This freedom of the press largely sank the re-election hopes of President Johnson in 1968. Widespread protests against the war and the draft, coupled with devastating news coverage of the situation in Vietnam, weakened Johnson’s political support. On March 31, 1968, Johnson announced he would not seek re-election. Anti-war press later affected the 1972 presidential election, with the Pentagon Papers, published by the New York Times and the Washington Post, driving President Richard Nixon (winner of the 1968 election) to approve unethical means to secure re-election. Nixon won re-election, but his attempt to cover up his campaign’s break-in of the Democratic Party offices at the Watergate Complex led to his eventual resignation in 1974.

2004-12: War on Terror Elections

Freedom of speech became a major political issue again after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Due to the sophistication and brutality of the attacks, the US government feared future attacks were a possibility. New technology like the Internet and cell phones made it easier for terrorists to plan and carry out attacks. In response, the federal government passed the Patriot Act. Controversially, this law gave the government unprecedented power to tap citizen’s phones (and other electronic communication). Proponents of the law, who tended to be supporters of incumbent Republican president George W. Bush, argued that it strengthened national security by allowing rapid tracking of terrorists and criminals.

This divide, which was part of a broader political disagreement over US actions in the War on Terror, affected the next three presidential elections. Americans disagreed over how much information should be restricted to protect the public interest, such as trying to avoid a panic over a potential bioterror attack. Around the 2012 election cycle, the debate over whistleblowers became highly political. Current or former government employees were charged with violating the Espionage Act (yes, from World War I) for revealing information about government investigations. Supporters of whistleblowers argued that they were doing a public service by revealing government excess, while critics said they were undermining national security.

If the 2004, 2008, and 2012 presidential elections dealt with restrictions on speech, the 2016 election changed the situation slightly by focusing on the security of speech. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was accused of violating the law and jeopardizing national security by using a private email server to store emails made when she was US Secretary of State. The Clinton email server scandal became a major facet of the presidential campaign, with critics of the former US senator (D-NY) arguing that she was reckless in her use of personal (and unencrypted) email.

The scandal sparked a debate over how secure modern communications needed to be. Did the former First Lady truly jeopardize national security by occasionally using personal email to conduct government business? Supporters of Clinton argued that the situation was blown out of proportion and that the excessive media coverage was unfair. This created a debate over media bias and whether Clinton or her opponent, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, were being covered fairly. Citizens were split, with most Democrats arguing that the email server scandal coverage was unfairly harsh toward Clinton and most Republicans arguing that the media favored Clinton over Trump.

2020-24: “Rigged Election” Allegations

For the first time in modern history, the 2020 presidential election was subject to widespread allegations that voter fraud had occurred and changed the outcome. Beginning in April 2020, conservatives began pushing claims that the Democratic Party would “cheat” the election through the use of mail-in ballots. Arguments that use of fraudulent or counterfeit mail-in ballots would be used by Democrats to “steal” the election continued through election day in November. When the Democratic nominee won the election, many Republicans opined that some degree of fraud had likely occurred.

Widespread Republican claims that fraud may have occurred or would occur in the future due to Democrat-supported reforms were condemned by Democrats as false and attempting to mislead the public. This sparked a debate over the boundaries of freedom of speech versus slander. At what point did claims of voter fraud become slander rather than opinion? Some conservatives argued that those arrested during and after the January 6, 2021 storming of the US Capitol were political prisoners because they were being persecuted for their true political beliefs. Critics replied that believing false claims of voter fraud did not excuse breaking the law and blamed Republican politicians for pushing voter fraud narratives, sparking the violence.