Free speech law didn’t spring fully formed; it was hammered out case by case, crisis by crisis. We unpack how Schenck v. United States, a 1919 wartime case that actually upheld a conviction, planted the “clear and present danger” idea and nudged the Court away from the sweeping “bad tendency” rule. From there, we follow the thread through Holmes and Brandeis, whose dissents helped build a sturdier shield for political dissent, all the way to Brandenburg v. Ohio and its demanding standard: only speech intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action can be punished.

Along the way, we make sense of the narrow carve-outs—fighting words, obscenity, libel—and why courts resist expanding them to swallow political speech. We dive into equality-era pressures, campus speech codes, and the enduring myth of a “hate speech” exception. Matal v. Tam takes center stage as a modern proof that offensive speech is still protected, even when it stings, because pluralism requires resilience, not censorship.

Then we turn to the digital battleground. Social media, Section 230, algorithmic amplification, and the specter of real-world harm complicate the old doctrines. We explore what government can and cannot do, what platforms may choose to moderate, and how transparency and user control might reduce harm without trampling the First Amendment. If you’re a student, educator, or curious citizen, you’ll leave with a clearer map: where the lines are, why intent and imminence matter, and how to defend open debate while pushing back against true threats and incitement.

If this conversation helped clarify the free speech landscape, follow the show, share it with a friend who loves civics, and leave a quick review telling us where you’d draw the line.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics