When I think about free expression, I don’t see it as just an abstract constitutional principle or something that only matters in courtrooms and politics. I see it as a shared social value that also works on a deeply personal level. At its core, free expression is about who gets to speak, who gets heard, and whose ideas are treated as legitimate in society.

From a societal perspective, free expression is essential because it allows disagreement, criticism, and change. As Danielle Allen and Teresa Bejan point out, free expression isn’t always about politeness or harmony; it’s often uncomfortable and disruptive, but that discomfort is necessary for pluralistic societies to function (Bejan, Mere Civility). Without the ability to openly challenge dominant ideas, social progress stalls. That said, free expression isn’t only a public good. It also matters on a personal level because it shapes how individuals understand themselves and their place in the world.

Free expression plays a major role in identity formation, both publicly and privately. Michel Foucault’s idea of parrhesia, fearless speech, shows that speaking truthfully is not just about sharing information. It’s about taking a risk and asserting oneself as a moral subject (Foucault, “Parrhesia”). In this sense, expression becomes an act of self-creation. When people are allowed to speak openly, they aren’t just contributing to debate; they are actively constructing their identities through language and action.

However, the ability to express oneself is not evenly distributed. Gayatri Spivak’s famous question, “Can the subaltern speak?” highlights how marginalized groups may technically have freedom of expression but still lack real power to be heard (Spivak). This made me think about modern examples like social media activism. Movements such as #MeToo show how platforms for expression can amplify voices that were historically ignored, while also revealing how quickly those voices can be dismissed or attacked.

So, is free expression worth protecting? I believe it absolutely is, but with awareness of its limits. Free expression alone doesn’t guarantee justice or equality, but without it, meaningful resistance and self-definition become nearly impossible. Protecting free expression means more than defending controversial speech; it means creating conditions where people can actually speak and be heard.

For me, free expression is worth protecting because it connects personal identity with collective progress. It allows us to question who we are, who we want to be, and how society might change if more voices were taken seriously.

---

References

Bejan, T. (2017). Mere civility: Disagreement and the limits of toleration. Harvard University Press.
https://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/attachments/Bejan.pdf

Foucault, M. (2001). Fearless speech (J. Pearson, Ed.). Semiotext(e).
https://foucault.info/parrhesia/

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). University of Illinois Press.
https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~sj6/Spivak%20CanTheSubalternSpeak.pdf

La Pensée, S., & Emmons, K. (2018). Indigenous futurisms and imaginaries. First-Family Coalition.
http://ffc.twu.edu/issue_9-1/lesson_LaPensee-and-Emmons_9-1.html

Langone, A. (2018, December 9). #MeToo and Time’s Up founders explain the difference between the 2 movements. Time.
https://time.com/5781247/me-too-movement-history/