Libertarian Position on Free Speech
Libertarianism prioritizes individual liberty, property rights, and minimal government interference, which shapes its stance on free speech across different contexts.
Government’s Role
The government must not censor or punish speech, as this violates core principles of liberty and the non-aggression principle. Free expression is absolute in the public sphere, protected from state intervention, aligning with protections like the U.S. First Amendment. Any attempt by the government to restrict speech is seen as authoritarian overreach.
Private Institutions
Private entities, such as companies, have the right to fire employees or restrict speech on their platforms because this falls under freedom of association and property rights. Employment or platform use is voluntary and contractual; no one has a right to compel a private business to host or employ them based on their speech. This includes social media companies moderating content or employers terminating staff for off-duty expressions that conflict with company values.
Cancel Culture
Often described as “mob rule,” cancel culture involves private individuals or groups using social pressure, boycotts, or calls for consequences (like firings) to punish disliked speech. From a libertarian perspective, this is permissible as an exercise of free speech and association—no government force is involved, so it’s not true censorship. While some libertarians criticize it as culturally stifling or hypocritical, they oppose any laws against it, viewing it as a market mechanism where ideas compete freely.
“Art of Hypocrisy” primer:
| Free Speech Issue | Left Fringe Hypocrisy (George Floyd Protests) | Right Fringe Hypocrisy (Charlie Kirk Assassination) |
| Picking and Choosing Free Speech | During the 2020 George Floyd protests, many on the left cheered massive rallies and marches, even when they turned chaotic, calling them vital free speech. But when conservative groups protested COVID lockdowns, leaders like NY Governor Andrew Cuomo slammed them as “dangerous” and “irresponsible.” Same rules, different treatment—free speech only seems okay when it’s their cause. | After Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, conservatives like Steve Bannon demanded firings and doxxed thousands online for celebrating Kirk’s death. Yet, these same voices cry foul when conservatives are “canceled” for their views. They love free speech—until it’s speech they hate. |
| Shutting Down Opponents | The left often pushes to silence “hate speech” (like criticism of BLM) by pressuring platforms or employers to cancel people. But during Floyd protests, fiery anti-police slogans or calls to “burn it down” were shrugged off as “passion.” They want free speech for their side, not yours. | The right’s been loud about Big Tech censorship, but post-Kirk, they’ve pushed to “cancel” people like an Oregon teacher or MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd for insensitive posts. Their “Professor Watchlist” already targeted left-leaning academics. Free speech? Sure, as long as it’s not against their heroes. |
| Why It Matters | Both sides claim to love free speech but flip-flop when it suits them. As a free speech absolutist, I say everyone should speak freely—no hate speech laws needed. But let’s be real: words can inflame. Both fringes could stand to think twice before speaking, not just point fingers. | Same deal here. The right’s quick to punish speech they don’t like while preaching “freedom.” If we want real free speech, everyone’s gotta take the heat—left, right, or in between. Mindfulness, not censorship, is the answer. |