Communication

The Delicate Balance of Free Speech: Where Do We Draw the Line?

by Brother Carlton 
09/18/25
Free to Share
Author requests article critique

  Message Writer
  Hire Writer

Tweet

When we talk about freedom of speech, many people automatically say, “That’s what makes our democracy work.” But technically, we’re not a pure democracy. The United States was established as a constitutional republic—a government of laws, not mob rule. Our freedoms are grounded in the U.S. Constitution, shaped in part by common law traditions and, critics or admirers alike will admit, by principles that echo the Bible. That foundation is what makes free speech so unique, and yet so contested, even today.

The First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. That’s the bedrock. But the reality is, free speech has never meant absolute freedom without limits. Even in the early days of the Republic, lawmakers and courts recognized there had to be boundaries when speech created real harm.

One of the most cited examples is the old phrase, “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater.” That analogy, from a 1919 Supreme Court case (Schenck v. United States), illustrates that speech loses its protection when it poses a “clear and present danger.” In plain terms, your rights end where another person’s safety begins. Freedom doesn’t mean chaos—it means liberty with responsibility.

This tension isn’t new. In the 1600s, John Milton wrote Areopagitica, a passionate defense of free expression and a plea against censorship. Milton argued that truth would rise to the top if people were allowed to speak freely, even if their ideas were controversial or offensive. Fast forward four centuries, and we’re still asking the same question: Where do we draw the line?

Today, the debate feels sharper than ever because we live in an age of instant communication. A single post, podcast, or late-night TV joke can spread to millions in minutes. That brings us to the recent controversy around Charlie Kirk. Whether you loved him or disagreed with him, one thing is clear: he championed the idea that free speech was essential to a free society. He believed in engaging with people directly, sometimes in heated debates, because he felt bad ideas should be confronted and defeated—not silenced. Kirk often reminded audiences that hearing uncomfortable opinions is part of living in liberty.

Ironically, it was Kirk himself who became a lightning rod for these debates. When comedian Jimmy Kimmel made disparaging remarks about him after his death, ABC quickly pulled the show. Some said this was justice, others said it was censorship. Either way, the moment underscored just how combustible speech has become in our culture. We applaud free speech when it’s our side talking, but we bristle when it’s the other side.

On a personal note, I sometimes saw Jimmy Kimmel years ago on the set of Win Ben Stein’s Money when I was doing security for that show during my Hollywood days. Being around those sets, I got a glimpse of how comedians, actors, and cultural figures wrestled with the freedom to say what they wanted on stage—and how quickly audiences could react. Those experiences left me with an appreciation for how fragile and powerful free speech can be in the public square. I wasn’t just watching from afar; I was in the trenches, brushing shoulders with people who helped shape the cultural conversation.

But here’s something that must be said: just because a Conservative or a Christian doesn’t agree with a false or offensive statement made by a liberal, an atheist, a Muslim, or a homosexual—that does not give them the right to persecute, harm, or much less murder the one speaking. My Aunt Jerina, a retired public school teacher and a liberal herself, said it well when I spoke with her last night. She admitted that she didn’t agree with most of Charlie Kirk’s ideas, but she also insisted that he didn’t deserve to be murdered for making them. That’s the whole point of free speech: you counter what you disagree with by speaking back, not by silencing the speaker permanently.

Which raises another important question: should Jimmy Kimmel himself be censored for making insensitive remarks about Kirk’s death? It’s a fair and relevant question. In a truly free market of ideas, often the public ends up doing its own form of “censorship.” People spread the word, they boycott, they tune out. If enough viewers avoid Kimmel’s program, his ratings will drop and advertisers will take notice. That’s how a free society often corrects itself.

We see the same thing in business. A restaurant owner may legally refuse service to certain people, but the implications of that choice are serious. Word will spread. Decent folks who recognize the injustice will take their money elsewhere. Revenue will drop, and in time the business may close its doors. The principle is clear: you can exercise your rights, but society and the marketplace will often respond in kind. That’s how accountability works without the heavy hand of government stepping in.

Here’s where a biblical perspective adds even more weight. Scripture is filled with reminders that words carry immense power. Proverbs 18:21 says, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” James 3:5–6 compares the tongue to a small spark that can ignite a great fire. These verses remind us that while we may have the legal right to speak, we also bear a moral duty to weigh the impact of our words. In other words, just because we can say something doesn’t always mean we should.

The Republic’s founders seemed to grasp this too. They designed a system where rights are balanced with responsibilities, where liberty is preserved by law and conscience. They knew that without virtue—without some moral compass rooted in faith or shared values—freedom itself could collapse into anarchy. That’s why even critics acknowledge that biblical influence shaped the ideas of justice, fairness, and human dignity that echo through the Constitution.

So where does that leave us today? It leaves us with both a privilege and a challenge. We have the privilege of speaking freely in a way most of the world still cannot. And we have the challenge of remembering that free speech is not about winning every argument or silencing every opponent. It’s about protecting a marketplace of ideas—even the ones we don’t like—so truth has a chance to prevail.

Charlie Kirk lived by that principle. He was willing to take the heat of public debate because he believed the Republic was strong enough to handle it. Agree with him or not, that courage to speak—and to defend the rights of others to do the same—is something we can all learn from.

At the end of the day, the question “Where do we draw the line?” may not have one perfect answer. But history, Scripture, and conscience all point us toward the same truth: freedom of speech is not free of responsibility. As citizens of a Republic built on law and moral principle, it’s our job to exercise that freedom wisely, with both courage and care.

Brother Carlton ministers the gospel to various cities. Formerly a Hollywood actor, SAG member, and property cleanup expert, he now spends most of his time studying the Scriptures and helping small businesses grow more profitably using world-class tactics and strategies. He also offers inspirational speaking to help entrepreneurs and individuals achieve greater success. If you're a business owner looking to increase revenue, attract more customers, or need a dynamic speaker for your next event, contact Carlton at [email protected].  Put help in the subject line.