Human beings have significant interests in communicating what they think to others, and in listening to what others have to say. These interests make it difficult to justify coercive restrictions on people’s communications, plausibly grounding a moral right to speak (and listen) to others that is properly protected by law. That there ought to be such legal protections for speech is uncontroversial among political and legal philosophers. But disagreement arises when we turn to the details. What are the interests or values that justify this presumption against restricting speech? What, if anything, counts as an adequate justification for overcoming the presumption? And what are the implications for the governance of speech intermediaries, such as internet platforms? This encyclopedia entry is chiefly concerned with exploring the philosophical literature on these questions, offering an overview of the debate for newcomers.
