Free speech is the bedrock of a free society. Without the ability to speak, write, dissent, or question, no other freedom holds. As Justice Anthony Kennedy put it, “Human freedom begins with freedom of thought, and freedom of thought begins with freedom of speech.” It is how we explore who we are, test ideas, criticize power, and seek truth. But what do we do when this freedom is practiced at the expense of others?
In the United States, the First Amendment protects even the most offensive or unpopular expression, including pornography. The ACLU’s long fight against the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in the 1990s—led in part by Contributor Nadine Strossen—was a landmark defense of this principle. The Act, supported by the Clinton administration and passed nearly unanimously, would have outlawed “indecent” or “patently offensive” online content; terms the Supreme Court vague enough to strike it down 9-0.
A Very Different Digital World
But that was 1997. The internet was young, slow, and largely limited to adults. When the Supreme Court ruled against the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in 2004, the smartphone was not even on the market yet. Today, it is fast, immersive, and omnipresent—especially in the lives of children. Smartphones are now handed to kids as young as five. A teenager’s first encounter with pornography often happens before they understand what they’re seeing. No filters. No warnings. No adult judgment—just a flood of content, often violent or degrading, delivered instantly.
This is the concern driving Contributor Jonathan Haidt’s work. In The Anxious Generation, he links the rise of youth mental health struggles to the collapse of play-based childhood and the dominance of the phone-based one. He argues that unfiltered access to pornography is part of a wider environmental threat to adolescent development. While he unequivocally supports free speech—see his work at Heterodox Academy—Haidt makes the argument that this type of unrestrained freedom is at the cost of human and societal flourishing.
The Free Speech Dilemma
As the former president of the ACLU, it’s no surprise that Strossen strongly opposes any state regulation that limits speech based on offensiveness. In her view, today’s calls to restrict porn echo decades of misguided censorship. Once we allow vague terms like “indecency” to define the law, we risk losing the core of free speech itself. See her comments below on this:
She has a point. History shows how easily speech restrictions expand beyond their original intent. If courts or platforms begin silencing “harmful” content for kids, what stops them from labeling uncomfortable political speech harmful, too? Strossen reminds us that constitutional freedom isn’t granted only to the polite, the mainstream, or the safe. It exists to protect the speech we most dislike.
But what happens when speech becomes something more than just expression?
Online pornography is now a massive global industry with high-speed video, algorithmic targeting, and increasingly extreme content. Studies are showing that pornography activates the brain like a drug, often leading to a sexual addiction. Many youth who consume porn are struggling to thrive and form meaningful relationships. This is not just “expression”—it is psychological and physiological influence at scale, often experienced by minors in isolation.
One can only imagine the cultural and societal costs of this. The health of our nation relies largely in part on the health of its people and families—there is no doubt that early access to pornography is having a negative impact at an individual and relational level, putting the healthy formation of families at stake.
It’s important to note that Haidt’s solution is not banning porn or certain internet access for adults. He proposes protections such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) that would involve age verification systems, default filters, and better platform accountability for minors—measures that resemble how we handle toxic substances, addictive products, and dangerous environments for those under 18.
From Law to Culture: The Bigger Question
This debate poses an important question: how can two individuals in support of free speech approach online pornography access so differently? At its core, it reflects differing views of freedom, human nature, and moral responsibility—our worldviews. Some, like Strossen, prioritize autonomy and resist any restriction of speech, believing freedom is the highest good. Others such as Haidt emphasize formation, responsibility, and the need to guide the vulnerable toward health and meaning. To hear Haidt expand on this view, check out the clip below:
In a similar vein, Contributor Os Guinness explains freedom as two different types: negative vs. positive. He argues that American freedom is often negative, emphasizing less government interference, which is unsustainable on its own. Guinness explains that America must embrace more positive freedom—freedom “for” and “to be.” But that requires truth, and an often self-restraining framework. Watch his clip for more:
Worldview Reflection
Some questions to reflect on when considering this topic:
- Is pornography free speech, or something more?
- What should we do when free speech is harmful? Who defines harmful?
- Is there a responsibility to protect children from harmful things? What about the protection of society? Who’s responsibility is that?
- How to define freedom? Are there situations when it is right to give up certain freedoms? What might those situations be?
- How can we remain faithful to the Constitution while properly addressing threats to people and society?
We’ve answered some of these questions here. They aren’t just legal questions—they’re worldview questions that force us to confront how we see freedom, responsibility, human dignity, and the role of community. In an age shaped by technology, answering them well may determine not just what’s legal, but what kind of future we leave for the next generation.
What kind of society are we shaping by what we allow—and what we ignore?
