Is freedom of speech an almost absolute right that must protect even the most offensive expressions, or a freedom that can be legitimately limited in light of history, harm, and democratic responsibility? This question stood at the center of a public lecture on 16 December at the Faculty of Law of the University of Vienna. Carson Holloway (University of Nebraska at Omaha) and Michael Lysander Fremuth (LBI-GMR, University of Vienna) came together for a transatlantic discussion on law, politics, and public discourse. The event was co-organized by the University of Vienna and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Fundamental and Human Rights (LBI-GMR) within the “Konversatorium für Grund- und Menschenrechte”.

Holloway outlined the U.S. approach to freedom of speech, anchored in the First Amendment to the Constitution. He emphasized its broad and enduring protection, including for highly controversial forms of expression, and explained that U.S. courts traditionally place strong limits on state interference. Hate speech, he noted, plays a comparatively minor role as a legal category, while restrictions on speech have largely emerged only in more recent jurisprudence.

Fremuth contrasted this with the European legal framework, where freedom of expression is more explicitly balanced against other fundamental rights. He pointed to historical experience as a key factor shaping legal boundaries, including restrictions on incitement to violence and Holocaust denial, and highlighted differing societal expectations regarding the role of the state.

The discussion also addressed current controversies in the United States, including the cancellation of television programs and the removal of books from libraries. Holloway argued that these developments do not necessarily constitute violations of free speech where market access remains intact, while Fremuth stressed the close link between freedom of expression and effective access to information.

The conversation was followed by an extended and engaged audience discussion. Questions and interventions addressed tensions between freedom of speech and structural discrimination, the limits of academic freedom, and the role of access to information in democratic societies, underscoring how contested and context-dependent freedom of expression remains in polarized public debates.