I was invited to read from my book. The person introducing me praised an old song I had written about lawyer Douglas Christie, and from the shape of the praise I understood he believed the song was an attack. It wasn’t the first time I noticed people thinking I chose a side, but I thought I was offering more complexity. I never met Christie, who has since died. What interested me was the argument he appeared to be making: that speech does not cease to deserve protection merely because the speaker is repellent. Some of his clients were racists and seemed quite pleased with their “wisdom”. But a lawyer is not necessarily the autobiography of his clients. Did Christie share their sympathies? Possibly. Was he a free-speech absolutist? Also possibly. I don’t know. I explained this to the audience. The temperature in the room seemed to change a couple degrees.

People admire courage most when it comes with conclusions they already hold. The word progressive seems overused, some of my friends wear it like a medal to designate their accomplishments before the battle has even happened. Isn’t it more difficult to question what we’re prepared to permit one’s enemies to say? Free-speech absolutism resonates with me not because every utterance is worthy of respect. People can say much that is dumb and designed to injure. But offensive ideas present another problem: what is more radical, to allow people to expose themselves through their words, and then answer, oppose, or condemn, or to grant the state the authority to decide which sentences require you being jailed? You can call punishment progress. Governments may promise to use punishment only against monsters. But every government eventually has its own definition of monster, and it may include you.