Summerhays 1
Lauren Summerhays
Professor Peterson
English 1010
25 September 2014
Analysis; The Indispensable Opposition
Throughout the text The Indispensable Opposition Lippmann gives a number of negative
definitions by attempting to explain what freedom of speech is by showing what it is not. He
begins his essay with one such negative definition saying that freedom of opinion is commonly
misunderstood as a noble ideal rather than a practical necessity. As Americans do we understand
why we have free speech, and how we can protect and develop it?
Lippmann starts off his essay by saying, “Were they pressed hard enough, most men
would probably confess that political freedom - that is so say, the right to speak freely and to act
in opposition - is a noble ideal rather than a practical necessity,” right away he is giving a
negative definition of the peoples view of freedom of speech. Most people believe in defending
freedom of speech but do not truly understand why it is an option other than it seems nice and
sounds like a nice way to run a country. It is basically saying it is something that is tolerated
because people are nice. Toleration is explained by examples like tolerating a howling baby next
door, or putting up with someone’s blasting radio because people are too peaceable to heave a
brick through the window. The same goes for freedom of speech. When listening to someone
speak is everyone truly listening to understand or formulating an argument? A little bit of both
maybe? The public are listening to understand to form an argument for themselves.
Summerhays 2
“If this were all there is to freedom of opinion, that we are too good natured or too timid
to do anything about our opponents and our critics except to let them talk, it would be difficult to
say whether we are tolerant because we are magnanimous or because we are lazy, because we
have strong principles or because we lack serious convictions, whether we have the hospitality of
an inquiring mind or the indifference of an empty mind.” If there are people that are too shy to
interrupt or talk back to someone else's opinion does that mean there is not an opinion of one’s
own or are people just sitting back to evaluate that persons opinion and build an even stronger
one. If one does not speak their mind though, how will anyone know if there is an opinion other
than someone’s that has been heard. It is important for one to gain a knowledge or truth from
freedom of speech, whether that truth comes from our own opinions or the opinion of someone
else. And when someone hears the opposition speak freely does that defend that opinion or does
it discard it for an even better one. For example when he says, “It is all very well to say with
Voltaire, ‘I wholly disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
He then goes on to say that this is in fact not a reality and most men will not defend to the death
the rights of other men. Our opinions might not always agree with others opinions. “Free speech
is indispensable that there should exist the freedom of opinion which causes opposing opinions
to be debated.” Why do people debate someone’s opinions? It is in order to find out what the
truth is?
Lippmann says, “Until we have thoroughly understood this principle, we shall not know
why we must value our liberty, or how we can protect and develop it.” This principle meaning
that freedom of speech is a system for finding the truth. As Americans people must understand
Summerhays 3
free speech so it can be protected and developed. If people do not understand why there is
freedom of speech it can be lost, because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions. In
the essay Lippmann says, “We take a naively self-righteous view when we argue as if the right of
our opponents to speak were something that we protect because we are noble, and unselfish.”
The reason why the people protect free speech is not because people are good, but because
people need to hear it. “For there is a point, the point at which things really matter, where the
freedom of others is no longer a question of their right but of our own need.” But why do people
necessarily need it, because people need to be able to voice opinions. And without free speech
one cannot come to know what the truth is. The liberties of other men are our own vital necessity
because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions.
People have to have our own opinions argued with so that we can get to the truth. One
does not ignore or tolerate what is said, one listens to the opposition, which either strengthens the
opinion or changes it to one of greater truth. Lippmann states that “This is the creative principle
of freedom of speech, not that it is a system for the tolerating of error, but that it is a system for
finding the truth.” People need to understand the value of free speech to use it for the reason it
was given to us, to find the truth. He gives the example of asking a doctor what is wrong with his
stomach and that doctor cannot come to a conclusion so asks another doctor to come in, and
between the discussion of both doctors eventually it comes to the conclusion of what the truth is
and what is truly wrong with his stomach. By showing this he comes to the realization that there
is not one way and only one person that can always get to the truth. “Freedom of speech may not
produce the truth, or the whole truth all the time, or often, or in some cases ever.” By realizing
this Americans have come to a conclusion that the reason free speech is needed is to come to the
truth, but there will not always be a truth to conclude with, but if it can be found there is no other
Summerhays 4
system than freedom of speech which will find so much truth. It is by give and take of opinions
that the truth should be arrived at.
The title The Indispensable Opposition is one of the most important aspects of the entire
essay and really gives us a direction of where the essay will go. The word indispensable meaning
that one cannot get rid of freedom of speech. People think that the idea of freedom of speech is a
nice thing to have but then question free speech and ask if it is needed, and is freedom of speech
a practical thing to have? The freedom to speak is something that is needed, because it does not
want to get rid of someone else’s point of view. Opposition meaning other peoples arguments.
One cannot just discard the things that other people say, because that is how to build an
argument. Whether it agrees with the opinion and want to add to it or perhaps one wants to begin
from scratch and build an even stronger opinion with the facts that have been made in that
persons argument.
There are points in this essay where it indirectly says power is something that freedom of
speech plays into. We listen to and do not argue with an opinion if it is stated by someone with
more power, but is that any way to be true to ourselves? No, especially if one does not agree. It is
also no way that Americans want this country to be run. If there are not people willing to stand
up and argue an opinion then nothing can be accomplished. Lippmann says, “We have the
substance of liberty when the fool is compelled to listen to the wise man and learn; when the
wise man is compelled to take account of the fool, and to instruct him; when the wise man can
increase his wisdom by hearing the judgment of his peers.” With this analogy there is a sense of
give and take. One is willing to listen to people with more power but also give judgment so that
they can direct us in a way that is fair for everyone.
Summerhays 5
People want something that will test and allow us to speak freely, so that it makes this
country a better place. In the end it says, “For unless all the citizens of a state are forced by
circumstances to compromise, unless they feel that they can affect policy but that no one can
wholly dominate it, unless by habitat and necessity they have to give and take, freedom cannot
be maintained.” To be a country and act as one and allow everyone to have their rights, people
need to learn to be able to give and take, to allow others the freedom of speech, just like anyone
would want when spoken. If everyone does not do this then the given right of freedom of speech
cannot be maintained. And if freedom of speech cannot be maintained then people cannot find
out what the truth is.