This chapter explores the spirit of moderation starting from the famous definition of the spirit of liberty given by Judge Learned Hand. It builds upon the ideas of Desiderius Erasmus who had a moderate temperament.

Political speech, now one of the most highly-protected forms of speech in the United States, wasn't always protected. In times of stress, particularly times of war, free speech has been curtailed: Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798 to silence critics of the Adams administration, and it passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917/18 to silence critics of US participation in WW I. Both laws openly flouted constitutional free-speech guarantees. In a series of high-profiile cases over the course of the twentieth century, the US Supreme Court developed a First Amendment doctrine that gave more and more types of speech First Amendment protection. Starting with the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in 2015, this chapter looks at increasing protections for political speech from 1791 to the present, including free speech for students. We assess the continuing impact of the doctrine that might be called "free speech, but." Yes, speech is protected, but there is still some speech considered outside the framework of legal protection.

Chapter 10 examines the spirit of liberty as expressed by Judge Learned Hand, and asks whether current and future generations will continue to revere and protect freedom of speech. Support for freedom of expression has long been part of the American character, and public opinion polls consistently have shown high levels of support for First Amendment protections, even in times of crisis. More recent trends, however, show declining levels of support and demands for the government to provide protection from “unsafe” speech. Among younger Americans, this has been illustrated by disinvitations of controversial campus speakers and demands for “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces.” Ugly demonstrations and deadly clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Berkeley have heightened such demands. Even with these trends, overall support for free speech remains high, but the course of events illustrates that protections for free speech cannot rely on current political fashions.