Anyone with access to the internet will be aware of the recent social unrest in Britain. Uncontroversially, individuals who rioted have found themselves on the receiving end of a harsh and swift law enforcement response. Controversially, individuals speaking about the riots — both at the protests and online — have found themselves in trouble as well.

In the United States, citizens are free to nonviolently express any opinion, in more or less any form. We can offend, insult, shock, even verbally abuse. We can express support for groups that commit, or have committed, violence. We can even say “hateful” things, because, as the U.S. Supreme Court said in Matal v. Tam (2017), “the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

Critics of American-style free speech describe it as “free speech absolutism,” but consistently misunderstand, and often misrepresent, what American free speech really entails. It doesn’t mean allowing threats, direct incitements, or solicitations to commit a crime — these are illegal. “Free speech” means simply that there’s a powerful legal presumption that the government cannot police nonviolently expressed opinions, even in extreme cases where those opinions advocate for or express support for violence, but only to the extent that the expression of those opinions does not constitute active participation in a criminal act. No more, no less.