A central problem with any system or philosophy of free expression concerns limits. How can we, as a society, decide where to draw the line when it comes to protected and unprotected free speech? In the first chapter of Free Speech, Warburton writes: "Stating 'I am in favor of free speech' is relatively uninformative without some idea of ​​the boundaries, and for most people it does not mean 'I am in favor of free speech'. in favor of freedom of expression. of freedom of expression in absolutely all circumstances. But deciding precisely where to set these boundaries is not an easy task. This means deciding when a competing value takes precedence over that freedom. This quote is particularly important because in today's society there is a very blurred line between deciding which freedoms of expression are worth protecting. Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr., a free speech advocate and Supreme Court justice, is particularly interested in how to interpret the First Amendment and how it applies to the law. Holmes was most famous for his observation that freedom of speech did not include the freedom to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. John Stuart Mills was one of the most influential free speech advocates of his time. His 1859 book, On Liberty, remains to this day one of the most dominant philosophical books on free speech. Mill's believes that broad freedom of expression leads not only to individual happiness but also to a prosperous society. Mills' harm principle is, to me, one of the most influential philosophical principles regarding free speech. I think it can guide American society's decisions about the limits of free expression because it is very simple. “The only justification for interfering with a person's freedom to live their life as they wish is the risk of harm to others. » Warburton e...... middle of paper...... what makes someone a serious thinker. Therefore, as individuals, we can never be right to restrict opinions that may be different from our own, because we could always be the culprits. A historical example of the infallibility argument would be that of Galileo, imprisoned by the Catholic Church for supporting the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The powers that be believed in their own infallibility, whereas we now know that they were the ones who were wrong. No matter how much evidence or facts we know or think we have, we as a society can never be right to assume our infallibility. This is why I think the infallibility argument is still important and relevant in drawing the line between protected and unprotected speech. “Many beliefs that were once considered certainties were considered by later generations not only to be false, but also to be absurd.”