Free speech remains a crucial question at the heart of every democracy. In Western countries, citizens ranging from progressive fringes to “constitutional conservatives” defend it as frequently as staunchly. In this paper, I discuss the tensions and contradictions of some formulations of free speech. Among other, I draw on two authors converging in their critique from two very different perspectives: Alasdair MacIntyre and Stanley Fish. After having assessed the extreme conception of free speech and having shown its implausibility, freedom of speech is characterised as ideological in at least one definition of the word, that employed by legal realists. I claim that free speech is indeed an incomplete, context-sensitive right granted to someone on some occasions, often depending on extra-legal, historical, sociological, political and practical factors. This leaves the door open to interpretations of the right to free speech as ideological in other and more substantial ways, such as in the venues of Critical Legal Studies. I conclude by drawing implications applicable to our societies in their current conditions, with a special focus on the role of new media.

自由言论仍然是每个民主制度的核心问题。在西方国家，从渐进式边缘到“宪法保守派”的公民都经常坚决地捍卫它。在本文中，我将讨论一些言论自由表达的张力和矛盾。除其他外，我请两位作者从两种截然不同的角度对他们的批评进行汇合：阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔（Alasdair MacIntyre）和斯坦利·菲什（Stanley Fish）。在对言论自由的极端概念进行评估并显示其不切实际之后，言论自由在至少一个法律现实主义者所使用的词语定义中被定义为意识形态。我声称，言论自由确实是在某些情况下授予某人的不完整，因上下文而异的权利，通常取决于法外，历史，社会学，政治和实践因素。这为以其他更实质的方式（例如在批判法律研究的场所）对言论自由权作为意识形态的解释敞开了大门。最后，我总结了适用于我们社会当前状况的影响，特别关注新媒体的作用。