A central problem with any system or philosophy of free expression has to do with limitations. How do we decide, as a society, where to draw the line when it comes to protected and unprotected freedom of expression? In the first chapter of Free Speech, Warburton writes: “Declaring “I am for free speech” is relatively uninformative without some idea of ​​where the limits lie, and for most people this does not mean “I am for free speech.” favor of free speech in all circumstances." But deciding precisely where to draw these lines is no easy task. It means deciding when some competing values ​​take priority over this freedom.” This quote is particularly important because, in today's society, the line between deciding which free expressions are worth protecting is very blurry. Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr., free speech advocate, Supreme Court justice very interested in how to interpret the First Amendment and how it applies to the law. Holmes was most famous for observing 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 Freedom, is still one of the most dominant philosophical books on free speech today. Mill's believes that broad freedom of speech leads not only to individual happiness but also to a prosperous society. Mills' harm principle to me is one of the most influential philosophical principles involving free expression, I believe it can guide American society's decisions about the limits of free expression because it is very simple. “The only justification for interfering with someone's freedom to live their life as they choose is the risk of harming other people.” Warburton and...... middle of paper...... what makes someone a serious thinker.” Therefore, as individuals, we can never be right in limiting views that may be dissimilar to our own, because we could always be the ones to blame. An example from the history of the infallibility argument would be that of Galileo, imprisoned by the Catholic Church for having supported the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The ruling powers believed in their own infallibility, when we now know that they were the ones who had wrong. No matter how much evidence or facts we know or think we have, we as a society can never be right in assuming our infallibility. This is why I believe the infallibility argument is still important in drawing the line between protected and unprotected speech. “Many beliefs that were once considered certainties have been considered by subsequent generations not only false, but absurd”