Herbert Marcuse, a mid-20th-century philosopher, looked at free speech through the wider lens of politics, economics, and media power. He argued that modern societies often look tolerant but, in reality, control opinion through structure rather than censorship. You can say almost anything, but hardly anyone will hear you if your words challenge those in power.
Marcuse called this repressive tolerance. It’s “tolerance” because no one is burning books or jailing dissenters. But it’s “repressive” because the system quietly decides what ideas get traction. The problem isn’t that speech is banned but that the conditions of communication are rigged. The result: a society that appears free while keeping the status quo firmly in place.
Repressive Tolerance: Everything Is Allowed, But Little Is Heard
Marcuse’s key question is: Who owns the microphone?
Sure, all speech is technically allowed. But who owns the TV networks, the news sites, the social platforms, the ad money? If a handful of corporations control what billions of people see and hear, then the “marketplace of ideas” isn’t really open. It’s fenced off by profit and power.
Think about media today: a few companies own most television channels, newspapers, and streaming apps. They depend on advertising and clicks, so they play it safe. News that challenges corporate or political interests, like stories about labor rights, poverty, or systemic racism, often gets little airtime. On social media, the same thing happens through algorithms: outrage and celebrity gossip rise to the top; complex discussions about equality sink to the bottom.
For Marcuse, this is the new face of control. We no longer need censors when the system itself ensures that dissent barely registers. People feel free, but their speech has no effect. That, he says, is the trick of repressive tolerance.
Liberating Tolerance: A Short-Term Tilt Toward Justice
Marcuse’s answer is something he calls liberating tolerance. He argues that when the field is deeply unequal, simply saying “everyone can speak” is not neutral; it’s a way of protecting domination. So, for a time, society should tilt the playing field toward speech that expands freedom and equality and give less automatic reach to speech that props up oppression.
That doesn’t mean installing thought police. Marcuse imagines practical, structural reforms:
Break up concentrated media ownership so no single group controls the public conversation.
Fund public-interest journalism that serves citizens rather than advertisers.
Guarantee access for underrepresented communities through local and independent outlets.
In education, teach critical literacy, i.e., how to question sources, spot manipulation, and understand power in communication.
On social media, redesign algorithms to reward civic content and slow the viral spread of outrage and disinformation.
This temporary imbalance—what he calls liberating tolerance—isn’t meant to last forever. Once voices are genuinely equal in reach and opportunity, the rules can become neutral again. But until power is rebalanced, “neutrality” is a myth that benefits those already on top.
Why It Matters Now
Marcuse wrote these ideas in the 1960s, long before Facebook or YouTube. But his warnings sound almost tailor-made for the digital age. We live in a world where “free speech” often means “free to shout in a rigged arena.” Algorithms amplify anger, media conglomerates shape the news, and marginalized voices still fight for visibility.
Marcuse’s question remains urgent: If everyone can speak but only a few are heard, is that freedom, or just the illusion of it? His challenge to us is to think beyond formal rights and ask what real, equal communication would require. Sometimes, he says, the path to genuine freedom starts with changing the structure of the conversation itself.
In the next post, I’ll turn to the problems with these critical approaches. I’ll also explore how Marcuse’s logic of “temporary preference” echoes the justifications for affirmative action.