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.
Very interesting to see Marcuse take on liberating tolerance and the steps that he feels would correct the scale that has been established here for so long. I agree with Abigail in that as a country that is suppose to prohibit monopolies, there are several conglomerates that seem to control everything. It especially makes me think of the current state of things like the Department of "War" and the ultimatum it gave to journalist groups in an effort to essentially propagate and control what media was being shared with the world. The same could be said for strong arming Jimmy Kimmel into being relieved of his duties even for a short while. Not only is it it present from the large companies, but in government efforts to push its own message and control the airwaves in whatever ways they can. It's not limited to just this administration, but it is definitely blatant.
I agree with Marcuse on repressive tolerance in modern society. In a country that is supposed to have prohibit monopolies, ABC, CBS, and NBC sure seem to own everything. This is a problem when critical literacy is seemingly at a low, something Marcuse suggests improving. These companies can run their stories, and I think most people would not second-guess that it is accurate. But then these voices control the narrative and shape what people view as important. I think Marcuse's suggestions suggestions are smart - including increasing public-interest journalism and giving minority voices space.
Social media for me poses a more unique situation personally. I have vastly different experiences depending on the platform I am using. On X, I see a wide-range of material that are tailored to my interests. I see politics (both that I agree with and do not), news, gossip, sports, Taylor Swift. But my feed doesn't change based on what I view most often. It's about what's widely trending at the time. On the other hand with TikTok, if I search a term once, it's all I see for the next few days. In this sense, it feels like I'm controlling what I view. However, I think it's important to acknowledge that both of these platforms give you this feeling of personal catering, all while blocking material they disagree with. As I'm actively scrolling, I'm not thinking about what I'm not seeing. These companies have a financial interest in keeping me on their app for as long as possible, but they also don't want me seeing certain news. I agree with all of Marcuse's suggestions, but I don't know if these changes would make as much of a difference when so many people are so obsessed with scrolling.