Free speech is inherently hard to uphold consistently; even canonical defenders like John Milton carved out exceptions. Jacob Mchangama labels this recurrent pattern 'Milton’s Curse,' arguing that hypocrisy is a feature of human nature and political coalitions, not an aberration. The practical task is expanding the circle of tolerated speech over time despite that bias.
— This framing equips policymakers and institutions to expect and mitigate partisan double standards in speech debates rather than treating each episode as novel bad faith.
Andy Smarick
2026.01.15
50% relevant
The review highlights Barrett’s reluctance to perform moral spectacle and her emphasis on dispassionate adjudication, which speaks to the problem Milton’s Curse names — the perennial temptation to apply speech norms inconsistently; Barrett’s temperament is presented as a hedge against that hypocrisy in high‑stakes public institutions.
Jacob Eisler
2026.01.08
68% relevant
Both the article and the Milton’s Curse entry diagnose a recurring pattern of institutional rhetoric: elites (here progressive law professors) making maximal moral claims about institutional illegitimacy while ignoring similar faults on their side. The City Journal piece uses the Doerfler/Moyn call to 'push the Court off' as an example of what Milton’s Curse frames as performative, asymmetric moralizing that demands different treatment depending on who benefits.
Scott
2026.01.08
52% relevant
The article explicitly rejects tidy ideological packages and points out recurring charges of hypocrisy from critics; that connects to the existing idea that defenders of free speech (or moral positions) often apply double standards—Aaronson argues for a consistent moral test rather than partisan inconsistency, which echoes the lesson of 'Milton’s Curse' about expected hypocrisy.
2026.01.06
52% relevant
The article highlights why moral standards vary and why apparent inconsistency is to be expected; that connects to the existing idea that hypocrisy and selective enforcement are recurring features of public speech debates and need to be managed rather than purely condemned.
Jeffrey Pojanowski
2026.01.05
55% relevant
The article’s defense of 'good rhetoric' and classical standards maps onto the problem Milton’s Curse names: institutions and public actors claim high speech principles but apply double standards; reviving a rhetorical tradition is presented here as a corrective to contemporary inconsistency in legal speech and institutional norms.
2026.01.04
78% relevant
Carl’s essay highlights contested standards about whose speech is protected or elevated — the same moral inconsistency the 'Milton’s Curse' idea diagnoses: defenders of free speech often carve out exceptions; this article shows that selecting which non‑experts to platform is as much a political judgment as a free‑speech one.
Chris Bray
2025.12.02
62% relevant
Bray’s piece emphasizes routine elite performative hypocrisy — speaking ritualized lines that contradict lived experience — which parallels the 'Milton’s Curse' observation that defenders of abstract speech norms routinely carve exceptions; here the target is expert ritual and political performance.
Tyler Cowen
2025.11.30
88% relevant
The excerpt documents FDR’s active support for wartime speech suppression (Sedition and Espionage Acts) and regulatory leverage over radio—concrete examples of the recurring pattern that even canonical free‑speech defenders make principled exceptions, which is the core claim of the 'Milton’s Curse' idea.
Yascha Mounk
2025.10.07
100% relevant
Mchangama’s remark that 'we are all hypocrites about free speech,' illustrated by Milton’s Areopagitica excluding Catholics and blasphemy.