The First Amendment is the constitutional backbone of both American democracy and the free software movement because it protects the open debate, criticism, and sharing of ideas that make each of them possible. Free software movement founder Dr. Richard Stallman’s insistence that “free software” is about liberty – “think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech,’ not as in ‘free beer’” – shows that the movement is fundamentally a political struggle over human freedom, not a technical dispute over source code. Without a strong culture and rule of law protecting free expression, the moral argument for software freedom would have nowhere to live, develop, or persuade.
Freedom as a democratic foundation
The First Amendment exists to keep democracy alive by protecting the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition so people can criticize power and propose alternatives without fear of punishment. History shows that when states can silence dissent and voices they don’t like – voting becomes an empty ritual, because citizens no longer have the information or courage needed to challenge those who rule them.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s idea that the answer to bad speech is “more speech, not enforced silence” captures a core democratic insight: truth and justice are more likely when people are free to argue, not when authority decides which ideas may be heard.
Dr. Stallman: “Value your freedom, or you will lose it”
Stallman’s warnings that people must “value your freedom, or you will lose it” and that odious ideas must not be shielded from criticism are explicitly about political and moral freedom, not just about programming practices. He frames free software/hardware as a defense against new structures of unaccountable power: when users cannot study, share, and modify the software that mediates their lives, developers and corporations gain the same kind of control over thought and communication that censors once exercised over printing presses.
The right to advocate, organize, and argue for these freedoms in public – sometimes against powerful economic interests – rests on the same First Amendment protections that shield social and political movements more broadly.
Freedom first, then code
This is why Stallman insists that free software is “a matter of liberty, not price,” and that the important question is which freedoms every user must have, not which licenses are most convenient. The source code matters only because it enables those deeper freedoms of inquiry, criticism, and collaboration, mirroring the way a free press and open public square let citizens scrutinize laws and institutions. In both democracy and the free software movement, the First Amendment’s culture of free speech is what turns passive consumers into active participants who can say “no,” propose alternatives, and build communities around shared ideals of freedom
Recent years have seen Georgia’s elected leaders and university officials reaffirm that the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and expression apply in full force on public campuses, not just in theory but in day‑to‑day policy and practice.
In 2022, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 1, the Forming Open and Robust University Minds (FORUM) Act, which prohibits all public colleges and universities from confining speech to small “free speech zones.” The law instead designates all unrestricted outdoor areas of campus as public forums for expressive activity, subject only to reasonable, content‑ and viewpoint‑neutral time, place, and manner rules.
Implementing University System of Georgia policies go one step further, stating that “faculty hold a special position in the community that carries both privileges and obligations. Because faculty are scholars and educators, the public may judge their profession and their institutions by their utterances.” The Board of Regents also affirms that “the USG community should promote intellectual debates, not close them off, and must uphold the values of civility and mutual respect while doing so.”
Under this framework, students and registered campus organizations (like LibreTech Collective) cannot be punished, have their events postponed, or be denied access to these forums simply because administrators, observers, or other members of the campus community dislike or disagree with their views. Georgia Tech’s own policies echo this commitment, affirming that the Institute “holds the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the right to assemble peaceably as an essential cornerstone to the advancement of knowledge and the right of a free people.”
Current University System of Georgia Chancellor and former Governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue, has made this principle explicit, stating that “we want people to feel free to be expressive with their First Amendment rights on our campuses without being shouted down or called out as a matter of mutual respect and civil discourse.” Perdue has also emphasized that higher education must protect “civil debate and open dialogue” so that students, faculty, and staff can “speak freely and respectfully, without fear of being unlawfully silenced or disrupted,” underscoring that free speech is both a right and a responsibility in a democratic campus community.
LibreTech Collective is proud to call the Georgia Institute of Technology – and the State of Georgia – home.