The subject of free speech is among the most contentious issues in the liberal countries such as the United States (Sunstein, np). Freedom of expression becomes a volatile matter when it is highly valued. The reason for this being that only then does the boundaries placed upon it turn out to be controversial. The appropriate philosophical framework for deciding the free speech cases can be as follows: The first issue to take into consideration in any sensible argument for freedom of expression is that it will have to be restricted. It is prudent as a justice to establish whether the case does not go beyond the limitations of freedom of expression. Furthermore, it must determine whether the case is tantamount to violation of the National Defence Authorization Act provision.
Important controversies that arise in free speech can be resolved by clear definition of the limits of freedom of expression. One manner of solving this is to stipulate noticeably the issues that are considered to be beyond the restrictions of free speech. The thing that ought to be protected is the interest of the people in light of exercising their freedom of expression (Calvert et al., 635). Like, in this case, the concerns of the defendant should be protected by the law regardless of his opinion towards the government. What’s more, in as much as the freedom of speech is vital to the people, there are some things that should be circumscribed. For instance, the people should be restricted to engage on issues that are a threat to the national security, as well as private security.