“The answer to that question has made a profound difference in the protection or prosecution of speech. One can view water as indispensable for putting out fires, but that is different from viewing water as an essential element for life. Similarly, free speech can be viewed as indispensable to democracy, protected for its ability to foster the forming and advocacy of political positions. Yet that indispensability is cabined as a function of political expression. As such, it can be dispensable in other areas or when the speech is deemed of lesser value. Alternatively, as argued in this book, it can be indispensable because it is an essential part of being human, a natural right. Whether based on a religious view of a divine gift or a secular view of inherent human qualities, this broader view treats speech as indispensable as the manifestation of a creative and expressive impulse regardless of the subject matter. Neither view treats free speech as an absolute. However, the latter view based on individual autonomy allows fewer “trade-offs” through balancing and harm-based tests.”