The conclusion evaluates the tendency to overdetermine the content of freedom of expression in France versus the tendency to underdetermine the content of the same liberty in the United States. It engages in a reflection on whether principles and rules elaborated in the past to meet concrete sociopolitical needs are still relevant to address contemporary concerns in the understanding of the limits of rights. It includes reflections on how variety in the protection of freedom of speech can be instructive in view of finding criteria that balance between expressive freedoms and other values when they are in conflict. The United States may be overprotecting freedom of speech in some respects and France may be underprotecting the same freedom. The chapter engages with contemporary debates on expressive freedoms and proposes criteria for government intervention to limit expression (or not) in each one of these cases. It proposes criteria to decide when the reason of the citizen is to be trusted over the reason of the state and the other way around.