Yes, freedom of speech is in danger
What you’ll read about in this post:
Free speech isn’t quite as free as it once was. How the Trump administration is attempting to shut down criticism of its policies.
The clown car of Trump government officials seems more than willing to do his bidding and it’s embarrassing how inept these individuals are.
The right’s attacks on free speech in principle and in deed are the latest iteration of a problem that the left has fomented for years.
Why there’s hope for the future regarding speech and expression.
“In a free state there should be freedom of speech and thought.”
— Tiberius
Your ability to speak freely has become more limited
One of the hallmarks of American political life is the ability to communicate one’s thoughts into the marketplace of ideas without fear of the punishment from the government. And the nation has upheld that maxim. Rarely does the government limit speech or expression.
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has crossed boundaries that should concern all Americans. The most notorious and damning example of limiting speech was President Trump’s suggestion that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should revoke the broadcast license of any network which airs news critiquing him. This is part and parcel of Trump’s antics. He floats radical ideas to gauge how much support he can drum up when his suggestion is a blatant violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment. Trump either fails to understand, or doesn’t care that censorship is anti-American in principle and, in most cases, under the law.
Last month, US Army veteran Jan Carey burned an American flag to protest President Trump’s executive order attempting to ban such a practice. The president also noted his beliefs on flag burning, stating,
“You burn a flag, you get one year in jail. You don’t get 10 years, you don’t get one month. You get one year in jail, and it goes on your record, and you will see flag burning stopping immediately.”
I suppose you could frighten many people into not burning an American flag if you threaten them with severe punishment. Moreover, flag burning as a form of protest has been considered a symbolic act of speech since 1989, when the Supreme Court ruled as such in Texas v. Johnson. In that decision, even justice Antonin Scalia, maybe one of the most conservative judges to hold a seat on the Court, voted with the majority.
As of this week, the FCC pressured ABC (and parent company Disney) to take action against late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel for his comments regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Kimmel, during his show monologue, commented,
“The MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
Kimmel is known for his incessant critiques of President Trump, and while ABC and Disney are under no obligation to provide free speech to Kimmel, that’s precisely what they have done for years. Kimmel’s comments are not so much about Charlie Kirk, but about the Trump followers who are trying to leverage Kirk’s death into more political clout.
ABC chose to hit Kimmel with an indefinite suspension, effectively ending his show after 22 years. Why, after all the political statements, bits, and crazy acts, did ABC end the show? The federal government is using its power to pressure ABC with threats of retribution if it didn’t take action against Kimmel.
Do I know this for a fact? No, but I think it’s a fair conclusion to draw when FCC Chairman Brendan Carr called Kimmel “truly sick” and claimed that Kimmel “misled” the public regarding the Kirk shooting. Even more concerning are Carr’s followup statements, where he said “we’re not done yet” and that broadcasters,
“… have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
This appears to indicate that if content airs which the current administration finds undesirable, the FCC will take action. It also belies the position Carr previously took in 2019, when he posted online,
“The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the ‘public interest.’”
Is the head of the FCC facing pressure of his own in answering to the president?
Kimmel’s dismissal as the premiere late night talk show host at ABC isn’t the only media change under scrutiny. You might remember CBS opting to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, another outspoken critic of President Trump. CBS claims that its cancellation of The Late Show was purely a business move, but the decision arrived at the same time as the FCC approved a merger between CBS and Skydance, and the settlement of a lawsuit between Trump and CBS show 60 Minutes where the media company paid out $16 million.
Statesmen and diplomats, they are not
Presidents cannot carry out the laws by themselves. They need capable cabinet members to executive policies and handle situations that the president doesn’t have time to address. These individuals typically run their executive departments and privately offer advice to the president, but they’re definitely supposed to be ‘yes men’ in public. I get that.
The cast of clowns running the government are not only complicit in helping the president harm the country, but they can’t even hide their ineptitude. I don’t know whether to feel angry, or embarrassed for them.
Pam Bondi, the current Attorney General and head of the Justice Department, posted on X / Twitter a lengthy rant, starting with,
“Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment.” For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.
Someone had to explain to the sitting Attorney General that a person is allowed to express hate and violent messaging, provided he or she doesn’t use language that would cause ‘imminent, lawless action’ (See: Brandenburg v. Ohio). The lack of a knowledge regarding a fundamental right is alarming enough, but Bondi followed it up with this statement:
“We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
It’s clear that Pam Bondi has no regard for what does or does not violate the Constitution and that she intends to use her position as Attorney General to unlawfully prosecute individuals who do not agree with her political viewpoints.
FBI Director Kash Patel is facing heavy scrutiny himself regarding his handling of the Charlie Kirk assassination. Patel announced the FBI had apprehended the shooter shortly after Kirk’s death, only to walk back that statement later. It turned out they had the wrong man.
After years of building an online following by claiming the previous FBI Director had control over the ‘Epstein list,’ Patel doesn’t seem keen on releasing anything associated with the list. Furthermore, Patel changed his belief regarding the death of Jeffrey Epstein. Prior to his current position, Patel did not believe Epstein took his own life. Now, he wants Americans to believe the opposite is true.
President Trump’s closest advisor, White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has pushed out a storm of social media posts which are curated to make people believe only the left exhorts political violence. I don’t know that I have the time or patience to address the other blunders and ham-fisted attempts at enforcing the law from other officials, such as Secretary of ‘War’ Pete Hegseth (the Signal chat app fiasco) or Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy, Jr. (who routinely denies the efficacy of vaccines which have long served to aid humanity).
The actions of the right do not differ from the left
The Republican Party under Donald Trump fears the truth, and they want to stifle the voices of opposition because they fear competition. It’s annoying, frustrating, and altogether startling in its openness. But these actions are definitely not new.
In a twist of irony, the two ideologies of American politics have simply traded positions regarding free speech. Yes, I do believe the Republicans are the worse of the two, but at their core, both liberals and conservatives fear the voices of the opposition.
Leaders of both political parties are keenly aware that their foes have principled arguments and solid points regarding their beliefs. It might be impossible to settle many of the debates of today’s politics. Thus, they want to discredit the other side by means other than winning the debate. They also attempt to sideline opposing voices through other less than reputable tactics.
The current Republican administration is trying to use the institutions within the executive branch to tamp down criticism, and this is undoubtedly wrong. Democrats also implement shady tactics to achieve their goals. They just utilize a different path towards the same end.
In terms of social policy, liberals have pursued legislation beneficial to the LGBT community. In the efforts to achieve policy goals, liberals frame any opposition as ‘bigoted’ or ignorant. They are the original perpetrators of ‘cancel culture,’ and shouting down opposing voices. Within the last 15 years, college campuses have invited conservative speakers for various engagements, only to have protestors prevent thoughtful opposition from voicing an alternative perspective.
They don’t burn books, but liberals and conservatives will try to suffocate anyone who doesn’t think like they do. Both are cultural imperialists, attempting to subjugate Americans to a paradigm and if you don’t swallow every last bit of the party line, they will see you as the enemy. There’s no room for compromise or nuance. It’s just a bit ironic that they trade positions regarding ‘cancel culture,’ depending on what’s happening in the nation in any given moment.
Private businesses have no obligation to employ those who do not share their views or express ideas which they consider outside the boundaries of their own interests. Yet, it would be nice to see employers give consideration to the principle of free speech, and genuinely consider situations in more of a case by case basis in determining whether or not to terminate someone’s employment. Discussing ideas and policies benefits society, and we need more thoughtful speech, not less.
Hope for the future of the freedom of speech
Despite the attempts, past or present, to limit speech, I have hope for the future. We are not living in a dystopian reality. But we do have to answer the call to take action. This means discussing difficult ideas, and resisting the urge to engage in pointless online ranting. It means considering that we could be wrong on some issues — or at the last, we accept that we sometimes lose elections in a democracy. This isn’t a false hope. Consider the following:
Controlling ideas in the digital world is nearly impossible, particularly in a nation as geographically large as the United States. Estimates suggest that nearly 75% of American adults have some form of social media. This equates to hundreds of millions of internet users who communicate freely in an instant. Even if the government controlled the private companies providing internet access, there are so many ways to operate outside of typical internet usage, including using encrypted software which is widely available across the globe. Actively policing the internet would require more manpower. The FBI and NSA do not have nearly enough employees to surveil the country, particularly when they’re busy with higher priorities.
I’m encouraged by the division within the United States. While we generally see the division as a negative aspect of our political ecosystem, it has an upside. Not since 1964 has any president secured more than 60% of the popular vote. That means that at least two out of five voting Americans differ in their policy views enough vote for a different candidate. The diversity of views within the country decreases the likelihood of any one perspective dominating the landscape, regardless of how hard the government tries to prevent it.
I’m also encouraged that even some of the most repulsive members of government understand the importance of free speech, because they know that one day, their group will be the minority again, and they will need the ability to express their ideas.
Call me surprised, but I did not expect Ted Cruz (R-TX) to become the voice of reason in protecting speech. On his podcast, Cruz had this to say:
“I think it is unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying. … what he [Brendan Carr] said there is dangerous as hell.”
Other GOP voices backed Cruz, including Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA).
This, in part, also frames the sentiment of James Madison, who famously noted that in our system of government, ambition must be made to counter ambition. When someone like Trump pushes his ambition too far, other members of government seize the opportunity to become the defenders of freedom in America. Politics really does make for strange bedfellows.
Exercise your right to speech, and your responsibility to think.