OPINION: Free speech is fading — and Democrats are pushing it

What is it with Democrats and free speech? Democrats have struggled with free expression since President Woodrow Wilson pushed laws to curb dissent against U.S. involvement in World War I.

The Espionage Act of 1917 criminalized anti-war speech, and Wilson used it to silence dissenters, prosecute journalists and target activists. By 1918, Wilson expanded this with the Sedition Act, which criminalized "disloyal" language about the government and jailed citizens merely for criticism. This legislation led to hundreds of arrests, including Eugene V. Debs, whose case became a symbol of this crackdown.

Debs, a labor leader and five-time presidential candidate, was a prime target of this crackdown. His offense? A 1918 speech calling the draft a tool of the rich that sent poor men to die. For this, Debs received a 10-year sentence — not for inciting violence, but for questioning power.

Wilson’s Department of Justice, through its War Division and the Bureau of Investigation (later the FBI), pursued dissenters like Debs aggressively, enforcing the Espionage and Sedition Acts to silence anti-war activists, labor leaders and political dissidents. The Debs case shows the disturbing precedent set by Democrats: Dissenters were dangerous and would pay a price.

This drive to control speech, dressed as national security or morality, has resurfaced repeatedly. Prominent Democrats have recently called for speech limits under the guise of “public safety,” labeling dissent as disinformation, misinformation, or even malinformation — the Information Control Trifecta. Yet all three fall squarely under First Amendment protections.

The concept of malinformation — truth censored because it is inconvenient — is especially pernicious. Consider recent examples of information suppressed because it didn’t fit the narrative:

Trump-Russia collusion was a hoax.

Ivermectin is only for horses.

Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation.

COVID-19 lab leak was a conspiracy theory.

Cloth masks, distancing, and school closures stopped COVID-19.

This pervasive intolerance toward differing views has grown from political leaders into a cultural norm, where so-called “disinformation” is used to stifle facts that challenge the government narrative. The irony is stark: Those preaching "follow the science" ignore science’s need for constant revision and open debate. True free speech includes the right to access information, weigh facts, and make our own judgments — far from the controlled "freedom" some Democrats promote to push an agenda.

There was a time when the ACLU defended even the most controversial speech, living by the principle “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Skokie, Ill. (1977) — The ACLU defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to march in a community of Holocaust survivors, arguing that free speech protections apply, no matter how offensive.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) — Representing a KKK leader, the ACLU helped set the standard that speech is protected unless it incites “imminent lawless action.”

The ACLU took on cases involving hate groups and radical protestors, standing firm that free speech protections apply to all viewpoints, no matter how offensive.

Free speech must defend even the most unpopular opinions. “Hate speech” is, in fact, protected by the First Amendment. Tim Walz’s outdated “fire in a crowded theater” reference was replaced by a stricter standard: under Brandenburg v. Ohio (mentioned above), speech is protected unless it’s intended to incite and likely to cause imminent lawless action.

John Kerry, special presidential envoy for climate, recently called the First Amendment “a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer (disinformation) out of existence.” He knows the First Amendment protects Americans’ rights — it’s just inconvenient for his agenda of silencing dissent.

Last month on CNN, Hillary Clinton called for repealing Section 230, which shields online platforms from liability for user content.

“We should be in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity. ... Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter/X, or Instagram, or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control.”

Earlier this year, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris backed an online censorship bill, framed as child protection, granting the FTC sweeping powers to pressure platforms to remove lawful speech. But this government overreach into online content also encroaches on parents’ role to guide their children’s exposure to ideas — a further step away from genuine individual freedom and thought.

It’s undeniable: Prominent Democratic leaders, past and present, see the First Amendment and Americans’ free speech as obstacles to implementing their agendas. We’ve seen this shift into arbitrary censorship before, and how it can destroy nations. Today, protect free speech by voting against Democrats who oppose it.

Courtney served 20 years as a nuclear engineering officer aboard submarines and 15 years as a graduate school instructor. A political independent, he spends his time chasing his eight grandchildren around Moscow.