The First Amendment is first for a reason. It clearly and unequivocally asserts Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. As a free speech absolutist, I assert that neither the executive nor judicial branch possesses the authority to dilute our fundamental liberties as outlined in the First Amendment and Second Amendment. But a concerning trend has been slowly eroding these rights; not another amendment, but the much more underhanded approach of redefining the scope through “interpretation.”
Back in my high school days, I remember liberals would often quote, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The American Civil Liberties Union was the champion of this cause, extending legal aid to society’s most despised, standing firm on the conviction that speech should not be stifled based on its content.
Both parties can agree granting the government power to silence speech based on subject matter only opens the door to tyrannical censorship. This principle was boldly demonstrated in the ACLU’s defense during the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie case, where it stood for the rights of neo-Nazis to march in a community haunted by the memories of the Holocaust.
The ACLU’s defense of free speech, no matter how odious the message, resonated with my budding libertarian ideals. Open discourse is essential for gaining knowledge and truth. Stronger, wiser opinions emerge from considering all arguments. For instance, debating with flat earthers hones our understanding of the Earth’s roundness, no matter how absurd it seems.
Ronald Reagan warned, “If fascism ever comes to America, it’ll come in the name of liberalism.” This echoes the liberal creed: the facade of private enterprise, yet beneath, total government command. Since 2016, the progressive mask has slipped to show its true colors.
Coinciding with Tucker Carlson’s exit from Fox News, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez graced MSNBC’s “Inside Interview” with Jen Psaki. There, AOC lobbied for “federal regulation of broadcast content,” even calling for an outright ban on Carlson’s media presence. As a public servant, she is bound by oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” but AOC’s rhetoric has shown that to be only a smokescreen. Her real intentions pull in the opposite direction and advocate not for freedom, but for a shortsighted agenda that underlies the partisan infighting that plagues our nation.
Bill Maher’s “Real Time“ recently featured Elon Musk, who commented, “Free speech was once a cornerstone of liberal values, yet now, it’s the ‘left’ advocating for censorship.” Musk’s astute observation points to Twitter’s important role as a digital public square, where government interference in free speech is inappropriate, alarming and illegal.
The “Twitter Files” have cast a stark light on this issue, revealing:
Part 1: Twitter’s suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 elections, even locking out the New York Post.
Part 8: Twitter’s clandestine backing of U.S. military psyops, contradicting their public denials of engaging in state-run propaganda.
Part 9: Federal bodies like the FBI and CIA swaying Twitter moderation, leading to unwarranted censorship.
Part 10: Twitter’s collusion with government entities to direct the COVID-19 discourse, silencing the dissent of medical professionals and scholars.
“Hate speech” has become a potent tool for the left, who sling that phrase around to muddy the waters around legitimate dissent versus incitement to violence. No need for debate — just brand it as “hate speech” and consign it to the oblivion of social media censorship.
Freedom to think and speak underpins our society, yet hostility towards free speech — evidenced by the prosecution of figures like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Douglass Mackey — reveals a troubling direction. The government’s collusion with big tech to censor speech further erodes our liberties. Even independent of government interference, social media censorship of political views is alarming.
The removal of content like bin Laden’s “Letter to America” by The Guardian and TikTok’s hashtag ban signifies a refusal to confront challenging ideas. Suppressing such material prevents critical analysis of narratives, including those propounded by authority figures like President George W. Bush (“they hate us for our freedoms”).
Our First Amendment is endangered as advocacy for free speech wanes, replaced by efforts to silence dissent as “hate” or “misinformation.” The Twitter Files expose a worrying collusion between social media and government agencies, revealing a systematic bid to control discourse. Preserving the First Amendment means protecting diverse opinions, including those we oppose, to continue the legacy of free and open debate essential to our nation’s fabric.
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 playing with his eight grandchildren in Moscow.
