Lately, the news has been filled with horror stories of governments attempting to repress the speech of their citizens (or those from around the world). From the UK putting 61-year-old men in jail for a year and a half over comments at a protest to EU commissioners threatening to bring the law against American billionaires for allowing “misinformation” on their platform; these stories have captivated anyone paying attention.
Oftentimes, people living in America sit back with a cold drink and watch the drama unfold as though it were a daytime soap opera. After all, we live here in America, where we have the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, bald eagles, and Donald Trump.
But can we rely on that protection while being passive about it? Is it truly something the US government would never trample on or try to circumvent?
Tim Walz's War on Free Speech – The Only War He’s Been in
Governor Tim Walz has been assigned to the Harris presidency ticket. The man obliterated Minnesota during the BLM riots; all in the name of social justice and the progressive cause du jour. However, Mr. Walz previously opened his mouth and said something rather extraordinary that may matter more than his lack of bringing in troops to quell riots.
In an interview with MSNBC, he said, “I think we need to push back on this. There is no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”
If you look at the First Amendment, he is right: misinformation and hate speech are not specifically named under the protective covering of the right to free speech.
However, if we remember correctly, the First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…” and then lists a series of situations that Congress shall make no law regarding. Included in the series of situations that Congress shall make no law regarding, it says, “Abridging the freedom of speech.”
Abridging means to make less, diminish, or shorten in duration or extent. In other words, Congress shall make no law regarding the diminishing of freedom of speech. This means that things like “misinformation” and “hate speech” are AUTOMATICALLY filed under freedom of speech. They are speech, are they not?
But Congress Isn’t Writing Laws Against Free Speech
Some may argue that Congress is not making any laws regarding free speech. They may try to argue that government “influence” against disfavored speech is completely acceptable. They’re purposefully being obtuse for two reasons.
First, Congress is the only branch within the government structure (at least as the Constitution lays out) that can write law. The executive branch enforces those laws, and the judiciary interprets those laws for their use. This means that the only time a government should act against a citizen is when a law has been transgressed. Also, nowhere within the Constitution does it pass the power of law-making to other organizations...such as the three-letter agencies. Those agencies, if at all constitutional (and one wonders), exist solely to aid in the executive branch’s carrying out of the enforcement of laws. Unfortunately, Congress gave away their responsibility of writing law and allowed the bureaucratic behemoth in Washington DC to write regulations and ordinances.
This means that an agency or representative of the government cannot diminish or limit the speech of an individual – no matter how much they dislike it. If Congress cannot move against a citizen through law, how could we possibly believe that a government official could act against a citizen without similarly defying the Constitution? Why would their action which amounts to the same results somehow be more righteous than an act of Congress?
Second, a government should not have opinions. Controlling speech amounts to an opinion on what the citizens are saying. The federal government was structured to be a representative and arbiter of the states to each other and the rest of the world. Interaction between the individual and the federal government was supposed to be extremely limited. In fact, the Constitution says that the federal government cannot directly tax the individual. But, you know, constitutional illiteracy and all that...
Worse yet, a government should have no opinions when it comes to things like personal beliefs, convictions, health choices, science, education, etc. It's not their jurisdiction. If the government wishes to argue against a belief of the citizenry, it may do so in an official capacity, but it must never use suppressive force directly or indirectly to modify the speech of its citizens.
Mr. Walz – You’re a Dictator in Progress
Mr. Walz, you are flat-out wrong, and you know it. While you spit invectively at anyone who you believe is foolish enough to have faith in the protection of speech, you might want to refresh yourself at the fount of rights. Even though you believe that government coercion and oppression are useful tools to get what you want, you march in the footsteps of some very wicked and dangerous forefathers.
Governments have killed people for “misinformation” and “hate speech.”
After all, who labels misinformation or hate speech? You? Congress? How about people offended by the comment? Strangely, you fall worship at the feet of the monolith US government. At some point, you determined that a collection of human beings must be wiser, more expert, and truer than the collection of human beings they rule over. You give that group of uniquely god-like humans the power and authority to wage war against a group of clod-like human beings who must be engineered to speak what the government deems right.
You’ve decided that the gods must save the clods from themselves and their evil free speech. Sadly, a god complex in a group of humans often ends in the destruction of masses of people.
Our Historical Struggles with Free Speech
Despite what most may believe, our founders themselves struggled to cope with the idea of defending freedom of speech for the citizens. John Adams himself signed the Alien and Sedition Act, which put people in jail for speaking against the government’s objectives and positions. This happened a mere 9 years after the Bill of Rights was written!
Later on, we had the Espionage Act, which criminalized speech critical of the war effort. Eugene Debs was given 10 years for giving an anti-war speech.
Our government ran afoul of free speech amid the Civil War, Red Scare, Jim Crow, Vietnam, and COVID-19. Throughout our history as a nation, the ones in power have feared the dangerous opinions and voices of the people themselves.
Every single time, the claim is that the rising crisis demands control of speech. Each appeal to speech control seems to circumvent the spirit of the 1st Amendment. What is the spirit of the First Amendment? Do not control a person’s convictions or expression of those convictions!
Nowadays, agencies and bureaucracies feign adhering to the Constitution by sending petitions to the private sector, controlling the narrative through media mouthpieces, and slowly crushing the ability of the dissenter to convey their message.
Free Speech Requires Standing Against Wickedness
Wickedness finds a method and will only follow the rules as far as the righteous enforce them. A populace must speak, become boisterous, and use publicity to reinforce important boundaries designed to hem in the force of the government. This means standing on conviction even if the threat of jail or fines manifests. While it is difficult for the average citizen to think of going up against the might of a government with a blank check to prosecute you (with your tax dollars mind you), it is the collective bravery of those willing to take that risk who bring change. Men like Mandela, MLK Jr., Gandhi, and more did not avoid the pressure of a government. They knew that pressure itself would bring to light the atrocities committed in the name of the “common good” and “safety”.
Remember, your greatest rights were fought and died for by those willing to take a stand. Even the Puritans waged a war for speech against the Queen in England during the mid-16th century.
In 1563, Queen Elizabeth saw fit to claim herself the head of the church and the state, and in doing so attempted to stifle any criticism of her marriage of state and church.
The Puritans deeply believed such a move was religiously wrong and the Queen began persecuting them. She forced them to confess by taking oaths against their conscience. The Puritans fought against the oaths, and for almost 100 years, they battled Queen Elizabeth, King James I, and King Charles I. Finally, in 1640, with London in absolute chaos, the oath was removed, and the court that enforced it was disbanded, and the commission in charge of the court was liquidated.
What did this produce? The right to remain silent. In other words, the right to determine your speech for yourself.
Free Speech is Defensible
The continual war for speech rages directly in opposition to the war for control over speech. As a government leans into the idea that speech is dangerous, it must take a vocal and adamant population to stand firm that speech is necessary in all its forms.
The citizen must speak for himself no matter the cost and recognize that if the government fears it, then it must be worth saying.