Democrats Have Now Normalized The Elimination Of Free Speech

What’s amazing about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that it not only protects free speech but does so in the clearest possible way. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment protects free speech using as few words as possible in a way that leaves no room for equivocation. It does not say that so-called “hate speech” can be abridged. It does not say that the words of your political opponents can be abridged. It does not even say that lies can be abridged (although there are other remedies for lies that do not abridge free speech including libel, defamation and anti-fraud statutes).

The courts have been crystal clear on the application of the First Amendment. Nazis are given free speech. Antisemites are given free speech. Racists are given free speech. That’s the point. The way to push back on Nazis, antisemites and racists is not by abridging speech, but by debate, counter-argument, lawsuits, and statutes that guarantee human rights and civil rights to individuals and groups under attack.

Freedom of speech is too precious to constrain. The answer has always been to use your own free speech rights to call out the repugnant voices. That’s why this article by distinguished law Professor Jonathan Turley is so important.

He’s a liberal Democrat but he values the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment above party loyalty and ideology. He’s appalled at how Democrats such as Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, Hillary Clinton and AOC as well as foreign leaders in Brazil, the EU and elsewhere are calling for free speech to be abridged both in the U.S. and abroad.

Harris said that Donald Trump’s social media posts “should be taken down.” She also said that unregulated free speech “has to stop.” Hillary Clinton and Tim Walz both said in recent interviews that free speech is not unlimited and there should be censorship of so-called “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “inflammatory” rhetoric.

Of course, they never stop to think that the most egregious sources of disinformation are themselves. Hillary Clinton had her fake Steele dossier and claims of “Russian collusion” by Trump (both false). Tim Walz set up hotlines so neighbors could rat out neighbors for trying to get some fresh air during Walz’s extreme pandemic lockdowns in Minnesota.

Again, the point is simple. Free speech must be free regardless of content. It’s the one right that gives meaning to all of the other rights including freedom of religion, freedom from unjust accusations, and freedom from government confiscation of property.

Turley makes this case expertly and convincingly. Reading this article will give you a good start on understanding the critical right to free speech and how it’s under attack.

Corporate leaders and institutional fiduciaries looking to incorporate state of the art predictive analytics to their risk mitigation and strategic analysis should click the link to learn more about Raven Predictive Analytics®.