by Douglas V. Gibbs
The Founding Fathers viewed freedom of speech as a fundamental, natural right and an indispensable “bulwark of liberty,” necessary for checking tyranny and discovering truth. They championed robust political debate and conscience-based religious freedom, believing that suppressing opposing views leads to oppression, whereas free speech allows folly to die of its own poison.
Benjamin Franklin and George Washington stated that without freedom of speech, society would be led like “sheep to the slaughter,” and James Madison described it as a principal pillar of free government. They viewed public debate as a duty, allowing the people, as the “only censors of their governors,” to correct errors in government. They argued that the freedom to think and express thoughts is essential to human liberty, protecting both the majority and minority.
The founders championed the right to criticize government, rooted in events like the John Peter Zenger case, which affirmed the right to challenge officials. When it came to religious speech, Thomas Jefferson advocated for complete liberty of conscience, arguing that government has no jurisdiction over human opinions, a view designed to ensure freedom for all faiths.
“Freedom for the Thought We Hate” developed through the Enlightenment, recognizing that protecting speech is critical to liberty even when it is disagreed with, as freedom of thought is not merely for those who agree with the majority, but for all. They believed that free deliberation allows truth to survive while “folly” dies of its own poison.
While the Founders often held high standards for civil discourse, they aimed to protect the right of dissenters to live in peace, rather than demanding ideological conformity.
This foundational principle of free speech stands in stark contrast to how it is being challenged today. As a constitutionalist, I disagree with a vast array of my opponents’ views and what they have to say. I debate them, try to correct them, and warn them that their opinions, behaviors and even lifestyles are dangerous, filled with potential consequences that is dangerous for them and perhaps even society. I also petition government for a redress of these things, and I vote to put people in office who agree with my stance on things – but you will never hear me say, no matter how much I disagree with someone’s opinions, that the law should be used to silence them or to only celebrate my way of thinking.
The opponents of the Constitution, however, seems to think that their leftwing thinking gives them the authority to intimidate you, silence you, and destroy your right to free speech. They seem to say, “we believe in free speech as long as it agrees with us.” Totalitarian governments do not tolerate criticism. The CCP arrests dissenters, and Iran executes them. Does not the progressive leftists in this country realize that their crusade to silence MAGA, Trump and Christians bears a resemblance?
This troubling trend manifests in various ways across our society. We are reminded of the story of Paige Ostroushko who, along with her family, violently assaulted Turning Point USA journalist Savannah Hernandez. Based on what was said, it was an attack against Hernandez for ideological reasons, with Ostroushko calling Hernandez a “fu**ing piece of sh** Turning Point b**ch.”
This type of behavior is not an isolated event. We can go all the way back to 2015 when we saw anti-Trump gangs chasing down MAGA supporters like animals, and attacking them in groups of violent mobs, beating them down to the ground.
The intimidation extends beyond physical violence to threats against public figures. Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk who founded Turning Point USA, recently canceled an event appearance after receiving serious threats. She was set to appear alongside Vice President J.D. Vance, who still attended despite Erika canceling her appearance.
Perhaps most concerning are the systematic attempts to codify speech suppression into law. In California, Democratic legislators are working on legislation to silence citizen journalists like Nick Shirley who exposed the Somali daycare fraud scandal in Minnesota. The new law, AB 2624, would silence citizen journalists and threatens these journalists with large financial penalties to dissuade them from reporting on public interest stories in the name of protecting migrants from being reported for wrongdoing. In short, expose corruption, and you will be punished. Your freedom of speech will be silenced to protect the guilty.
The federal government has also been complicit in this assault on free speech. During Biden’s presidency, the federal government collaborated with pro-abortion groups to silence pro-lifers, according to a recent report released by the Justice Department. The Biden-era Justice Department aggressively applied the FACE Act against pro-life activists, operating using a two-tiered system of justice conducting selective prosecution based on beliefs. The Biden Justice Department monitored pro-life activists for years before charging them, while providing significant support to abortion clinics and ignoring or downplaying vandalism and attacks against pregnancy resource centers. The report says federal prosecutors “authorized aggressive arrest tactics” and withheld evidence that defense counsel requested while also attempting to screen out jurors based on religion. The Biden DOJ requested an average sentence of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants in FACE Act cases, compared with 12.3 months for pro-choice defendants.
It’s one thing to disagree with someone, and engage in civil discourse – it’s another to use violence or the law to silence the speech of someone else, the latter being actions the leftist democrats have been guilty of for a very long time, violating the very principles behind what brought us the Bill of Rights in the first place.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
