Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” Benjamin Franklin, 1722
When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, “the Press” consisted of numerous ‘independent’ publications. The cost to purchase a printing press was excessive and the stamping of each page was very time-consuming. This meant that each paper was probably owned by a person of wealth and the circulation was not very large.
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Thomas Jefferson
Books were fine, but if you wanted to be up on the current news (based on where the news was coming from, “current” could mean “several weeks old, but we just got the info”) and scandals (the purpose of most newspapers was to attack the owner’s political and/or business rivals) one had to read a newspaper.
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” – Ben Franklin
Our Founders could have never imagined a world where every citizen was a potential journalist and that their blogs, vlogs, tweets, whatever, could reach millions in just minutes. Technology has blurred the distinction between Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech . . . and this is good.
Though they don’t mean the same thing they did in the late 1770s, the principle of the Amendment is still the same: More speech is better and let the American people decide their own opinion concerning the information available.
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. John F. Kennedy, 1962
The Constitution is a set of principles. The laws are intended to clarify those principles. The principles, if valid, should not change. The laws do change to meet the changing circumstances.
Freedom of Speech (Freedom of the Press is implied whenever I mention “Speech” because of their similarities and to save time) is under attack, again. The people in power generally try to find ways to silence their opposition.
“The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.” John Adams, 1780
John Adams signed the “Sedition Act” of 1798. It outlawed conspiracies “to oppose any measure or measures of the government.” And it made “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against Congress or the president punishable by fine or imprisonment. This made political opposition of the Federalist Party illegal and probably cost Adams a second term as President.
Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier-boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair on the head of a wily agitator [newspaper editor] who induces him to desert? I think that in such a case to silence the agitator and save the boy is not only constitutional, but withal a great mercy. Abraham Lincoln, 1863
President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (unlawful detention where the defendant has not been sentenced or even charged with a crime) in 1861 over two years before Congress passed a law giving him the authority to do so. He placed the Chief Justice of the United States under virtual house arrest for issuing a ruling that said Lincoln overstepped his legal authority in doing so. He empowered the military to shut down opposition newspapers and jail their editors.
I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. Woodrow Wilson, 1915
President Wilson signed the Espionage Act of 1917 which allowed the government to shut down newspapers that did not support the war effort and to jail individuals who spoke out against it. The Supreme Court upheld the government’s actions during the war (compare this with the government’s reaction to the press during the Vietnam War and all conflicts after it).
Freedom of conscience, of education, of speech, of assembly are among the very fundamentals of democracy and all of them would be nullified should freedom of the press ever be successfully challenged. Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1940
President Roosevelt had an on-going feud with the Chicago Tribune, an adherent for winning the war but critical of the management of the war. The Tribune refused to be a slave to the government’s flow of information and Roosevelt charged the paper with violations of the Espionage Act of 1917. When the Tribune tried to print a daily in England for the soldiers that were stationed there, Roosevelt lobbied Churchill to deny the application. Churchill did as requested.
Attacks on Free Speech are nothing new, but the ability of government, and its partnership with big tech media platforms, to oppress speech has reached a new level that previous governments could only dream of.
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. John Stuart Mill, 1859
Technology has become such an essential part of American’s daily life that it has become child’s play to track and rate the speech of American. If you have any electronic device that has Siri, Alexa, or any other type of speech recognition application, then it is listening to every word spoken within range of the device (how often is your phone outside the range of your voice?).
Since it is listening for a specific catchphrase in order to respond, it must listen to everything it can hear. A report in 2019 stated that Amazon employees were listening to couples engaging in sex because Alexa was able to pick up the sounds of lovemaking. What are they not able to listen to?
Fifty years ago, diaries had locks on them so no one could read the writer’s musings. Today, people post every aspect of their lives online with Twitter and Facebook, including photos and videos. Since over-bearing big tech has a relationship with the over-bearing government, agencies like the NSA are able upload all this information and analyze the appropriateness of individual thoughts and comments.
Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech. Noam Chomsky, 2021
China has a social-credit scoring system that determines whether every citizen is following government standards of thought and speech. America is rapidly approaching a similar social construct.
There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech. Idi Amin, 1971
The Secretary of Defense explains that they are monitoring social media (as is DHS, TSA, ICE, and others) to see whether there are soldiers who post ‘dangerous’ messages that align with the conservative messages advocated by the Trump Administration.
Loyalty oaths like the ones taken by German soldiers to the Nazi Fuhrer are no longer necessary since the administration can now tell whether you are loyal by a quick check of your digital footprint. Suspect soldiers can be weeded out by refusing promotions and/or reenlistments.
States and Cities are doing the same with their police forces.
When even one American – who has done nothing wrong – is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth – then all Americans are in peril. Harry S. Truman, 1951
Government does not want to appear to be oppressing free speech, so their partners in Big Tech are helpful in monitoring and silencing Americans so the government does not have to. Want to question whether the 2020 election was fraudulently decided? Twitter will shut down your account.
The media spent two-years falsely accusing President Trump of being a Russian collaborator and stealing the 2016 election. They had no evidence but they were still able to publish a mountain of headlines and hit-pieces – even winning Pulitzer prizes for false narratives. Now they tell us that no one should question or investigate the 2020 election.
Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth. Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1939
Simon and Schuster refused to publish Senator Josh Hawley’s book (after inking a deal with him) because of his questions. It used to be that government had to gather copies of a published book before they could burn them, but today, they can ban (burn) them even before they are published.
Personally, If I ‘knew’ the election was legit, I would sit back and let the deniers do their audits and let them look stupid. If truth is on their side, why are they hiding the evidence? Why doesn’t the media investigate so they can prove us wrong and reassure the public in the election process. People that hide evidence have something to hide.
Believe in the Bible? Prepare to have your business boycotted and ruined through judicial actions and massive legal costs. Ditto, if you question alarmist climate exaggerations. Mark Steyn has an on-going, twelve-year old lawsuit because he questioned the CO2 “hockey-stick” model used by environmentalists.
Freedom of speech means nothing to a people who are too weak in their convictions to speak out against the evil that is eating at the heart of the nation like a cancer. Billy Graham, 1966
Want to question the Covid vaccine or the government’s ever-changing protocols for the pandemic? Prepare to be branded as ‘anti-science’ and a fear-monger. Bring up facts and figures to support your argument and your social media account will be censored or shut down.
Has a liberal voice ever been “fact-checked”? If it has, it is the exception that proves the rule.
The Left has spent decades preparing for a time such as this and Conservatives have merely laughed it off, not believing anyone could ever take the radicals seriously.
With “political correctness” and “hate-speech” guidelines, the Left has been successful in framing arguments so that only their views are allowable. Breaking our laws is illegal, but if you break the law by entering our country illegally, we are no longer allowed to call it illegal. It is like going into a boxing match with only one arm.
“In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech; a thing terrible to publick traytors.” Benjamin Franklin, 1722
Our universities have abdicated their role in educating students by mandating that opinions that ‘hurt’ students’ feelings must be banned. Students are indoctrinated with government approved thoughts and opposing thoughts no longer exist.
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6
If college professors or guest speakers are found to have views that are contrary to the liberal narrative, massive protests and destruction can be anticipated and the safety of the offenders cannot be guaranteed. School officials have capitulated out of fear and the immense cost required to protect freedom of thought.
Being offended by freedom of speech should never be regarded as a justification for violence. Alan Dershowitz, 2012
Despots have taken control of our government, our schools, and our media. Opposition to them is being nullified. Freedom is the first casualty – obedience will be enforced.
“Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech.” Frederick Douglass, 1880
Don’t ever, ever, stop speaking – though it may cost you everything. What is the value in embracing silence? Robert Keck, 2021
