Free Speech is on the line in the U.S.

Americans are being faced with efforts to stifle their free speech and we must stand against those who would infringe on our most precious freedom.

Western nations are proving to be battlegrounds (some may see them as social experiment labs) as those seeking to deny the broadest free speech are incrementally chipping away at speech claiming their efforts, ironically, are focused on saving democracy or opposing “misinformation.” The time is now to actually save free-speech in America as an example for the world – not to join in on crushing speech that is out of favor. 

Often, “saving democracy” is a term that is purposely vague and usually in service to the person or group using this cause as a means to limit the speech of political opposition. Further, anti-free speech proponents want citizens to be wary of breaking ambiguous ordnances, laws, and or regulations by means of self-censorship. 

Politicians in the U.S. are engaging in tactics in what appears to be a coordinated action given the similarities in announcements and the fact they are coming from members of just one party.  

Former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton said in an interview with CNN cloaked limits of speech as protecting children.

She also made clear that controlling speech was her aim.

“But we now know that that was an overly simple view, that if the platforms, whether it’s Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control,” said Clinton.

While this seems at first blush a noble goal of defending the defenseless, the vague nature of the limits leaves a great deal of room for interpretation, and, importantly, intervention. Such laws could make what is deemed dangerous speech illegal itself, not the behavior behind the speech the focus. Clearly, Clinton’s view on speech is one of regulation.

Still, others seem to believe limiting speech actually defends democracy itself without explaining how taking away rights protects them.

Another former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator John Kerry “described the First Amendment as a ‘major block’ to ‘hammering’ a source of information of which he disapproved ‘out of existence.’” Kerry appeared to be worried about misinformation about climate change, a subject he believes the person that holds all the correct information is – John Kerry.

Perhaps worse than former politicians who merely have niche platforms from which to speak, is more critical source of future anti-speech zealotry that can be exercised through legislation, regulation or even misconduct: Candidates for major office.

Recent presidential candidate and current Vice-President Kamala Harris worried out loud in 2019 that social media companies “are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation and it has to stop.” Little did we know that governments had oversight or regulation to control speech, but it is clear that she wants all of the above.

Harris’ former running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, has an obvious lack of understanding of free speech envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Speaking in August 2024, Walz said, “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” He obviously, and intentionally, does not define either type of speech but the possibilities are endless.

Who would define “misinformation” and what would be the penalty for offenders? What, exactly is “hate” speech? Much of the “hate” speech seen in social media and even mainstream media is defined as speech that offends one side of the political spectrum, individuals, organizations or causes whether the information is true or untrue. That’s right – truth is apparently no defense.

We have seen foreign governments justifying limiting of speech rights where we would not expect to find such efforts. Even countries of a long tradition of free speech (though not protected in a way the U.S. Constitution does) such as the United Kingdom are dabbling in new laws and edicts to induce censorship. Notably, the governments of Brazil and France, either through legislatures or courts have also attempted creating barriers to speech.

American politicians and business leaders who see the Constitution as an impediment to their particular brand of policy are noticing.  

Perhaps more troublesome, some American media is jumping into the incremental free speech degradation hidden behind the ostensible goal of achieving more fairness in elections.

Van Jones, a CNN analyst, said on November 7, 2024 following the general elections in which Democrats lost decisively.

Jones, in subtly calling for a regulatory approach to limit free speech in social media.

“In a normal country, we would say hold on a second, maybe we need to have a different set of regulations for social media platforms now that they’re this big and maybe we would have less money in the system,” said Jones. Predictably he at once attacked the amount of money in the political system (ironically the party spending the most money was the Democrats in 2024), and tried his best to make such regulations controlling speech seem reasonable.

Citizens in western countries may not see speech taken in big chunks. Groups intent on limiting speech will continue to do so subtly through seemingly innocuous rules and regulations supposedly for safety, or protecting freedoms --- while doing neither. 

They will add regulatory obstacles to social media, radio and television news (ostensibly for fairness and participating in global programs to squash speech they label as misinformation, disinformation or hate, all vaguely constructed to allow government executives or courts to interpret in a variety of ways).

Free speech rights make all other freedoms possible. Without free speech, government can enact policies, take actions, or cover-up corruption without the governed people ever knowing, and making exposure of their misdeeds a criminal offense.  

How can Americans fight back? It starts with exposing governmental activities that are aimed at stifling speech. Discussing with friends and even neighbors who you disagree with on many topics is a place to start.  Speeches in local clubs and organized groups local chapters of national groups is effective in engendering ongoing efforts of citizens to ensure their rights.

In the U.S. one common infringement, and most contrary to the Constitution, is the use of the judicial gag order. Judges wield gag orders ostensibly to protect the process of justice. That of course seems sensible, but as often as not judges use gag orders to prevent their own names being used by defendants and accusers alike.

Today, gag orders are simply accepted but are not anymore fair because of this acceptance.

If we believe our courts are simply meting out justice, we should have no worries about the most fundamental right of all --- speech.

Future examples might include limits on speech near election times.

Companies such as Amazon, acting without government orders on their own, limit the use of advertisement on their site of publications published during election season (though it is not clear that this edict is applied to all authors). Again, they appear to mistrust the citizenry with information that could in fact help them decide who to elect.

From November forward, it will prove vital that local, state and federal legislatures write laws that further take decisions on free speech out of the hands of nefarious government officials bent on dictating speech and back with the people where it belongs.

---

James Hutton is a former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and a retired colonel in the U.S. Army. Follow him on X @jehutton.

Author of Biden-Harris: Views of Misguided Policies Foreign and Domestic 2021-2023.