Freedom of Speech
The distinctly American right to voice dissenting and unpopular views is meaningless if audiences are systematically blocked from hearing them. Likewise, the freedom to hear is pointless if speakers are silenced or deplatformed. These two freedoms (freedom to speak and freedom to hear) are inseparable. As we witnessed during Covid, authorities have a tremendous incentive to narrow the Overton window. Governments were able to label anything other than approved dogma as “misinformation.” With this new power, they justified shutting down dissent because it posed a "danger to public health."
We must remain vigilant to any situation that empowers authorities to curtail speech. Freedom of speech never seeks perfect speech or perfect information, it seeks truth. The 'marketplace of ideas' rationale contends that truth is most likely to emerge if ideas are exchanged in open debate and public discourse. Without robust debate, arguing against the approved narrative becomes nearly impossible. A defense of free speech prioritizes the capacity of a citizenry to challenge the concentrated power of their government.
Right to Assemble
History has taught us that rights surrendered “temporarily” are rarely returned intact. The right to peaceably assemble is not a privilege granted during times of peace and revoked during times of a declared emergency. COVID lockdowns demonstrated how public health language can be used to suspend a core freedom while other approved activities were allowed to continue. If it is conceded that assembly can be curtailed for “safety,” the definition of safety will expand to include social stability or narrative control. Peaceful assembly (rallies, protests, town and school board meetings, religious gatherings) is one of the few remaining ways we can coordinate outside of digital platforms.
Smith-Mundt Act
The original Smith-Mundt Act (1948) barred the U.S. government from directing its foreign propaganda apparatus at domestic audiences. The 2012 Modernization Act removed that firewall, allowing materials produced for foreign influence operations to be used inside the United States. This action allowed state actors to shape domestic information under the guise of countering international narratives. Our government should not be able to regulate speech platforms of “misinformation” and shape narratives through its media apparatus. Americans have lost confidence that news or platform moderation is independent. Repealing the modernization would be a positive step towards restoring public trust.
"Hate Speech" Legislation
The government and elite institutions would not spend so much time propagandizing you if your opinion did not matter. We are diametrically opposed to giving government bureaucrats the authority to decide what can and cannot be said. We insist on the broadest possible protections for free expression. Every day, lawsuits or the threat of litigation silences unpopular views. The proper approach is not more refined speech codes but a determined effort to expand the market place of ideas rationale. This means defending people's right to share bad ideas because bad ideas are best defeated by better ones, not by silencing or arrest.
Over the past decade, we have witnessed a sharp contrast between the United States and other Western nations. America still claims to uphold the First Amendment but, in many European countries, the situation is radically different. In the UK, hate speech laws have led to arrests for silent prayer near abortion clinics and for social media comments about immigration, gender ideology, or protected groups. These laws are sold as tools for protecting citizens but they function as weapons for chilling debate.