Free Speech Was Meant for the Speech We Hate- Not the words we all agree on
Posted by Sia on September 17, 2025, 10:44 am ADMIN
Free Speech Was Meant for the Speech We Hate—Not the Words We All Agree On
Why Charlie Kirk’s murder and today’s crackdowns prove the First Amendment’s real purpose is to protect unpopular voices and stop violence before it starts
Adam Kinzinger - Sep 16
In recent days, America has been jolted by tragedy, outrage, and a rush toward restricting speech. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at a public event at a college in Utah. Nearly immediately, Attorney General Pam Bondi declared that the government must crack down on “hate speech.” At the same time, across social media and workplaces, people expressing anything other than full-throated condemnation of the killing are being fired or ostracized in what appears to be a coordinated effort to silence dissent. And the pressure is only mounting after so many lawsuits by Donald Trump, who is now suing The New York Times for 15 billion dollars.
These are dangerous precedents. They threaten what the First Amendment was designed to protect—not the popular speech, but unpopular speech. The speech that makes us uncomfortable, the speech that offends, the speech that challenges our beliefs—these are precisely the expressions that governments, social majorities, and powerful groups are most tempted to silence. Why do we tolerate KKK marches? Why is David Duke allowed to run for President? Because we as a nation believe in free expression.
The framers of the Constitution understood that free speech couldn’t just be for agreeable or noncontroversial speech. If speech is only protected when it is “safe,” “nice,” or “mainstream,” then protection is empty. The reason for rights is to limit government pressure and social pressure to silence dissent, minority views, and discomforting truths. When people feel their voice is heard, even if what they say is controversial or unpopular, they are less likely to resort to violence. If you shut down avenues of free expression—especially for voices that already feel marginalized—you push them toward extremes. A society that allows protest, dissent, and even insult is one that gives discontent a peaceful channel.
The First Amendment has long accepted that certain categories of speech—true threats, incitement to imminent violence, libel or slander—are not protected. But hateful or offensive speech in general, even speech that enrages or disgusts many people, is protected unless it crosses those lines. That boundary is crucial. If we allow vague definitions of “hate speech” or “offensive discourse” to become grounds for criminal or civil penalties, we risk broad censorship.
The vow to prosecute hate speech in the wake of Kirk’s killing may come from a place of grief and fear, but it cannot override the Constitution. People losing their jobs or being blacklisted for protected speech cannot become the norm. Trump’s massive lawsuits against the press are designed to intimidate and drain resources, not to seek justice. And when media companies settle rather than fight, they set a terrible precedent that will haunt every journalist and citizen who values a free press.
If these trends continue, they will erode free speech in practice. A law or policy that allows punishment of “hate speech” broadly, or endorses mass firings for unpopular opinions, or allows huge lawsuits for critical journalism—even when the reporting is accurate—creates an environment where only safe speech survives. That is exactly the opposite of what the First Amendment guarantees.
To defend free speech, we need a strong, concerted response. News organizations must fight these lawsuits instead of folding. Citizens must insist on the hard distinction between incitement and protected opinion. Politicians who call for broad speech restrictions must be held to account. And we as a society must reject the growing habit of firing or ostracizing people for lawful speech, no matter how unpleasant that speech may be.
It’s worth noting that the impulse to silence speech reveals weakness, not strength. If someone’s ideas are truly compelling, they can survive criticism, mockery, even hatred. When people resort to lawsuits, criminalization, or coordinated intimidation, they are admitting that their ideas cannot stand on their own.
The First Amendment was not created to protect popular speech. It was created to protect the speech no one else wants to hear. In defending the rights of people—even those we despise—to speak, we uphold a bulwark against tyranny, political violence, and oppression. The murder of Charlie Kirk, though tragic, must not become an excuse to weaken that bulwark. Instead it should sharpen our resolve to defend it—especially when defending difficult and offensive speech is hardest.
If we fail now, we will wake up in a world where speech is safe only when it is comfortable, only when it aligns with power, only when it avoids controversy. That is no longer freedom. We must push back—strongly, legally, and morally—and insist that freedom of speech includes the right to offend, to challenge, and to dissent. Because that freedom is what prevents violence, gives people a voice, and keeps conscience alive.
-‐-------
Sia: HEAR HEAR!!
I coudn't agree more!! Thank you for posting that - I printed it out - very well stated.
The Fascist Right have long admired his methods, among them the identification of immigrants as evil and a threat, and control of the media, especially voices of dissent. It's aoft Fascism, Hungarian style. That's the Republican Right's aim. And why no one opposes Trump.
Dems have foolishly let Repubs gerrymander their way to control of many states and of the Congress, and used Trump to fill the USSC with Righties. It's all but over if we don't win back Congress next year. And Dems had better realize it.-greenman
I never dreamed that someone who spoke so many lies and hate speech would be elected and then shut down free speech, including truth.
If we the people do not speak up now... our rights, freedom, country and democracy, and our souls... will virtually be dead.
Neither did I! It blindsided me that NONE of the GOP in office are
Posted by Sia on September 18, 2025, 9:10 am, in reply to "Thank you!" ADMIN
doing or saying ANYTHING about all of this fascist behavior!
Surely they recognize that trump's behavior could very likely wind up deplatforming every RW channel and personality IF he doesn't succeed in becoming a dictator as he obviously plans to do.
The destruction of America's entire government piece by piece should horrify them ALL!!
Here is a prominent Republican who opposes much of his own party actions!
on September 17, 2025, 10:44 am
