Freedom of Speech Goes Both Ways
You have every right to say what you want, and I have every right to say what I want about what you said. That’s how all of this works.
“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.”
Before freedom of the press, assembly or the petitioning of grievances, it is freedom of speech that is first guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Why? Because to be truly free, you must be free to think, and without the freedom to express what you think, you can never be free to think in the first place.
While the First Amendment — unique in a world of countries that pretend to protect free speech while actively undermining it — technically protects citizens from government control, it has extended into the cultural foundation of our nation as an accepted platform of debate. Each of us has a general right to free speech that provides us with the freedom to think, the freedom to explore ideas and yes, the freedom to battle it out in the so-called marketplace of ideas.
Of course, most of us — albeit too few — understand that freedom of speech doesn’t provide limitless protections. Direct incitements of violence, for example, will land you in jail, and inappropriate postings on your company noticeboard might land you in trouble with HR. But outside of private institutions or private residences, and aside from other limitations such as threats, defamation and child pornography, Americans are free to think and say what they think.
The problem with freedom of speech? People don’t appreciate that it’s a two-way street.
You have every right to say what you want, and I have every right to say what I want about what you said. That’s how all of this works.
But right now, we’re watching an explosion among the all-too-online crowd who built their brands — and their apparent membership in the immeasurably big tent that is the conservative movement — on freedom of speech, and on the idea that they represent a world of debate and discussion and the exploration of ideas in the face of a leftist-controlled mainstream that seeks to wield cancel culture and squeeze these free ideas from the Overton window of acceptable thought.
This explosion? Outrage among this very same crowd when they face consequences for their increasingly outrageous speech.
Tucker Carlson is the obvious example. Others include Candace Owens, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes and the rest of an influencer class that wheels and deals in the world of intentionally edgy content in pursuit of clicks under the guise of “just asking questions.” But Carlson’s latest interview of unapologetic Jew-hater and white supremacist Nick Fuentes sparked outrage among conservatives who are witnessing their movement descend into an unrecognizable abyss of mindless bigotry and identity politics.
How are Tucker fans responding? We are trying to cancel Tucker! We are trying to silence Tucker! We are trying to control Tucker!
Nope. Sorry. Absolutely not.
Tucker Carlson is welcome to continue hosting the scum of the earth. Freedom of speech gives him and his guests that right. But freedom of speech also gives us the right to call him out on his faux-credulity, his pandering and his absurd cackling obsession with Jews. Sorry, Zionism.
Freedom of speech goes both ways.