The year is 1791, and the First Amendment has been ratified with the following words: “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” In the centuries that follow, the United States will systematically undermine this promise to the people with the suppression of speech through institutional pressure, social “punishment” and even outright censorship.
When the Federalists and President John Adams first passed and signed the Sedition Act of 1798, citizens recognized it as an attack on long-established civil rights and liberties: the freedom to openly criticize the government and voice their differing opinions. They used these feelings of injustice and anger to swing the majority to the Democratic-Republicans, who eventually repeal the acts.
Now, in the 21st century, a similar suppression seems to be happening, but this time on an even larger scale. According to U.S News & World Report, the White House cut Columbia University’s funding by $400 million in March, “after demanding that administrators change policies regarding student protests and discipline and reorganize the leadership of the school’s Middle East studies department.” By using his political position to silence views that do not align with his own, President Donald Trump perpetuates the dismantling of freedom of speech. When we cannot practice freedom of speech, we cannot create a society that is representative of the people’s beliefs rather than just those who hold power. In overextending his own beliefs, Trump drowns out opposing opinions by turning arguments into screaming matches, where only the most powerful voice may prevail.
Government censorship of freedom of speech is not only happening on school campuses. It is also happening right in front of our eyes on television screens. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), headed by Trump appointee Brandon Carr, pressured the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) to take Jimmy Kimmel off of the air due to his comments surrounding right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s death. Carr warned that the companies must “change conduct,” or else “there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” The FCC is responsible for enforcing rules related to broadcasting content and has the power to issue financial penalties to those who do not follow the rules. By using his political power to put pressure on broadcasting affiliates to push for Kimmel’s firing and vaguely threatening ABC, Carr twists the definition “free speech” and “hate speech” to oppress the true spirit behind freedom of speech. It is our constitutional right to criticize the government, an action people are now punished for.
This brings us to an important question: Do people even believe in free speech if we are choosing when it is acceptable? Sure, people expect to have the freedom to express their beliefs, but they seem reluctant to extend the same right to others.
Yet again, Trump is a prime example: a man who advocates for freedom of speech if it agrees with his version of the truth, such as allowing his attorney general Pam Bondi to threaten those she believes are making hateful comments surrounding Charlie Kirk’s death, but both indirectly and directly uses the Trump Administration to go after those whose free speech challenges his own policies. Even if there are comments made by the public that some view as controversial speech against a specific political party, that does not condone the use of governmental authority to silence those voices. Though some forms of speech are censored for safety reasons, it is one thing to yell “fire” in a building and another to criticize a public figure.
Our society has become so diametrically opposed in our political beliefs that we cannot seem to respect each other’s ideas enough anymore to work towards a solution. We seem unable to comprehend viewpoints that are not within our own belief bubbles. When we stop believing in allowing everyone to share their voices or opinions, society deconstructs the “freedom of speech” that we deserve, one person at a time.
Beyond political stratification, our current “cancel culture” represents our attitude towards free speech. According to the University of Wisconsin – Madison, “Cancel culture is a type of social speech regulation that facilitates domination. It resembles the very type of nationwide censorship that the founders were trying to avoid when they prohibited government censorship of speech.” People are too focused on silencing the opinions and voices of others they disagree with via public shaming, when they really need to fight for everyone to have a voice, regardless of their political views. If people disagree, they must argue their beliefs with logic and facts, not just try to drown out others with hateful language.
The question remains: how do we take back freedom of speech and restore it to its original purpose? In full honesty, we might not be able to before it becomes the antithesis to the founding fathers’ intentions for it. If we want to bring a modern version of freedom of speech back into the United States, we need to remember why we love it in the first place; those three words allow us to express our just grievances and opinions without fear of detrimental retribution from those with more power than us. We need to reclaim ‘freedom of speech’ from its politically charged baggage and allow it to return to its initial purpose, protecting unpopular and dissenting views, versus just the opinions we already agree with. Without true freedom of speech we silence the quiet voices that matter most and lose our ability to develop diverse solutions for diverse problems. Most importantly, we give up our power to create the government and culture that best reflects what it means to be American for all of us.
