Free speech does not die all at once
It is not repealed in a single vote.
It is not abolished with a dramatic announcement.
It is strangled in pieces, justified at every step.
Both the left and the right claim to defend the First Amendment. Neither has clean hands.
Liberals spent years redefining speech as harm, dissent as danger, and disruption as justice. Conservatives increasingly flirt with state power when speech offends their moral sensibilities, all while insisting they are the true defenders of liberty.
Different methods. Same impulse. Same enemy.
The left’s innovation was suppression without statutes
They learned they did not need laws. They needed leverage.
If a speaker can be shouted down, the event is cancelled “for safety.”
If a venue can be pressured, speech disappears quietly.
If noise can drown out ideas, no debate ever happens.
This is how Charlie Kirk’s events were repeatedly shut down through disruption and intimidation rather than debate.
This is how drums, horns, and chants replace argument, and how politics drifts from persuasion toward force.
Today, many liberals argue that Donald Trump and the GOP represent an existential threat to free speech.
Perhaps.
But a movement that spent years normalizing speech suppression, cheering deplatforming, and redefining dissent as harm does not get to rediscover civil liberties only when power changes hands.
If free speech only matters when your opponents might control the microphone, it was never a principle. It was a strategy.
When beliefs become threat indicators, freedom is already lost
After September 11, national security frameworks were built to identify violent actors. Over time, those frameworks expanded.
Today, indicators increasingly include ideological markers.
Supporting third parties.
Distrusting centralized authority.
Emphasizing constitutional limits on government power.
When belief systems themselves are treated as precursors to violence, speech becomes evidence.
This is not law enforcement.
It is pre-criminalization of ideas.
When ideology becomes a security concern, the First Amendment exists only for approved beliefs.
That road does not end in safety. It ends in managed citizenship.
Jefferson would not recognize this country
Adam Kokesh was not arrested for chaos. He was protesting the arrest of a woman for peaceful expressive conduct at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial.
He responded with civil disobedience.
Dancing.
Expressive conduct.
At the monument to the author of the First Amendment.
He was taken to his knees and arrested.
When supporters returned and danced again, the memorial was shut down entirely.
If expressive conduct can get you arrested at Jefferson’s memorial, the problem is not disorder. It is intolerance for unsanctioned expression.
The symbolism is not subtle. It is grotesque.
Conservatives are not innocent either
When conservatives call for banning protest, punishing speech they find immoral, or using state power to retaliate against critics, they abandon principle for convenience.
Liberty is not tested when speech aligns with your values.
It is tested when it offends them.
The civil libertarian line is simple
No heckler’s veto.
No viewpoint discrimination.
No ideological threat profiling.
No state retaliation.
No mob-enforced silence.
Speech must be protected from mobs and governments alike.
If you only defend speech when it benefits your side, you are not defending free speech.
You are negotiating power.
And power never stops once you hand it the microphone.
LimitGov 
Leave a comment