Revisit and Relearn Our Fundamental Rights as Americans
The pivotal issue in the upcoming November election revolves around the preservation of free speech.
During Donald Trump’s recent campaign rally, Tesla CEO Elon Musk took to the stage and emphasized the importance of backing the former president as the candidate supporting free speech.
Musk declared it to be “the foundation of democracy,” cautioning against attempts by the opposing side to curtail freedom of speech.
Indeed, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz advocate for the suppression of speech, aiming to control social media content and censor any information categorized as “misinformation” or “hate,” an approach that has gained agreement from a significant portion of the population as per surveys.
The framers of the Constitution recognized the peril of granting government the authority to regulate what the public can express or access.
This is why the First Amendment prohibits officials from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Over the years, the Supreme Court has consistently nullified governmental efforts to silence speech, even if it is divisive, false, or offensive.
In 1949, Father Arthur Terminiello, a communist, was arrested in Chicago for delivering a racially charged speech, based on a city ordinance banning “speech that stirs the public to anger.”
However, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction, underscoring that “the health of civil and political institutions in our society relies on open discussion.”
The court emphasized that speech “might best fulfill its noble purpose when it incites an unsettled state… and prompts people to feel anger.”
This protection even extends to hate speech.
In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court discarded the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader for making anti-Semitic and racist remarks during a group meeting. Ohio could only prohibit speech, the court determined, if it posed immediate risk of lawlessness.
Twenty years later, in 1989, the court affirmed that a Texan had the right to burn the American flag.
“The core principle underlying the First Amendment is that the government cannot bar expression of an idea simply because society finds it offensive or disagreeable,” wrote Justice William J. Brennan Jr. in the majority opinion.
In 2012, the court ruled that misinformation and falsehoods are also shielded by the First Amendment, invalidating a federal law that criminalized falsely claiming military honors.
So, Governor Walz need not worry. Despite facing stolen valor allegations, the Supreme Court upholds his position.
It is not the government’s role to shield the public from falsehoods, the court clarified in United States v. Alvarez.
“Our constitutional tradition rejects” the necessity for a “Ministry of Truth,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, referencing George Orwell’s “1984.”
Additionally, the court ruled in 2017 that political correctness must not supersede freedom of speech, striking down a US Trademarks Office regulation that prevented Simon Tam and his Asian-American group from using the name “The Slants,” which had been rejected as “disparaging.”
While not everyone may agree with all these legal decisions, that’s precisely the point.
Freedom of speech isn’t exclusive to any specific group; it’s a universal principle vital for sustaining democracy.
The prejudiced KKK member, the communist, and the flag-burning dissenter are all protected so that all individuals can confidently express their opinions without fear.
Despite the First Amendment safeguarding unpopular viewpoints, over half of Americans, 53%, believe it “goes too far,” according to a poll by the Foundation for Freedom of Individual Rights and Expression — with Democrats displaying a greater opposition.
Walz, Harris, and President Joe Biden, along with other Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, have all expressed disapproval toward free speech, particularly within social media platforms, the modern public arena.
Walz asserts that there is no First Amendment protection for misinformation or hate speech, a surprising stance from a former social studies educator.
In 2019, Harris urged Twitter to remove Trump’s account, arguing that online expression is a “privilege” requiring censorship to uphold democracy.
While in power, she and President Biden established a pervasive censorship scheme, directing White House and agency personnel to instruct social media executives on what content qualifies as “misinformation” and who should be silenced.
Even scientists questioning mask-wearing and vaccines faced cancellations, with their research posts being deleted, despite many proving conclusive.
Facebook, YouTube, and Google were coerced into enforcing the administration’s directives, a campaign that persists to this day.
Two states and five individuals mounted legal challenges against what the federal district court termed an extensive and broad censorship campaign.
However, in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court refrained from intervening due to a legal technicality concerning “standing.”
Justice Samuel Alito, disenchanted by the court’s avoidance, denounced the Biden-Harris censorship initiative as “overtly unconstitutional” and warned that democracy cannot thrive under a government that suppresses free speech.
Alito’s admonition should be heeded closely.
This is the central issue in the upcoming November election.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.
