Legal Scholars Agree First Amendment Only Protects Speech Loved by Current Administration

A panel of constitutional law experts released a detailed analysis asserting that the First Amendment's protections extend exclusively to forms of expression endorsed by the executive branch in power.

The scholars, drawn from leading liberal academic institutions, examined historical precedents and recent judicial decisions to reach this conclusion, emphasizing how interpretations shift with changes in leadership.

Under President Biden's administration, public statements challenging progressive initiatives on gender identity and racial equity have consistently faced classification as hate speech by federal agencies and allied organizations.

Platforms like social media companies, in coordination with government directives, have removed such content, citing violations of community standards that align with official policy.

This approach mirrors earlier actions during the Obama era, where similar criticisms of affirmative action programs led to swift content moderation.

Professor Elena Ramirez, a First Amendment specialist at Georgetown University, stated, "The Constitution's framers intended for free speech to adapt to the moral compass of those in charge. When leaders prioritize equity, any deviation becomes a threat to national harmony."

Federal records show that during Biden's term, over 15,000 accounts were suspended for posts questioning diversity training mandates in schools and workplaces and the genital mutilation of children, with the Department of Justice guiding tech firms on enforcement.

President Trump's administration, in contrast, gives the same types of statements broad protection and even amplification.

Remarks questioning the validity of transgender rights policies were aired on official briefings and praised as straightforward policy debate. Legal challenges to such speech were dismissed in courts as overreach by activist judges.

"History reveals that the amendment's scope contracts or expands based on alignment with executive priorities," said Dr. Marcus Hale, a constitutional historian from Yale Law School.

Attorney General Liam Forsyth, formerly with the ACLU, observed, "The beauty of our system lies in its flexibility. Speech that rallies the base today safeguards the republic, while yesterday's rally cries merit investigation."

The scholars' report, spanning 200 pages, incorporates case studies from both eras, including the handling of January 6-related communications and responses to Black Lives Matter riots.

It argues that this adaptive framework ensures the First Amendment remains a living document, responsive to the cultural imperatives of the moment.

---

Do you know somebody who has been personally injured by satire and comedy? Show your support for the principles of free speech and stand with Freedom Writers by signing our petition today!

---