top of page

Free Speech Matters (15.03/19.05)

Updated: May 19, 2021


It keeps going further and further and further down the line, and if you get to the point where you capitulate, where you agree to all these demands, it’ll eventually get to where straight white men are not allowed to talk

-Joe Rogan

The world’s most famous podcaster Joe Rogan is once again making headlines, this time attracting criticism from the left for his most recent attack on cancel culture. Rogan, who has literally built his podcast on questioning norms and challenging the status quo, suggested that the woke are using cancel culture as a tool to silence “straight, white men.”

Rogan suggested on Joe List’s podcast that no one will ever be woke enough to appease the online mob. The mob then accepted the comedian’s challenge and verbally harassed the human being via Twitter, which apparently is the new way to treat others humanely.

While Rogan was making the point that the political beliefs and values traditionally held by straight, white men are exactly what the culture’s seeking to cancel, his opposition of course accused him of racism and white supremacy. Instead of debating on merit, the left loves using emotionally charged language to discredit their enemies. You can go through the tweets for hours; not one of them makes a point worth reading.

Yet, this is where we are. Eric Clapton spoke out against his experience with the COVID-19 vaccine, and Twitter’s left jumped at the opportunity to remind you he said some racist things in his past, as if the two are mutually exclusive. The use of race as a tool for censorship is becoming awfully tiresome and overly divisive.

Everyone has their own experiences, and those experiences form our perceptions. How we perceive the world makes us unique. Our views and values stem from our perceptions and how we see the world. Not everybody sees the world the same, which is why everyone’s voice has value. When we let others speak, we get a glimpse of how they see the world. When we silence and censor, we limit world views down to what works best for us.


I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers.

-Henry David

Prince Harry, who serves on the Commission of Information Disorder at the international nonprofit Aspen Institute, went on Dax Shepard’s Armchair Expert podcast and referred to the First Amendment, as he understands it, as bonkers.

Yes, to a man who has never really had to fight for anything in his life or has never been on the receiving end of government oppression, an Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the government from silencing their people may seem a little bonkers. Why would we expect a man who hardly seems human himself to understand protecting and preserving human rights?

The Prince of narcissism admitted that he doesn’t fully understand the First Amendment because he has only been here for a short time. Perhaps if he would open his eyes, turn on our mainstream media, or go on social media and see how political dissent is treated, he would change his tune regarding our beloved First Amendment.

Free speech doesn’t need Prince Harry’s support; it doesn’t even needs yours. The First Amendment to the Constitution isn’t in the ratification process; it’s the law of the land. Whether elites think it’s ‘bonkers’ means very little to us down here. Luckily, we’ll never have to undergo the Prince to President transition thanks to another section of our Constitution.

While we can ignore Prince Harry’s elitist comments, understanding that his position on human rights can do little to influence American politics, we need to pay close attention to how other elitists on the left are treating our human rights. Prince Harry didn’t break ground criticizing the First Amendment. He’s a puppet who repeats the dictated script. I’m concerned that this attitude towards free speech is going to be adopted universally by the left.


Cancel culture is like a forest fire in constant need of fuel. Functioning objectively. No prejudice. No code. Just destroy. The deserving and the undeserving alike

-Alec Baldwin

Actor and comedian Alec Baldwin once again takes a stand, this time on Twitter, defending the principles of free speech and shedding shame on the current cancel culture. In his tweet, he compares the current culture to a forest fire constantly needing fuel.

Baldwin, an outspoken liberal, first attacked cancel culture back in March in a post on Instagram defending Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and American film director Woody Allen, who was accused of sexually molesting his adoptive daughter Dylan Farrow when she was just seven years old. It’s important to note that the Connecticut State Police concluded Allen never sexually molested Farrow, and the New York Department of Social Services never found any credibly evidence supporting the allegation.

Baldwin is amongst other loud liberals who disagree with cancel culture, including Bill Maher, who seems to make an attempt at lease once a week to target the nonsense. Baldwin’s wife Hilaria was recently under the mob’s target when it was discovered that she fudged details regarding her up bringing as well as impersonating a Spanish accent. Hilaria later admitted she grew up in Boston.

People are starting to realize there’s no rhyme or reason to the current culture. People will find any reason to act offended because the current culture encourages everyone to feel victimized. It’s what generate likes. It doesn’t matter if you’re causing real harm to real people, as long as you can use it as an opportunity to express your virtue.

Baldwin concludes what many of us were already thinking. The culture wants bodies. They will go back as far as they have to in order to find something that could end your career. If they can’t find it, they’ll take something completely out of context and make it front page news. The only way to come out victorious once targeted is to ignore the public outcries and refuse to apologize.


Principles are meant to serve people, not people serving to uphold the principle, while harming the people.”

-Shannon Adler

The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in United States v. Bartow (2021) that insensitive speech regarding race is protected by the First Amendment, as long as it doesn’t result in an immediate threat of violence.

The case arose after a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel was convicted for violating a Virginia statute when he used racially charged language during his visit to the Quantico Marine Corps Exchange. He was convicted after a bench trial and fined $500.

On appeal, the appeals court found that, while the defendant’s language was offensive, it’s protected by the First Amendment because his speech didn’t create a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil.

When we talk about free speech, we seem to forget why it is we have the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of the speech that we hate. Agreeable speech does not require protection. It’s not challenged. Speech that makes our skin crawl is challenged. Ideas that make us uncomfortable are rarely met with better ideas. Instead, they’re met with efforts to censor.

The First Amendment doesn’t only protect valuable speech. Speech that lacks value also has First Amendment protection. Furthermore, speech with negative value has First Amendment protection. The defendant wasn’t escorted out of and removed from some privately owned store. Marine Corps Exchanges are non-appropriated fund instrumentalities of the federal government, falling under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy. The First Amendment absolutely applies to them.


"There is a difference between condoning and supporting something when standing up for free speech.

-Michele Donelan

UK’s Higher Education Minister Michele Donelan, who recently defended the government’s plan to defend free speech on college campuses, is under fire for suggesting that free speech would permit Holocaust deniers to speak on college campuses.

As a free speech advocate, her answer is obvious. Yes, you would permit Holocaust deniers to speak on college campuses. Universities are where individuals are supposed to learn, and learning includes hearing other people’s perspectives. People also learn how to combat bad ideas with better ones. Who would really be protected by denying a Holocaust denier from speaking? The individuals still exist in the world and will find outlets to host their beliefs.

What I found specifically irritating about this story was how the media presented it to the public. Historian and BBC presenter Simon Schama, for example, tweeted, “Universities minister says she’s in favour of protecting Holocaust denial. This is absolutely horrifying.”

As we have all learned from CNN Director Charlie Chester, fear sells, and they are literally trying to scare you out of your rights. Donelan was very specific with her comments, noting that it would depend on what the Holocaust deniers are saying. If the speech is straying towards racism or hate crimes, she believes the university has a right to shut the speaker down.

The media doesn’t care if you read that part. They’re more concerned with fear mongering and propaganda tactics that trick you into sacrificing even more of your rights. You keep applauding as people get cancelled, but it’s really the marketplace of ideas that’s being cancelled.


The dissemination of speech and information is concentrated in the hands of a few private parties that control online content and platforms.

-Sean Themea

Skidmore College, a private liberal art’s college in Saratoga Springs in New York, is being threatened legal action by the Alliance Defending Freedom after the president of Student Government denied making the Young Americans for Liberty an official chapter on campus, calling their views bigoted and hateful. Student leader advocating for the liberty organization Hannah Davis appealed their denial in March, but the student body would not budge on their decision.

As plenty of you know, Young Americans for Liberty is a student organization that promote political participation on college campuses. They have established chapters on college campuses nationwide and recruit liberty-loving students who have had enough of the two-party system.

While officials at Skidmore claim that free speech is protected on their campus, they also note that, “hate speech, in which violence is clearly the goal,” is not protected. In March, students petitioned the Student Government with a petition titled “Stop Skidmore College from Approving the Young Americans for Liberty Club.”

The petition falsely alleged that the group’s application was a reactionary response to students of color speaking out. However, anyone familiar with YAL understands that they encourage everyone to speak freely. Their goal is not to put an end to these conversations; they’re simply offering a third perspective that isn’t often reflected in public discourse. When did dissent begin equating to hate speech with a threat of violence?

College is a place for people to learn and grow. When I was in college, there was a YAL chapter on my campus, and not once did their events or rhetoric lead to violence. In fact, it was their promotion of peace and freedom that gravitated me towards them, even though I was a die-hard democratic socialist at the time. Their message is powerful and unique in comparison to the dictated script. Campuses should be encouraging more YAL chapters, not making up lies to justify their denial.


The dissemination of speech and information is concentrated in the hands of a few private parties that control online content and platforms.

-Gregg Jarrett

Big Tech content regulation has a larger impact on our society than many of us are willing to admit. Currently, these private actors have the ability to decide what content enjoys publicity on their platform. They either limit the reach of other content, ban it all together, or mark it as misinformation.

Whether something is true or false should not be left up to the virtue signaling CEOs of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to decide. Facts are facts, and they don’t change because somebody’s feelings are hurt. However, the race for truth has never been so offensive to the American people.

Big tech isn’t only marking fake news as misinformation. If you post a theory that deviates from the dictated script, your content receives a mark. If you speculate what could be the case if the government takes a certain action, your post receives a mark. In fact, you’re better off repeating the dictated script if you wish to post on these major platforms.

There are other market options. We as Americans love our social media. We can’t get enough of it. It’s how we find out what’s going on in the world and simultaneously connect with friends and family. Many people seem unaware that there are platforms such as Gab and Minds that won’t interfere with your thoughts. These tech platforms put freedom above the greater good, because freedom is the greater good.

We have a human right to free speech. Big tech has trampled on our human rights long enough. It has to be obvious by now that they’re not taking action to protect us. They’re working with lawmakers in an effort to control us. Yet, some of you applaud as our right dwindle right before our eyes.


we're getting boring stuff and not even experimental mistakes(?) because people are afraid of getting cancelled

-Donald Glover

Triple threat Donald Glover took to Twitter after his most recent hiatus to express his contempt for cancel culture, claiming that it’s only producing boring movies and television. Prior to cancel culture, artists weren’t afraid to experiment and make some mistakes along the way. Now, they are fully aware that their mistakes can be taken out of context and could cost them their careers.

Artists have been playing it safe through their forms of expression, making them more like voice boxes for the state rather than artistic, talented individuals. It doesn’t feel like many people are producing original content. The music on the radio all sounds the same. Television and movies have become unrealistic with their added virtue signaling.

It’s shame, right? The American people were locked in their homes for the past year listening to the same messaging through different artistic mediums on repeat. We really would have benefitted from something new and exciting, but all we seem to be begging for is more of the same.

Nobody even seems to mean what they’re saying. We have all of these celebrities virtue signaling to poor black communities, but rarely see donations of recognizable sizes being granted to these communities. The leftist elites preach to us to spread the wealth while they sit on and misuse their wealth. We’re being played at every angle, which is exactly why messaging is important.

Glover has never been shy from experimentation. Evident in his music and acting career, he signals that he’s willing to engage in the difficult conversations that cancel culture keeps allowing us to sweep under the rug. These conversations are going to have to be had, however, regardless of how long we delay them.


Glenn Danzig has now, by virtue of speaking out against this plague on our culture, given courage to others to stop being so weak minded and afraid.”

-Michael Emmanuel

The Rock ’n’ Roll Hall of Free Speech advocates continues to grow after The Misfits’ former singer Michael Emanuel, best know by his stage name Michale Graves, claimed that cancel culture fosters weakness and is dangerous to society because it’s a culture of compliance.

While Graves may not believe that cancel culture successfully put an end to punk rock as a genre and as a movement, he argues that rebellious voices with platforms such as John Lydon from the Sex Pistols should continue to speak out if we ever hope to end the madness.

Punk rock and cancel culture are competing opposites. Punk rock, in its purest form, has always encouraged individuality, and anyone seen in the movement as a follower was labeled a poser. Cancel culture, on the other hand, thrives on groupthink and therefore encourages conformity. Individualism is a threat to their ideas and values, so they cancel anyone with a mind of their own.

The state of art is depleting right before our eyes and as a direct result of the current culture. I’m not sure if this destruction of our culture is what you’re applauding, or if you’re simply unaware of its consequences. We’re not hearing anything new. New ideas don’t circulate at the rate the once did because people are afraid of you.

While I tend to put a lot of the blame for the current attacks on free speech on big tech and government, you’re truly the biggest threat there is to date. You have the ability to put an end to this attack and allow for the marketplace of ideas to thrive as it once did, but, instead, your feelings are more important than our freedoms and we must always do what we can to appease our weakest links.


I just keep doing what I’m doing, and that’s all you do right now.

-Billy Crystal

Comedian Billy Crystal upset the mob when he referred to their culture as a ‘minefield’ in a recent interview. As usual, the mob took to Twitter personal attacks on Crystal and his career, noting every single instance that could be taken out of context to paint him in a negative light.

Let’s be honest; most of the mob was probably unfamiliar with the 73-year-old comedian’s work before he took a crack at their culture. Luckily, the internet archives everything and videos are conveniently clipped to appease our dwindling attention spans, so everyone is up-to-date on Crystal’s less-than-woke career.

Most specifically, the mob was interested to learn that Billy Crystal, a white man, did an impersonation of ‘The Candy Man’ himself, Sammy Davis Jr. when the Oscars were relatively relevant in 2012. While he had put on blackface many time for his Davis impersonation, he was never invited back to the Academy Awards after this specific performance.

Cancel culture is ruining every avenue of expression by its promotion of dishonesty and private and self-censorship. What’s being produced today isn’t actually what we enjoy; it’s what we’re allowed to enjoy. Freedom of expression is dying at the hands of we the people with expert guidance by the government and billionaire corporations.

We must put an end to the culture before it puts an end to us. The culture is being advertised as holding people accountable, but look at the people it’s claiming to be holding accountable. These are real people, even if you fail to seem them as such. They have their own believes formed by their own experiences and have a human right to voice their opinions. Why is this concept so difficult for many of you to grasp?


It’s selfishness and in that respect it’s divisive and can only lead to trouble.”

-John Lyndon

Joining Glenn Danzig in the Rock ’n’ Roll Hall of Free Speech advocates is lead sing of The Who Roger Daltrey, who believes that the woke generation is creating a miserable world for everyone.

Musicians from earlier eras enjoyed more freedom in their form of expression because their every action wasn’t placed under a microscope and being examined by a mob of people ready to take them for everything. This freedom allowed musicians to be more honest in their writings. It allowed them to experiment and produce music we’ve never heard.

Cancel culture discourages honesty by design. People would rather produce art that agrees with the culture than risk never being able to produce art again. This may explain why the music that’s popular today all follows similar structures and says similar things. They’re trying to sell to you; they’re no longer trying to speak to you.

Cancel culture encourages groupthink, and anyone who ever had an entry level psychology course understands how dangerous groupthink can be. We are living in a culture that is slowly stigmatizing dissent, and to a major degree.

The government no longer needs to censor. If you decide to speak out, privately owned billionaire corporations will put an end to it. The current chilling effect on speech, however, has people deciding not to speak at all.


Words can be deleted, but the facts won’t be deleted with them"

-Ai Weiwei

Fights, hits, and blood. Did you really attend a hockey game if you didn’t see all three of these at least once? When did the NHL become so soft? After a brutal beatdown by Washington Capitals’ Tom Wilson and a slap-on-the-wrist fine, the New York Rangers took to social media to express their contempt for Wilson and the head of the Department of Player Safety George Parros.

“Wilson’s dangerous and reckless actions caused an injury to Artemi Panarin that will prevent him from playing again this season,” they stated. “We view this as a dereliction of duty by NHL Head of Player Safety, George Parros, and believe he is unfit to continue in his current role.”

This off-the-ice beating cost the New York Rangers’ franchise $250,000. Imagine, instead of being fired, your employer fined you a quarter million dollars for disagreeing with decisions from higher up. You would never have the opportunity to question decisions that directly impact you. You wouldn’t even risk suggesting someone above you might be wrong, because a quarter million dollar fine puts a very effective chilling effect on dissent

While Wilson received the maximum fine permitted under the collective bargaining agreement, many fans of the sport took to their social media to express that Wilson should have at least been suspended for the remainder of the season and the entirety of the playoffs. It’s a good think the NHL doesn’t have the authority to fine everyone, though that seems to be the direction many of you are pushing towards.

Freedom of speech is not just a Constitutional right; it’s a human right. Many of you have been arguing that big tech censorship doesn’t violate our First Amendment right to free speech because the government isn’t involved in the censorship. I assume the same argument applies to the NHL. However, any action taken to silence someone’s voice is a human rights violation, and that is far worse than a Constitutional violation, in my opinion.


If you believe in the international human rights law principles that guide the decision, it is hard to see how a lifetime ban could ever be permissible for any content violation

-Nate Persily

When did Facebook become responsible for assuring that hateful rhetoric doesn’t result in violence? The government already takes money out of each and every one of my paychecks to provide security against unwarranted violence, though, in recent times, they’ve been permitting what they consider to be “warranted” violence. However, there’s the Second Amendment to protect us from that.

Even with Facebook and Twitter becoming their own forms of activism, violence continues to take place on our streets. The events at the Capitol were taken by users of both these platforms. The board concluded that Facebook has a responsibility to avoid serious risks to other human rights.

Freedom of speech is a human right. In fact, it’s one of the most important human rights because most of us are born with the ability to express. It’s the one unfiltered way we can interact with the world around us. Without freedom of speech, we wouldn’t have had the scientific or technological revolutions. We may still believe the sun revolves around the earth and that said earth is only 10,000 years old.

Oppressing human rights most often results in violence, the very situation the oversight committee is pretending to prevent. People who feel like their voices aren’t being heard or feel that their voices are actively being silenced will react and rebel. It’s human nature to push back when you feel trapped, a fact that has been evident in the streets for the past year.

Are major social media platforms encouraging violence? Their efforts have done little to combat violence, and some may argue that these are extremely violent times. Does big tech play a role in promoting violence? Every decision they make, they pretend is made with you. the user, in mind. If these platforms’ policies are so out of touch that they violate our human right to speak freely, they shouldn’t be trusted with the task of preserving human rights.


We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness, and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas

-Donald Trump

Yesterday, Facebook’s oversight committee voted to permanently ban the 45th President from their platform. While Donald Trump may be seeking the White House come 2024, he must do so without the help from one of the largest social media platforms to date.

Facebook shouldn’t be in the business of interfering with democracy. Since former President Barack Obama’s historic 2008 campaign, major social media platforms have been essential in running a successful campaign. Imaging a candidate on the ticket that isn’t actively present on Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube; you can’t. Well, with yesterday’s vote, Trump will have to prove that big tech lacks the influence they seem to be enjoying.

Despite the mainstream media narrative, Trump continues to poll higher than any Republican candidate, including rising star Ron DeSantis, who is gaining popularity by allowing the people of Florida to make their own decisions. Last reported, Trump will most likely announce a run for the presidency.

If he runs, the question then becomes, should major social media platforms permit him back as a user? The reason they gave publicly for removing him was that his disinformation was leading to violence and directly interfering with our democracy. Having a candidate on the ticket banned from your platform is clearly interfering with our democracy. The 2024 presidential election began the day the 2020 election ended, so big tech is currently interfering with our democracy. Also, we continue to see that condoning violence online is acceptable as long as the violence is directed towards the media’s enemies.

It’s not about protecting democracy, obviously. If we were actually concerned with protecting democracy, the principles of free speech wouldn’t currently be under attack, because democracy can’t be successful absent free speech. This is about controlling the narrative. Trump is a wild card. His own people couldn’t prevent some of the words that came out of his mouth. However, if a majority of Americans want to make him the President and big tech is joined by mainstream media to try and stop that, they aren’t protecting us.


You could never have the punk explosion nowadays, because of cancel culture and woke bullshit.

-Glenn Anzelone

As long as cancel culture is alive and well, punk rock is dead, according to former Misfits frontman Glenn Danzig, who doesn’t believe there will be another punk rock explosion in the United States anytime soon.

Punk rock, in my opinion, has always been more than a genre of music. It was a form of self-expression accompanied by angry, fast-paced melodies. It used to be one of the most protected forms of self-protection, because oftentimes your audience had no clue what you were saying. Now, with the woke crowd on the prowl 24/7, nobody dares to be authentic.

Cancel culture does not encourage self-identity and authenticity. The culture demands conformity and, at best, let’s you be the most unique brick in the wall. It has made everything repetitive and boring, and on purpose.

If you repeat lies long enough, the people are so lazy they’ll accept them as truths. Expert voices are silenced as woke voices are rising. Anyone who thinks to question the status quo is cancelled immediately. Unfortunately, punk rock was built on the premise of questioning the status quo.

While Danzig believes another punk rock revolution in the near future is unlikely, it would be nice to hear differences of opinions again. You see, those engaged in cancel culture have been repeating the same narrative for some time now. These are not new ideas; the social media revolution just brought them into everyone’s homes, welcomed or not. The problem with the culture is it lacks solutions applicable to the real world. It’s a culture that points fingers at everything that could be interpreted as problematic with no real desire to solve society’s problems.


It allows those with no moral authority to trample over our freedoms while attempting to convince us it is for the greater good, while at the same time it patronises us, wraps debate up in a cosy blanket and whispers ‘night-night’ and rocks us to sleep protected from a world where, god forbid, we might be asked to think for ourselves.

-Damian Wilson

Governments around the world, especially those who are prohibited from abridging free speech by law, are shifting censorship powers to their private big tech counterparts in an attempt to kill freedom of speech once and for all.

The UK passed a law compelling social media companies to crackdown and enforce content regulation. This includes hate speech and misinformation. Under the new law, social media platforms can be fined up to millions of dollars for not enforcing these rules.

In the UK, the government is compelling big tech to act as arbiters of truth and is penalizing them if they don’t obey. In the US, the government permits big tech to act as the thought police, and whines anytime people in the media deviate from the dictated script.

In either scenario, it’s obvious that the government is intervening in an area of law that the government historically has not been welcomed. Instead, they’ve tricked you to censor yourselves and those around you. The government in the US does’ have to take any official federal action. They control the powers of media. both mainstream and social, and the powers of media control you.

The government’s not protecting you. Media is not protecting you. They have no self-interested reason to protect you. They are protecting their bottom line. They have created a narrative that is most profitable to them, and they’ll be damned if you get in their way with your dissent. The current attack on free speech is systemic; those who have the most to gain from the system never placed value on free speech in the first place.


If I don’t say everything right, even if my intentions are right, and I don’t say the same right thing, it’s going to be everywhere.

-Shawn Carter

Sixty-four percent of Americans believe that cancel culture is a threat to their individual freedom, and rapper Jay-Z joins the majority. Jay-Z, who has shared made controversial headlines over the past, understands that it’s not possible to have the right answer 24/7, especially when you’re a young kid.

Everyone’s so interested in political issues that they can’t wait to ask up-and-coming artists if they stand on the side of history that allows them to have a successful career. However, many people haven’t been trained in every social and political issue and don’t always know the right answer.

Journalists don’t really care for your opinion. They make that abundantly clear every weekend when they trash Bill Maher for deviating from their script. If your beliefs alone don’t ruin your career, they’re enough to at the very least spark an investigation into your social media history.

Unfortunately, many artists depend on you for their careers. Therefore, it doesn’t really matter how crazy you are. Musicians and actors have recently turned to alienating half of the population to virtue signal to the other half, but that’s because they’re under the belief that we all think a like. Unfortunately for them, we don’t.

Cancel culture doesn’t encourage people to answer questions thoughtfully. Rather, it encourages us to answer them carefully and correctly, regardless of what we truly believe. Cancel culture doesn’t rid society of any of the ills they’re celebrating canceling. They’re pushing ideas underground, where people who are too publicly afraid to express are privately consuming. When people consume information behind closed doors, we don’t have the opportunity to combat bad information with better information.


They follow the Hitler line - no matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.

-John F. Kennedy

People are calling on President Joe Biden to create a task force that will be tasked with combatting disinformation online while not limiting free expression. The government has already teamed with big tech to limit what they refer to as “falsehood” surrounding COVID-19. One can only imagine these coalitions are hoping to expand online censorship into all political matters.

It’s not disinformation that’s a threat to our democracy; disinformation doesn’t vote. It’s the lack of education and unwillingness to think for oneself that’s a true threat to our democracy. Instead of improving our underperforming public schools and bettering the voting populations’ education, they’ve concluded that you’re too stupid to recognize fake news. Therefore, let them do the thinking for you.

The people who actively combatted conspiracy theories surrounding COVID-19 were not experts, however. They were largely computer science graduates, “journalists,” and people behind political campaigns. Real doctors understand science is an open discussion. They didn’t jump to censorship or silencing dissent. Real doctors disproved misinformation through the scientific process. Furthermore, some of what we are accepting as facts now were conspiracy theories a year ago.

Government involvement in cracking down on disinformation is an obvious abridgment of free speech, especially with what is currently being labeled as disinformation. You can’t pose a dissenting thought without big tech marking your content. Expanding the government’s role to protect us from disinformation is probably the most dangerous attack on free speech to date.

The government uses every window of opportunity to their advantage. Once your rights are gone, they’re never returned. Look at marijuana prohibition, for example. Weed has been wrongfully criminalized for decades, despite its medicinal benefits. Even with it’s growing popularity and states legalizing for different uses, the federal government has hardly budged. Why? Because it’s a reason to arrest you. This is what they’ll do to speech.


I think the enemy is self-censorship. In a free society the biggest danger is that you’re afraid to the point where you censor yourself.”

-Tim Robbins

Self-censorship is a major, unacknowledged problem. The current culture encourages dishonesty by forcing everyone interested in making a living to repeat the same narrative. According to a Washington University in St. Louis study, 40% of Americans are choosing to stay silent rather than risk expressing their opinions.

Social media was revolutionary for providing everyone a voice. Prior to the technological revolution, the only voices heard discussing political issues publicly were those on radio and television. So why is it that Americans now more than ever fear voicing their political opinions.

Political polarization plays a major role, but it’s not the entire story. We live in a headline culture. We don’t read all of the stories we see; who has the time? Instead, we glance at the headlines, read the ones that interest us, and make conclusions about others based on their headlines and photo choices. The media know this; it’s why they bombard you with news 24/7.

Through this, the media has the ability to take people completely out of context, and destroy their careers with a cleverly worded headline. Most of the time, when you see something that’s too outrageous to be true, it’s because it is. Good journalists who rely on clickbait at least hide the finer details of the story in the article. Mainstream media story-tellers don’t feel an obligation to provide you with the whole truth.

While there are plenty of reasons why one may choose to self-censor, it’s difficult to dispute that the media and big tech platforms play a major role. Self-censorship is harmful to society because it only provides us with sugar-coated truths, when the truth isn’t as compassionate as we hope it to be. It interferes with a pure market place of ideas, because ideas are being filtered before being produced.

If you’re not speaking your mind, you’re speaking theirs.


When you ban James Woods, you don’t just ban James Woods. You ban a lot of other people from saying something.

-Joe Rogan

To simplify today’s story, Joe Rogan is receiving political pressure from the Biden Administration to walk back comments because he had an opinion. As many of you know, Rogan is one of the most, if not the most, popular podcasters to date. He is also a relatively popular comedian and MMA commentator. However, he is not a doctor. So why is the government so concerned with Rogan’s beliefs?

Rogan suggested that he wouldn’t recommend a relatively healthy 21-year-old getting vaccinated, especially if they’re in good shape and eating well. His opinion was derived by his perception of the virus and how people are currently interacting with the vaccine.

The White House understands the power of media. They collude with CNN and big tech platforms to create, control, and promote narratives that are usually distorted or simply not true. They don’t have control over the Joe Rogan Experience. They can’t dictate that he reads from their script to his millions of monthly listeners.

Rogan created a career protected from cancel culture. While he has been labeled by mainstream media as a right-wing podcaster, he entertains views from both sides of the aisle and encompasses the ones he believes to be the most compelling. He doesn’t work for any ideology in particular; he works to help make sense of it all.

Instead of putting political pressure on a podcaster to walk back comments regarding COVID-19. prove them wrong. The government can’t speak words into truth, and our First Amendment right gives us the ability to call out corruption. Rogan has every right to question the efficacy of a vaccine that’s not approved by the FDA. People have questions, comments, and concerns. Instead of censoring them, answer them.


The moment the majority decides to destroy people for engaging in thought it dislikes, thought crime becomes a reality.

-Ben Shapiro

Is there a way to protect and preserve human rights without trampling on individual liberties? Florida senators recently passed legislation that would require social media platforms to publish standard of use and abide by them when removing users from their platform.

The legislation would fine big tech companies up to $100,000 a day for removing statewide candidates and $10,000 a day for other candidates. The bill also only permits platforms to change their terms of service every 30 days.

Florida lawmakers are attempting to use the force of government to protect freedom of speech. They’re seeking more regulatory power over private big tech companies and selling it to us as a way to preserve human rights. Even with the best intentions in mind, government is rarely the answer. Their track record in regards to valuing individual liberties isn’t exactly impressive.

So what can we the people do? We could stop using big tech platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, but that puts anti-censorship voices at a disadvantage because messages travel much further on these platforms than others. However, these platforms do filter their posts, not allowing us to truly interact with one another.

It’s clear that these platforms don’t desire to preserve and protect the principles of free speech. Free speech is a threat to anyone who has anything to gain from dishonesty. Censorship is a weapon utilized to silence those who may expose your intent. However, we need real solutions manufactured by we the people. Government only takes up a cause when they collectively have something to gain. Whether it be political points or more regulatory power, their solution is not going to put an end to the attack on free speech.


"Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime."

-Potter Stewart

Over the course of the past year, big tech has cooperated with government officials to officially kill free speech, as we know it in America, and replaced it with tolerable speech. Instead of fighting bad ideas with better ones, social media platforms rely on new forms of censorship silence dissent.

The COVID-19 pandemic was the first time social media platforms banned together against misinformation. They reasoned that false coronavirus narratives were more costly than permitting the absolute freedom of speech. Prior to the pandemic, false content wasn’t moderated because being false wasn’t enough for intervention.

Big tech didn’t stop at the pandemic, though. They continue to fact-check content unrelated to the pandemic, and have even gone as far as to limit distribution of an article containing information that may have been of some interest to voters during the 2020 election.

There are social costs to eliminating speech that I argue private CEOs are incapable of understanding. Censorship is a form of oppression, and oppression almost always turns to violence. One could argue that both Facebook and Twitter are working to promote violence and progress this idea of a second civil war.

Censorship also prevents the willing listener from being able to explore new ideas. We all have our own sets of beliefs, derived from our past experiences. From these experiences, we draw different conclusions. Banning certain conclusions from ever seeing the light of day prevents the curious from ever learning why people disagree with their beliefs. These modern efforts towards safe spaces protect people from ever having their values challenged. When they are challenged, they feel that the attacks are dangerous because they’re ill-prepared to intellectually defend their principles.


It will help to remember that the original purpose of free speech was to empower the weak, not to shelter them.

-Albena Azmanova

While university and college campuses used to be the battlegrounds of dissent and opposing ideas, they now cater to students who have never had their beliefs challenged by providing safe spaces promoting safe speech. As many of you know, the world is not a safe place. Safe spaces are unproductive in preparing students for what to expect.

Some students argue that absolute freedom of speech promotes a hostile environment that negatively impacts minority students and hinders on their ability to learn. In order to provide a platform for minorities to voice their experience being marginalized and vulnerable, protestors seek to censor what the consider to be ‘privileged’ speakers.

The principles of free speech were never intended to be used as a tool for oppression. While cancel culture is a clear exercise of free speech, it’s intent violates the concept of free speech because it seeks to silence people’s voices. Cancel culture also pushes taboo ideas underground, failing to ever address them head on.

Banning speech will never be the answer. People are products of their unique experiences and upbringings, and their views are reflective of that. This push for us to all adopt the same core beliefs and accept wild theories as fact in the name of social justice is driving society in the wrong direction. Instead of engaging in difficult conversations, we say what’s expected of us and hope change results.

We’re never going to get anything done operating like this. Groupthink has plagued the decision-making process for far too long. If those who see the problem don’t speak out, we may lose our right to speak out altogether. Today, they’re coming for your words. Tomorrow, they’ll come for your tongue.


"A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech as the de facto arbiter of free speech.

-Elon Musk

Why are people so upset over Elon Musk being tapped as a host for Saturday Night Live? The billionaire has time and time again proven he’s a genius, yet he doesn’t repeat the same dictated script as the other elites.

The Washington Post notes that Musk has always been a controversial character, but became considered more controversial when he challenged the progressing narrative regarding COVID-19. In fact, WaPo argues that Musk was only invited on the show to stir up controversy.

For those who still don’t believe, this is cancel culture in work. However, Musk has developed a career that speaks for itself and does not rely on a fanbase. Having no strings attached and developing products highly demanded by the market, Musk doesn’t have to be as nearly careful over what he says as someone in Hollywood might be.

Musk is labeled controversial because he develops his own thoughts and freely expresses his conclusions. If you don’t accept what is being sold to you as the truth or challenge what they need you to believe, they will label you as crazy and turn society against you.

Elon Musk will be joining Miley Cyrus on SNL May 8.


I’m not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance.

-Jon Stewart

The answer to bad ideas is and always has been better ones. When we censor ideas because we fear when shared they’ll be problematic to society, we’re not making those ideas go away. We’re only making those thoughts taboo to voice.

Censorship creates a culture where we think one way, but speak another. Maintaining our public image has been a top priority since big tech has transitioned to big brother. We self-censor ourselves understanding big tech has been basically policing our every move since we first signed up during the experimental phase.

Bad ideas are never discredited by censorship. When articles are removed, the people aren’t understanding; they’re curious. What is it that they are trying to hide from us? Are we the people incapable of handling the truth, or would the truth simply disrupt the progressing agenda?

Censorship is lazy. It’s only needed when there aren’t better ideas to drown out the bad. Instead of making an effort to form compelling arguments to discredit the opposition, people have instead resorted to a variety of forms of censorship to achieve peace from disagreement.

Are opinions more dangerous than propaganda? Gina Carano lost her job for standing by her opinion, but CNN openly admitted to making a career engaging in propaganda, and you continue to let them tell you what to think each and every day.


Censorship laws are blunt instruments, not sharp scalpels. Once enacted, they are easily misapplied to merely unpopular or only marginally dangerous speech.

-Alan Dershowitz

What role do we really want big tech CEOs playing in our democracy? Facebook announced Monday, before Derrick Chauvin was received a guilty hat-tick on all charges, that they were working around the clock to limit content that could lead to civil unrest or violence.

Facebook labeled Minneapolis as a “high-risk location” and continues to monitor events on the ground to decide whether other locations should be deemed high-risk. The announcement came just two days after Rep. Maxine Waters of California published a Facebook post of her speaking with reporters about needing to get more confrontational.

This sounds like the police state being achieved through private enterprises. We don’t need Facebook working around the clock monitoring riots in the street. We pay police officers through tax dollars to do so. We shouldn’t be welcoming nor applauding social media’s transformation from big tech to big brother, we should be utterly concerned.

Consider what your phone alone is capable of. Your phone recognizes your face, your location, and your fingerprint. These companies, who have developed these technologies, are working with the government to progress their promoted agenda. Their reasoning is that it’s always done with your best interests in mind, but our right to breath is being infringed upon at every angle.

These platforms weren’t elected to perform these duties; they weren't elected at all. They’re only as powerful as we allow them to be. Social media quickly went from an online community to interact with people to a communist dystopia only hosting speech consistent with the dictated script. The internet was once a place you could go to learn. Now, it’s a place you go to be controlled.


It’s a Big Tech corporate media collusion.

-Ron DeSantis

YouTube removed a video of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis joined by a group of scientists discussing COVID-19 during a roundtable discussion earlier this month. They reasoned that the video contained false information regarding the efficacy of masks and children.

YouTube isn’t concerned with regulating misinformation, however, nor do they respect the scientific process. In fact, most of the advocates for trusting the science don’t trust the process. Scientific theories are challengeable by science that suggests otherwise. DeSantis recorded a discussion he had with scientists who were questioning whether Dr. Fauci’s mandate that children wear masks while in public is even necessary. YouTube labeled it as misinformation.

The scientists did not draw the conclusion that fits the narrative being pushed by big tech, the media, and the two-party system. Even though their intent isn’t malicious, but scientific, the media will silence anything that suggests we shouldn’t be living in fear, because those in fear are easier to control.

YouTube is no longer acting as a platform, but as a publisher. They are clearly arbitrarily regulating what content can be hosted on their site based on some political agenda. Again, it’s not disinformation to challenge science. It’s simply the scientific method.

Removing content only makes people want it more. Censorship serves nobody but the elites, who are privileged enough to be trusted with all the information available. We the people, on the other hand, have been tricked to believe that half the story is good enough for us.


Before there was a law, there was the idea of free speech. The law limits the government to protect the right, but does not define the right.

-Kyle Sammin

While the freedom of speech is probably the most important individual liberty that Americans hold, it’s arguably also the one people take most for granted. We would never argue that the government should censor ourselves, so why do we want to oppress others’ right to speak?

The First Amendment prevent government actors from abridging our right to free speech, but the principals of free speech existed long before the Bill of Rights. These ideals have been valued since the founding of our country, and big tech continues to trample over them like they’re new ideas.

A free people need freedom of speech. Without the latter, you cannot achieve the former. A free people have the ability to listen to all facts regarding a subject and determine where they stand on the matter. Silencing news articles because they don’t progress a promoted agenda is no way to treat free people. Silencing ideas on university campuses because they could hurt feelings is no way to treat free people.

Free people think for themselves. They don’t demand answers from the media, but the ability to find answers on their own. Free people have the right to be wrong. They have the right to pose theories and alternatives to what their government demands be the case.

Tyranny would never be achievable if the people were truly free. Freedom of speech is not just a right protected by the Constitution and daily ignored by big tech and government, it’s a human right that we are all born with. It’s a natural right that’s not prejudice on the basis of age, race, sex, etc. As long as you have the ability to form your own thoughts, freedom of speech grants you the right to express them.


The social-media oligarchs are a menace to free speech, press freedom and democracy.

-Fraser Myers

Facebook and Twitter recently attempted to keep control over the Black Lives Matter narrative after it became public that multimillionaire Patrisse Khan-Cullors owns a portfolio of luxurious properties. Twitter suspended a sports journalist who tweeted about the highly-priced properties, while Facebook blocked their users from sharing the story completely.

The point of journalism is to make public what those in control would prefer to keep private. At what point are both Facebook and Twitter in violation of Section 230? They have been acting more as publishers than as platforms, yet they are both allotted the platform treatment.

This isn’t the first time the big tech has teamed together to control the news. If you recall, both platforms decreased the circulation of a New York Post article regarding Hunter Biden’s adventures, though the article turned out to be researched and mostly true.

It’s insane that people don’t think this is going on. Private actors are deciding what’s news, and that seems perfectly find with others. They are silencing the people from sharing news that conflicts with their perfectly shaped narrative. In essence, they are promoting lies in order to sell you your role in the culture wars.


Freedom of speech implies the world isn’t defined. It is meaningful when people are allowed to see the world their way.

-Ai Weiwei

The attack on free speech is becoming so vicious that the government is getting involved. The principles of free speech are under scrutiny by the mainstream media, big tech, major corporations, your neighbor, and your government. Yet, the PA Senate voted today to restore First Amendment rights back to their teachers and eliminated a section of the PA Education Code the prohibited teachers from “wearing any dress, mark, emblem or insignia indicating his or her faith or denomination.”

The Commonwealth, who adopted the section in 1895, was the only remaining state to have the anti-freedom of religion law on the book. Furthermore, the section of the Education Code had no standing when challenged in federal court after a teacher was suspended for not removing a small cross that she wore as a necklace in 2003. The court ruled that it bolted the free exercise of religion and free speech clauses of the First Amendment.

Why is the government just now getting around to removing the law? Freedom of speech is currently under attack, and politicians want a whole lot of credit for doing a whole lot of nothing. Instead of coming up with real solutions to put an end to the war on our right to speak, the government is virtue signaling and taking baby steps towards protection our human right.

More needs to be done. The section of law should have never existed, but at least should have been repealed after a federal court ruled it unconstitutional. Every day, more and more people lose their access to the public based on arbitrary rules created by elites. People who are seeking truth are being silenced for asking question. The government’s response? Repeal an unconstitutional law from 1895.


People know if they tell the truth and do the right thing they’ll be castigated by polite society. Most people don’t want to hurt their families and be defamed.

-James O'Keefe

Following CNN being exposed for being nothing more than a partisan propaganda machine, Twitter quickly responded by permanently banning Project Veritas’ founder James O’Keefe. O’Keefe, who is known for his unconventional methods of accessing the truth, caught Chester on video revealing CNN’s role in manipulating millions of Americans.

Instead of Americans who are being played like fiddles by the media being outraged by the revelation, many celebrated Twitter’s decision to remove the last shot at the truth from their platform. Corporate freedoms only matter when they progress political agendas. James O’Keefe may be one of the last investigative journalists left, and it will be a cold day in hell if Twitter gets to decide he’s done.

O’Keefe did nothing illegal. He reported on a story that happened to expose a trusted news source of wrongdoing, and the only action that had been taken since was against him. Do we not want the truth? Do we want our truth filtered through major corporations? It’s not abundantly clear what the end goal is here.

The truth is the truth regardless of what side of the aisle you’re standing on. Highly trusted people are prone to corruption. We the people have more access to more information than any time in history, and we are begging the government to regulate the content. This needs to end. O’Keefe did not go against any of Twitter’s user policies. If he did, so did many journalists before him. Reporting facts is what real journalists do, but we’ve move so far away from real journalism to the realm of entertainment that journalism is ceasing to exists.


Hate speech is free speech, so the Constitution protects people’s ability to say hateful and potentially emotional harmful things. That is a core component of the First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.

-Sharon Brett

To put it simply: Hate speech is free speech protected by the First Amendment. ‘Hate speech’ isn’t a category of speech recognized in law, but it is a label oftentimes used by politicians and major corporations as a way to influence you to sacrifice your rights.

‘Hate speech’ can cross the line and become a hate crime if the spoken word incites criminal activity or provides a direct threat to somebody of violent and criminal activity. Hate crimes are a recognized category of crime by law.

What you’re being told is hate speech isn’t the speech that bleeds over inciting hate crimes. Anti-agenda speech is far too often wrongly categorized as hate speech, just because those who are promoting and advancing the agenda hate your speech. Disagreeing with a movement, defending your political ideology, and advancing your political agenda are all protected forms of speech under the First Amendment.

Free speech does not mean valuable speech. There may be no value in anti-semitic speech, but that does not suggest it lacks constitutional protection. The First Amendment was drafted to protect the speech that we hate. One of the roles of government is to protect our individual liberties. Government partnering with major corporations to silence speech feels counterproductive to their role.

The First Amendment doesn’t only protect hate speech. It also protects distasteful speech. You may find Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion’s “WAP” distasteful, but labeling it obscene doesn’t rid it of its constitutional protection. Freedom of speech is a four-way road; it applies to everyone. It is a human right that is extremely dangerous to oppress.


I am not going to be a mouthpiece for language that I detest.

-Jordan Peterson

San Francisco lawmakers passed a law requiring sugary beverage advertisements to include a warning informing people that added sugar can lead to weight gain, and weight gain leads to higher risks of obesity, diabetes, and a number of other health-related issues. Is this law in violation of the First Amendment?

I would argue so. Government compelling speech abridges our right to speak freely. The warning requirement would take up ten percent of the advertisement, which is funded not by government, but by the company themselves.

Here’s where I really take issue, however. Is it not obvious that sugary drink cause weight gain? Are there not other causes to weight gain other than sugary beverages that aren’t required by law to carry a warning label? We are not an uneducated people. Why are we letting government treat us like children?

Government policy is often arbitrary, and this feels like another unthought out piece of virtue signaling legislation where the government forces business owners to fund their speech. How effective are warning labels? Cigarettes and other nicotine product packaging has been required to carry a Surgeon General Warning for as long as I can remember, but the government had to increase sales tax on nicotine products to decrease sales.

Politicians just want to be seen doing what everyone sees as virtuous. Whether or not policy is effective doesn’t matter to someone only interested in winning a popularity contest. They may not even realize they’re trampling on individual liberties in the process.


If free speech means anything, it means that you do not get to sue people because you don’t like their opinion of you.

-Joshua Wolson

A company sued an author for an article criticizing their investment strategy, claiming the author violated Lanham Act, and a federal judge in Pennsylvania literally quoted Taylor Swift and suggested that Crash Proof Retirement, “shake it off.”

The Lanham Act, which regulates commercial speech, was not applicable because Paul Price’s article wasn’t attempting to see a productive, but instead inform his readers. “Haters gonna hate, hate, hate..,” Judge Joshua Wolson, a Trump-appointee, wrote in his opinion.

If we respect freedom of speech for anything, it must be for it’s informative value. Imagine if it was illegal for you to negatively review a business on Yelp. You would only be able to read positive reviews about retailers and restaurants, and you certainly would be missing the whole picture. The marketplace of ideas allows for us to weed out the bad and maintain the good.

As an adult, you have to be personally responsible for how you receive information. Not everything said, especially online, has value. We wouldn’t want to strip people’s right to speak away, so we have to learn how to determine what’s true and what’s not. Question what you read. Question what you hear. The online community is hardly filled with experts, so you should absolutely always be careful about how you interact with information.

Information spreads like wildfire, both good and bad. A rumor someone randomly comes up with can be shared as fact in seconds. Question everything. Check sources. Draw your own conclusions. This lazy routine that’s becoming socially acceptable to allow others do the thinking for you is the truest threat to any fully functioning democracy.


Tolerance! The virtue that makes one bit his tongue so that he can tear out his hair.”

-Criss Jami

Virtue signaling is one of the most unproductive forms of communication, yet is widely used daily by major corporations, politicians, and everyday people when discussing difficult topics. The act of virtue signaling can be as simple as posting something on social media or saying something to a group of friends that illustrates what a great person you are. Virtue signaling can also be dangerous, especially when it’s prioritized over policy.

You go on the television, social media, and podcasts, and you say the right thing. Everyone’s participating, so why has nothing changed? We’re so concerned with how people perceive us, that we forget change takes real action.

When we virtue signal, we’re not engaging in real conversations. We’re repeating back exactly what we expect others want to hear. We do it for the likes, the friends, and the money. It’s easy to repeat a script that’s been perfected. It’s more difficult to think for yourself and develop real solutions.

If we’re going to tackle the issue this country is currently facing, we’re going to have to have real conversations. We can’t keep speaking past each other with platitudes that lack any real-world application. We need change, but change won’t result from pandering to the masses.

I’m guilty of virtue signaling. In way, we feel it’s necessary. We have this desire for people to not view us negatively, so we partake just to set the record straight. However, we’re signaling too much virtue and not making any real changes. We’re trying to make people feel bad for problems they couldn’t have possibly single-handedly caused.


People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids, and share certain things with you.

-Barack Obama

Why is it that the only people permitted to speak repeat platitudes over and over again, as if repetition turns declarations into fact? It’s not a coincidence that people who don’t align with the current administration’s ideology are being cancelled left and right. However, how can we successfully put an end to this malignant attack on the principles of free speech without abridging other people’s individual rights?

The answer certainly isn’t government. Arkansas recently attempted to pass House Bill 1647: To Promote Arkansas Voices; and to Combat Cancel Culture and Protect Freedom of Speech. Again, while the intention may be pure, or it may not be, government very seldom is the solution. Look at how they mishandled and continue to mishandle to COVID-19 pandemic. I’m not sure I want them in charge of of the fight for free speech.

Those who can’t be cancelled won’t be cancelled. Perfect examples are Ben Shapiro, who formed his platform around an audience heavily opposed to cancel culture, and Bill Maher, who has been saying it as he sees it for so long television would be lost without him. Instead of offering up the obligatory apology when being cancelled, ignore the mob and keep moving forward with your career. Unless you have committed a heinous act, you have nothing to apologize for, and your apology will only be accepted on the terms that you realign your thinking.

We the people need to take a stance against cancel culture. I’m almost positive it’s not the people who are engaging. Sure, people on both sides of the aisle get absorbed by the propaganda, but I’m almost positive it’s not everyday people starting these narratives. Instead, the media is telling you what to be outraged over. When you’re out on the streets up against the police fighting their battle, they’re standing comfortable back with a camera making a reality show out of your efforts.

We need to cancel cancel culture. Stop participating. Trending topics no longer mean it’s what the people are talking about; it’s what they want you to talk about. Holding people accountable is different than removing someone publicly for their political beliefs alone, and it’s becoming abundantly clear that this is the culture’s intended goal.


"I was censoring myself lyrically because of the current state of things."

-Dee Snider

Those who are no longer denying cancel culture’s existence for sport must understand the chilling effect the mob can have on speech. Twisted Sister’s Dee Snider, who angrily declared he wasn’t going to take it, self-censored himself on an upcoming solo album, reconsidering if others may find his use of specific metaphors offensive.

While it was the Christian conservative right Snider was up against in during the 80s, Snider views the current culture adopted by the left as nothing more than censorship. Instead of outright censoring the speech, however, the left relies on placing a chilling effect on any speech that could be considered offensive by enough people to create a mob in hopes that speakers will more carefully consider what they’re saying, and consider whether what they’re saying is worth saying.

We have already learned that censorship costs us truth and infringes on our ability to learn. Censorship also prevents us from enjoying creativity and hinders uniqueness. Being yourself could cost you your career. Being real can cost you your livelihood. All because you choose to signal virtue instead of defending others who are actually having their rights trampled on.

Why the former heavy metal superstar cares what you think is beyond me. You have probably never heard more than three of his songs and weren’t likely to browse his new album. However, if you caught wind through CNN or Twitter that he included a lyric that was at least questionable, you would figuratively join the mob with your pitchfork and demand his cancellation.

Sounds a bit to me like Snider’s prepared to take it. Snider being proactive has proven that the culture is successful, and that artists who care too much about what you think are probably not all that worth listening too.


"There’s a growing number of people in this country that don’t believe in the liberal values of free speech and free debate. I promise you, the death of the First Amendment will come when the culture no longer believes in it.

-Dan Crenshaw

Our government has been openly calling on social media websites to do their dirty work and censor speech that threatens the status quo. Without any formal authority, our government has granted the private sector the power to silence speech they see as a threat to what they have built.

An empire of lies and deceit couldn’t stand with the principles of free speech present. Only when you are doing something wrong is the truth a threat to your mission. We live in dangerous times where it’s taboo to ask questions and more than acceptable to succumb to authority, even when those in power are steering us clear in the wrong direction.

They know you wouldn’t buy what they’re selling without force. We fund their politically motivated plans, and aren’t even granted the ability to question their intent. If the First Amendment operated as the Founders had intended, the government we see today would have never existed. A free people who have the ability to voice concerns and warn others would have put their foot down the second their rights were threatened.

Big tech may not have an unlimited power to censor, but they can pick and choose what their billions of users are seeing and interacting with. They are redefining terms at alarming rates while covering up posts that conflict with their script. Anyone who needs to shut the people up to advance is not acting in favor of the people.


"Does everything have to be a summary execution in America? What happened to just accepting the apology?”

-Bill Maher

Bill Maher may just be one of the most level-headed liberals on television these days. In his most recent episode of Real Time, Maher challenges people by asking, “What happened to just accepting the apology?” These days, a slip of the tongue or being taken out of context will destroy your career and livelihood, and apologies are no longer being accepted.

Humans make mistakes. We all act of the norm when we’re experiencing intense emotion. Luckily for most of us, our outbursts are private and rarely result in cancellation, unless of course someone around you is recording the situation. Cancel culture isn’t just going to end with celebrities and politicians; it’s going to extend out and start effecting everyday people.

I’m tired of the apologies, the insincerity, and the desperate attempts to regain fame. NBA player Meyers Leonard is under fire for using an anti-semitic slur while playing Call of Duty on a Twitch live stream. Since his big oops, he has been suspended, apologized, and met with rabbis and Holocaust survivors. One slur and he’s on an apology tour to save his career? That’s absurd, and this is no way to combat bigotry.

We’re being purposely divided. What we could achieve through unity is frightening to those interested in controlling us. Cancel culture is viewed as a threat by over 60% of Americans, yet it remains one of the most powerful tools out there in terms of private censorship. It’s not we the people who are engaging in this behavior. These are radicals who are heavily influenced by every sentence spoken by their favorite politicians, celebrities, and “journalists.”

Admit it, you’re not actually offended by Meyer’s slip. You’ll never circle back after he completes his apology tour to forgive him. Instead, he’s making desperate attempts for your attention, and you sit back calling this justice. This is a disgusting way to treat humans, especially when we’re all prone to error. Cancel culture is the most accepted form of online bullying.


It’s fucked up how people get judged for being real, and how people get loved for being fake.

-Tupac Shakur

Speaking freely should never be accompanied by the risk of unjust punishment, especially on a college campus. I cannot stress enough how important the principles of free speech are, and if they cannot be present at universities, where exactly is free speech to be practiced?

They question is rhetorical, for the public square is the perfect place to exercise your right and express freely. However, universities such as Virginia Tech are facing lawsuits for anti-speech policies that places chilling effects on student speech. For example, a Virginia Tech policy disciplines students for “unwanted” jokes, or merely being present during an unwanted joke and not reporting it.

They’re turning students, the most highly educated among us, into the thought police! How are students who are still learning how to live on their own to determine what’s unacceptable speech? The absurdity is right in the policies, and we’ve been letting them get away with it for too long. No wonder everyone is so offended constantly; we’re teaching people to constantly be on their toes to recognize speech deviating from the dictated script.

Freedom of speech is not a privilege, it’s a right. While President Joe Biden doesn’t believe that constitutional amendments are absolute, he will have to go through the repeal process before he even thinks of stripping away what’s rightfully ours.

Colleges and universities absolutely do not promote intellectual diversity anymore. They are big businesses that buckle to market pressures just as we are seeing every other major corporation do. You’re not learning anything if you haven’t learned how to think for yourself. If you’re always going to let the masses do the thinking for you, why attend university in the first place?


Campuses can never punish or censor the expression of ideas, however offensive, because otherwise they cannot perform their function of promoting inquiry, discovery, and the dissemination of new knowledge.

-Erwin Chemerinsky

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis will be forced to decide whether it is the role of government to survey the ideological positions of college and university professors in the state, after the legislature passed a bill calling to action. While the intent behind the bill is to observe whether conservative voices are being silenced on college campuses, it’s reach feels a little invasive.

When did how somebody votes become the business of the state? We are all entitled to our own beliefs. Requiring professors to fill out a survey and allowing the state to do whatever they choose based on the results of the survey is a tyrannical approach at a serious problem that begs real solutions.

There will be a lot of good that come out of the bill. Student will be permitted to record lectures, with or without permission, but will not be permitted to publish them without permission. These lectures cost an arm and a leg. Students should have a right to record what’s putting them is mass amounts of debt. The bill would also prevent school leadership from shielding students from uncomfortable speech protected by the First Amendment. This could likely mean the end to free speech zones in the state.

Critics of the bill claim that it will place a chilling effect on speech, while conservatives argue that it protects their speech. Though I agree that parts of the bill protect conservative speech, the survey clause is overly intrusive and fails to respect individual privacy.

Does recording lectures place a chilling effect on speech? Absolutely. With fear of being taken out of context and going viral online, professors likely will hold back and watch what they say. I do not agree that a chilling effect on speech is ideal. Even with laws preventing the publishing of lectures without permission, once content goes viral, you can’t take it back.


The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.”

-Tom Smothers

When we sacrifice our freedom in exchange for government security, we never get that freedom back, even when the security is no longer needed. Look at the PATRIOT Act for example. When we give away our rights, they make us fight for them back.

So why are so many people applauding censorship? I understand that many of you do not believe it’s censorship if the silencing is taking place privately. However, when big tech corporations are working alongside government to achieve similar goals, it’s quite obvious we’re experiencing constitutional censorship.

Private companies are not prohibited by the First Amendment from censoring their users. They enjoy power that the federal government would break laws to obtain. Twitter was able to ban the President of the United States from their platform.

While this was certainly nothing to celebrate, many people on the left praised Twitter and demanded that Facebook do more. So, then Facebook followed suit, and proved to the people that big tech is more powerful than the federal government.

They’re not only silencing conservatives, however. That’s where many engaged in the debate are getting it wrong. They are censoring anyone who challenges their dictated script. If you stray from the narrative and challenge what’s being reported as fact, they will censor you, label your speech, and destroy your life.


For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

-John F. Kennedy

Who determines what speech crosses the line? I cannot stress enough how important the principles of free speech are, especially on a college campus. It is unlikely the case that faculty speech is becoming more provocative, and more likely the case that the current culture clash has redefined the terms of acceptable speech.

We all have a voice and we all have a way of making our voices heard. Whether it be through social media, or instructing a classroom full of college-aged adults, we have the resources necessary in communicating a message.

Instead of silencing others, communicate your message. Explain to people why the speaker you’re opposing is wrong about the subject being discussed. Take an active role in combatting misinformation and flat-out lies. Don’t sit back and allow big tech CEOs determine what’s true and what’s false.

This has seriously gotten out of hand. We’re under this microscope where everything we say and post is overanalyzed by a group of people who lack anything better to do. The culture clash has interfered with our democratic process, because the principles of free speech need to be clear and present for a fully functional democracy.

This is far from progress. A free market of ideas is the only way to truly promote diversity. Instead of placing a chilling effect on dissent or banning disagreement, we should be encouraging individuals to think, speak, and express freely. We’re falling victim to groupthink, and the product is no longer sustainable.


We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

-Clarence Thomas

Are social media platforms utilities for communication or are they gated communities where access is a privilege contingent on following their set of rules? While government wanting to regulate big tech to preserve and protect the principles of free speech may seem like a noble cause, consider what they’re proposing.

We all know that Twitter and Facebook are privately-owned major social media platforms. When government regulates, they infringe on currently enjoyed freedoms. Compelling speech is an abridgment to our First Amendment right. Forcing private companies to host content they would otherwise choose not to host is compelling speech.

While these proposals are viewed favorably by conservatives, many are failing to realize that government is growing as the small-government crowd applauds. Government is rarely the answer to our problems.

Big tech content moderation is a major issue, especially because there are no real standards being followed, and those moderating and fact-checking don’t necessarily have to have our best interests in mind. Who the poster is oftentimes seems more important than what the poster posts. Limiting access to news because of the implication it may have on a certain political candidate is unacceptable, but do we really need the government?

No social media platforms compare to Facebook and Twitter in regards to number of users. Information, without a doubt, travels quicker through major social media platforms than through their competitors. We shouldn’t be calling for regulations, though; we should be patronizing big tech’s competition.

There are a number of platforms to choose from. Personally, Gab is my favorite. It’s 100% funded by its users, so they’re not accountable to big tech, and they 100% support and endorse free speech.


"Abuses of the freedom of speech ought to be repressed, but to whom are we to commit the power of doing it?"

-Benjamin Franklin

A recent Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll revealed that 64% of Americans view cancel culture as a threat to their freedoms. The poll also showed that 36% believe cancel culture is a “big problem,” 32% believe it is a “moderate problem,” 20% said it is a “small problem,” and only 13% believe that its “not a problem” at all.

How is cancel culture so effective if 64% of Americans view it as a threat to their freedom, and 68% recognize it as a moderate to big problem? Who is guiding the narrative, and why are they so successful?

It’s possible that many of us are allowing the media to do the thinking for us. Consider the facts: Many of us are far too busy with careers and families to keep up-to-date on every single issue being debated and every proposal being considered, yet so many of us have an opinion about everything. Furthermore, these opinions seem to neatly divide people into two trains of thought.

We only talk about free speech when the media reports another victim to cancel culture or big tech silences another user for voicing a political opinion. We only get up in arms about guns when the media’s reporting on a mass shooting. We only started defending Asians in this country when the media told us to “Stop Asian Hate.”

The same is true about cancel culture. The media tells you that you should be upset about a Kevin Hart tweet from how many years ago, and you get outraged. A cartoon character only ruins your day when the media wants it to ruin your day. Only 13% of Americans do not believe cancel culture is a problem, yet it is sweeping the country.

The solution to many of our problems is learning how to think for ourselves and substituting our daily dose of mainstream and social media with a nice walk outdoors, disconnected from all technology.


"The right to free speech is more important than the content of the speech."


If you have to resort to violence to prevent speech that you fear may potentially cause violence, I’d argue your efforts are counterproductive. When your intention is to silence the competition, then resorting to violence to achieve your goals makes much more sense.

A group of conservatives organized a “Freedom Rally” in Salem, Oregon to protest recent proposals made by the state government. The rally never actually occurred, because a group of more than 100 radical liberals, armed with bats, guns, and Youth Liberation Front flags decided to attack anyone on their way to the rally.

Talk about placing a chilling effect on speech. Not only can having dissenting views cost you your job and your relationships, organizing for change can now cost you your life. Tensions are very high right now, but we mustn’t resort to violence. We cannot keep silencing each other. We need to start engaging in conversations less concerned with emotion and more concerned with seeking real solutions.

We do not all have to agree. You can’t legislate away dissent. You can’t legislate away hate. You can’t legislate away fear. You can’t legislate away stupidity. You can’t legislate away ignorance.

If we can’t have honest conversations, where people can say what they mean without the fear of losing everything, we’ll never solve a thing. If we solved our problems, those who profit from dividing us would lose their primary source of income. They control the narrative; you pay for it.


"It is easy to believe in freedom of speech for those with whom we agree."

-Leo McKern

The Supreme Court is expected to hear a case that would determine whether high school students have a right to free speech outside of the classroom and on their own social media platforms. While the obvious answer should be yes; the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that schools can punish off-campus speech if there is a substantial disruption of school activities.

“Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything,” the high schooler expressed after being denied an opportunity at the varsity cheer squad. She was removed from the cheer team for the remainder of the school year after her coaches determined her Snapchat violated team policies that require students to respect their school, coaches, and teachers.

While the student in question may have violated the team’s policies, said policies appear to violate the First Amendment. Freedom of a speech is a right not only reserved for those with a high school diploma, but for everyone. The First Amendment gives us the right to challenge government actors and to express dissatisfaction with their actions.

Words can hurt but they cannot cause physical harm. Expressing dissatisfaction does not equate to criminality. Disciplining a student for expressing dissent may severely impact the way they address issues they disagree with in the future. We are not teaching out children how to think; we’re teaching them what to think.


The claim "hate speech is not free speech" implies "free" is a type of speech, as opposed to how speech is treated in a free society.

-Michael Malice

While hate-inspired speech can absolutely be hurtful, I still fail to see the benefit in silencing “hate speech.” Facebook and Instagram are expected to make changes to their platforms that will further combat hate speech and prevent harassment after Welsh soccer player Rabbi Matondo opened up his Instagram messages to discover a less than flattering greeting.

Why the now suspended user decided to harass Matondo on the basis of race is unexplainable and inexcusable. However, we are never going to legislate away hate. There are no policies, private nor public, that will prevent hateful people from spreading hate. They will continue to find new outlets, all while hiding their identities behind the comfort of their keyboard.

Big Tech takes symbolic approaches to social issues in order to signal to their users their virtue. Both Facebook and Instagram already spend an outlandish amount on regulating content and combatting the spread of disinformation. How successful have they been? Why are we allowing private companies to decide what speech warrants protection?

Your speech can never truly be taken away from you unless they cut out your tongue and remove your hands. Not all protected speech has value, and this has become abundantly clear in the social media revolution. There’s a reason we stripped censorship authority from the government through the First Amendment. We never intended private actors to become the champions of silencing dissent.


We are in a pandemic & there is a mass shooting every week but y’all are gathering in a church to discuss shoes.

-Montero Lamar Hill

Maybe we should all take a giant step back and ask ourselves if we paid too much attention to Lil Nas X and his Satan Shoes. While many on the right who have been adamantly opposing cancel culture are outraged by the evil-inspired shoe release, 666 pairs of Nike Air Max 97s containing a single drop of human blood and priced at $1,018 each sold out in seconds.

Think about that. The big guys used your outrage, that they help feed daily, to their advantage. Consider the price for Dr. Seuss’s “If I Ran the Zoo.” Why do we keep buying into this? They promote the product, make it seem like half the country opposes the product, and you pay more for a product that would have been much more affordable had you not bought in to their propaganda.

I never thought I would be writing one of these posts about a pair of shoes. In today’s cancel culture, I never rule out anything, but I didn’t imagine so much controversy surrounding a pair of sneakers. The outrage has gotten so bad that even Nike, who hadn’t sued the company for their ‘Jesus Walks’ release using their logo, is trying to clear their name from the drama.

What is this really about? Is this a retaliatory reaction? Are we really concerned that Lil Nas X twerking on Satan and a pair of sneakers with donated blood are symbolic of the demise of our society? These are obvious marketing tactic to rile up the public and overcharge them for a pair of sneakers named after Satan himself.

There are real victims to cancel culture, and while literature and animation all serve their purpose, they can be preserved by those who appreciate their value. Individuals losing their careers and job opportunities for having opinions that don’t coincide with the inconsistent norm is destroying this country. We are tearing each other apart, creating new labels daily to place people neatly in categories, even though they don’t fit neatly at all.

You can’t really cancel the shoes though; they sold out in seconds.


"People use cancellation to force conformity to ideals."

-Mary Teal Bosworth

We all know QAnon as the conspiracy theory group who makes bold predictions that rarely ever turn out to be true. In another case of NIMBY, Dallas residents are protesting QAnon’s upcoming convention “For God & Country Patriot Roundup.”

Residents in the area have started a petition and hope that their efforts will dissuade hotels from hosting the convention. QAnon is best know for their conspiracy theories revolving around the idea that the deep state, Hollywood, and the Democratic Party are interconnected through pedophilia.

While many find their claims to be “baseless” and “without value,” silencing speech has never solved anything. Shutting down these events feeds more fuel to the conspiracies that these people have something to hide. What’s the harm in entertaining a theory, and entertaining a theory amongst like-minded individuals?

This idea that people can’t freely organize around false information is absurd. If organizing around false information became a crime, many religious organizations would be filled with criminals, as they can’t all be right at the same time.

Why are we so concerned with how other individuals spend their day? Unless the group was considering coming to Dallas to destroy privately-businesses and public buildings, I see no reason to prevent the convention from happening. They’re hosting a private convention, where those not in attendance wouldn’t be able to hear the speakers.

Freedom of speech is for everyone, not just those that enjoy a position in the majority.


The government has absolutely no business whatsoever ever governing the content of your voluntary speech.

-Jordan Peterson

When we talk about diversity, are we talking about diversity in looks? Is there value in having both a short person and a tall person who share the exact same beliefs? Should we encourage the hiring of both a skinny person and a fat person, regardless if they are reading from the same script, because that better represents America’s diversity? I think not.

When we speak about diversity, we should be considering intellectual diversity. We are all made up of the same materials, but our views and opinions are shaped differently through our experiences and education. Two people who look exactly the same have the ability to draw two completely different conclusions.

Being agreeable isn’t a healthy trait; it’s lazy. If you find yourself agreeing with nearly everything one of the two major political parties promotes, the education system has failed to teach you to think for yourself. If you don’t have the ability to think for yourself, you add no value to an organization’s culture, especially when they’re actively seeking diversity.

How we treat those who think differently than the masses is awfully similar to how scientists were treated by the church for exploring past the controlled narrative. If these scientists didn’t risk being wrong and challenge these institutions, we may not be as far as we are today in regards to technology.

Compelling speech, forcing conformity, and censoring dissent are all harmful to what seeking diversity sets to achieve. It’s counterproductive to promote diversity if you’re going to then silence diversity.


They’re not just acting like the town square, they’re literally censoring and picking winners and losers in a forum where they thought they were going to just exchange information with friends and be able to put ideas out there.”

-Steve Scalise

Big Tech’s mistakes regarding censorship continue to have major impacts on our beloved democracy. Recently, Twitter admitted that blocking the New York Post article regarding Hunter Biden’s illegal activities was a “mistake.”

While I absolutely agree with CEO Jack Dorsey that his platform’s actions were a mistake, I’m not positive that we agree as to why. Any effort to silence speakers or block information does a disservice to a functioning democracy. In order to produce the best possible results in our elections, we should strive for the most informed populous possible. Instead, we have major players limiting the reach of information that may have had direct impact at the polls.

As many of you applaud the current attack on free speech values, it’s important to note that having a small group of private business owners who have close relations with members of Congress decide what speech warrants protection is probably the best example to prove how far we have digressed as a nation in regards to education.

Free speech absolutely matters, and without its presence, an uninformed mass amount of people are voting away our rights one word at a time.


"We change people through conversation, not censorship."

-Shawn Carter

Why wouldn’t a school teacher be suspended for defending free speech? When I first read the headline, I was initially shocked to see a public school teacher here in the United States defending the principles of free speech. Turns out, the story is of a private school religion education teacher who used the widely controversial cartoon depiction of Muhammad as a learning tool for his class of Freshman students.

The 29-year-old daredevil of a teacher is currently in hiding with his wife and four children and has not been seen since his name was publicly released online. He was rushed into hiding by police in fear for his life.

An angry mob of religious parents surrounded the school, forcing it to close for two days, after the now suspended teacher showed the Charlie Hebdo cartoon that caused international outrage to his class. He warned his class the day prior that the material he was presenting may be considered offensive to some, and understood that some of his students would feel compelled to tell their parents. He even made phone calls to angry parents defending his actions.

Education institutions are where children go to learn. Censoring material and hiding them from things that actually exist in the world is a disservice to their learning process. A cartoon depiction of a Prophet shouldn’t be enough to shut down an entire school.

Shouldn’t we be teaching our children how to think and not what to think?


"What views will we hear if people decide 'It’s too dangerous for my business?'"

-Brad Smith

Legislating a chilling effect into law is literally Congress abridging our right to free speech. The cleverly branded “For the People Act” being pushed by Democrats in Congress would place stricter donor disclosure requirements on nonprofits and other groups in a time that voting for the wrong candidate can cost your your career.

They know what they’re doing, the Supreme Court knows what they’re doing, they just don’t know that we know what they’re doing. The intention of the bill is to publicize donations to conservative political efforts so that half of the country can march online with their metaphorical pitchforks to cancel each and every organization.

Businesses may stay away from making donations to campaigns if doing so may negatively impact their business. With more and more people consumed by cancel culture, businesses first must protect their bottom line. While the current system encourages civic engagement, H.R. 1 would discourage political participation for the sake of profit.

Aren’t we doing all of this to preserve and protect the world’s greatest democracy? Why are we digressing when we’re being promised progress?


If you’re asking me if I feel particularly comfortable that the then President of the United States could not express his views on Twitter? I don’t feel comfortable about that.”

-Bernie Sanders

Self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist and former Democratic candidate for President Bernie Sanders isn’t ‘comfortable’ with Twitter’s permanent ban on former President Donald Trump, though he still believes social media platforms should do more to limit the reach of disinformation and conspiracy theories.

A conspiracy theory is defined as, “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators,” by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. Why does Senator Sanders want to limit the reach of theories explaining government wrongdoing? Perhaps because he’s been a lifelong member of said government.

Sanders also noted that he isn’t comfortable with Big Tech being in charge of determining what’s considered free speech. While he likely believes that that role should be reserved for the government, I argue that we the people should worry less about silencing speech and worry more about informing the populous.

Sanders considers Trump to be a “racist, sexist, xenophobe, pathological liar, an authoritarian,” and a, “bad news guy.” Even with all these labels, Sanders understands that for his speech to remain uncensored, their speech must remain uncensored.


"It isn't hate to speak the truth."

-J.K. Rowling

Why do they want you to stop talking about cancel culture and censorship? It’s because nothing you can say or do is going to stop their efforts until every impure human being is without a job, and by “impure,” they mean conservative.

Conservatives are not the only ones being cancelled, but it’s their brand that’s the target. For the past several months, I have shown examples of people who lost their careers or opportunities on jobs for doing nothing other than voicing an opinion via social media. The number one thing most of them have in common is their political ideology.

Yet, there are still a number of people on my timeline who whole-heartedly believe that these people were removed from their positions as a consequence to their speech. What is freedom of speech if every word uttered outside of the dictated script warrants negative consequences?

We are not all the same. We all have different past experiences and upbringings that have shaped the way we perceive the world. We are never going to fully agree on everything. Instead of making life more difficult for those with a mind of their own, consider leaving them alone and using your newly freed-up time to think for yourself.


"I hate it that Americans are taught to fear some books and some ideas as though they were diseases."

-Kurt Vonnegut

Forget censorship being completely counterproductive to a functioning society, now it’s also costly. A New Jersey school district has settled with their former yearbook adviser for the sum of $325,000 after forcing her to alter a student’s yearbook photo to make it appear that the student was not a supporter of Trump, and instead a fan of dull colored t-shirts.

After the alteration made national headlines, the school placed the blame on the yearbook adviser, who later sued claiming that it was an acting principle who demanded she make the changes. Here’s another kicker: The school reprinted the yearbooks with the student’s unaltered photo.

What value to society did altering a student’s yearbook photo add to society? There is absolutely no reason we should be this concerned with children’s political beliefs; they can’t vote. Furthermore, it’s not as if the student was promoting pedophilia as nothing more than a mental disorder, he wore a shirt in support of one of the two Presidential candidates in 2016. “Conservatives aren’t getting cancelled.” Do you think they would have digitally altered a Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign shirt?

Censorship costs us our freedom. Without freedom of speech, we will never resolve any of the real issues we’re facing as a nation. Censorship also costs New Jersey hundreds of thousands as retribution.


"Words have power and can indeed be scary, but the way to neutralise their unpleasant impact is by countering them with the truth and with powerful ideas"

-Frank Furedi

I know you’ve heard me say it a million times before, but let me say it again: The First Amendment was not written to protect speech we like. Noncontroversial, agreeable speech does not need protecting. The First Amendment was written to protect freedom of the speech that we loathe.

This idea that “conspiracy theories” equate to disinformation and therefore lack free speech protections is outrageous. Social science theories circulate the internet nearly as matters of fact without anyone flagging them for missing information. Theories regarding government corruption are quickly labeled as conspiracies and discredited by mass media.

A conspiracy is defined as, “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful,” by Oxford dictionary. Conspiracy theories aren’t synonymous with misinformation; they’re theories simply missing information.

The First Amendment was added to the Constitution so that we could speak out and protest our government when we believe they are no longer acting in our best interests. Convenient for the government that political party loyalty motivates the people to silence the people.


"Every time a person experiences cancel culture, he/she should vow to stand up for the next inevitable victim."

-Grace Curley

Here’s a million-dollar idea: Why don’t we cancel cancel culture? The cost of eliminating dissent and forcing conformity through approved speech outweighs any benefit of the pseudo-security produced by everybody sounding the same.

Those who deny cancel culture’s existence fail to realize the pattern every individual who gets cancelled forms. First, they apologize. Then, they agree to take a step back for self-reflection. Then they come back more woke than ever. Here’s the kicker: Rarely is anyone who begs forgiveness actually forgiven.

The silencers don’t care about the aftermath of their destruction. They couldn’t care less if you have grown as an individual and matured since your last act of stupidity. They don’t even care if your last thoughtless sentence was produced two decades ago. They take your name, then your career, then they take off.

There are reasons people should be cancelled. Serial sexual predators, for example, have no place holding positions of authority over subordinates. Having a belief and voicing it is not reason enough to destroy a person. Nobody is perfect, and it’s time to take a step back and reflect on ourselves and consider what about society we’re approaching incorrectly.

Cancel culture is not working. Never in the history of ever has forcing values onto people solved anything. If we don’t reassess, then we simply have a bunch of activists acting on emotion, and emotion blinds judgement.


"The only way you get your freedoms back is it's earned with the price of blood."

-Marjorie Taylor Greene

Marjorie Taylor Greene was elected to the United States House of Representatives to represent Georgia’s 14th congressional district—not to agree with members of the party in power. Whether or not you agree with what she has to say does not eliminate the fact that she wasn’t put there by you, but by the people she represents.

Twitter “accidentally” suspended her account just as 72 radical Democrats are working on a way to expel her from Congress. Twitter also banned former President Donald Trump from the platform, preventing him from defending himself against any claims made against him during the second impeachment trial.

Was it just a coincidence that she lost access to her 380,000 followers for 12 hours? We’ll never know, as both Big Tech and the government have the power of the media to formulate and circulate any narrative they so choose. Since Twitter’s “error,” her account has been restored.

Does Congress have the right to remove a sitting member of Congress because they do not like what she has to say? What actions has she committed that would constitute removal from the House? What precedent may this set in the future when the roles are reversed?

Remember, it is not a crime to speak freely; it’s a human right.


"Nobody deserves to be hurt, especially not for an idea."

-Kreshia Thomas

The left does not dictate what’s considered appropriate speech; the First Amendment and numerous court decisions interpreting the meaning of free speech do. The left, however, has created a chilling effect on political speech that’s in opposition to their train of thought through their use of cancel culture.

Cancel culture is a unique threat to the principles of free speech because it heavily relies on the principles for its existence. Masses joining together demanding private changes in exchange for monetary benefits is a proper use of free speech, but is it valuable?

Removing dissent from public discourse certainly has its advantages if the end goal is to have a society built on bricks in the wall. However, a fully functioning democracy offers real choices and differences in principles. If everyone who’s different is all of a sudden afraid to speak up, we will have self-destroyed this democracy we’re canceling so many people to protect.

The government cannot solve this problem, because the government cannot even properly pave roads. We the people are tasked with turning this shipwreck around. The more people silenced, the more people are going to feel oppressed. The more people feel oppressed, the likelihood of violence increase.

We’re not encouraging or instigating violence, are we?


"Be sure to put your feet in the right place; then stand firm."

-Abraham Lincoln

The free speech pandemic is a growing force that even the world’s most powerful governments accompanied by the wealthiest private corporations can’t put an end to. Every generation, hundreds of thousands of Americans dare to speak their minds freely on college campuses, and the free speech debate continues to live on.

Why won’t every American buckle to the pressure and come to terms with defeat over the fight for free speech? We are far from losing. Every time somebody is cancelled for exercising free speech, we come to their defense and provide them with alternative opportunities. Anytime a college professor is fired for speaking outside of the dictated script, we provide them a public platform to tell their story.

You see, while the principles of free speech are under attack, those attacking are far from victory. There is no single person or group of people powerful enough to silence somebody with a message. They can try, and they do try, but they do not succeed.

The pen is mightier than the sword. They may keep trying to take away your pen, but never allow them to force your sword. Don’t give them a reason to lock you up and silence you for good. The First Amendment to the Constitution is singlehandedly the most important amendment, because it paved the way for all the other amendments.

We have the right to speak freely, even if it means we must bear some consequences along the way.


"You can't have a university without having free speech, even though at times it makes us terribly uncomfortable."

-Donna Shalala

The Iowa state House passed a bill that would require universities to protect First Amendment rights by a vote of 97-1. The lone-dissenter, a Democrat, surprisingly had a good reason behind his ‘no’ vote.

“Why is it needed?,” asked Rep. Dave Jacoby, who argued that the bill, “smells of Big Brother.” Jacoby, who apparently paid attention during Civics class, understands that the First Amendment is the law of the land, and public universities are already required to respect our right to free speech.

Government just loves to get involved. Of course it’s easy to nearly unanimously pass a bill furthering our protection of free speech, but what exactly does it mean? What does it actually do? Private employers should still reserve the right to terminate employees for speech they deem inappropriate. Social media platforms shouldn’t lose their ability to limit content. What is the end goal?

Government loves to solve problems they create. While it’s certainly a symbolic day in history seeing a bipartisan bill supporting freedom of speech pass through a state legislature, we’re far from a country the respects and values freedom of speech.


"When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie."

-Yevgeny Yevtushenko

The number one issue social media platforms face in regards to freedom of speech is that they place more value on security than they do free speech. Who elected these private actors to decide for us what’s true and what’s false? Why have we become so weak-minded that we need authority dictating what is permissible to say?

Freedom of speech is not a threat to democracy. Democracy, however, has been acting as free speech’s biggest opponent lately. Efforts to silence dissent and opposing points of views have all been done in the name of protecting our democracy. From what? Freedom?

New social media platforms are gaining momentum as they attempt a “decentralized” approach. This approach allows control to be shared across a number of servers an users, in comparison to Facebook and Twitter, who are controlled by a central corporate entity.

Decentralized platforms face many issues in regards to monitoring unprotected speech from malicious users including, but not limited to, child pornography. However, child pornographers and human traffickers have successfully utilized centralized social media platforms, who actively monitor harmful content, to carry out their intended goals.


They’re literally running out of people to cancel, they’re going after dead people now.

-Bill Burr

It must be a slow news day if outrage is being directed at comedian Bill Burr for not taking his hosting stint at the Grammys seriously enough. Seriously, he’s a comedian. What did the Grammys expect?

Burr poked fun at feminism and the gender discussion currently taking place in this country while presenting the winner for the Best Tropical Latin Album—a winner’s name he proceeded to butcher. Viewers argued that the Grammys don’t really care about inclusivity and progress.

What is inclusivity? Bill Burr, who is an outspoken liberal on his podcast, is a comedian who has always poked fun at the world’s absurdities. His views differ from others because of his ability to overanalyze what he’s learning.

Burr has been a vocal opponent against cancel culture, recently standing by former coworker Gina Carano, who was removed from her role in Disney’s Star Wars for controversial comments she made on her social media. He has been at the center of controversy before, and will likely not fall victim to cancel culture, because he refuses to be cancelled.


"It is a form of generational narcissism to change texts to suit one's own needs"

-Luke Timothy Johnson

We don’t need less speech, we need to talk more. We don’t need to silence the lies, we need to combat them with the truth. We don’t need a government powerful enough to censor us, we need a government that behaves in a way that they wouldn’t need to censor us. A free society demands freedom of speech.

As we can see, attacks on our most beloved liberty have impacted those from the left and the right. Limits on free speech are far from progress. They’re utilized to shape society on a premise of lies. What’s the truth, if speaking’s a privilege?

Silencing hurts the speakers and the interested audience. Those who disagree with a message certainly don’t have the right to forbid me from hearing the message. Those who disagree do not own the public square. Even when those who disagree are in the majority, their ability to limit dissent is only as powerful as we permit.

943 views1 comment

Recent Posts

See All

1 Comment

It’s utterly naïve to imagine that totalitarianism will arrive through the jackboot as in the 1930s. It is arriving through “cancel culture” today. History repeats itself, but not in ways that are obvious.

bottom of page