top of page

Free Speech Matters (20.05/30.06)

Updated: Jun 30, 2021


What I need to do is speak for my community, to represent my community, and to help my community.”

-Gwen Berry

We cannot truly enjoy freedom of speech until we recognize that it’s a human right enjoyed by everybody, including those we disagree with. In fact, the First Amendment was drafted to protect speech we disagree with; no such amendment is necessary for agreeable speech. Lately, I’ve focused on free speech attacks from the left, but today I must call out Congressman Dan Crenshaw for his statements regarding Olympic athlete Gwen Berry.

Crenshaw recently called for Berry to lose to position from the Olympic team after turning her back to the American flag in protest during the National Anthem. She also covered her face with a shirt that read “Activist athlete.”

Crenshaw claims that the entire point of the Olympic team is to represent the United States of America. I’d argue that expression is a perfect representation of American culture. Here in the US, we enjoy freedom of speech. Thanks to the First Amendment, governing officials like Crenshaw cannot take any legal action when somebody acts out in protest. His First Amendment grants him the right to call for her removal, but it also illustrates that he has no respect for freedom of speech for others.

Berry’s protest may be perceived as disrespectful, especially to those who have served our country and fought for our freedoms, but one of those freedoms fought for is Berry’s right to free speech. Furthermore, Berry’s protest was done peacefully. There were no victims after she refused to acknowledge the National Anthem; just hurt feelings.

The GOP cannot be the party of free speech if they’re going to call for the cancellations of people who express thought they disagree with. Crenshaw took his comments public, likely in an effort to fundraise. In doing so, he brought attention and outrage to Berry’s situation. Was Crenshaw, who has been a vocal opponent to cancel culture, attempting to cancel the Olympic athlete by calling for her removal?


To encourage criticism of the government, the First Amendment gives the public breathing room. Lawyers need it too.

-Bruce Green

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in the state of New York for making “false statements in the media.” While the court’s decision may prevent him from practicing law, it in no way prevents him from continuing talks with the public through the media.

Aside from being former President Donald Trump’s attorney, Giuliani remains a private citizen outside of his law practice. As a private citizen, he enjoys the First Amendment right to speak to the media. He may not be doing so in an official capacity, but in no way has he lost his right to speak freely.

The court’s ruling, if anything, attempted to place a chilling effect on the former mayor’s speech. With the threat of his law license on the line, the court hoped that Giuliani would stop making media appearances where he continued to defend “the big lie,” as many in the media are referring to it. Since, Giuliani has made a number of media appearances repeating information cited in the court’s ruling and criticizing the court’s decision as a political attack on his First Amendment rights.

Censorship doesn’t silence ideas; it pushes them underground. Losing the ability to voice dissent doesn’t make dissent disappear. If people are unable to publicly organize, they will do so privately. Giuliani has been practicing law for over 50 years. He knows the First Amendment protects what adds to the public discourse. The court’s decision was never going to successfully silence him.

What is the court saying, exactly? Are they suggesting that, because of his status as an attorney, Giuliani doesn’t reserve the same free speech protections we do as private citizens? Will more lawyers choose to self-censor in fear of losing their law license? The court’s decision appears to give lawyers the option of either practicing law or engaging in the public discourse. The First Amendment gives lawyers the right to do both.


fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.”

-Brandi Levy

Three cheers for free speech! The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of free speech rights for over 50 million school-aged children after they decided that the cursing cheerleader was perfectly within her rights criticizing her school’s decision while not on school property.

Her speech did not cause a disturbance. The school days continued to proceed as usual even after she exclaimed, “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything” from the roof of her Snapchat story. The post was published off school property and after school hours.

There was no detained audience for the cheerleader’s speech. In order to view the teen’s Snapchat story, you would have to actively make the decision to click on her story. This case was made known to school officials after a ‘friend’ screenshot her profanity and shared it with the rest of the school. However, the intend behind her expression was never to cause a disturbance. Instead, it was an innocent expression of frustration.

At 14, the subject of the Supreme Court case Brandi Levy, who is now an 18-year-old college student, was removed from the cheer team as punishment for her speech. She faced consequences for voicing dissent against public employees. The school’s decision was a clear violation to our First Amendment rights.

You may see no value in Levy’s speech, and that’s completely fair. She didn’t go above and beyond to find the best words that could express her frustrations. Free speech isn’t about the value of the speech, and I find it odd that this discussion always surfaces during First Amendment cases. Our human right to free speech grants us the ability to say whatever we want, however we want. Yes, there are consequences. However, thanks to the First Amendment, those consequences can not be dished out by public officials.


But, has cancel culture gotten away from accountability and is it being used as a weapon?

-Jade Hindmon

Lately, there has been a reassuring call to cancel cancel culture. While you still have those who believe it doesn’t exist, or those who would prefer to label the culture as ‘accountability culture,’ it is becoming abundantly clear that Americans are beginning to lose their patients with the new form of censorship.

Cancel culture really got out of hand. The mob ruined Star Wars and Mumford and Sons. They created an internal crisis in comedy where comedians began questioning whether it was still their job to make their audiences laugh. Everything, from sports to children’s television shows, has been overly politicized. Any medium that isn’t actively forcing the national narrative is a threat to the culture.

Americans are beginning to wake up to what’s going on, however. Over the course of the past year, we have had our rights stripped or threatened for reasons many of us still do not understand. All of this was promoted for the better good, but never in the history of ever has the greater good benefitted from any level of censorship.

Has cancel culture strayed away from their original goal of holding people accountable? One could argue that this was never their original intent. If it was, they certainly have forgotten why they started their mission in the first place. Cancel culture has been more successful in damaging the careers of people who have expressed dissent than people like Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has been accused of sexual misconduct on multiple occasions.

I truly believe we’re witnessing the beginning of the end to this current wave of political correctness. The mob may still have fight in them, but the people are growing sick of tired media. Everything being produced today plays it safe; it’s all the same. We’re ready for something that challenges the foundations of our beliefs. We desperately need people to speak out to open our eyes.


I could remain and continue to self-censor but it will erode my sense of integrity. Gnaw my conscience. I’ve already felt that beginning.

-Winston Marshall

The left is now successfully canceling the left. Winston Marshall, former banjoist for Mumford and Sons, turn his back on his bandmates to protect them from the Twitter Mob. After calling Andy Gno’s work exposing ANTIFA brave and then issuing an insincere apology, Marshall wants to free himself from the shackles of self-censorship.

The band didn’t want him to leave; they recommended he lay low for a little until the mob finds their new target. Marshall chose to leave the group because he feared that his words and beliefs will tear the entire band down from grace. He also wasn’t comfortable with the idea of self-censoring himself for continued fame.

I absolutely respect his decision. Twitter’s mob brutally attacked him for a review he left about a conservative journalist’s book. Marshall self-identifies, when his feet are to the coals, as a leftist or a centrists. He believes that attacks from the far-left accusing him of being far-right are absurd.

Marshall was forced to make the difficult decision of leaving a band that he grew up with for 14 years and have gotten to know like family. Instead of choosing to remain silent, Marshall is choosing to be able to speak his mind without any of his bandmates being held accountable. Honesty, unfortunately, is not a profitable venture in the United States.

I encourage more artists to break free from the perpetual groupthink this country’s falling victim to. Marshall’s resignation letter was a refreshing reminder that there are people in this world still interested in the truth. It doesn’t matter if you lean left or right, we must always reserve the right to speak up when we think something’s wrong. Currently, something is very broken in this country, and they’re not letting us get to the root of the problem.


Why should everything that happens be the entire world's business?

-Philip Wyeth

If cancel culture is truly “free speech holding others accountable,” which it is not, it would equally hold accountable people guilty of similar words and actions, regardless of political affiliation. People like President Joe Biden and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who have both been accused of using their positions of power to make sexual advances on women in vulnerable positions, would not enjoy their positions in power. Instead, cancel culture is a tool utilized to remove people with whom we disagree from access to the public. It’s another enforcement tool, if you will.

While cancel culture should certainly not be referred to as “accountability culture,” as the author suggests, I think a better categorization of the culture would be “target culture.” The culture targets individuals who speak outside of the dictated script and challenges their careers, relationships, and livelihoods, for simply holding a political belief differing from the masses.

Cancel culture is free speech, in the same way the government talking about censorship is free speech. The culture manipulates the masses through constant virtue signaling, ignoring the fact that it is completely acceptable to be different. They tell you what’s offensive, even if you don’t personally find it offensive yourself. While the culture is protected by the First Amendment, it serves little value in promoting or protecting free speech values.

I’m beginning to realize that the line won’t be drawn until we’re reciting our lines from a teleprompter dictated by the government, saying and doing only what the majority believes is socially acceptable.


Conservative students across our nation continue to have their voices silenced at many institutions that claim to teach diversity of thought and opinion.

-Elise Stefanik

Why does it seem as if lawmakers are only interested in protecting the principles of free speech on college campuses? Freedom of speech is certainly under attack on campuses nationwide thanks to the woke, the political correctness police, and cancel culture. Students are turning in their professors for voicing facts or thoughts that deviate from what they find to be acceptable thinking. They’ve even created portals where students can anonymously turn each other in for offensive humor or language.

College, however, is not the only battleground for free speech. The principles are being attacked on a routine basis in the real world and online. The First Amendment is not exclusive only to college campuses, so why are lawmakers legislating free speech protections on campus when our rights are being threatened everywhere?

Campus free speech has been an issue for decades, if not longer. While the marketplace of ideas sounds like an ideal spot for the educators and the educated to frequent, they have actively participated in its destruction. Public colleges receive funding from the federal government, making members of faculty and staff public employees. The First Amendment may say “Congress shall make no law,” but numerous Supreme Court decisions have concluded that the amendment protects us from censorship from any government actors.

Big tech platforms, the other major free speech battleground, is governed by private ownership. Laws created to protect the First Amendment online also threaten the First Amendment with their approach at compelling platforms to host content they would otherwise choose not to host. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents private companies from limiting the reach of your speech. Employers across the country require employees to sign agreements that they will not address any internal conflicts publicly.

Again, the government is likely not the answer. In fact, the government is likely who created the problem in the first place. Recently, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik cosponsored the Free Speech and Restoration Act, a bill that would force colleges and universities to avoid policies that would limit students’ abilities to speak freely on campus. As many of us know, however, laws rarely create solutions, yet they always create criminals. Are there any approaches to protecting free speech that do not require government legislation?


Books and ideas are the most effective weapons against intolerance and ignorance

-Lyndon B. Johnson

While I am absolutely opposed to more government intervention, the attack on online free speech doesn’t seem to be slowing anytime soon. Senator Roger Wickers of Mississippi recently introduced the PRO-SPEECH Act, which would make it unfair trade practice to block or prevent any users or entities from accessing any lawful content or discriminate against users on the basis of race, sex, religion, political affiliation, and ethnicity.

The Federal Trade Commission would be put in charge of handling any social media-related complaints. The bill would also present big tech platforms with a choice: either they can operate as a platform where users will have the ability to access lawful content, or they may publicly declare themselves as publishers and lose all Section 230 protections.

Although I am thrilled to see the federal government finally taking our human rights seriously, it is not the job of the government to protect our inalienable rights. The First Amendment protects our inalienable rights; it does not empower the government to enact legislation to protect our rights. Are we really encouraging freedom if we’re forcing platforms to host content?

We should have never let things get this bad. We should have never sacrificed all of our personal information for the opportunity to scroll on these major platforms. They shouldn’t be powerful enough to control the public discourse or shape the national narrative. However, while all of this was taking place in its experimental phase, half of the country applauded.

They clapped when former President Donald Trump was removed from Facebook and Twitter. They cheered every time YouTube removed content from professional medical experts for contradicting the national COVID-19 narrative. Every person who loses their access to the public for voicing political dissent in another victory for the current culture.


The free exchange of ideas and information is vital for human progress in both our intellectual and material lives.

-Jim Manley

When we think about the First Amendment, or free speech in general, we often think about how political speech warrants protection, but ignore other forms of speech that are equally protected. One form of speech discussed by the Pacific Legal Foundation is marketing.

Did you know that there was a Virginia state law that prohibited bars and restaurants from advertising Happy Hour drink specials as “two-for-one?” While the law permitted half-priced drink sales, it arbitrarily prohibited owners from marketing it as two for one.

Another unique case was when Peggy Fontenot, an Indian artist belonging to a tribe not recognized by the state of Oklahoma, was told she didn’t qualify as a “real” Native American after she marketed her work as “American Indian-made.”

While the First Amendment was absolutely drafted to protect political speech, Justice Clarence Thomas notes that there is no historical basis suggesting that commercial speech is valued lower than political speech. Since the 1980 Supreme Court case Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the Court has allowed the government more freedom to restrict commercial speech.

The First Amendment protects our right to free speech. Though interpretations have concluded that this right is most specifically reserved for political speech, the wording of the amendment suggests all speech is protected. The Founders had the opportunity to be more specific, as they drafted the First Amendment a number of times, but resulted with an all encompassing protection of our right to speak freely.


Censorship in all its forms must be challenged.

-Deeyah Khan

The First Amendment does not apply to private companies. Yes, we’re back on this discussion point. The media is free to print and publish what they choose. Facebook and Twitter are free to remove content from their platforms as they see fit. We don’t want more government regulation on private ventures, even when we disagree with the actions taken by these companies.

This argument that the principles of free speech don’t apply to the private sector, however, is absurd. The right to speak freely is a human right. Every time private companies make the decision to silence their employees or fire somebody for voicing dissent, their in violation of our human rights. They actively disrupt the marketplace of ideas, further blurring the lines between reality and fiction.

As an advocate for the smallest possible government, I fear that granting this government the power to dictate what social media platforms must host is extremely dangerous. While these actions may be taken with good intent, I’m not comfortable with this level of government overreach. There has to be a way to combat online censorship without more regulation and legislation.

We’re currently sitting at a stalemate. We have all these national problems, but we can’t arrive at any solutions if we’re unable to engage in civil discourse. Difficult conversations are taken so personally anymore. Disagreeing with somebody’s belief feels like an attack on their character, even when it’s not.

While many hate to admit, a lot of the information that was censored online at the end of last year turned out to be true. Facebook and Twitter actively restricted the spread of factual content. They directly interfered with the 2020 elections by their deceitful fact checking. They lied to us because we trusted them. When will we learn that business isn’t personal, and we should never trust a major corporation?


Once people are forced to measure their support in the abstract for free speech against trade-offs and (supposedly) competing values, the near-universal support quickly plummets.

-Jacob Mchangama

A recent poll revealed that 94% of people around the world value the principles of free speech. Of those polled, 93% also believe the media should have the right to report what they see fit and people should have the freedom to use social media without censorship. While an overwhelming majority of people claim to be advocates for free speech, our liberty to speak freely have been in a global decline for over a decade.

The answer is simple: People don’t overwhelmingly support freedom of speech. In the same poll, 43% of respondents believe their should be legal protections against speech found offensive to minorities. 39% supported prohibiting statements offensive to their religion and beliefs.

People don’t support your right to speak freely; they support theirs. This explains why the mob continues to applaud when somebody’s access to the public is removed for having voiced dissent. People are inherently self-interested, and if your speech conflicts with the narrative they’re promoting, they will do everything in their power to silence you.

The pseudo-support for the First Amendment can be explained by the lack of real education in the United States. Children in public school are taught what to think, not how to think. In the fear of being offensive, children aren’t taught how to react when their views are challenged. Instead of teaching tolerance, children are learning conformity.

More people oppose the principles of free speech than are willing to admit. I have been following this issue closely over the course of the past year, and it’s abundantly clear that free speech has lost it’s value not only in the US, but around the world. People no longer recognize how important it is to be able to voice opposition. Security is being valued over liberty now more than ever.


Even corporate America, once considered a bastion of conservative values, has taken a hard-left turn.

-Bernard Goldberg

The American Civil Liberties Union used to be the organization to count on to defend the principles of free speech regardless of the content or the context of the speech. A decade ago, the ACLU was defending Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan when they didn’t agree with their message. They used to understand the value of the principles.

This is no longer the case. Forces at the ACLU argue that liberal causes trump human rights. The New York Times reported that the ACLU’s mission has shifted thanks to internal conflict. A law professor even recently argued at an ALCU-sponsored event that far right-wingers were not worthy of an ACLU defense. An official at the ACLU commented that it’s perfectly normal for ACLU lawyers to refuse to defend “hate speech.”

An organization that once defended the KKK and Neo-Nazi’s rights to march through predominately Jewish neighborhoods thinks that dissent is too hateful to defend. Instead of taking on the issue of free speech, the ACLU led the resistance against former President Donald Trump. Their annual reports fail to mention the “First Amendment” or “free speech” and do not mention any litigation on college campuses, where the most free speech infractions occur.

Why is everything being politicized? Is the ACLU afraid of being cancelled? Many organizations that never concerned themselves with political ideology in the past are taking advantage of the opportunity to capitalize on woke culture. Obviously the rights of half the country do not trump the rights of the entire country, but rational thinking is no longer an option. If you don’t repeat the script, you have no place in society.

We must come to terms with the fact that the ACLU is no longer the nonpartisan advocate of freedom they once were. They are now a political organization and should be treated as such. In 2018, for example, they spent over $1 million to suggest that Justice Brett Kavanaugh was guilty of sexual assault (he was never convicted on sexual assault charges). They also spent nearly $1 million on trying to elect Stacey Abrams governor of Georgia (they weren’t successful). Is there anybody out there that still values the principles of free speech and understands the importance of the marketplace of ideas?


We can't even have fun anymore. We've had fun all these years, and now all of a sudden in the last year and a half, everybody's trying to get everybody fired, and it really sucks.

-Charles Barkley

Former NBA superstar and analyst on Inside the NBA Charles Barkley took a stance against cancel culture during an interview on the Grant and Danny show. While he claims his time on the show used to be filled with fun, that fun has diminished and been replaced by people analyzing your every move in hopes that you make a mistake.

Barkley took pointed shots at his bosses at TNT, including CNN president Jeff Zucker. It should be of no surprise that Zucker is involved in creating and controlling a more safe and less authentic narrative. Agreeing to disagree is no longer an option; according to Barkley, context no longer matters and a joke taken completely out of context still offends, even if that wasn’t the joke’s original intent. He has always refused to apologize and was visibly having fun on television at one point in his career.

Cancel culture is creating carefully molded world views that are inconsistent with reality. Human beings aren’t perfect, but the concept of human error is being widely ignored. Comedians whose jobs are to say things out of the norm for the sake of comedy are choosing to color in the lines for the safety of their careers.

We are essentially creating boredom. After being stuck inside for a year, the last thing this country needs is more boredom. We need work that inspires. Instead, the news cycles are plagued with monotony, and the entertainment industry has made it their sole purpose to drive the narrative down the throats of their audience. What we want is different; all we get is same.

Barkley’s interview implies that he’s now afraid to make an unwatchable game watchable with his humor, because his bosses are going for their employees’ heads. One wrong joke taken out of context will cost you your career. All the time and energy, that late nights and early mornings, all of it gone because the mob found a way to be offended by your words. Land of the free; home of the brave.


You’re thinking that things you say will come back and bite you on the ass. I can’t be the comic today that I was when I got into this

-Kevin Hart

One major problem with cancel culture is that the culture collectively holds individuals to a higher standard than they hold individuals in the collective to. Legendary comedian and actor Kevin Hart is no stranger to cancel culture, having been cancelled three or four times himself. He even stepped down from host the Oscars in 2019 because he refused to apologize for comedy.

Hart recognizes that comedy as a genre has been suffering thanks to cancel culture. Comedians use to say and do anything for the laugh. People at comedy clubs used to be there to laugh. Now, comedians are overly cautious that their jokes may offend somebody in someway, and people patronize comedy clubs for blogging materials.

The truest art usually results from trial and error. It’s no secret that comedians hit the nightclub scene to test new material to see what works and what doesn’t for their upcoming specials. In fear of being cancelled by Twitter’s keyboard warriors, many comedians water down already watered-down sets.

This concept of perfection in unachievable, but so are many of the issues the left takes on. Nobody’s ever going to reach perfection, allowing the culture to at the very least have a little bit of gas in its tank to get started. The culture rarely attacks people who say truly horrible things or words that are damaging to society. They waste too much time bringing down those who disagree.

Luckily for us, the successful comedian and actor doesn’t need the support from the woke mob, because he has humbly admitted how talented he is. Hart recognizes that his errors help produce his successes. He’s a better comedian for having been allowed to fail. Upcoming comedians will not be allotted the same privilege, which explains why we’re already starting to see mediocrity rise to the top.


Fascism thrives in obscurity and darkness.

-DaShanne Stokes

The COVID-19 pandemic was a policy window that many in government capitalized on. They made changes to our laws that you would almost need a pandemic to last. Similarly to the weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, lawmakers were busy legislating your rights away.

One right that majorly suffered but hasn’t been stripped away completely is the freedom of press. Around the world, their government’s openly limited the freedom of press. The United States, however, had to approach oppressing the truth differently.

Along with freedom of speech, the First Amendment also protects freedom of press. The government lacks the legal authority to censor, so they partnered with big tech platforms who in return began limiting content reach, labeling posts, and removing articles that disagreed with the dictated narrative entirely.

President Joe Biden refused to do regular press briefings and made himself a ghost in the eyes of the media. Instead, he let his administration do the speaking for him. He skipped out on the tradition State of the Union Address, almost as if Americans don’t deserve to know what’s going on in our country. Biden also recently expressed a commitment to free press and upholding the truth. However, you must start telling the truth in order to uphold it.

The pandemic wasn’t used only as an excuse to silence articles related to COVID-19. Articles that represented the current President’s son poorly lost their sharing ability, even though they were well researched and mostly factual. We didn’t only lose our individual liberties during the pandemic; we lost our ability to access the truth.


If Americans can’t depend on social media administrators or government officials to stop the hate, who will stop words that inspire violence?

-Linda Larson

The left is taking on another unachievable challenge in their quest to ending ‘hate speech.’ What appears to be a noble cause on the surface is simply another way for them to silence you in the name of the greater good.

They problem with ‘hate speech’ is how completely subjective the category would be. I hate beating a dead horse, but who decides what speech constitutes as hateful? Elected officials currently employed due to the results of multiple popularity contests? I don’t believe they are qualified.

Speech is not a gateway to violence. More often than not, speech is used as a substitute for violence. Instead of causing physical harm, many rely on their words to leave an impact. We’re accepting this notion that hateful speech inspires violence too easily when it’s simply a false narrative being weaponized against us to strip us of our human rights. Just because somebody repeats something over and over again doesn’t make it true.

Hate is also a natural emotion. Ridding an entire society of a natural emotion is not only unnatural, it will create its own unintended consequences. Hate helps us appreciate love. There will always be hate present in the world, whether or not it’s outlawed. Bottled-up hatred may prove to be more dangerous than expressed hatred.

Luckily, the government does not have the authority to ban ‘hate speech’ thanks to the First Amendment and a number of Supreme Court rulings upholding our unalienable rights. Unfortunately, private tech companies have partnered with the government and have started down their own road of censorship. They do so in the name of the greater good, even though I argue their actions are fueling more violence than hate speech ever could. Kind words aren’t always honest words.


Freedom of speech also means that other people have the freedom to criticize them when they say dumb things

-Philip Klein

After receiving attacks for her comments regarding the United States, Israel, Hamas, and the Taliban, Representative Rashida Tlaib took to Twitter that, “Freedom of speech doesn’t exist for Muslim women in Congress.” While this is an obvious attempt to take the victim stance, I feel it necessary to state that freedom of speech, as it currently exists, applies to everyone, including Muslim women in Congress.

Why is Tlaib trying to capitalize politically on the current attacks on free speech? Her party is largely responsible for the current cancel culture that has placed the most compelling chilling effect on speech in decades. To suggest that her right to free speech is being trampled is just another form of political theatre.

Receiving criticism isn’t getting cancelled, Tlaib. You’re still a sitting Congresswoman, even if people across the aisle beg that you sit down. You weren't impeached twice for the words that came out of your mouth. You've never even been threatened with impeachment regarding your speech. Freedom of speech does not only apply to one religion. Nor does it only apply to one ideology. Yet, her cries that her right to free speech is being trampled are heard much more loudly than the cries from the right, where people are being crucified for having a dissenting point of view.

Our human rights shouldn’t be used as a political weapon. Unless there’s an actual threat, Tlaib is doing nothing more than feeding the Muslim community here in America with fear propaganda. It’s absolutely her right to stand up and speak out, even if what she has to say isn’t being carefully considered. That’s the beauty of free speech. It’s a human right; not a privilege reserved only for the intelligent or informed.

There may be one bright side to her outburst, however. Perhaps people on the left will once again consider the dangers of silencing thought and policing dissent. Maybe these efforts to compel speech will cease to exist, and cancel culture will collapse before it inevitably cancels itself. Maybe we’re actually waking up to the fact that it’s our human rights on the line. Maybe I won’t have to write these blog posts daily illustrating why freedom of speech is of utmost importance in a fully functioning democracy. Or, maybe nothing will change and those performing in the theatre will continue to profit from your fear.


If you don’t have the ability to laugh at yourself, don’t go to a comedy club

-Jon Lovitz

Comedian, singer, and actor recently compared the current cancel culture to McCarthyism, which was a pointed campaign during the 1950s led by Senator Joseph McCarthy that blacklisted alleged members of the Communist Party, in an interview with Page Six.

Cancel culture makes satirizing society and pointing out hypocrisies ‘increasingly difficult,’ according to Lovitz. As a comedian, Lovitz believes that these are the tasks that comedians are burdened with, along with obviously being funny. Cancel culture doesn’t care if you’re saying something in good fun or in bad taste. The context doesn’t matter, because they would just take it out of context if it did.

Good comedians aren’t surrendering to the current cancel culture. Honest artists have stayed true to their forms of expression, even when their intended audience is rapidly adjusting their views to more align with the elites.

Art used to be a way for people to express themselves uniquely. Art comes in all forms: Music, paintings, photography, film and television, etc. Honest art has always had a way of communicating with us because there was a level of relatability; we enjoy it when we can relate to the artists we idolize.

Art was never intended to be an avenue for major revenue, but here we are today. Art is completely dishonest. They’ve capitalized on your guilty pleasure of relatability and filled their pockets with your emotions. They didn’t stop there; they created extremely relatable artists and told them to tell us what to wear, what to eat, what causes to care about, and how to think. These “artists” are not being honest with us anymore, and it’s starting to show in their work. Thank you, Lovitz, for joining the growing list of comedians willing to stand up against the mob and produce honest work.


Government officials surprise nobody when they reach for expanded power; defeating them and reasserting fundamental freedoms will be difficult without popular support.

-J.D. Tuccille

There aren’t too many people who will openly admit they’re against our right to free speech. It would be quite an anti-human rights stance to take publicly, though many appear to oppose the principles of free speech privately while making public efforts to silence the competition through the means of ‘good will.’

When we think about our First Amendment right, we understand that it grants us the right to freely speak out against the government. However, people tend to become more hesitant when supporting our right to speak out against religion or ideological views held by non-governing officials. For example, the same people who applauded Facebook’s efforts at squashing misinformation regarding the COVID-19 also claim to support our rights to free speech.

As you look further, it becomes abundantly clear that many do not understand freedom of speech entails. There are people in other countries who think they have too much freedom to speak freely. They would prefer government regulation over individual responsibility.

You are free to express your thoughts into words in the United States, regardless of the backlash you may receive. The First Amendment protects us from being imprisoned for our beliefs. However, that’s essentially where the line is drawn. While the government cannot directly silence us, their partnerships with major internet platforms have successfully reduced the circulation of conservative content.

Americans rank third in their appreciation for free speech, behind Norway and Denmark. Nearly half of Americans polled (43%) claim their ability to speak freely on political matters has worsened over the past year, while only 17% reported that it’s improved. Research has found that younger Americans in particular are less supportive of free speech. Those who continue to claim that there isn’t currently an attack on free speech aren’t looking at the numbers.


The left has ultimately shown there is no room for humans who are less than perfect…

-Gabe Kaminsky

Here we go again; another Hunter Biden story just because his father happens to be the President. I am in no way encouraging the cancellation of Hunter Biden. What he said in his text messages was stupid, but if we criminalized stupidity, we’d all lose our right to vote at one point in our lives.

We’re so focused on holding people to unachievable standards that we’re starting to believe that people, prone to human error, can reach perfection if we condemn them long enough. Hunter Biden, a white guy, playfully used a racial slur in a private text message, unintended for public viewership. He wasn’t producing content for criticism; he was likely intoxicated and wasn’t anticipating his private messages being part of the bigger picture.

I’m not making excuses for him. If he were not Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden would be cancelled immediately by the woke mob. From his use of insensitive racial slurs, objectifying women with Pokemon present, and his pedophilia accusations, Hunter would never be able to work in the United States again if his last name wasn’t Biden.

So we’re here again. The left is tasked with either canceling the President’s son or continuing to allow this behavior to slide if he says all the right things and just apologizes when necessary. If the left cancels him, they know they’re negatively impacting their chances of a White House victory in 2024. If they just keep letting it slide, it only further illustrates that people aren’t offended by the content, but by the speaker.

We need to normalize making mistakes again. We can’t keep observing every little incident under a microscope because we’re going to make ourselves crazy trying to connect dots that aren’t there. What Hunter said was stupid and insensitive, absolutely. Do I think these texts alone make him an awful, racist human being? Absolutely not.


We don’t expect everybody to be perfect. We don’t expect everybody to be politically correct all the time.

-Barack Obama

What do the 44th and 45th Presidents of the United States have in common? They both agree that the current cancel culture is overkill. In a recent interview with CNN propagandist Anderson Cooper, former President Barack Obama warned the overly sensitive that they may be going a little overboard with their demands.

Nobody is perfect, Obama recognized. We shouldn’t be focusing our time and energy destroying lives of people who failed to be politically correct. Obama believes that these efforts would be better served calling out individuals and institutions for being cruel or are discriminating against people.

The current culture encourages us to constantly condemn people. We are expected to be alert and on our feet, just incase somebody slips up and needs an oversimplified history lesson. We spend too much time focusing on negative aspects of the world, when there’s so much positivity to enjoy, even without romanticizing the world.

As human beings, we are lucky if we have the opportunity to live 100 years. That seems like forever, being that it’s longer than most lifetimes. However, we don’t have an infinite amount of time on this earth. If we live to be 100, that’s only 36,525 days of brain function. Many hearts stop beating 30 or more years earlier.

We’re all attracted to the national debate, failing to realize that the national debate is simply their war being fought with our words. Do you really think there’s racial tension at the top one percent? The internet has granted us the opportunity to hate people we’ll probably never get to meet or know more intimately. I know it sounds as if I’m ranting, but I’m suggesting that we utilize our time more wisely and set more realistic expectations.

The world is not a comfortable place, but we can make it as comfortable as possible without sugar-coating every fact. This current culture encourages division. What we typically argue is all a matter of perspective. Consider the abortion debate for example: Half the country views it as a woman’s rights issue while the other half views it as a human rights issue. People have been very successful at establishing their credibility and using the English language flawlessly to illustrate their points. All of this, however, is subject to human error. There’s not one person capable of considering every factor that could explain what’s going on. Yet, everybody’s an expert on the internet.


Tech corporations have no democratic accountability at all, they can do whatever they want.

-Glenn Greenwald

What are your favorite memories from the earlier days of the worldwide web? These days it seems like the entire internet is nothing more than a mouthpiece for an ideological agenda. The government lacks the ability to silence you, thanks to the First Amendment. Even when they find ways to legally justify censorship, politicians are typically held accountable at the polls and removed for their disservice to our human rights. This is why they have (secretly) teamed up with the people that essentially control the entire internet—something we were paving when we were too young to understand that actions have consequences.

Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube are not democratically accountable, given their private status. Their monopolistic structures don’t even make them accountable to their users. They have the ability to create and control the narrative. They tell you what to read, who to interact with, and filter your thoughts through their policies. Yet, the people making all these decisions for us behind the scenes cannot be removed from their posts. Their genius approach has made them untouchable.

This is the perfect type of partnership for the government. Politicians can speak out against censorship until they’re blue in the face because they’re not the ones directly silencing the public. Big tech companies continue to grow in popularity. As old users slowly exit, new users are signing up and ready to engage in the filtered discourse.

Consider why platforms like Gab receive criticism. Many accuse CEO Andrew Torba of having created a platform that hosts ‘hate speech,’ —an unrecognized category of speech in American law. Torba did not create Gab as a platform to host hate; he created a fa platform where the marketplace of ideas could perform well. People today tend to equate freedom with hate. Gab is funded by their users. Torba doesn’t sell his user’s data; he sells his users an alternative platform and products produced by the company.

Gab doesn’t remove content Torba disagrees with. Gab has no partnerships with the government requiring them to police our speech. Gab is for the people who choose freedom over a false sense of security.


Your job as a comedian is to please the most amount of people with your art.

-Micah Williams

Comedian Katt Williams, who didn’t need assistance from cancel culture to destroy his career, believes that the culture is a lot like speed limits: Nobody likes the speed limit, but it’s there for a reason. He later went on to declare that the culture is nonexistent.

This narrative that cancel culture simply doesn’t exist would be described by current President Joe Biden as “malarkey.” Williams suggests that the worst outcome produced by cancel culture is having to be more aware and sensitive when we speak with the public. He’s absolutely ignoring the compelling speech and censorship aspects, but I never pegged him as somebody who considers all of the repercussions.

Williams is clearly virtue signaling in hopes that enough talented comedians get cancelled that he can swoop in with his mediocrity and regain the fame only he believes he deserves. While Williams used to be funny, his sense of humor seems to have been beaten out of him by a seventh grader.

On top of sucker punching children, Williams’ career began seeing a major decline due to drug use. He blamed his decline on comedian and actor Kevin Hart, who is both drug free and understands the dangers of cancel culture, but Hart noted in 2018 that Williams “chose drugs” over his career.

Williams is certainly entitled to his opinion, though I’d argue he didn’t formulate this opinion all on his own. Of course he’ll say and do anything to regain the fame and celebrity status that he once had. Real comedians have been targeted by the culture for doing their jobs. They make jokes that clearly conflict with the dictated narrative and Rotten Tomatoes gives them a 35% rating. Williams sucker punched a kid while on crack. He wasn’t cancelled; he was held accountable.


Suspending Twitter in Nigeria is just one more way of stating that people’s rights do not matter just what the State wants.

-Osai Ojigho

Retaliatory politics never produces progress, but sometimes you can see the humor in its outcomes. I’ll simplify this story to the best of my ability, because I’m being told many of you don’t like reading past the first two paragraphs unless, of course, I am witty enough to catch your attention.

The almighty Twitter was flexing really hard on Nigeria when they removed a tweet by President Muhammad Buhari that was threatening to secessionists. Buhari, who served as as major general during the bloody Biafra War that left more than a million dead, responded by banning the entire platform from his country.

This, as a whole story, is not funny, but let’s consider what is. A bunch of woke, liberal computer scientists in the United States sat around a desk and debated whether or not they could change the world by deleting Buhari’s tweet. They ultimately decided to, and they probably really convinced themselves they were engaging in positive progress. Now, a country politically confused has one less platform to express freely on. Maybe, and I could be wrong, but maybe we shouldn’t be trusting people who are experts at coding and manipulating the people to decide what’s in the best interest of the people.

Twitter has been actively playing their version of god since their inception, and it was kind of nice seeing them receive the blowback. No, they do not care about the “one less platform to express freely on” stuff that I do. They do, however, care that they are losing out on a ton of users and advertising opportunities. I’m sure losing Nigeria wasn’t penciled into their 2021 budget.

Let’s talk about what’s sad. We’re all conditioned to believe Twitter is the victim. Twitter violated human rights when they made the decision to remove Buhari’s tweet, just as they did when they removed several of then-President Donald Trump’s tweets during “the most important election of our lifetime.” Buhari, who had his human rights violated by Twitter, responded by violating the human rights of an entire country who are currently engaging in their own battles over ideology. The people, once again, are the victim. Twitter’s stock increased and everybody making bad decisions is making better money.


It is insulting Mark Zuckerberg occupies a more powerful position than the pope in Rome.

-Ben Domenech

Why is it always those who violate human rights that have the most to say about human rights? Major social media platforms have been actively advocating for our right to free speech since their inception. The actions they take against their users, however, are the very actions they are advocating against. It’s like they say one thing that we all agree with, but do something completely different. This is a perfect example of virtue signaling.

Actions used to speak louder than words, but I’d like to argue that this is no longer the case. Major corporations utilize the media to emphasize their woke messaging. They claim to be on the right side of history on every single issue in history. Yet, they privately take actions that we the people wouldn’t be celebrating so much.

We don’t hear about these actions until someone brave enough investigates and exposes the hypocrisy, but, even then, we still don’t believe what we see. Project Veritas, for example, has exposed every corporately owned form of media, but lost their credibility because they were trashed by every corporately owned form of media without evidence. Twitter banned Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe following his piece on CNN’s use of fear propaganda tactics.

The internet is no longer a place we can go to search for truth. The truth is too complicated for us simple-minded people. Finding the truth is far too complex of a task for us to figure out, so our government joined by private corporations have decided to do the work for us. They tell you what’s true; we’re expected to believe them. It’s almost insulting to not pick up what they’re putting down—they did go through all the complicated hard work to tell us the truth, right?

Maybe we shouldn’t have trusted these major corporations with all of our personal information. Maybe we shouldn’t have invited them inside our web browsers where they got to learn about us more intimately. Maybe we shouldn’t have rushed to create a digital life when there was so much in the world left to explore. Maybe we should stop pretending we understand everything, especially when we never read the terms of service agreements. I was just a child when I started giving these platforms a glimpse into who I am. I didn’t know any better, yet I thought I knew it all.


I don’t think that Facebook or internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth.

-Mark Zuckerberg

To clarify: The fight for free speech is not over until we've won. Facebook recently announced that that would be ending their corporate version of qualified immunity by no longer allotting special treatment for politicians on their social media site.

Prior to the Big Tech platform’s announcement, content from politicians didn’t suffer the same content moderation that us normal folks enjoyed. The Oversight Board, after affirming former President Donald Trump’s indefinite suspension, decided that now would be the right time to apply the same rules to everybody on the platform.

Did you hear that, Conservatives? No more special treatment on Facebook. Facebook also plans to illuminate their secretive strike system given to accounts not following their policies. Users will now be forewarned before their profile is temporarily suspended for violations to the rules.

While this is a major step in the wrong direction, it’s clear that Facebook is aware that they are targeting a specific school of thought. Instead of allowing conservative politicians to speak as freely as their counterparts, the Oversight Board has decided that strict rules of silencing thought must apply all around. Why were politicians given special treatment over we the people? Why do we treat elected officials like they’re sacred, yet we can’t show an ounce of decency to somebody who happens to disagree? This explains the over exaggeration over the January 6 Capitol riots.

As many of us already know, Facebook didn’t just arrive at this decision naturally. Their efforts to moderate and silence content have been under strict scrutiny nationwide and in the federal government. They recognized that banning Trump was wrong because nothing in their policies permitted a permanent ban on a politician.


This party recognises that we need to eradicate anti-Semitism and racism of all its kinds and this legislation will never, never, never protect Holocaust deniers, because that is something that should never and will never be tolerated.

-Gavin Williamson

A newly proposed freedom of speech bill is being promoted by United Kingdom’s Education Secretary Gavin Williamson. The bill would give regulators the authority to impose fines on universities that fail to protect freedom of expression.

Holocaust deniers, however, will likely not receive any protection from the “free speech” legislation. Williamson stated that the Conservative Party does not stand for anti-semitism, unlike the Labour Party, an recognizes the need to never protect Holocaust deniers because their words don’t deserve tolerance.

Is the UK’s Conservative Party virtue signaling to their Jewish communities? What was the point of legislating a free speech bill if the type of speech that demands protection isn’t protected? Censoring Holocaust deniers and denying them the ability to speak on campuses in the UK is not going to make them go away. If anything, they’ll operate in the underground society and spread their messaging free from government interference.

Why is denying the Holocaust so dangerous? Many of us believe we understand the horrific events that unfolded in Nazi Germany enough to make comparison in American politics. Is it a powerful minority that’s denying the Holocaust in the UK? Are people being slaughtered by their denial, or is it just inappropriate and offensive?

Somebody somewhere is going to read this entry and claim I find value in Holocaust denial. Somebody somewhere is going to call me anti-semitic because I openly support that right for Holocaust deniers to voice their piece. I’ve heard it all before; I’m racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. I place no value on these labels placed on me because I understand they come from ignorant roots. These insults are final, desperate attempts to prevail in the national debate. They have been over assigned and devalued tremendously.


In the end, there are two paths. One is pro-thought and the other is anti-thought.

-Stella Morabito

It’s beginning to feel like we’re in a horrible Hollywood movie. The acting isn’t convincing and the script isn’t consistent with reality. People who claim to be fighting conformity all dress and speak similarly. People who claim to be fighting fascism continue to elect controlling fascists. People who promote unity seem to thrive most when we’re divided.

They want you to believe that the individual no longer matters. We are all soldiers at war with each other over the government’s narrative. “Free speech is hate speech” is a popular phrase on college campuses. The individual’s uniqueness is what makes them irreplaceable. The current culture emphasizes that you are nothing but replaceable.

Still we applaud. Reality becomes blurred with utopian ideals addressing nonexistent issues. The people, who have never felt so alone in their entire lives, find comfort in conformity. It feels good to surround yourself around people just like you, even if you have to reimagine who you are. These seem like minor sacrifices to make for the greater good.

Freedom is never an option; why? What we do, we do for the greater good. Your rights are minor sacrifices you must make for the greater good, at least that’s what they’re saying. They have yet to gain complete control over you. However, if you must be an individual, they’ll create the illusion that you’ve never been so alone in your life. Now you’re alone; time to conform.

I can’t do this anymore. We keep saying things on repeat; we’re worse than a broken record. I can’t be a brick in our wall, especially as it’s being built with an unstable foundation and poorly mixed concrete. I’m growing less and less interested in what you have to say as the days go by, because I don’t believe you’re voicing your words. These messages are strategically being manufactured in a lab to make repeating the narrative easy. Repeat after me: I will not repeat after you.


Every major communication outlet, every major social network, is run, owned, controlled, and operated by progressive leaders, progressive workers in Silicon Valley.

-Andrew Torba

While many frown on alt-tech platforms such as Gab, making baseless claims that they are safe spaces for hate speech, many also fail to realize that they are the reason for Gab’s existence. If people had learned the valuable lesson of tolerance instead of prioritizing a false sense of security over liberty, Andrew Torba may have never had the window of opportunity or the need to make Gab as popular as it is today.

However, the internet is riddled with intolerance, and Torba saw a need in the market for a platform where users can express freely without fear of a major corporation regulating their speech. Gab is the perfect online environment for those interested in engaging in real conversations. While the platform is filled with conservative-leaning users, everyone is welcome and all speech is protected.

It’s actually quite funny that many refer to Gab as a “gift to the far right,” when it’s really a gift to anyone and everyone who enjoys human rights protection online. Big Tech wants you to believe that the sole purpose of alt-tech platforms is to host hate speech., but we already know hate speech is a made up category of speech that has warranted First Amendment protection every single time it’s been challenged in the courts.

Gab’s popularity continues to grow, especially when Big Tech makes authoritarian decisions. They want you to believe that lack of content moderation is a bad thing. The left-leaning big social monopoly does not hire objective moderators. These platforms promote their agendas through content moderation. They limit your freedom in order to grow theirs.

Despite multiple woke attempts from elites to take Gab down as they did other alt-tech platforms, Gab has the unique ability to grow and prosper during these intolerant times. Gab has been removed from both Apple’s App Store and Google Play, as well as twice being deplatformed by their domain registrar. Yet, people continue to migrate to the alternative as Big Tech continue to trample on our rights.


We have these cultural norms, and we allow people to say ugly things. We don’t have to like it, we don’t have to invite them to our dinner parties, but you should let them say it.

-Jeff Bezos

Yesterday, we celebrated the men and women who lost their lives defending our country. Many of those men and women went into combat wholeheartedly believing that they were at war with the biggest threats to our freedom. Little did they know, many of you here on the home front, who celebrated by drinking cold beers and accessorizing with red, white, and blue, are threatening our freedoms daily.

Every single time someone is removed from their job for having an opinion, we’re losing freedom at home. Every time a somebody is banned from a social media platform for not repeating the narrative, we’re losing our freedom at home. Every time Congress wants to create an investigative commission to illustrate how speech directly correlates to violence, we’re losing our freedom at home.

Freedom of speech is more than an American value; it’s a human right. While our soldiers are overseas fighting the government’s battles, the government is at home limiting the very freedoms our military is designed to defend.

We’ve had a challenging year. Many of you lost loved ones to COVID-19, or small businesses from poor government management. We all lost a little of what makes this country so great; our liberty. We cannot keep applauding these attacks on our basic human rights.

Open your eyes. Everything is perfectly scripted. They tell you what to talk about; you talk about it. They never allow your attention to linger on one subject so long that actual change may occur. They rile you up and they fill you with fear. Then they divide us up and generate an environment hostile enough for them to keep getting away with this.


Tell Thomas MacDonald we don’t agree with his views, but we approve of his honesty.

-Ryan Montgomery

It seems to me to be the case that some of you need a real lesson in what is actually meant by tolerance. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s second definition, tolerance is defined as, “having sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.”

It really seems to me that those preaching tolerance the most are hardly practicing tolerance at all. Tolerance goes beyond just accepting people of differing nationalities and religious backgrounds. Those who truly understand tolerance understand that we aren’t all grown in the same garden. Our individual lives our impacted by our personal experience that shape our perceptions of the world.

I’ve always said that it is insane that over 300 million people have comfortably divided themselves amongst two schools of thought. The new agenda is seeking to eliminate the second school of thought and create a one-track mind. They do this by speaking tolerance at the sermon, but engaging in divisive behavior in practice.

Recently, rapper Royce da 5’9 name dropped independent rapper Tom MacDonald, who is known for his controversial, anti-culture lyrics. Instead of dissing MacDonald for his recent track targeted at Eminem, Royce da 5’9 illustrated tolerance. He stated in his lyrics that he doesn’t agree with MacDonald’s views, but approves of his honesty.

I don’t agree with many of you. Whether you’re on the right or the left, there’s hypocrisy in what you’re preaching. I couldn’t imagine supporting every single stance an entire group of people take; but I will always defend your right to take a stand and speak up. We need to learn how to tolerate dissent. We look at disagreements as hate speech, why? Disagreements fuel conversations. It would be quite silly to carry on conversation where everyone’s in agreement.


None of us have the right not to be offended.

-David Delaney

If you start your sentence with “I’m a free speech advocate, but…” and end it with “consequences,” you’re likely not a free speech advocate nor are your producing an original thought. This response against free speech that speech has consequences is absurd. Of course speech has consequences; that’s why we speak. The First Amendment prevents the government from applying consequences to our speech, so remind me again why Nate Silvester is no longer a police officer.

Being an advocate for free speech means respecting people’s rights to voice their opinions and beliefs. If you’ve been reading these posts and taking away that I encourage hatred, you can’t be doing more than a glance at the text, because I’m promoting unity by attempting to preserve a human right that we all have in common.

You see hate, because the media tells you dissent is hateful. Everyone is joining together to create a one-track mind. I’m not even sure many people are thinking for themselves anymore, because I cannot tell you how many times somebody has to remind me that speech has consequences. What does that phrase mean? We speak up to influence public opinion. We speak out to drive real change. These words are just an obvious threat from the mob to place a chilling effect on speech.

They literally act like everything they do and every trillion dollar spending proposal is for the greater good. How is trampling on human rights progressing the greater good narrative? A nation isn’t free without freedom of speech. Without freedom, we’re nothing more than prisoners at our government’s will.

Freedom of speech is an inalienable right. Our right to exercise the principles of free speech was not granted to us by any government; we are born with it. The current mob has been successful at placing a chilling effect on speech because we continue to take their absurdities seriously. They want a reaction when, in reality, we’d all be better off just ignoring their cries for attention.


It wasn't until my LeBron James TikTok struck a political nerve that they started to pay attention and complain about it and came up with forms of discipline.

-Nate Silvester

LeBron James sends controversial tweet threatening Ohio police officer. Idaho cop makes a satirical TikTok video poking fun at James’ tweet and the video goes viral. James still plays for the LA Lakers while the police officer is now a new addition to the unemployment statistic.

According to the mayor, Nate Silvester clearly failed to follow well-established policies. This as justification for firing him should be enough, right? He made a personal video for public viewing in his uniform. However, this is not the first time Silvester has posted a video of himself in uniform. This is only the first time that his video challenged the national narrative.

There is clearly tension between the police and the black community. Why does LeBron James get to use his platform to make claims against police officers, but police officers can’t create a public platform and respond back? Why is dissent so difficult for some people to handle?

Firing Silvester is simply virtue signaling. There are truly some bad apples in police forces nationwide. There are cops who have abused their power, taken lives, and still serve on the force. It’s difficult to fire public employees because they have a right to their job. Why were they able to get rid of Silvester so swiftly? Did you pose a threat to members of his community by making a mockery of LeBron James?

You may believe Silvester deserved to lose his job. What does it solve? Now a man, who has no history of abusing his power as an officer, is out of a job. The mob will forget about him because they have already moved on to their next victims. Cancel culture is absolutely an unproductive strategy if we want to get to the core of our issues. We need to let people speak. We need to listen to what others have to say.


It is an unfortunate truth that First Amendment rights have become increasingly politicized.”

-Jackie Farmer

Right now is about time we start teaching our minds of the future the importances of the free speech principles. Did you know that only 30% of college students understand that most of what’s being labeled as ‘hate speech’ is protected by the First Amendment?

There are exceptions to the First Amendment of course. The media wants you to believe that hate speech is one of those exceptions. However, ‘hate speech,’ or speech that we hate, is precisely the reason the Founders added the First Amendment in the first place. You see, it’s not speech that we love that cries for protection; we don’t challenge agreeable speech. The First Amendment is there to protect freedom of the speech that we hate from government censorship.

Fine, the First Amendment forbids Congress from stepping on our toes in regards to the words coming out of our mouths, but what impact does this have on university campuses? I’m glad you asked, fictitious college student. The First Amendment prevents any government actor from censoring the people. This extends to public universities because they are simply extensions of the government through tax dollars. Private universities often commit themselves to upholding free speech principles, though they’re not as limited by the First Amendment as public universities.

Why are our minds of the future going through high school learning very little about their individual liberties? How is the First Amendment a lesson being breezed over in civics classes when it’s the most important addition to our Constitution? It’s almost like our minds of the future are being conditioned and trained to sacrifice their human rights for the greater good, because many public schools are not straying away from critical race theory.

We need to better educate and prepare our minds of the future for the future. The issue is certainly stemming from education. People are misreading the Constitution and interpreting their safety as having higher priority than our liberty. While better education is what’s needed, the left has decided that better education is divisive.


Saying terrible things is bad. If you’ve said something terrible that’s something you should confront in some way, shape or form.

-Seth Rogan

Mob-appeasing comedian Seth Rogan spoke out against real comedians who are bringing attention to cancel culture’s destruction. In an interview with Good Morning Britain, Rogan said that comedians, like Chris Rock, Gilbert Gottfried , and Joe Rogan for example, should own up to the terrible things they’ve said.

Rogan made claim that he never made a joke that was outwardly horrific in anyway, but that’s because Rogan has yet to say anything funny. His career has been hand-delivered to him by comedians who are actually funny and actors that can actually act. It’s hard to get cancelled when the riskiest thing you do on screen is smoke bongs and laugh obnoxiously.

Rogan continued to say that criticism is part of being an artist, and if you can’t handle criticism, you shouldn’t be a comedian anymore. If you’re not funny, you shouldn’t be a comedian anymore. If you can’t act, your shouldn’t be an actor anymore. He does this in an effort to downplay cancel culture’s impact. Right now, the culture is working in his favor. When the tides change, and Rogan’s brand is labeled offensive, maybe he’ll fight back. Maybe Ben Shapiro’s right; these talking heads have no core principles and will adopt whatever guides their success most fluently.

“I was never a comedian,” Rogan admitted later in the interview. As you can see, he’s not concerned with whether the same boring content continues to be produced, because he’s only good at producing boring content that looks like his last movie. Rogan is encouraging art to stay safe and to not tread rough waters, especially because artists should take people’s feelings into consideration.

This has to be a pre-apology tour. As many are aware, Rogan’s former best friend and professional actor James Franco is under heat for sexual misconduct allegations. Rogan rescinded his end of the friendship immediately, and then went and publicly disgraced Franco for the accusations. Furthermore, Rogan’s filmography is filled with jokes that won’t age well in the near future. While there’s no way he’s responsible for writing anything funny, his involvement will soon make him a vicim of the culture.


Stuff that they're pitching today would have sounded bizarre and like science fiction and Orwellian three years ago. And they're pitching the same stuff with a straight face.”

-Adam Carolla

Comedians continue to keep coming out against cancel culture. Podcaster Adam Carolla attacked the progressive movement during his interview with Jesse Watters on Watters World. illuminating the fact that the current culture is producing absurdities.

As we speak, California lawmakers are looking at ways to change public school curriculum in an effort to level the playing field by eliminating Advanced Placement (AP) math courses up until 11th grade. While this may have sounded absurd just a few years ago, it’s slowly becoming the ‘new norm.’

Another noteworthy absurdity produced was the priority given to specific races during the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination distribution. In one of the most obvious attempts to signal virtue in American history, Governor Phil Scott of Vermont prioritized people of color over white people, claiming without scientific evidence that minorities are at higher risk of complications than whites.

While these examples would have been considered Orwellian just a few years back, according to Carolla, this is the new norm. These are the actions that you will get cancelled for speaking out against. Government policy doesn’t have to make sense. As long as we can satisfy the loud, vocal minority, we’ll settle for less than the truth.

Carolla doesn’t see the woke mob slowing down. Twitter’s left attacked Joe Rogan for suggesting straight, white men will no longer be allowed to speak in society if we continue down this path. The progressive movement has proven that anything is possible, and we shouldn’t rule anything out, regardless of how absurd it may seem at the time.


It doesn’t matter if the comments are true, factual or represent reality. The comment is demoted, buried and hidden from view of the public if it clashes with this system.

-James O’Keefe

James O’Keefe at Project Veritas just did it! With the help of two brave Facebook insiders, O’Keefe revealed to the world how Facebook ranks our content in order to shape and progress their narrative.

Believe it or not; facts don’t need you aboard. Facebook has been rating comments and users by how hesitant they are to get vaccinated. They then suppress comments that negatively reflect getting vaccinated in order to limit their activity.

They’re not just doing this to you nutty conspiracy theory loving neighbor. Doctors who are publicly speaking out against the vaccine are being shadowbanned. Media outlets that share articles of negative side effects from the vaccine have their content circulation limited. Anyone who is telling you the truth is being silenced if that truth is disruptive to the narrative.

O’Keefe is clearly no friend of Big Tech or the mainstream media, the two outlets that have simultaneously destroyed American journalism. O’Keefe is a true journalist who believes that the truth matters more than anything. A journalist's job is to ask questions. It’s not a journalist’s job to publish fake news.

Facebook is literally oppressing our human right to speak freely and seek truth, and Project Veritas has the proof! Are we going to stand for this? Are we going to accept manipulating the world as a private decision and move on? This is absolutely absurd. Facebook has been exposed, and it’s time we demand more from the platform that has already collected all of our data.


We’re supposed to be explorers., we’re supposed to play devil’s advocate and have hot takes.

-Whitney Cummings

Comedian Whitney Cummings joins the growing list of liberals who are beginning to understand the adverse consequences that cancel culture is having on society. Daring to ask, “When did comedians become heroes and a moral compass?” on the Joe Rogan Experience, Cummings expressed what only a loud, vocal minority of people fail to understand.

Comedy has always been about crossing the line. We pay to see comedians because the way they tend to perceive and interact with the universe is often entertaining and humorous. Chris Rock recently demanded that artists have room to fail in order to create new, unique content. Gilbert Godfrey admitted that he second guesses himself before telling a joke, but tells it anyways, because he doesn’t personally fear cancel culture.

Consider this, however. Each of these people are veteran comedians. They have been at the trade for years and have established credibility with their careers and audience bases. They have much more room to fail than an up and coming stand-up comedians. One joke told in poor taste could risk their entire future in the genre; a simple cost benefit analysis would suggest not taking said risk.

We have this problem that we call cancel culture. Over half of the country thinks it’s a threat to our individual liberties. Rock noted that it’s a disservice to the audience. Instead of addressing this problem head on, there are people denying it’s existence.

Recently, The Daily Beast had the audacity to ask, “If cancel culture is real, why aren’t the Cuomos cancelled?” That answer should be as clear as day to anyone that keeps up with my blog, but for those who don’t: The Cuomos repeat the dictated script. They repeat back what the mob wants to hear. If evidence ever comes out overwhelmingly against Andrew, the left will likely accept an apology. CNN has already stated there will be no disciplinary action taken against Chris, who coached his brother how to navigate his sexual misconduct scandal.


No, it won’t be the government telling you to shut up. It’s far more likely it will be your employer. The question is, what are you going to do?"

-Bill Mick

Let’s be completely honest; if anyone has anything to gain from silencing your honesty, chances are they’re going to do what they can to shut you up. It’s not just celebrities who are experiencing this insufferable wave of political correctness. Every day people are being canceled simply for having their own opinions.

An American Airlines pilot from Texas used his social media and a podcast episode to voice opposition to his school district’s social action plan that mandated social justice training and elements of critical race theory. People who became familiar with his posts contacted his employer making claims that he was harassing women and students online for speaking out. He is currently being investigated by the company.

Personally, I’ve received messages via Twitter from people asking me where I work. While these questions are often presented without any context, they’re usually following a controversial point of view of mine that I tweet, usually without fully explaining myself. While I am only assuming they’re hoping I’d be silly enough to provide strangers with my personal information, it’s clear that Twitter’s left has nothing better to do than find problems.

This is what the left wants. If you are in opposition to the dictated script, they want to strip you of your friends, family, income, and livelihood. The same people who claim to care so much about the homeless that they gave them priority during the earliest stages of the COVID-19 vaccine will do anything to take away your home for simply disagreeing.

People in power will go through any means possible to keep their power. Your human rights are of little concern, because power is so addictive that those who have it wouldn’t know how to function without it. Over the past few months, I have illustrated how people in power are abusing it while taking away your right to speak, but that’s just the tipping point. If we keep applauding these power moves, all they’re going to have is power while we’ll be left with nothing but some change in a bread line.


People know the difference between playing politics, bowing to cancel culture, and the truth.

-Andrew Cuomo

Well-known CNN entertainer Chris Cuomo is under that mob’s target after the Washington Post reported that he was involved in coaching his brother New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo how to beat the sexual misconduct allegations.

CNN’s highest rated anchor cited ‘cancel culture’ as justification for Andrew to not resign. Others in the room laughed at him, noting that his brother isn’t being cancelled; he’s being held accountable as a public figure for wrongdoing.

Those who would like to suggest that Gov. Cuomo is being ‘canceled’ by the right-wing lunatics would need to answer a series of questions before I could come to terms and agree. First off, Cuomo was a very well-liked governor prior to the allegations. He received an Emmy for his television performances during the pandemic and even raked in over $5 million for his book regarding his handling of the pandemic.

You people loved him! There were posts circulating social media suggesting that he should be the next Democrat to run for President. It didn’t even bother you that he used CNN as a platform to spin his sexual misconduct allegations. Some of you to this day refuse to believe he is guilty.

Maybe he’s not guilty. Accusations about the elites often arise in an effort to take them out of the public picture. He really should face the justice system and allow a jury of his peers to decide his innocence. That’s not what the leftist mob is known for, however. Any sexual allegations made against somebody on the right are adopted by the left a ‘true on arrival.’

Joe Biden, for example, has been accused of forcing himself on women. The left knew of the allegations and still elected him President. Why? Maybe he’s not guilty. This benefit of the doubt should be equally applied to all those presumed innocent until found guilty.

The left uses cancel culture as a double-edged sword. When they cancel somebody, they call it public accountability. When one of their people is cancelled, they fully recognize the dangers of the culture and get all up in arms. Freedom of speech isn’t your weapon; it’s our human right.


For obvious reasons, dictators have always suppressed free speech and grabbed the guns first, before seizing control.”

-David Work

The government, the media, and private corporations have been working around the clock to silence the people in order to preserve our precious democracy. However, you can’t have a true democracy without free speech. What is it that they’re really preserving?

Consider what elections actually are. They are popularity contests that force the people to simplify their views down to two camps and vote for the lesser evil. These lesser evils get into office and make decisions for us, instead of allowing us to decide on our own. They have a special interest of never letting their opposition regain control, because their seat is their job and their fame. It’s obvious that politicians would have incentive to censor speech.

What about the media? Well, media outlets are forced to compete with other outlets in the market. This would explain why even the smallest of stories receives a ‘Breaking News’ animation. They use fast-paced music in the background to make their audience feel uneasy; it’s how the keep you tuned in. Of course it would come as no surprise if the media was manipulating information and selectively silencing those who call attention to their work.

CEOs of private corporations are under similar market pressures experienced by the media. CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg will do anything in his power to increase your time on his app. If this means that a majority of his customers don’t like somebody or something being said, Zuckerberg is incentivized by the market to cripple to majority demands.

Democracy is just majority rule, isn’t it? As much as we wish to pretend we have the most wonderful democracy in the world, democracy is simply just a system of government that allows for the popularly elected to silence the minority for political gain. Maybe they all are working hard together to preserve these aspects of democracy. Maybe majority rule is the most profitable. However, a true democracy would never silence those who actively participate.


We should have the right to fail because failure is a part of art.

-Chris Rock

Legendary comedian Chris Rock illustrated he understands the dangers of cancel culture when he referred to the culture as a disservice to the audience during his interview with the Breakfast Club.

More specifically, he stated that he believes cancel culture is disrespectful to the audience because of it’s self-censoring impact. Similarly to Donald Glover’s point, Rock sees the art that’s being produced today as boring. Comedians and comedies are no longer funny, because no one’s willing to risk failure, especially in these trying times.

Art relies on failure. We, as the audience, don’t just want to keep seeing the same thing because it works. We need something new and creative. Imagine how much easier the COVID-19 lockdowns may have been if artists dared to experiment during that time. As an audience, we would never get bored.

Cancel culture encourages self-censorship. They don’t directly prohibit freedom of speech, they just put a costly price tag on any words that deviate from the dictated script. This is why you can almost predict how others are going to react to world events. There’s a position that allows you to keep your career, and there’s a position that will have the leftist mob wanting you for everything you have.

Comedians speaking out against cancel culture makes sense. Comedy has always been a genre of art where people can illustrate and exaggerate absurdities in reality, giving us an opportunity to laugh at ourselves. People aren’t going to comedy clubs anymore for a laugh, however. These people want blood and go out to find their next victims.

1,202 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page