Free Speech Squelched
We must demand our leaders and fellow citizens honor free speech. Otherwise, we open the door to full-throttle authoritarianism.
It should not surprise us that pluralism and freedom of speech, so praised in countries that claim to be democratic, are daily disavowed by censorship and intolerance towards opinions not aligned with the official narrative. Manipulations of this kind have become the norm during the so-called pandemic, to the detriment of doctors, scientists, and dissenting journalists, who have been discredited and ostracized for the mere fact of daring to question the effectiveness of experimental serums. Two years later, the truth about the adverse effects and the unfortunate management of the health emergency has proven them right, but the truth is stubbornly ignored because it does not correspond to what the system wanted and still wants today.
Update October 17, 2022
Foreword
This post highlights the critical nature of our right to free speech. Of course, we all can agree that actual violence such as detonating a bomb is not free speech.
Unfortunately, virtually every element of the Constitution is under assault by the elites who interpret free speech in line with their post-modern worldview. Nevertheless, free speech is so essential that sometimes an expression we do not like at a particular time may later turn out to be wise.
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Founding
The Founders of the United States adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, to break the chain binding them to the British. That Act provided the path to a free new world. The Declaration included a list of grievances, but the drafters omitted Britain’s infringement of speech. History teaches us that the 56 men who signed the Declaration had to tread carefully until after the Nation got on its feet. Otherwise, they might have faced hanging for treasonous speech if the British had prevailed.
After winning the Revolutionary war in 1783, the 13 states ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788. On December 15, 1791, the states ratified the first ten amendments. Known as the Bill of Rights, the amendments list safeguards protecting the core elements that make up a free society. It prescribes a set of restraining precepts that prevent the government from infringing on freedom. The first and most crucial amendment prohibits Congress from squelching the freedom of speech. It also guarantees the right to practice religion.
The Declaration’s “inalienable rights” is a catch-all phrase that includes such things as freedom of expression. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, also drafted the Bill of Rights and made a crucial linguistic point in the First Amendment. He referred to our right to expression as “the” freedom of speech. That emphasized its endowment from natural law rather than a government-granted privilege. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law abridging … the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Madison and the ratifiers meant no law. As such, Madison believed that rights, which he enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are natural to our humanity. He articulated that precept in the Ninth Amendment. Despite these precise words, presidents, Congress, and the courts have not always been faithful to the Law of the Land.
The Squelching of Speech Timeline
There are many examples of our government not following the Constitution. The following items catalog some high-level events that challenged free speech from the early years to our current post-modern nightmare.
Alien and Sedition Acts
Seven years after ratifying the Bill of Rights, Congress codified the Alien and Sedition Acts. This bill, signed by President John Adams in 1798, allowed the punishment of people critical of the government. It is perplexing why so many people who founded our Nation would enact this bill. Adams did not ask for nor oppose the Acts. But, he signed them, and history judges this as the most objectionable element of his otherwise great presidency.
The Federalists were, in today’s lexicon, big government proponents. They felt that the expression of discord against the government was an assault. Thus, through the Alien and Sedition Acts, Congress intruded upon the freedom of speech by silencing it in advance. Supreme Court cases refer to it as “prior restraint,” and the Supreme Court has outlawed it.
Prior restraint refers to pre-publication censorship of specified instances of expression. That is in contrast to restrictions and censorship after an utterance occurs. There are exceptions, such as classifying certain matters of national security. Supreme Court rulings prohibit prior restraint by the government.
To the Antifederalists (Democratic-Republicans), the First Amendment prohibited the punishment of speech. Adams’ Department of Justice prosecuted and convicted Antifederalists for critical discourse. That included some congressmen.
When Jefferson won the presidency, the Antifederalists won control of Congress. On March 3, 1801, Federalists repealed the speech suppression parts of the Alien and Sedition Acts. They did this on the eve of their departure from congressional control to prevent its use against them.
Abraham Lincoln
The Lincoln administration turned a blind eye to the First Amendment in the name of national security. They locked up hundreds of Northern journalists that were critical of the war efforts.
Lincoln had assured delegates to an 1861 Washington peace conference that a free press was “necessary to a free government.” However, many believed newspapers were morphing from tolerable dissent into nation-threatening treason. As the Administration built its military prowess, it squelched Northern newspaper criticism. For example, Major-General John A. Dix, Commanding at New York (May 18, 1864), wrote:
Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.
Woodrow Wilson
President Woodrow Wilson, determined to win World War One, suppressed ideas he feared would jeopardize that effort. To ensure his quest, Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917.
In 1918, during a speech in Canton, OH, socialist labor leader Eugene V. Debbs criticized the Espionage Act. He faced ten years in prison, and appeals made it to the Supreme Court. Congress appealed the Sedition Act in 1921, with President Warren G. Harding commuting Debb’s sentence. Portions of the Espionage Act remain part of United States law today.
A series of Supreme Court decisions decreed that the Act’s purpose was to suppress speech. Thus, the Court ruled with Madison: more speech is the constitutional remedy for hateful, harmful, or even seditious speech. In comparison, suppression or punishment festers factions.
Cold War and Vietnam
The federal courts prosecuted and incarcerated Cold War dissenters. That occurred in the 1950s with the theory that the dissenter’s speech was dangerous and might trigger violence. Nevertheless, wartime dissenters challenge us, especially those who love our Nation, despite its flaws.
In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in Times v. Sullivan that the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage and protect open, comprehensive, robust, and even caustic speech.
In 1971, top-secret materials showed that former President Lyndon B. Johnson and some generals had lied about elements of the Vietnam War. Daniel Ellsberg, a civilian employee of the Nixon Department of Defense, stole thousands of these pages. He delivered them to the Washington Post and New York Times. The Nixon Department of Justice heard about the “Pentagon Papers” plot and persuaded two federal judges to prohibit its publication. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a publisher may reveal whatever materials come into the publisher’s possession. The Department of Justice indicted and prosecuted Ellsburg. A federal judge dismissed the charges because of the shock of learning that an FBI agent broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist to obtain unflattering personal information.
WikiLeaks
Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. He is the radical publisher of Wikileaks, which exposes government misdoings. In 2010, Assange arranged to receive and publish stolen copies of top-secret military materials. This information revealed American military personnel in Afghanistan at their worst. It included information about the intentional killing of citizens. Then named Army private Bradley Manning stole the documents for Assange. Manning faced a trial and conviction of 35 years in a military prison, much of it in solitary confinement. In January 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence to time served.
In October 2016, Assange published the infamous Democratic National Committee emails. Of course, conservatives salivated. But later, in a strange twist of fate, the Trump Department of Justice indicted Assange for violations of the Espionage Act. The alleged crimes took place in Europe. The indictment directly defied a Supreme Court decision from the Nixon presidency. Assange has been confined in Belmarsh maximum-security prison in London since April 2019.
Arguably, the “no law” clause also protects the non-citizen Assange, but he faced indictment. The reason: he exposed the nasty deeds of government representatives, and the cabal desired anonymity. Even those who love our Nation want to know the truth to prevent such acts in the future. Rather than tear down the Nation like Black Lives Matter, we can learn from our mistakes and move on united.
Covid, Woke & More
During the never-ending Covid event, we have seen Pravda-like efforts to pressure publishers and select social media users. The government has a “partnership” with tech companies and media to sidestep its duty to enforce freedom of speech. They block the publication of unflattering books and social media posts.
State governors used the police to protect gatherings of protestors whose message they agreed, such as Black Lives Matter (BLM). As we know, scores of leftist white and other people march with BLM. As such, it is an inclusive collectivist insurrection.
As we know, the BLM/Antifa “fiery must mostly peaceful protests” caused billions of dollars in property damage, looting, and lives lost. Any sane person knows that tearing down statues—destroying public property—does not comport free speech.
It is another story for people who love our country and desire freedom. Officials have aggressively disbursed those who peacefully protested the unconstitutional Covid lockdowns. This March 3, 2022, incident is typical of how mobs silence conservative speakers at colleges and universities:
The above darlings fitted with back Antifa-looking garb know nothing about free speech. The gentleman in the suit (professor?) at the front of the classroom looks to encourage the outburst. Etiquette has no place in the collectivist hive. This “University” is typical of the Marxist “higher education” indoctrination centers.
Scores of medical professionals and others have lost their jobs during the Covid scamdemic. They spoke about using proven, safe, and effective therapies. The “choice” folk pushed the mRNA injections and killer respirators to “treat” patients. I have personal knowledge of many who have suffered from the injections (see Vicious Vexxne). This outright assault on our freedom of speech has caused casualties.
Fusing big business, government, pharmaceuticals, medical, and media is a disgusting money matrix. Hospitals getting extra cash for coding deaths of patients “with Covid” is a despicable reality. Even more wretched is the practice of coding deaths as “unvaccinated” for those who perished within two weeks of getting the shot. The twisted “logic” takes two weeks for the injection to be effective. That is a cover-up — to hide the big lie:
The population gullibly accepted psychological conditioning to take a “freebie” mRNA therapy touted as a vaccine.
Initially, the propaganda machine claimed an injection 90 percent effective in preventing Corona disease (Covid).
“Pandemic of the unvaccinated” formed the cover for the failures of mRNA therapy.
The vaccine (mRNA therapy) is a safe and alternative treatment with contrary evidence tagged as a “conspiracy theory.”
As the months rolled by, we learned that Covid was more prevalent in the vaccinated and less in the unvaccinated. The fifth wave cover story: mRNA does not prevent Covid but merely “reduces the severity.” A stunning admission by the Fusion Matrix: from 90 percent “effective” to a “reduction in severity.” Still, to report this fact constitutes a secular sin called “misinformation.” Also, see Risk Mismanagement Railroaded.
Our authoritarian friends are still pushing the vaccine narrative despite the facts. For example, the February 27, 2022, article Limiting Free Speech is Essential to Democracy by Samuel O’Brient. That is an example of writing I dislike. Nevertheless, Mr. O’Brient has the right to offer his article. Here is a selection of text from his article:
The spread of vaccine disinformation is an example of free speech putting people in danger. We have also seen it recently as hate speech has led to violence. In 2018, the Washington Post detailed how social media was becoming a catalyst for the spread of white supremacy. Since then, this trend has escalated, leading to actual hate crimes in which innocent lives have been lost. … Yes, free speech is essential to democracy but when it is used to almost overthrow it, the system needs to be revised. Free speech, like everything else in life, needs to be limited and regulated.
It would be interesting to know Mr. O’Brient’s take concerning BLM’s free speech fueling the riots, burning, looting, and deaths in 2020.
The assault continues. On March 4, 2020, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy requested information surrounding alleged COVID-19 misinformation. A “Call for Stories and Research on Health Misinformation” targets big tech companies, community organizations, and healthcare providers.
During the pandemic, many of us have been exposed to health misinformation— information that is false, inaccurate, or misleading according to the best available evidence at the time. It can be really hard to know what is true amidst all this misinformation. Health misinformation has caused confusion and led people to decline COVID-19 vaccines, reject public health measures such as masking and physical distancing, and use unproven treatments. It has also led to harassment of and violence against public health workers, health care workers, airline staff, and other frontline workers. … the Surgeon General is now putting out a Request for Information (RFI) on the Impact of Health Misinformation in the Digital Information Environment in the United States Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic. … A Request for Information (RFI) is a tool for engaging with the public and gathering input from a variety of voices. It will aid us in learning about the issue of health misinformation and how best to address it. The Surgeon General’s RFI on the Impact of Health Misinformation in the Digital Information Environment in the United States Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic provides a platform to discover new information, consolidate existing knowledge, and elevate stories of how people’s lives have been affected by health misinformation. … Stories and information submitted to the RFI will be used to prepare for and respond to future public health crises. As part of the RFI process, public comments and submissions will also be made available to the public and can be used for research purposes.
Organizations have until May 2, 2022, to provide data to the Surgeon General’s office. There is “no penalty” for denying the request. We shall see.
As illustrated above, such juvenile actions by the Fusion Matrix are nothing more than an act of desperation to cover up misdeeds. The counterbalance is more free speech, but the Fusion Matrix has the freedom squelch knob set to maximum. The totalitarian squelch knob is in the off position—no more high-fidelity stereo.
Fiat money in the trillions of dollars fuels the Covid lies. In addition to trillions going to pharmaceuticals, the federal government paid hundreds of media companies to advertise the COVID-19 vaccines while those same outlets provided positive “vaccine” coverage. That has spawned an evil Fusion Matrix that is squelching free speech. Those who speak out about it face the Caustic Cancel Culture Program. It tags us as purveyors of “misinformation” and “disinformation.” We are the enemy of the state (Fusion Matrix). May God bless Tulsi; she says it best:
On October 11, Tulsi announced her departure from the Democratic Party. Here is a key quote from her Substack essay:
Today’s Democratic Party does not believe in our constitutionally protected right to free speech. Fostering diversity of thought and freedom of expression is the foundation of any flourishing democracy. Democratic Party leaders don’t agree. They are led by fanatical ideologues who pose a threat to our democracy because they don’t believe in freedom — freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
Right on queue, Tulsi is under attack on both sides. Some claim she is a shill for the establishment and others are in meltdown for her betraying the collectivist party. As of this writing, she has not declared her new party affiliation. Nevertheless, Gabbard, who ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, unveiled her support for Republican Army veteran Joe Kent in Washington’s competitive 3rd congressional district on October 12, 2022, via a new campaign advertisement. Honestly, the Republican Party is one side of the same money machine. So, we shall see.
Afterword
Regardless of ideology, the speech we like requires no protection. On the other hand, speech we find offensive needs First Amendment protection. Authorities have no dominion to evaluate any expression as the framers understood all persons have a natural right to think as they wish. We have the right to say and publish whatever we think. Of course, there are common-sense considerations like the adage “cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire.”
Punishing speech is tyrannical, regardless of the aggressor (right, middle, or left). It is dangerous because it will continue unfettered. The remedy for hateful or threatening speech is not silence or punishment. The proper thing—that collectivists love to squelch—is more speech. That is, counter-discourse to intellectually challenge the other speaker touting questionable content.
More recently, here in USSA the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is developing a protocol to deal with those who do not follow the narrative. Categorize speech and writing in three ways:
Misinformation - somebody uses an article factually incorrect but not on purpose.
Disinformation - somebody lies on purpose with malevolent intent.
Malinformation - someone’s opinion is factually accurate (or not probably wrong), but DHS deems it to be misleading.
The assault against the Constitution rages on with aggressive enforcement of hate crime laws. We must demand our leaders and fellow citizens honor free speech. Otherwise, we open the door to full-throttle authoritarianism.
Sources
Cogent author and publisher, Frederick R. Smith
I love that Tulsi is in Hawaii where they are not spraying the skies everyday. Sunny & Warm with greenery. Where we live they are killing us with whatever they are spraying....
But anyway, to the point of the article. The Southern Slave Owning Democrats destroyed free speech in the Southern States a long time before Lincoln became political.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm
Complete analysis. What more is there to say?