Strap in boys and girls, this is gonna be a long one! For the past few days, ok, the last week or so, I’ve been in heavy discussion with my cat on the issue of free speech, or, in my opinion, the slippery slope of its erosion.
I am of the opinion that, in the America I know and love, freedom of speech is priceless, and those of us who have served know quite well that it involves heavy restraint. When someone expresses their right to burn the flag, as much as it pisses me off to see Old Glory burn. Free speech, even that speech that burns the hairs on the back of our necks, is allowable and should be tolerated. It doesn’t have to be liked or be popular; but the person’s right needs to be acknowledged.
The uproar over the assassination of Charlie Kirk is understandable, but I have an issue with the politicalization of his death to further erode our society. Before we start digging into the 1st Amendment; let’s start with a recap of some past political violence.
2025.09.10 – Charlier Kirk (Republican), conservative political activist is assassinated in Utah while debating with a student.
2025.04.14 – Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed, Sen John Hoffman and his wife shot and wounded (all Democrats of Minnesota). All were shot by an individual who had a “hit list” of 45 Democrats.
2025.04.13 – Josh Shapiro, Governor of PA (Democrat). His house was set on fire while him and his family slept inside.
2024.12.04 – Brian Thompson (unknown), Healthcare CEO was assassinated in New York City on his way to work.
2024.09.15 – Donald Trump (Republican). While golfing, a person was taking aim at a member of Trump’s security detail. The shooter was shot at and fled the scene.
2024.07.13 – Donald Trump (Republican). Presidential candidate was wounded in the ear by a gunshot during a rally in PA. One attendee was killed, and two others wounded.
2023.05.22 – White House (Democrat). An individual with Nazi leanings tries to drive a U-Haul truck though the barriers around the White House.
2022.12.04 – Various Democrats. A failed Republican candidate for state office, orchestrated four drive-by shootings of Democratic opponents in their homes.
2022.10.08 – Paul Pelosi (Democrat). Nancy Pelosi’s husband, attacked by a hammer.
2021.01.06 –A Pro-Trump (“Stop the Steal”) mob stormed the US Capital disrupting the certification of 2020 elections, in which Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump. 140 police officers were injured, four police officers committed suicide within a few months, and one policeman died of a stroke the next day. Two protesters died of heart attacks. One protester died of “acute amphetamine intoxication,” a drug overdose. One of the pro-trump supporters was shot and killed by security as a mob attempted to gain access to House Chamber where members of congress were sheltering. Many of the pro-Trump supporters chanted for Nancy Pelosi (Democrat) and Mike Pence (Republican) to die (complete with a hangman’s noose for Mike Pence for his failure to overturn the election). Nine people needlessly lost their lives. Site-seers they were not.
As my cat knows well, January 6th is a burn on my ass. Our country will NEVER again be able to state we’ve had continuous peaceful turnovers of power. But that is a discussion I’ve beat into the ground already. Please see my short take on it at: Sometimes it’s just better to be silent… – Dan’s Digital Dive
2020.10.08 – Gretchen Whitmer, MI Governor (Democrat). 13-men were arrested for a plan to kidnap the Governor.
2011.01.08 – Gabby Giffords (Democrat), US Representative from Arizona was shot in the head, she lived, but 6 others died.
2017.06.17 – Steve Scalise (Republican), wounded during an attack which injured four people in Alexandria, VA who were practicing baseball.
2018.10.22 – Various Democratic leaders. Packages were sent to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Goerge Soros. The packages each contained a pipe bomb.
My point in listing the above, is to say that violence has been spewed by crazies on BOTH sides. It is the “normalization” of violence, the accepting of violence that worries me. We should never accept violence… Never!
Now we can move on to the 1st Amendment: among other things, this ensures that individuals can express their opinions without government interference or censorship. The 1st Amendment has encouraged debate, the robust exchange of ideas that have allowed for the development of innovative and diverse cultural movements (think civil rights, end of segregation…).
One of the key tenants of the Amendment include that we must tolerate speech we do not like. As Bobby Block (Executive Director of the First Amendment Foundation) states: “Free speech isn’t just saying what you want to say; it’s also hearing what you don’t want to hear.”
I think we can all agree that Our President is pretty loose with facts and exaggerated statements. His supporters say “that’s just the way he talks.” Ok, sure, I get it; but he is using the office, the office of the President of the United States and the leverage that comes with this position, in ways that are not becoming of someone who holds this office. His administration has moved to punish critics and threaten media outlets that don’t align with the administration. Do you honestly think Colbert was cancelled due to finances, or that Kimmel was cancelled due to poor ratings? If you do, I have a bridge, slightly used, I’d like to sell you. There are some other simularities, which are outside the scope of today’s post, I encourage you to read: The rise of totalitarianism – 12 similarities between 1930s Germany and 2020s America – Part 1 | Pearls and Irritations and The rise of totalitarianism – 12 similarities between 1930s Germany and 2020s America – Part 2 | Pearls and Irritations.
Are there limits to what can be said or done, absolutely.
- Private companies and universities have greater latitude on what they can restrict via their platforms.
- Federal employees. When performing one’s work duties, and performing in their role as a federal employee and acting on a “matter of public concern,” they have limited protections. However, when not acting on a “matter of public concern; they retain the protections as any other citizen.
- Speech that causes direct harm or violence. Speech which poses an immediate threat to public safety is not protected. Incitement (think 1/6/2021) is also not protected, as it encourages immediate, illegal acts.
- Obscene speech is not protected. Think child pornography, which is considered a direct harm to children. For other speech to qualify as obscene, the statement must pass the “Miller Test.” 1) the work, taken as a whole, appeals to a morbid, degrading, or shameful interest in sex. 2) the work must depict, or describe, sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, as defined by state law. 3) the work, again taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific values.
- False Statements of Fact. There are two flavors, Libal and Slander. Generally, public figures should have a higher burden of proof.
So the question is: Should Colbert and Kimmel have been cancelled? I don’t think it passes the smell test. There was a case in which a comedian’s jokes are protected speech. The judge declared that many of the jokes were clearly statements of opinion, and not fact, and therefore protected under the 1st Amendment.
In summation, I’d like to close with a statement from my cat’s friend:
A Reflection on Charlie Kirk’s Openness to Debate:
His openness and personal, face-to-face connection, wanting dialogue with someone who had an opposing viewpoint, and having a thoughtful, conversational debate, these criteria should be encouraged by everyone today, of all ages, regardless of political, social, cultural, or religious affiliation.
Instead of pretending differences don’t matter, we should embrace those differences by discovering and appreciating the opinions of others, enjoying the opportunity to differ through friendly conversational debate. These are not words encouraging violence, just intellectually expressed vocabulary, thoughtfully, respectfully articulated.
Debating, which is apparently unpopular, involves having an opposing viewpoint, expressed logically, and convincing the other towards agreement. What could take its place would be an openness towards understanding family values, faith, and the significance of life, through deep, conversational discussions, including political, social, cultural, and religious dialogue.
If we don’t, or cannot, express our differences openly, as in thoughtful conversation, how are we to grow as a community?
So, the question remains, who is responsible for the political violence? What do you think? I look forward your thoughts.
References I used include:
Leave a Reply