In the wake of the murder of Charlie Kirk, by a young man whose ideology is probably best described as “terminally online”, the regime has decided to roll out an initiative that the White House Chief of Staff says was already being prepared to deal with “hate-filled rhetoric”.
By which she means “speech”; “rhetoric” just means “speech”.
And getting the government involved in policing speech is technically forbidden in the United States by the actual First Amendment.
The United States’ formal commitment to freedom of speech has always been one place where it’s stood well above any other country, though it hasn’t always lived up to it. The U.S. has never actually lived up to any of its principles.
But we do try.
So let’s just alternate a bit between quoting White House Chief of Staff Wiles and Benjamin Franklin, the actual contributor of many of the founding principles of the United States.
First, let’s set the stage with Franklin explaining what the stakes are here:
“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.”
Next, here’s Wiles asserting that the government should be regulating speech to guarantee that she thinks it’s “civil”:
“I don’t know exactly what form it’ll take yet […] I just know we’ve redoubled our commitment to being, to free and, sort of, civil speech that is protected in every way. And that includes law enforcement if need be.”
And now, back to Mr. Franklin for a quick explanation for how much the State should be allowed to mess with speech:
“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man as far as by it he does not hurt or control the right of another; and this is the only check it ought to suffer and the only bounds it ought to know.”
And back to Wiles, on how the State should address intolerable speech by ciizens:
“When there are offenders like this, whether it’s on MSNBC or in academia, they’re removed from their jobs. And these are not easy decisions for management, whether it’s colleges or TV, but it’s the right thing to do. We just cannot as a country tolerate it.”
Let’s give Benjamin the last word on why someone might want the State to suppress freedom of speech:
“Freedom of speech is the great bulwark of liberty; they prosper and die together: And it is the terror of traitors and oppressors, and a barrier against them.”
Well, that went exactly where it was obviously going to go.
The U.S. has gone on speech-suppressing benders before, because the Constitution is more aspirational than actually enforced by the structures of the State it created.
So, ya know, this isn’t exactly new; the U.S. has had censorious bluenoses since before it was actually “the United States”. And they’ve made it quite high into the government before and done a lot of damage while they were there, too.
But it is important to remember, and to point out publicly, that this sort of thing is anathema to the founding principles of the country and to the actual text of its Constitution.
And is therefore deeply traitorous and un-American.
