I always thought the far left would infringe on my free speech. Now, I'm not so sure. | Opinion
Should people be allowed to say whatever they want? We all know about the First Amendment, but what does free speech in America really mean? Here's what you said.
Should people be allowed to say whatever they want?
It's a tough question, and as our reliance on consuming and communicating through social media has increased, it's become difficult to think of a one-size-fits-all answer. Free speech and the First Amendment may be as American as apple pie, but in a world where politicians, CEOs and billionaires are deciding what's fact, fiction and hate speech, things become a little murky. And if what you can say on Facebook or X is different than what you can say in a classroom, on campus or in a newspaper, well, what does free speech really mean after all?
That's what we asked you. Here's what you told us.
Free speech is meaningless in some cases, but wait ...
When politicians support a violent insurrection, when religion supersedes science and public education, when half the country finds the media untrustworthy, when 32% of U.S. adults own guns and about 90 million eligible voters don't cast a ballot, when lies are accepted as truths, and when money and power are more valued than people's lives, then civilized society has begun to unravel and free speech is meaningless.
The good news is history proves times like these are temporary. Change is inevitable, and although it sometimes moves slowly, it always prevails. Since Christian conservatives cherish an accurate prophecy, in an effort to express my First Amendment right to free speech, here's one they'll love: The 2026 midterm elections will be a monumental shellacking for Republicans. Democrats will win more than 100 combined congressional seats, relegating President Donald Trump to almost lame-duck status for his final two years. His second tenure will be an unparalleled disaster, and Republicans will pay a political price that will haunt them for a generation.
In 2021, historians rated Trump's first presidential term as among the worst ever. In four years, all of them will put him at the very bottom, and it won't even be close.
— Wes Dickson, Orland Park, Illinois
Fact-checkers, censorship make speaking our minds almost dangerous
Censorship by the government and cancel culture have made it somewhat dangerous to speak your mind. For me, free speech is as simple as being able to freely speak my opinions.
Any time I have to get past a "fact-checker," my freedom of speech has been trampled. As long as it doesn't infringe on community standards or is not a blatant lie used to hurt someone, I should be free to say whatever I want.
So-called fact-checkers need to go away. There should be age limits for children on social media ‒ at least 16 years old before they can have an account. People need to remember that social discourse, discussions or debate are great ways to communicate and to be exposed to new ideas.
— Susan Oller, Bandera, Texas
I always thought the far left would infringe on free speech. Now, I'm not so sure.
From the extremists on both the right and the left, there is total condemnation and lack of tolerance for non-agreement and then a movement to legislate those areas codifying behavior including speech elements into law. Speech used to just be speech. I do not know where that leaves us with free speech.
Like the separation of church and state and freedom of religion, free speech is absolutely elemental in America. But consistent messaging used for specific purposes, which is in essence marketing I suppose, does somehow have to be monitored, at least for at-risk populations like children. Maybe it’s an issue of access to those audiences simply because there is an overwhelming amount of communication everywhere, all the time. Lots of harm can easily be done whether intentionally or unintentionally. I do not know what the balance should or can possibly be.
I do not feel my right to free speech is being infringed upon at the moment, but I am worried for the future. Honestly, I always thought the infringement of free speech would come from the far left but now I am sure it will come from the far right, and in the near future, I am afraid.
There have to be some guardrails on social media. Printing anything and everything just to make money is actually a problem.
— Marcy LaRont, Tempe, Arizona
In the near future, free speech will be a crime
The speed at which democratic institutions are being dismantled is astounding. With a convicted criminal in the White House, we are seeing other convicted criminals released from prison and independent Department of Justice staff fired for disloyalty. The right wing has its lackey in Trump, a man without a moral compass or empathy. The free press is becoming less of a threat with the joining of Mark Zuckerburg, Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch to the team. Conservatives want TikTok to add to its control of the message and the delivery.
Our final founding principal, freedom of speech, will be driven underground to avoid persecution. Free speech will become a crime. MAGA, an unwitting ally of the right, will support oppression until complete autocracy is reached.
We’ve seen this before, and it currently exists in parts of the world today. Democracy is fragile, probably too fragile to withstand an attack from a well-organized right wing. Sadly, writing this perspective will be a crime in the future. When is the future? Very soon if the first week of Trump is any indication.
— Geoffrey Lindemer, Stowe, Vermont
The tide of cancel culture is turning. We must keep it that way.
Free speech is always at risk. Not just here ‒ everywhere. That’s because there is a basic human urge to eliminate ideas we find offensive or disagreeable. That’s why those who defend free speech must remain ever vigilant, especially in light of polling that demonstrates waning support for free speech among younger Americans. The suppression of speech is a moving target, both in terms of form and substance.
Even 30 years ago, we couldn’t have conceived that the front line of the battle over free speech would be social media ‒ because social media didn’t exist. And, while some of today's challenges center on content moderation and algorithmic amplification, where will the biggest free-speech fight occur in another decade or more?
Dramatic advances in technology happening all around us make that impossible to predict. Time travelers moving a half-century through time forward or backward might be equally perplexed by what offends the sensibilities of their counterparts.
Yet, even though every nation faces free-speech challenges, we in America have a unique advantage: our First Amendment. Although free speech is at risk here, too, it is ultimately less at risk than it is in other nations because of the strong protections afforded by our Constitution. There’s nowhere I’d rather be, thanks to our First Amendment.
In the same way that we might condemn a private club that discriminates against a certain race, we should also reject the idea of destroying a person’s life purely because they hold different views than we do. Thankfully, I believe the high tide of cancel culture has begun to recede. The thing about the tide, though, is that it inevitably gets high again.
What I would like to see isn’t a question of more legal protection, although that certainly doesn’t hurt. I would like to see a greater cultural belief in free speech as an idea, particularly in universities, and as a principle we all embrace and practice. That may seem self-evidently good to most Americans over a certain age, but the reason it’s my top concern is that polling data consistently indicates that younger Americans do not embrace this principle, opting in larger and larger numbers instead to believe notions like “speech can be as damaging as physical violence.”
So, what I want to see is a greater emphasis on the intrinsic value of free speech and, relatedly, teaching resilience in the face of hearing ideas we may not like. This means actively engaging with differing viewpoints rather than seeking to silence them. I'd like to see the elimination of "disinformation" and "misinformation" as a flimsy rationale for censoring speech. Also, the end of "jawboning," or pressure exerted by government officials for social media companies to alter or censor content.
— Tom Garrett, Alexandria, Virginia
Clint Eastwood, Bishop Budde and Trump
Those naive enough to think there will not be some free speech restrictions under the Trump administration are the same folks who search for Bigfoot on the weekends and don't understand how "Pee-wee Herman" never won an Oscar. Facts are what they are. People try to massage them and twist them to fit their narrative. One fact about Trump is indisputable: He loves and adores boot-lickin' spineless sycophants who worship the ground he walks on.
Objectivity is forbidden and if you're not totally for him you are an enemy. He has as massive an ego as Washington has ever seen yet has an incredibly thin skin. My 4-year-old grandson takes criticism better than he does. Trump has called for the Federal Communications Commission to revoke TV networks' broadcast licenses and advocated for jailing journalists.
My final argument will make sense to some but will be beyond comprehension for others. It's kind of like that great Clint Eastwood film "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."
Free speech to advocate for a policy of grace and mercy proposed by Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde: GOOD.
Free speech using pepper spray and baseball bats to attack Capitol police officers: BAD.
Potential for the Justice Department and IRS to be mobilized to stifle dissent: UGLY.
— Ron Cochrun, Saranac, Michigan