CENSOR “SPEECH”? We’ll hand our liberty to the Left — A WARNING!!
- September 18, 2025
“The press, confined to truth, needs no other legal restraint; the public judgment will correct false reasonings and opinions, on a full hearing of all parties…”
— Thomas Jefferson
Opening: a clear and urgent warning
Free speech is not an optional liberty — it is the core, the natural right on which a free society rests. But when a society begins to redefine or restrict “free speech” in the name of safety or “combating hate,” it risks a far greater danger: the slow, irreversible handing over of our liberty to political actors who will decide what may or may not be said. Marxist have a Long history of justifying Violence through speech from the French Revolution, Mao, Lennon, Stalling to Chaverez. Today’s Democrat party has lionized Kilmar Garcia Human traffic, Murder of a Health Company CEO, Boston Bomber on the Cover of “Rolling Stones” and George Floyd Held a gun to a pregnant woman during burglary.
This post is a serious warning: censoring speech because we dislike its content — even content we find abhorrent — creates the legal and cultural pathways to silence dissent, punish political opponents, and erode the civil liberties that make democratic life possible.
How censorship becomes a tool for control
History shows how powerful political movements have used speech and ideology to justify violence and then weaponized censorship when convenient. When speech is policed by governments, institutions, or dominant political coalitions, the result is almost always the narrowing of permitted opinion and the punishment of minority or dissenting views.
When a political side claims the moral high ground to ban or suppress speech it labels “hate,” it sets a precedent: speech becomes conditional, and rights become revocable depending on who is in power. That’s not a theoretical risk — it’s a structural one.
If we trade the right to speak for the promise of safety, we will have surrendered the foundation of our freedom.
–Jaxson Adams
The conversion: speech used to justify violence, and the danger of mirror tactics
Speech can be used to inspire action — sometimes benign, sometimes violent. But the correct remedy for speech we find dangerous is more speech: exposure, rebuttal, accountability — not broad censorship.
Worse, if one side responds to violent or inflammatory speech by demanding legal silencing, the tactic is easily flipped when power changes hands. The very mechanisms meant to prevent harm become instruments for political retribution. That is how a free press and free speech die: not by a single law, but by repeated, incremental delegations of authority to decide what is allowed.
Campus culture and the rise of intolerant activism
Many universities and cultural institutions have become battlegrounds for ideological struggle. When education shifts from critical inquiry to doctrinal instruction, young people can be conditioned to treat opposition not as a spur to argument, but as an enemy to be shut down. When neutrality is dismissed and debate is framed as complicity, the culture of open inquiry is damaged — and with it, the safe space where free thought grows.
If education produces activists who view censorship as a legitimate tactic, the broader society follows.
External influences and ideological infiltration: a caution
Foreign ideologies and authoritarian movements have historically exploited open societies’ freedoms to spread influence. When these ideas are allowed to flourish unchecked — and when institutions fail to draw careful distinctions between lawful expression and unlawful action — the result can be destabilizing. But the response cannot be to copy the authoritarian playbook: policing ideas and suppressing expression will ultimately strengthen the hands of those who seek control.
A careful, non-reactionary course
It is understandable to want immediate action in the face of violence or incitement. But solutions that rush to remove speech from public circulation often achieve the opposite of their stated goal. They:
- Empower governments or private platforms to make value judgments about what is acceptable.
- Create tools for political weaponization of censorship.
- Drive dangerous speech underground, where it is harder to monitor and rebut.
- Normalize the idea that rights are conditional and revocable.
The better path is to defend the arena of ideas while strengthening norms and institutions that hold people accountable for criminal acts — not opinions — and to counter harmful ideas with information, enforcement of existing laws against violence, and civic education.
What to protect and what to pursue
- Protect the principle of free speech. Defend a legal and cultural baseline where speech is broadly permitted, and restrictions are narrowly tailored to criminal acts (threats, incitement to imminent violence, defamation, etc.).
- Enforce the law where violence or credible threats occur. Distinguish between offensive rhetoric and criminal conduct, and prosecute the latter under existing statutes.
- Invest in civic education. Teach critical thinking, debate skills, and the history of free expression so future generations value rather than discard these rights.
- Cultivate robust counter-speech. Support institutions and platforms that allow for rebuttal, journalism, and public accountability.
- Guard against weaponized censorship. Reject policies that centralize the decision to ban ideas in the hands of a small set of actors — whether state or private.
Closing: the price of silence
Surrendering our speech to stop the immediate spread of hateful or dangerous ideas may feel like the right choice in the moment. But short-term gains often produce long-term losses. If we normalize censoring speech for political ends, we create the conditions for a society where liberty is dispensable and power decides truth.
If we value our republic and the rights it guarantees, we must protect the messy, painful marketplace of ideas — even when we disagree violently with what is said. That is the only reliable safeguard against authoritarianism from any quarter.
History’s warning: America’s first censorship crisis
In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act, criminalizing political criticism of government officials.
Excerpt: “If any person shall write, print, utter or publish… any false, scandalous and malicious writing… against the government…”1
Author’s note: This is a call to defend free speech and democratic norms. It is not a defense of violence, criminal acts, or hate. Those should be addressed through law enforcement and public accountability — not by surrendering the freedoms that make democratic correction possible.
- References
Footnotes
Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) — National Archives: Text of the Acts- The Trial of Matthew Lyon (1798) — Federal Judicial Center: Sedition Act Trials
- Virginia Resolutions (1798, Madison) — Constitution.org: Full text
- People v. Croswell (1804) — Justia: Case summary
