Our “First Principles Series” is an ongoing awareness effort by Beacon to restore our nation’s commitment to those principles of free markets, individual liberty, and limited government that have made America the best nation in the history of the world. Often, politicians eager to appease constituents can stray from these principles. And voters can be misled into believing that policies violating these principles are in their best interest when they’re not. This series is designed to set the record straight and make the case for standing up for our most important principles, even when it might be politically expedient to ignore them. Read our entire “First Principles Series” here.
In the wake of the awful assassination of Charlie Kirk, we are learning a great deal about the First Amendment’s protection of free expression. Our VP of Legal Affairs, Wen Fa, has a great post about the importance of protecting our First Amendment rights as part of our First Principles Series. To follow up on that piece, I wanted to provide a practical take on why protecting free speech is one of the most important things we can do.
First of all, it’s important to clarify what is and is not protected by the First Amendment. The amendment, like all constitutional protections, shields us against government infringement on our rights. Our Founders knew—and witnessed firsthand under British rule—that government restrictions on our ability to speak freely and express our ideas were a dangerous proposition. They therefore enshrined in the First Amendment limitations on government’s ability to restrict our speech. Especially in this era of partisan divide, speech that’s applauded by some is often deplored by others. Once we allow government to dictate what is and is not protected speech versus what can be censored, we allow those in positions of power to be the subjective arbiters of what we say. And that is a slippery slope into tyranny, something our Founders knew all too well could destroy our American ideals.
On the other hand, the First Amendment does not protect us against all the ramifications of our speech. While the government is limited in what it can do to punish us for our speech, those protections don’t extend into the private sphere. Thus, when people openly celebrate violence by saying things like Charlie Kirk “got what was coming to him,” their speech is not protected insofar as their employment and other associations. They can freely speak their minds, however abhorrent, without risking government punishment. But they can be reprimanded and even fired by their employers for doing so. Just as you have the freedom to associate with those who share your values, individuals who run businesses have the right to disassociate with those who contradict the values for which they stand. And being fired by a private actor for speaking is not a First Amendment violation.
While many on the political left have learned this lesson the hard way in recent weeks, I appeal to those on the political right to learn the limits the First Amendment places on government just the same. When Attorney General Pam Bondi pledged to prosecute “hate speech” in response to Kirk’s murder, she crossed the line into government censorship of speech that is, in fact, protected by the First Amendment. Allowing the president, the attorney general, or any government official to decide what is and is not objectionable speech is expressly what our Constitution is designed to prevent. What is acceptable speech to our leaders currently in charge will undoubtedly be defined as objectionable and punishable by leaders with opposing political views when they take power. You may be OK with what today’s leaders want to punish as “hate speech”; I can assure you that one day you won’t be. Perhaps even your own speech might one day be deemed hateful and therefore punishable by government if you allow someone else’s to be today.
Fortunately for all our sakes, we have a First Amendment that has withstood the test of time by protecting all speech, not just that which those in power accept as permissible. And it’s up to each of us to defend that principle, even when we don’t like what we hear.