A recent column in the New York Times declared the First Amendment “out of control,” highlighting a growing movement to restrict free speech in America. Jonathan Turley, a Fox News contributor and legal scholar, warns that this anti-free speech movement represents a grave threat to our nation’s core values. In his new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” Turley argues that we are living in the most dangerous period for free speech in American history.
Turley traces the roots of this movement to higher education, where faculty have increasingly embraced the idea that free speech is harmful. This sentiment has been amplified by a generation of individuals who have been taught to view opposing viewpoints as dangerous and triggering. The media has also played a role in promoting this anti-free speech agenda, with figures like MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade arguing that free speech is America’s “Achilles Heel.” McQuade and others on the left have successfully framed “disinformation” as a threat, and free speech as the vehicle for its spread. This narrative has been embraced by President Biden, who has even gone so far as to claim that companies refusing to censor citizens are “killing people.”
Turley points to the Biden administration’s efforts to leverage the concept of “disinformation” to justify widespread censorship. He highlights the expansion of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) under Jen Easterly, who has extended CISA’s mandate to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” This expansion has resulted in efforts to combat “malinformation,” which is defined as information based on facts but used out of context to mislead or manipulate. This allows for the censorship of information even if it is factually accurate, effectively undermining the fundamental principle of free speech.
The media has been complicit in this assault on free speech, with outlets like the New York Times publishing columns advocating for the curtailment of First Amendment protections. Columbia University law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden official, argued that the First Amendment is now “beginning to threaten many of the essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.” Wu’s assertion that the First Amendment primarily serves “corporate interests” underscores the pervasive narrative that free speech is a dangerous tool that must be tightly controlled.
Some advocates for censorship are going even further, calling for a complete rewrite of the First Amendment. George Washington University Law School Professor Mary Anne Franks believes that the First Amendment is “aggressively individualistic” and needs to be replaced with a more ambiguous statement of free speech that is “subject to responsibility for abuses.” Franks dismisses concerns about social media censorship, arguing that the internet model of free speech is “little more than cacophony.” She advocates for a system of speech regulation where “the loudest, most provocative, or most unlikeable voice dominates.” This perspective highlights the desire to silence dissenting voices and impose a more homogenous narrative, effectively erasing the diversity of thought that is essential for a healthy democracy.
Turley argues that the silencing of dissenting voices is already prevalent in academia, where conservative professors are increasingly ostracized and purged from institutions. He points to the firing of experts who questioned COVID claims, the targeting of conservative faculty by government-funded programs, and the widespread bans on social media platforms. This systematic exclusion of conservative viewpoints creates an echo chamber where only a narrow range of ideas is tolerated, undermining the very principles of intellectual inquiry and academic freedom.
The response to criticism of censorship has been particularly revealing. Some have attempted to frame critics as victims, accusing them of spreading disinformation and targeting individuals and groups. Others, like comedian Jon Stewart, have mocked those who object to the erosion of free speech, arguing that if they can still speak, then there is no real threat to free speech. This response betrays a disturbing disregard for the gradual chipping away of fundamental rights, suggesting that any level of censorship is acceptable as long as some voices remain audible.
Turley acknowledges that the erosion of free speech is a slow and insidious process, one that can be easily dismissed as a minor inconvenience or an exaggerated threat. However, he emphasizes that the consequences of unchecked censorship are far-reaching, impacting not only individuals but also the very fabric of our democracy. He warns that the fear and anger that fuels this anti-free speech movement will ultimately lead to a society where dissent is suppressed and critical thinking is stifled, creating a chilling effect on all aspects of public discourse. He calls for a reawakening of Americans to the vital importance of free speech, reminding us that despite our divisions, this indispensable right unites us as a nation.
In conclusion, Turley’s analysis provides a sobering account of the current state of free speech in America. His book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” serves as a timely reminder that the freedom to express our views, even those that are unpopular or controversial, is a cornerstone of our democracy. If we fail to defend this right, we risk losing a fundamental element of our identity as a free and independent people.
