The freedom of expression we take for granted comes with its inherent downsides.
The preliminary hearing in the Charlie Kirk murder case debunked pretty much everything Candace Owens has been saying for the last 10 months. The prime suspect, Tyler Robinson, was on campus numerous times; his DNA is tied to items associated with the murder; his “roommate” and Discord communications gave damning evidence of Robinson admitting that he murdered Charlie Kirk for his views. There was no exploding microphone, or Israeli angle, or French connection, or Egyptian planes. Apparently, Owens made a lot of money from her Kirk musings, and she also implied that Erika Kirk and other associates from TPUSA may have had some role in the events. We are watching in real time a mountain revert to a molehill: there was one killer, he admitted his actions, his own parents turned him in, his buddy testified against him, etc. Apparently, there really was no trap door under Kirk’s seat from which some nefarious shooter emerged and vanished.
One generally does not appreciate a freedom or right until he no longer has it. We learned during COVID that we no longer could go shopping, send our kids to school, congregate, or even stand near one another. I remember the eerie feeling of walking through the empty open market in Jerusalem, where there are thousands of people milling about on a normal weekday. The place was empty, and the few sellers and buyers acted as if they were trying to avoid some radioactive material that would harm them if they stood in the same place too long. Candace Owens used various platforms to exercise her right to freedom of speech. Now, she may face lawsuits if she slandered or accused people with her words; time will tell if there will be additional lawsuits and who will win. But let’s imagine a system where she could not say what she wanted. Would that system be better?
On the one hand, a person might say yes. Her comments may have hurt the Kirk family and also caused many of her followers to hate and disbelieve Ben Shapiro and other people whom she claimed were not Charlie Kirk’s “real” friends. Shapiro recently had a show where he took Owens’ approach and applied it to her. But let’s imagine the Twitter of old that could shut down an account on a whim. If it decided that Owens did not have a right to express herself, it could do the same to Shapiro or TPUSA. The previous Twitter leadership worked with the FBI and White House to decide which accounts deserved special attention. Their shutting down the New York Post's reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop may have changed the election outcome in 2020.
Let’s imagine the whole Candace Owens story playing out in another country. Let’s say that the widow of the murdered young man was Vladimir Putin’s niece. Owens would be arrested by Russian authorities, and the platforms she used would be shut down. Same in China. This then is the price we pay for the behavior of Candace Owens and her friends who supported her: free speech is for those who misuse it as well. When the Illinois Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived, there was much anger. Some suggested limiting their right to expression. One such person was not my father, who personally experienced Nazi hatred. “Once you decide to limit rights, you think that you are only stopping the bad guys—until the same laws work against you in the future.” The proper approach is the one we see right now: many people like DataRepublican are comparing Owens’ claims regarding the events of Kirk’s murder with the evidence so far presented. This is the real power of free speech: the straight shooters get to use it as well. One who is completely hooked on Macron’s wife hiring Zionists to fly on Egyptian planes and activate an exploding microphone at the exact moment that some guy sat crouched with a rifle across from Kirk will not be swayed by Ben Shapiro or anyone else. That’s life. But that one can offer rebuttals and let people think for themselves—this was the goal of the Founding Fathers.
Recommended
Did Candace Owens enrich herself during the past 10 months? Maybe. But again, the alternative of some great power deciding who gets to speak and what he gets to say is far worse than having people like Owens using their microphone. Remember that lady who was supposed to be Biden’s “Disinformation Czar”? Disinformation by their own definition is anything that they don’t particularly like. If at the time you had said that COVID came from a Chinese virus lab or that the mRNA vaccines were potentially dangerous, she would have gladly, and with a smile, de-platformed you from Facebook, Twitter, and every other online system. We have no one who can play the role of “honest ref” without having some personal ideas of acceptable and forbidden speech. YouTube, X, and others all have policies, and whenever someone on the Right is shut down, people begin to wonder if their community rules are fair and balanced. Apparently, we need to let people shamelessly harass a young widow and leave it to the courts to fix any legal injustice. To shut down Owens might sound appealing, but who else would be silenced?
Democracy is messy, and the freedoms we enjoy often lead to conflicting views. Freedom of speech may very well make you feel uncomfortable. The Left has often expressed its admiration for dictatorships, where one is not allowed to question authority. I believe that it was Tom Friedman at The New York Times who wished that Barack Obama could have one day like President Xi of China, where he could do anything and nobody could stop him. The cleanliness of no debate or blowback may sound appealing, but the risks are enormous. If Nina Jankowicz had gotten her speech control job, X would simply be another liberal bastion with no place for conservative or contrarian viewpoints. The official imprimatur of “Disinformation Determined!” would make it look scientific and impersonal. But it would be the same old, same old: we don’t like your views, so we are going to shut you up. That is dangerous, however much we would like our political opponents to be neutered and unable to put forth their message.
Every freedom we enjoy has abusers. For the millions who own and responsibly use personal firearms, there are those who employ guns for crimes. The Left would like nobody to have guns, just as they would like to have complete control over the social media discussion landscape. But ultimately, a free people will have to deal with those who misuse the freedoms and opportunities we enjoy. Look at all the waste, fraud, and financial abuse being uncovered in places like Minnesota and California. People learned to game a system designed to provide governmental money for ostensibly legitimate activities like child daycare and end-of-life hospices. The ones who lied about their numbers and stole government money are like those online who use the freedom to type whatever they so please to slander, lie, misrepresent, and harm others. People expressed their joy at Donald Trump being shot two years ago and today say how happy they are that Senator Lindsey Graham died suddenly. Some companies exercise their rights and fire such people. While we don't like to hear their thoughts, the government doing the regulating would eventually shut down our ability to express ourselves as well. Government regulating our speech would be too high a price to pay for the irresponsibility of some number of our fellow citizens. Freedom can be uncomfortable.
Editor’s Note: Here at Townhall, we’ve been dealing with real government suppression of free speech for YEARS. Despite the threats and consequences, we refuse to go silent and remain committed to delivering the truth.
Help us fight back against government censorship by joining Townhall VIP and using promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
