Free speech is one of those ideas Americans love to celebrate in the abstract while quietly ignoring its price tag in the real world. We talk about the First Amendment as if it were free like the air we breathe. It is not. Free speech costs money. Independent journalism costs even more. And when the bills come due, even established institutions like the Washington Post are not immune.
The recent layoffs at the Washington Post were met with predictable outrage and sorrow. Journalists lost their jobs, careers were disrupted, and families were hurt. Sympathy is both appropriate and necessary. At the same time, all of this was expected. The paper has struggled financially for years. A business cannot lose money indefinitely and simply hope prestige will fill the gap. You cannot lose money and make up for it with even more of the same.
The Washington Post is not a charity. It is a business in a competitive market. Even if it is owned by one of the wealthiest people on the planet, that owner did not become wealthy by endlessly subsidizing failure. Jeff Bezos did not build Amazon by pretending losses were virtues. At some point, hard decisions are unavoidable. Layoffs are painful, but denial can hurt even more.
This is where the conversation about free speech often turns dishonest. Many commentators frame layoffs as an attack on the First Amendment itself. They argue that cutting newsroom staff somehow undermines democracy. That sounds noble, but it ignores reality. The Constitution protects the freedom of the press. It does not guarantee lifetime employment in a news organization struggling under the pressure of internet technology. Rights protect expression, not business models.
Journalism is one of the few professions explicitly guaranteed under the First Amendment. That distinction matters. A free and fair press is essential. Independent journalism should be celebrated and supported. But independence cuts both ways. When reporting becomes predictably ideological, it ceases to function as a watchdog and starts operating as a propaganda generator.
Too often, the Washington Post has written from one perspective, with the assumption that everyone else should either fall in line or look elsewhere. That is hardly independence. Instead, it is branding. When a paper consistently reflects the worldview of one political party, it becomes an extension of that party, whether intended or not.
Jeff Bezos seems to understand, even if many critics do not give him credit. By stepping away from presidential endorsements in 2024 and attempting to moderate the editorial page, he bought time. Those moves were attempts to save journalism, not a betrayal of it. The layoffs, painful as they are, may buy even more time to retool.
Free speech advocates like me are not looking for an echo chamber. We are not seeking affirmation or applause. We want the real news. We want it presented fairly. We want facts separated from opinion. And we want to make up our own minds about candidates and policies. That should not be unpopular.
The problems facing the Washington Post are not unique. They are systemic. Networks like CNN and MS NOW may soon discover that relentless bias comes with a cost. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution announced it was cutting 50 positions, roughly 15 percent of its staff, as the Washington Post made its announcement. Half of those jobs were in the newsroom. This came after the paper ended its print edition and went fully digital. Ideology does not pay the bills (or even line Atlanta birdcages). Subscribers eventually notice. Advertisers always do.
Some want that easy and lazy approach to blame ownership. Jeff Bezos did not create the repellent that drove readers away. He inherited it. If anything, he is trying to fix it. The real threat to journalism is not capitalism. It is the refusal to acknowledge that credibility is the product being sold.
Free speech is expensive because trust is demanding. It requires discipline, accuracy, honesty, and humility. When readers believe they are being informed rather than used, they stay. When they feel lectured, they leave.
The Washington Post now has a choice. It can learn from its mistakes and recommit to balanced reporting, or it can continue producing one-sided content and hope nostalgia pays the rent. People will not continue to pay for predictability. Advertisers will not pay a premium to shout into an empty abyss.
Free speech is worth fighting for. Independent journalism is worth saving. But neither survives on slogans alone. They survive on trust, relevance, and a willingness to tell the truth even when it costs you readers on your own side. That is the real price of free speech.
Shaun McCutcheon is a Free Speech advocate, an Alabama-based electrical engineer, the founder of Multipolar, and was the successful plaintiff in the 2014 Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. FEC.