The Founding Fathers of the United States laid down the wisdom in the Bill of Rights, with the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. They did so because experience had taught them that freedom of speech is the safeguard of all other freedoms.
Without freedom of speech, authorities can manipulate public thoughts and distort outcomes at will; with the protection of freedom of speech, there is a mechanism to prevent tyranny.
The background from which the Bill of Rights emerged is quite intriguing. The initial draft of the United States Constitution did not include such provisions, and the group drafting the Constitution referred to themselves as Federalists, whose documents still captivate readers to this day. The goal of the new government was to improve upon the Articles of Confederation established after America’s independence from Britain.
The Constitution was designed to stabilize and guarantee the rights of states, with various mechanisms in place to balance the new government, but completely rejecting monarchy in support of governing by law.
In the 18th century, this was a rather bold move, showcasing immense confidence in the core ideals of the Enlightenment. The Founding Fathers traced their laws back to English common law all the way to legal forms of the Roman Republic during its peak prosperity.
Yet, there were still many skeptics. A group of dissenting “Anti-Federalists” gathered to oppose the Constitution, arguing that it was too centralized and vulnerable to corruption by money and power. They feared that the Constitution did not have sufficient safeguards against tyranny. The Bill of Rights was proposed as a compromise to alleviate criticism of the Constitution itself, and by the time the entire plan was submitted for ratification in 1789, the Bill of Rights had become a core element.
The reason the Constitution was ratified was because of this “no shall” list.
In retrospect, this was clearly a crucial part. The so-called Anti-Federalists were right; constraints on government power must be clear and resolute. Almost 250 years have passed, and nations around the world are envious because we have something they do not.
We have the First Amendment, and just this fact alone makes the job of censors very difficult, as they have been trying for years to find ways to control speech.
The success of censorship regimes in Europe, the UK, Latin America, China, and all Commonwealth countries far surpasses that in the United States. There is only one reason for this: they lack the Bill of Rights. Think about it; it almost didn’t happen. The wisdom of the founding generation once again saved the nation and became a beacon for countries worldwide.
Looking back at the way the First Amendment has been tested is also intriguing. Less than a decade after its passage, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, criminalizing criticism of the American president, newspapers editors were investigated, and some were imprisoned.
Americans knew something was very wrong.
The backlash was tremendous. The Acts were clearly designed to punish Vice President Thomas Jefferson, but the legislation did not criminalize criticism against him! He ran for president and overwhelmingly defeated the centralizers and censors.
That year was 1800, and the ideals of the American Revolution were preserved, with the author of the Declaration of Independence becoming president.
However, decades later, freedom of speech was challenged, abolitionist propaganda was banned in slave states, and after 1860, anti-draft propaganda was once again prohibited. During World War I, peace activists and editors were arrested and imprisoned. The same occurred during World War II, and in the early Cold War years.
Throughout, the stance of the United States Supreme Court has been quite consistent: the First Amendment is real and must be enforced.
In recent years, censors have found ways to circumvent safeguarding freedom of speech through various third-party mechanisms such as fact-checkers, universities’ exclusions, government agencies and the White House’s secret removal orders. Undoubtedly, this is what they desire: an internet not controlled by users, but by interests of the government, industries, and non-profit organizations.
Brendan Carr deeply understands this; Carr currently serves as one of the five commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Last week, President-elect Trump nominated Carr to chair the FCC, and he stated that protecting freedom of speech is his top priority. This may also involve reevaluating the allocation of wireless spectrum resources, which have long been provided for free to major network operators, resources that could be put on the market for other buyers.
With these political reforms, we have every reason to be optimistic that the cause of freedom of speech is on the verge of a major restart in the United States. I assure you: Europeans are eager for this change, hoping that this true fire of freedom will blaze so fiercely that it shames the censors of European governments, allowing their citizens to speak up again and learn the truth. Currently, they feel ignorant on too many issues, and even the social platform X is subjected to censorship.
The Bible states: “The truth shall set you free,” but if censors block the truth, freedom becomes even more unattainable. This is why freedom of speech is the foundation of all other freedoms. For over five years, I have witnessed the growing power of the censorship industry and have never felt so despairing for our nation. At the same time, the great efforts made in recent years to secure our modes of communication have been incredibly uplifting.
Once again, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers has been showcased.
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press,” Jefferson wrote, “and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
The thought of how close we came to losing this freedom is chilling. May this generation secure this right for every future generation.
Author Bio:
Jeffrey A. Tucker is the founder and president of the Brownstone Institute based in Austin, Texas. He has published thousands of articles in academia and mainstream media, and has authored 10 books in five languages, with his latest work being “Liberty or Lockdown” in 2020. He also serves as the editor of “The Best of Mises” magazine. He regularly contributes an economics column to The Epoch Times and speaks on topics such as economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.
Original Article:
Can Free Speech Be Saved?
Published in The Epoch Times English Edition.
This article represents the author’s point of view and does not necessarily reflect the position of The Epoch Times.