Free speech should be given a wide berth, in this writer's opinion. The First Amendment was designed not to protect 'polite' speech or socially acceptable speech, but critical and controversial speech.
The Left doesn't think that way, though, and they will argue the speech they don't like -- which they label as 'misinformation' and 'hate speech' -- is not protected by the First Amendment.
They would be wrong.
We are all the targets of their lust for censorship, but because Elon Musk is famous and vocal, they often train their sights on him.
Free speech ensures the right to say unpopular things. It does not enshrine any right to say untrue things. If @elonmusk is a defender of free speech then shouldn’t he ensure that the record is corrected when X publishes fictions as facts?
— Richard Coles (@RevRichardColes) January 5, 2025
The First Amendment does, in fact, protect the right to say 'untrue' things.
You know how this writer knows this? Because the Left will say men who 'identify' as women are really women, and that New York will be underwater by 2050 if we don't eat bugs.
Both of those things are untrue, but the Left would never say they're not protected by the First Amendment.
So take all the seats, Reverend.
I contend you're a genius -- because free speech ensures the right to say untrue things.
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) January 6, 2025
We see what you did there.
Yes, free speech absolutely does “enshrine” the right to say things others consider untrue. For example, as a Christian minister, you believe other religions make untrue statements, but you still support their free speech right to express these views. Basic.
— Alice Smith (@TheAliceSmith) January 5, 2025
Exactly.
And there are atheists who would say he, as a Christian minister, says untrue things. Does that mean he doesn't enjoy First Amendment rights?
No. Of course not.
Yes, it does. There are not exceptions in the 1A's explicit denial of congressional authority on the matter.
— Dan (@TonFTP) January 6, 2025
The bill of rights does not grant rights, it explicitly denies government authority. Only authority specifically granted to the government exists to it. pic.twitter.com/ZWKDmihAMC
All of this.
Of course it enshrines the right to say untrue things! And you’ve just proven that with your dumbass tweet pic.twitter.com/taMWKfLgWU
— 𝙊𝙗𝙣𝙤𝙭𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨 Perry (@ObnoxiousFumes2) January 6, 2025
The irony of this may be lost on the good reverend, but it is not lost on us.
Of course it enshrines the right to say untrue things. If not, the entire media and US government would be in YUGE trouble.
— Dana (@OhMelodylane) January 6, 2025
They sure would be.
YUGE trouble.
Which angel on Earth will you put in charge of determining what is true or not? https://t.co/rpaaKHypAs
— FilmLadd (@FilmLadd) January 6, 2025
Excellent question.
It will always boggle my mind that the people most responsible for the spread of misinformation are the ones who think people shouldn't be allowed to spread misinformation.
— Eric Spencer (@JustEric) January 6, 2025
You know you can just stop, right? No one's forcing you to lie. https://t.co/n48y51IIq0
It's all projection.
But because they can't honestly defend their positions, they lie about them.
While demanding their opponents don't enjoy the same freedom of speech.
This tweet is literally saying an untrue thing, and yet free speech literally ensures your right to say it https://t.co/uU2JLzIQl0
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) January 6, 2025
Yes it does.
Free speech absolutely enshrines the “right to say untrue things.” A right dependent on judges and bureaucrats to determine what’s “true” isn’t much of a right. https://t.co/RgDQfUbr0O
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) January 6, 2025
No, it's not.
Exactly. So anyone advocating socialism should be arrested for spreading untrue things. https://t.co/v84yOWTaiG
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) January 6, 2025
Somehow we think the reverend would object to that.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member