Does free speech apply to our enemies?
Does free speech apply to our enemies?
The ability of American Citizens to speak, publish, and assemble freely is instrumental in protecting liberty. Extending those same freedoms to our enemies could negatively impact American interests.
Nikki Haley wants to ban TikTok. College campuses want to silence viewpoints that make them feel uncomfortable. Some in the education system want to limit discussion on topics regarding race, sexual orientation, and gender. Free speech is under attack. Or it’s being used as a weapon to divide us, depending on the perspective.
The American republic is built on founding principles that “all men are created equal” and that each has sovereignty over their thought and expression. Our constitution solidifies this principle into law with the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
However, with the growing divide in our union, politicians like Nikki Haley want to limit speech to preserve our national interests. She said at a New Hampshire event, "We're going to ban TikTok. Ban TikTok everywhere." At the fourth GOP debate, she defended her position on speech limitations, saying, “Social media companies need to show us their algorithms. I also said there are millions of bots on social media right now. They are foreign, they are Chinese, they are Iranian.”
The Constitution is a compact between the states and the people of the states that recognizes the necessity of limiting liberty to protect liberty. Should we limit speech? The question should be whether foreign interests should have the same protections as American citizens.
One of the first big tests of the American Republic’s durability occurred during the John Adams administration. The United States and Great Britain signed the Jay Treaty in 1792, which averted war and created peaceful trade between the nations. However, in the midst of the French Revolution, France was threatened by the relationship between the British Empire and the upstart American republic. They began seizing American shipping vessels and encroaching on American sovereignty.
Adams sent an envoy to France to negotiate peace. French officials full of corrupt interests demanded bribes, a loan, and American appeasement. The result was the “Quasi-War,” a series of navel attacks between the two nations.
Back at home, Thomas Jefferson, the sitting Vice President and a supporter of liberty and the French Revolution, was critical of the administration's stance toward France. He and others, calling themselves Republicans, attacked the Federalist administration in the press. Alexander Hamilton, leader of the Federalist Party, wanted to assert American power. The growing unrest over the conflict was pushing the United States toward war. In response, Congress passed the Alien & Sedition Acts in 1798 that limited speech and immigration.
The acts were designed to protect American interests, but they were also political in nature and targeted the Jeffersonian Republicans. The Acts made it illegal to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the administration.
Please help us in our efforts to provide thought-provoking content by offering a donation to The Freemen Foundation.
The Sedition Acts were designed to expire in 1801. Their purpose was to protect American interests from hostile foreign government interests during a crisis. The political implementation of the Acts made them the center of the 1800 presidential election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The backlash over the Acts led to the Federalist Party losing power and Jefferson winning the Presidency.
Speech and Liberty are complex topics to understand. Should those in power limit liberty to protect liberty? And should the protections of our constitution extend to foreign interests?
American families are frustrated with unwanted content being fed to their children and concerned about the data being collected from social media apps like TikTok. Nikki Haley has a point when she wants to limit the speech of hostile nations and their corporate interests. How the limitations are implemented is important in protecting the liberty of American Citizens.
This is a serious topic that Congress should debate. The ability of American Citizens to speak, publish, and assemble freely is instrumental in protecting liberty. Extending those same freedoms to our enemies could negatively impact American interests. In the case of TikTok, the interests are our children. Having a leader who isn’t afraid to speak out on difficult and unpopular topics is important. Can speech be limited? The answer isn’t black and white, but if so, it should only be done to protect and expand American liberty.
Jeff Mayhugh is the co-founder of the Madisonian Republicans and a former Congressional Candidate for VA10. @Jmayhugh28
 | A guest post by
|
Jeff and I must be thinking with the same brain because my son I and were debating Tik Tok just yesterday! As Jeff clearly states, the issue with the Alien and Sedition Acts was the use against domestic political foes. It was the US government itself regulating the speech of US citizens. It was a heinous act.
I think this group would know that I am pretty open on free speech. For instance I would allow (PERMITTED) Nazi rallies or American communists to publish works. But sometimes decisions are gray and Tik Tok is one of them. Here is the dichotomy. If the Islamic Republic of Iran were to start a video sharing company, and publish works deleterious to our Republic would we ban that? I get that teens dancing on Tik Tok seems benign but the people who the platform are not - the government of a nation that at times is hostile to us. I would ban it.