Free Speech Deserves Better
For FAIR’s Substack, Gabriel Nadales writes about why we need new arguments against censorship.
When you say, “Hate speech is free speech,” it sounds like you’re equating the two, and it speaks only to a segment of the country who already supports free speech. Meanwhile, when someone who supports censorship hears that slogan, they can easily respond, “Yes, exactly—free speech is hate speech that’s why it should be silenced.”
The slogan oversimplifies the complexity of free speech as a principle. Free speech is about allowing a marketplace of ideas where the best ideas can rise to the top, even if some of those ideas are offensive or unpopular. It’s about trusting the process that truth and reason will prevail over time through open discourse. But when we defend free speech by equating it with hate speech, we hand our critics a weapon to use against us. Instead of saying “Hate speech is free speech,” we should emphasize why free speech matters in the first place. A better line could be “Challenge, don’t silence!” or “Banning hate speech is dangerous.”
Charlie Kirk was a free speech advocate. His death shouldn’t lead to suppression.
For USA Today, FAIR’s chairman of the board Angel Eduardo writes about why we must have the highest possible tolerance for even the ugliest speech.
Yes, plenty of previous administrations have violated the First Amendment. But rather than repudiating those violations, the Trump administration’s actions over the past week have dramatically escalated how openly and aggressively that constitutional line is crossed. The core American belief that power is achieved through persuasion and the ballot box, and that bad ideas are beaten by better ones – not by bullets or bullying – is in serious danger.
As former federal Judge Learned Hand once put it: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.” That’s what’s at stake here: The free speech principles that are foundational to our democracy have been a candle in the dark – not just here at home, but across a world in the grip of a terrifying resurgence of authoritarianism.
Charlie Kirk and America’s political collapse
For The Washington Post, FAIR Advisor Shadi Hamid writes about why a healthy democracy should be able to absorb horrific acts of political violence without abandoning its core principles
“When the left has had power, it has gone after conservatives and their speech,” he said, “so I am thrilled to see the administration promising to investigate the left-wing nonprofit sector and hold people accountable.”
This is authoritarianism, plain and simple. Words are not violence. Violence is violence. When we blur that distinction, we open the door to exactly the kind of crackdown we are now witnessing. Members of the Trump administration are essentially arguing that criticism of conservative figures creates a climate of violence that makes attacks such as Kirk’s inevitable. But if taken too far, this would mean criminalizing political opposition itself. If harsh criticism of public figures is equated with violence, then democracy as we know it cannot survive.
Tylenol, Autism and the Perils of Basic-Level Literacy
For The74, FAIR Advisor Robert Pondiscio writes about the dire state of literacy and the consequences it is having on our society.
That condition is what we might think of as literacy dependence. It means millions of citizens live in an intellectual state where their capacity to evaluate evidence is outsourced entirely to others. They are, in effect, governed not just politically, but epistemically.
Literacy dependence does more than limit independence: It actively aids and abets cynicism and partisanship. When you lack the ability to evaluate evidence for yourself, you are almost axiomatically dependent on the views of others — political figures, interest groups, media outlets — whose motivations may not mirror your own.
Everyone’s a Free-Speech Hypocrite
For the New York Times, Greg Lukianoff writes about the danger of free speech hypocracy.
I don’t like having to make a case for human rights such as freedom of speech by appealing to self-interest; these are supposed to be rights whose importance transcends one’s personal needs. But for political partisans, it’s often the only argument that cuts through. So here’s my practical warning: The weapon that you reach for today will be used against you tomorrow.
Using your opponents’ nastiest tools doesn’t persuade them to disarm; it inspires retaliation. Tit for tat, forever and ever.
“Free speech for me, but not for thee” is an all-too-familiar impulse in politics. But the point of the principle of free speech is that how we respond to ideas we don’t like is ultimately not about our opponents’ rights — it’s about ours.
FAIR News Podcast
For audio versions of our FAIR News and FAIR Weekly Roundup newsletters, subscribe and listen to FAIR News Weekly on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or via RSS feed.
Join the FAIR Community
Join us, and become a member of FAIR.
Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.
Sign-up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.
Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.