Free speech in Europe, and Britain in particular, has been a concern for the second Trump administration. At the 2025 Munich Security Conference, Vice President J.D. Vance gave European leaders both barrels over the issue. Since then, U.S. government figures such as Sarah Rogers have ceaselessly drawn attention to the ever-increasing infringements on free speech in the U.K.
In recent years, Britain has seen high-profile stories such as the jailing of mother-of-two Lucy Connolly for a swiftly deleted tweet about asylum seekers in the midst of the Southport riots in 2024, the arrest of comedian Graham Linehan over tweets about transgenderism, and police officers dismissed from their jobs over gallows humor in private WhatsApp groups. Much more could be said about “non-crime hate incidents” resulting in police visits, a proposed special ban on “anti-Muslim hostility,” and the Labour government’s clear desire to reduce digital freedoms through different forms of regulation, and even the outright banning of Elon Musk’s X.
To American readers who take pride in the First Amendment, this might sound unthinkable. It can seem as if Britain is a victim of its un-American political system. Unlike the United States, Britain has no single written constitution. Rather, it combines unwritten conventions and statutes passed by its elected Parliament. Free speech warriors in both the U.S. and the U.K. increasingly suggest that, to protect their liberties, they should adopt a written constitution or Bill of Rights to safeguard things such as freedom of speech.
However, Britain’s Parliament has never worked this way, nor should it start. The driving force of British politics has always been parliamentary sovereignty; that is, an elected Parliament can create and remove whatever laws it likes if it has a majority and the political will.
Crucially, this means that no Parliament can bind its successor. If a new government is elected with a mandate to overturn the laws of the last one, it can always do so. This is not the case in written constitutional systems, such as the United States, which are subject to a constitution that is incredibly difficult or even impossible to change. It is this reality that has left President Trump, even with a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, unable to make good on his central campaign pledge to end birthright citizenship. In a true British system, he could have passed that law on day one.
Britain’s free speech crisis is downstream of bad laws created by Parliament. This began with the Race Relations Act 1965, which, in the wake of tensions arising from post-World War II immigration, outlawed the expression of certain political beliefs. This was worsened by the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalized speech that was “likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.” Later, already confused communications offenses designed for the era of snail mail and telephone operators collided disastrously with public-facing social media, just as “hate speech” offenses began to appear on the books under Tony Blair. It is these laws and others that helped to shape Britain’s own strain of cancel culture.
But the British answer to bad speech laws is not a new written constitution that takes the question out of our Parliament’s (and therefore voters’) hands. Instead, it is to repeal the bad laws and, if necessary, replace them with good ones.
This is the approach outlined in <a href="https://x.com/Prosperity_Inst/status/2075135466974618075">Reversing Britain’s Free Speech Recession</a>, the latest report from the Prosperity Institute. Barrister Jon Holbrook, himself a vindicated survivor of cancel culture, has identified the laws that most need to be repealed or amended to restore a boom in the British free speech economy, with new legislation drafted and ready for implementation for a free speech government.
In the revived Britain imagined in this paper, laws criminalizing speech that merely causes “harassment, alarm or distress” will be repealed; communications speech will be criminal only if it is intentionally menacing and targeted; all so-called “hate speech” laws will be repealed. Interference with free speech in the civil sphere will no longer be a matter for contested anti-discrimination law, but a simple matter of tort law. Spurious allegations will be deterred by a new costs regime that protects those wrongly accused. A cultural shift will be needed, certainly. But we must start with the law.
English liberty gave the Western world its tradition of free speech. Yet lately, as Shakespeare wrote in Richard II, “That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.” But it possesses all that it needs to liberate itself once again.
***
Rhys Laverty is Editorial and Research Director of the Prosperity Institute.

Celtic v Rangers – William Hill Premiership – Celtic Park

What Britain Can Do To Save Free Speech

Britain

DW Opinion

Free Speech

Hate Speech

The Canadian Parliament is poised to pass a bill that would ramp up restrictions on so-called hate speech and remove religious protections in a move that concerns conservatives and Christians whose worldview stands in opposition to the LGBT ideology. 
Canada&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-9/third-reading">Combatting Hate Act</a>,&#8221; or Bill C-9, targets so-called hate crimes such as the public display of the Nazi swastika and other terrorist symbols, and it also increases the punishment for “intimidation” around places of worship and safe places. But also buried inside the bill is a controversial section that removes Canada&#8217;s religious exemption for so-called hate speech. Some worry that the bill could be used to silence Christian expression that opposes gay marriage.
The bill passed the country&#8217;s House of Commons in March and was adopted by the Senate last week. It was then sent back to the House of Commons to resolve amendments made in the Senate, and it is expected to be accepted without opposition and be signed into law by the governor general.
Canada&#8217;s Liberal government made an <a href="https://www.cccb.ca/media-release/proposed-restrictions-on-religious-freedom-bill-c-9/">agreement</a> with the secular Bloc Quebecois, a party devoted to Quebecois nationalism, to include in the bill a section that removes the religious exemption clause to hate speech that is currently in Canadian law code. With the removal of the religious exemption, people can be prosecuted for hate speech even if “the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.” 

Josh Dehaas from the Canadian Constitution Foundation <a href="https://theccf.ca/bill-c-9-has-passed-heres-what-you-need-to-know/">warned</a> that the bill could even target the reading of certain scripture passages due to the removal of this religious protection. 
“It is unlikely passages from religious texts read on their own will lead to criminal charges,” Dehaas stated. “The Crown would need to believe that the intention of reading the text was to incite hatred, promote hatred or promote antisemitism.”
&#8220;However, with the defence now removed, certain passages from religious texts could now lead to charges depending on the context including when they are read, where they are read, and what other words are used when they are read,&#8221; he added. 
The Canadian Supreme Court has made a test for hate speech by looking for &#8220;hallmarks of hatred.&#8221; The &#8220;hallmarks&#8221; include calling a specific group a “powerful menace,” accusing “a group of carrying out secret conspiracies to gain global control or that they are plotting to destroy western civilization,” calling a group “liars, cheats, criminals and thugs,” labeling a people group “subhuman,” or blaming a group for the problems of society. 

The bill does include at least one protection against abuse, requiring the approval of the provincial attorneys, so the charge cannot be weaponized by local police.
Hillsdale assistant professor Dr. John Petrakis, an expert in comparative political systems and Canadian and American law, told The Daily Wire that the Canadian Supreme Court would likely defend bill if it becomes law, following its decision in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, in which the court upheld a penalty for a man who spread anti-gay pamphlets.
&#8220;It is difficult to predict exactly how these legal changes will operate in practice, and whether people might be able to challenge them on constitutional grounds (freedom of speech and freedom of religion,)&#8221; Petrakis declared. &#8220;I will say that the Court&#8217;s Whatcott decision should make one pessimistic. The courts are likely to dismiss constitutional challenges by saying that the laws and their application to specific cases are &#8216;reasonable&#8217; limitations to constitutional rights.&#8221; 

Petrakis said that with the advent of this new legislation, Canada will likely emulate countries such as Great Britain in their crackdown on reported hate speech.
&#8220;My overall take is that Canadian free speech law and culture is much less robust than the U.S., though more robust than Western Europe, but that this new law will reinforce our trend away from American-style speech culture towards the European version,&#8221; Petrakis said.
The Senate sponsor of the bill, the Honorable Kristopher Wells, <a href="https://theprogressives.ca/in-the-senate/speeches/third-reading-of-bill-c-9-an-act-to-amend-the-criminal-code-hate-propaganda-hate-crime-and-access-to-religious-or-cultural-places/">described</a> his experience working with the “Jewish, Muslim, Asian, black, indigenous and 2SLGBTQI+ communities,” stating that their universal plea to the government is that “they do not feel safe, do not feel seen and do not feel the law is there to help them at their time of greatest need.” 

“Bill C-9 is our answer to those responses,” Wells stated. “It is an opportunity for Parliament to say, with unwavering moral clarity and with the strength of criminal law, that our country sees you, Canada will stand with you and hate will not be tolerated in this country.”
One section of the bill creates a separate hate crime offense for an “offense &#8230; motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.” Previously, the charge of a hate crime could only be used to extend the sentence for a crime, but this bill creates it as a separate, punishable offense.
Wells argued that Canada needs a separate hate crime offense after claiming to witness a rise in so-called hate crimes against the LGBT community. 
“Drag storytimes are protested; pride flags are burned or removed from municipalities and schools; and 25% of adolescents in Canada have experienced at least one form of cyberbullying, with trans and non-binary adolescents almost twice as likely to be targeted,&#8221; Wells said. 
“Bill C-9 corrects this by creating a dedicated hate crime offence, ensuring that when someone wilfully commits a criminal act motivated by hatred against an identifiable group, that motivation is recognized as the very essence of the wrongdoing,” he added.
The bill also prohibits the public display of a symbol that “is principally used by, or principally associated with, a listed entity.&#8221; This bans hosting the flags for <a href="https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx#2025-02-20-7">designated</a> terror organizations, such as the Palestine Liberation Front, the Taliban, and Al Qaida, and gangs such as La Mara Salvatrucha, along with far-Right groups such as the Proud Boys.
The bill seeks to prevent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pro-hamas-protesters-chant-allahu-akbar-as-they-tear-down-and-burn-american-flags-hamas-is-coming">terrorist demonstrations</a> like the pro-Hamas demonstrations in the United States, where Left-wing rioters shouted “Allahu Akbar&#8221; and burned the American flag in response to a speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

LGBTQ2S+ Protest In Edmonton

Canada Poised To Escalate Crackdown On Christian Resistance To LGBT Ideology

Canada

Freedom of Religion

Hate Crime

The following is an edited transcript excerpt of &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1909-treason-americans-trash-their-own-country-at-the-olympics?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show.</a>&#8220;
* * *
During the Bad Bunny halftime show at the Super Bowl a slogan appeared on the big billboard at Levi’s Stadium, right next to a Bud Light ad. Very fitting. 
The message was posted in all caps on a white background in black text and reads:
“THE ONLY THING MORE POWERFUL THAN HATE IS LOVE”
Then a guy on X <a href="https://x.com/WesleyBout/status/2020692160153370972">tweets</a> it out and writes this message above the image: “imagine getting mad about this and still thinking you’re a good person.”
The post has taken off and gone totally viral. Over 4 million views at this point.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Imagine getting mad about this and still thinking you’re a good person <a href="https://t.co/jWdNzJmCCE">pic.twitter.com/jWdNzJmCCE</a>
— Wesley (@WesleyBout) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesleyBout/status/2020692160153370972?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 9, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @WesleyBout/X.com
Why would you get mad at the transvestite, anti-American, vulgar, degenerate rap singer babbling in a foreign tongue that the vast majority of Americans don’t understand, featuring two men grinding on each other in front of a sports game that is supposed to be viewed by children? 
Why would you get mad about that? How could you get mad about that when he put up a sign that said, “The only thing more powerful than hate is love”?
Imagine getting mad about this meme. This is a meme that the Right uses to make fun of the Left, and the Left is just now doing it sincerely and unironically. And the meme is this: While they’re killing people, slaughtering babies, mutilating little children, flooding the country with rapists and poison peddlers and murderers, the Left comes out and says, Yeah, but we stand for love. We define everything we do as love and everything you do as hate. So we’re actually the good guys. Did you know that?
Did you know that when the libs redefined marriage for basically the first time anywhere in human history, they did so in such a way that excludes mothers from their children’s families — or alternately excludes fathers from families — and leads to all sorts of horrible things, up to and including creating children for the purpose of denying them their natural mother and father? Really heinous stuff. But what did they say? They said, Love is love. Love wins. How could you oppose love? We have defined the disordered things that we’re doing, that are contrary to reality and to the common good and human flourishing, we’ve defined them as love. And if you oppose us, you hate love.
Checkmate, conservatives.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1909-treason-americans-trash-their-own-country-at-the-olympics?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on DailyWire+.</a></h3>
This is like when Anthony Kennedy decided to abdicate his responsibility to interpret the law as a Supreme Court justice. Instead, he decided to write cheap romantic poetry that is fitting for an eighth-grade English class. He decided that his interpretation of the Constitution was going to find a right to privacy, just as he earlier, in an abortion case, had found a right to define the sweet mystery of life somewhere in the Constitution.
I don’t know where it is.
And they say, Look, we support mystery, we support love, we support life.
That’s the key here. Because when your lib friends send that meme around — hate is worse than love, love beats hate — how could you get mad at that? 
At that point, you should tell them that you are pro-life. And they are angry at people who are pro-life. How? Imagine being against life and thinking you’re the good guy.
And what would they say? They’d say, No, no, no, but you’re not really pro-life. You’re anti-choice. You want to control women’s bodies.
They would use all of their own silly euphemisms.
That’s when you say to them: Okay, before we get into the abortion issue, I just want to point out you have granted me the premise. You have accepted the premise that sometimes people use words in ways that can be misleading or tell a partial truth, or at the very least can be euphemistic. You’ve granted that point, right? Okay, great. So you don’t like my phrase “pro-life”? I think pro-life is an honest phrase that accurately depicts what we’re talking about. But you dispute that. Okay, fine.
Then let’s dig into the real substance of it. I support the law coming in and restricting women from going to a medical professional to kill her baby. That’s what we’re talking about. You want to get past the euphemisms and the slogans? That’s what we’re talking about. And what you support is women being able to kill their babies in defense of their own disordered autonomy. Right? That’s what we’re talking about.
With marriage, you support excluding mothers or alternately fathers from marriage and denying babies their natural mothers or fathers. Okay. That’s what you support, along with other acts that we don’t even need to get into when it comes to gay marriage. I support that babies have a demonstrated right to their mothers and their fathers.
Nevertheless, I think you will find that the libs love to promote all their slogans: “love beats hate,” “love is love,” “love wins,” or whatever. I think you will find conservatives, on the other hand, are more than happy to put the slogans aside and talk about the real issue.
The libs will focus on more and more hyperbolic and preposterous slogans. They will do whatever they can to avoid looking at the real issue. They will only speak in euphemisms, and that very fact tells you everything you need to know.
Yes, all politicians use slogans, but the way they use them tells you everything you need to know about the issues.
Conservatives use slogans and euphemisms to try to convey the truth. The Left uses slogans and euphemisms to deny the truth.

Apple Music Super Bowl LX Halftime Show

When Super Bowl Slogans Replace Truth In American Politics

advertising

Bad Bunny

Conservatives

Democrats

Leftists

Liberals

Michael Knowles

Opinion

Super Bowl

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Thursday that his government would move to crack down on antisemitism and increase visa oversight following last weekend’s Bondi Beach terrorist attack targeting Jewish people observing Hanukkah.
The Australian government, which is led by Albanese&#8217;s leftist Labor Party, is set to adopt a plan that was first proposed in July to go after people spreading “hate, division, and radicalization,” The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/18/what-changes-are-planned-to-australias-hate-speech-laws-and-how-will-they-work-ntwnfb">reported</a>. The proposal would give Australia&#8217;s Department of Home Affairs more power &#8220;to cancel or reject visas for those who spread hate and division.&#8221;
The plan would also create a &#8220;new aggravated hate speech&#8221; charge for religious preachers and leaders who promote violence and would develop a list of organizations led by people who engage in violent rhetoric or promote racial hatred.
&#8220;Every Jewish Australian has the right to feel safe, valued and respected for the contribution that they make to our great nation,&#8221; Albanese <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgmneem1e89o">said</a> at a press conference. He added, &#8220;The terrorists, inspired by ISIS &#8230; sought to turn Australians against each other.&#8221;
Albanese has been criticized by many in Australia&#8217;s Jewish community for ignoring the rise in threats toward Jewish people since Hamas&#8217; terrorist attack on Israel more than two years ago. After Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, put forward a plan earlier this year to address antisemitism and “hate speech,” Albanese was accused of ignoring the proposal and failing to push back against antisemitism following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attack. On Thursday, Albanese acknowledged that criticism from the Jewish community over his earlier inaction was valid.
&#8220;I accept my responsibility for the part in that as prime minister of Australia,&#8221; he said. &#8220;But what I also do is accept my responsibility to lead the nation and unite the nation. Because what people are looking for at this time isn&#8217;t more division.&#8221;
The Australian government&#8217;s proposal to crack down on &#8220;hate speech&#8221; has drawn opposition from critics who argue it would further encroach on free speech. In the wake of last weekend&#8217;s antisemitic mass shooting, Australian leaders have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/australias-leftist-leaders-call-for-tougher-gun-laws-after-antisemitic-massacre">renewed</a> calls for &#8220;tougher gun laws,&#8221; with Albanese <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bondi-beach-shooting-australia-announces-new-gun-buyback-plan/">announcing</a> another gun buyback plan on Friday to &#8220;get guns off our streets.&#8221;
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-33447">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
“If you’re not a farmer, you’re not involved in agriculture, why do you need these massive weapons that put the public in danger and make life dangerous and difficult for New South Wales Police?” New South Wales Premier Chris Minns asked.
The suspected gunmen who killed 15 people and wounded dozens more on Sydney&#8217;s popular Bondi Beach were inspired by ISIS, according to Australian authorities. Sajid and Naveed Akram, a father and son, are accused of targeting Jewish people. Naveed, who has been charged with terrorism, was on the Australian government&#8217;s radar over suspected ties to ISIS in 2019. Still, authorities at the time ultimately said there &#8220;was no indication of any ongoing threat or threat of him engaging in violence.&#8221;
Sajid, who was killed by police in the shooting, moved to Australia from India in 1998, and his children were all born in Australia, according to police. Since moving to Australia 27 years ago, Sajid had traveled to India just six times, and his family in India <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyvxke3wgko">said</a> they had &#8220;no knowledge of his radical mindset or activities,&#8221; according to officials.

Australia

Australia To Target Antisemitism And Visa Oversight After Bondi Beach Terror Attack

Bondi Beach

Terrorism

terrorist attack

World

Cinnabon In San Diego

The ‘N-Word’ Just Got A Cinnabon Employee Fired, And Earned A Violent Criminal His Freedom

The 'N-Word' Just Got A Cinnabon Employee Fired, And Earned A Violent Criminal His Freedom

Blacks

Matt Walsh

Minnesota

Portland

Somalis

Stabbing

Violent Crime

Whites

Wisconsin

When you think about corporate wokeness, what comes to mind? DEI and ESG policies might be the most prominent examples, for good reason. But as someone in the industry of corporate engagement, helping investors use their financial influence to root out bias from America’s biggest brands, we often find ourselves asking this question: who determines parameters? Wokeness is parasitical, and its most subtle and pernicious effects emerge by latching on to legitimate corporate policies and twisting them to serve political ends.
Among the most parasitical of these organizations is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). An activist group <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/about/our-history/">formed</a> in 1971 to combat the influence of Jim Crow, the SPLC has gradually <a href="https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/heritage-explains/what-went-wrong-the-southern-poverty-law-center">morphed</a> into a group peddling the false equivalence between conservatives and hate groups. Case in point: the SPLC’s infamous “<a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/?hm_year=2024&amp;hm_ideology=Neo-Nazi">hate map</a>.” The SPLC would like you to <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Making-Hate-Pay-Corruption-Southern/dp/1642934399">believe</a> that the map represents American hate in an image, with many of the groups on the map, such as the Klan, white supremacists, and the Westboro Baptist Church, being genuine hate groups. And yet, when you look at the list, you’ll see some groups that decidedly aren’t hateful: Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Moms for Liberty — and an Arizona-based nonprofit called Turning Point USA. The SPLC specifically <a href="https://www.facebook.com/SPLCenter/posts/at-the-forefront-of-the-movement-to-promote-christian-supremacy-is-turning-point/1116433363845757/">lambasted</a> TPUSA as ‘hard-right’ in June of 2025, and <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/turning-point-usa-case-study-hard-right-2024/">even</a> smeared them as part of the political Right’s alleged efforts to “enforce a social order rooted in white supremacy.” Let’s be clear: the SPLC isn’t giving you a hate list. This is a list of groups, ranging from true extremists to normal conservative groups, that the Southern Poverty Law Center would simply like you to believe are all hateful.
<div id="attachment_995255" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-995255" class="wp-image-995255 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map-1024x534.jpg" alt="Screenshot: SPLC/Hate Map" width="1024" height="534" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map-1024x534.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map-300x156.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map-768x401.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map-1536x801.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>Screenshot: SPLC/Hate Map</div>
What matters right now is that some of America’s biggest companies have used the list to guide their corporate policies. Brands as big as Meta (Facebook), Alphabet (Google), and Amazon have used the SPLC’s Hate List for everything from writing their ‘hate speech’ policies to determining which charities they’ll support via employee philanthropy programs. In the SPLC’s eyes (a perspective granted legitimacy by some of the world’s most prominent brands), groups like Turning Point were indeed synonymous with hate.
It’s not about corporations approving of Charlie Kirk’s death (to my knowledge, that hasn’t happened). It’s about corporations enforcing bias, discriminating against conservative and Christian organizations, under the mistaken belief that this means stopping hate. If we are to move away from a society where people are shot for their political and religious views, this premise must be completely repudiated by America’s private sector. We have serious work to do.
And conservatives are <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/10/19/manufacturing-hate-conservatives-pressure-companies-drop-ties-splc/">spearheading</a> that work and using their influence to hold companies accountable for relying on the SPLC’s metrics.
This isn’t about politics, at the end of the day. It’s about getting back to business. It’s almost impossible for a company to claim to have a serious policy on combating “hate” when the organizations that define “hateful” think that the KKK and Turning Point USA belong in the same category. (This is perhaps most evident with companies like Etsy, which apparently has a problem with SPLC-deemed hate groups like TPUSA, <a href="https://www.etsy.com/legal/prohibited/">citing</a> the SPLC in their hate policies, but less of a problem with literal witches that used Etsy to <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/paid-etsy-witches-curse-charlie-124930762.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKyrSgpE_OwZ4ZR9-uaiwD15C8F7KUQ405vwpfm8CjcwAeChUfbh3bmjBTuc8iTlS74uYN3GdjWWsjSOo_gGO4Dw16hFSDCc3lCkWsbXSKy1gKoLh2Bpbh7lCm3xFwWgHkWF7b7nDllJwQMVulraHE_qktJz9S6stmmTzmYVYe-h">buy</a> an actual “hate” hex to put on Charlie Kirk shortly before he died. Because that’s not hate speech.)
As The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles recently <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzs6dy74Ew8">told</a> Congress, left-wing political violence is a serious threat to the marketplace of ideas in 2025. The Southern Poverty Law Center is only part of the problem. But, as the FBI cuts <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/10/03/breaking-kash-patels-fbi-cuts-all-ties-southern-poverty-law-center/">ties</a> with the SPLC, it’s time for America’s private sector to do the same. Corporate America didn’t get Charlie Kirk killed — a gunman who believed Kirk was spreading hate did. But it’s time to get serious about how organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center reflect the same poisonous idea: that conservatism and Christianity are hateful. We are seeing now that some people will take that framing and use it to rip the peaceful fabric of society apart.
The post-Charlie Kirk world isn’t one where we can afford to wallow. There’s work to be done. It’s time for us to take all the sadness and grief of this moment and channel it into culture-building energy — for Charlie, and for the country we all love. The SPLC, and a disturbing amount of the Left, would like you (and many of America’s biggest brands) to believe that mainstream conservative views are akin to hate. That idea doesn’t warrant any support in the ideas market. And the organizations that promote that idea don’t deserve to guide our capital markets.
The best time for corporate America to ditch the SPLC was years ago, before a 31-year-old husband and father lost his life after being smeared as part of a hate group. The second-best time is now.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Raised Fist Hand Protest in flat icon design on red color ray background

How The Southern Poverty Law Center Poisoned Corporate America

Charlie Kirk

Corporations

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

TPUSA

Over the past few years, free speech in my country has declined significantly. The nation that gave the world George Orwell and John Stuart Mill now faces an existential crisis over liberty. Figures such as Lucy Connolly — <a href="https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/who-lucy-connolly-what-she-said-that-put-her-behind-bars-revealed-1743361">jailed</a> last year for an offensive tweet about illegal immigration — face the heavy hand of the law, while petty crime goes unchecked. Meanwhile, Britain’s Labour Party looks set to implement religious blasphemy laws, which could criminalise criticism or ridicule of religious beliefs or symbols. The situation has become so dire that Parliament member Nigel Farage felt <a href="https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&amp;&amp;p=ca585c1516192a5c1981875b985b08e6a44732385a7c316a16ca6a619e2c5c3cJmltdHM9MTc1NzQ2MjQwMA&amp;ptn=3&amp;ver=2&amp;hsh=4&amp;fclid=3b299e56-e98e-6003-1500-8c90e8bd6195&amp;psq=nigel+farage+goes+to+DC&amp;u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmJjLmNvLnVrL25ld3MvYXJ0aWNsZXMvY2U5cnpuZ2Q5azJv">compelled</a> to travel to Washington, D.C. to testify before Congress on Britain’s crisis of free expression.
Britain&#8217;s free speech crisis has led to <a href="https://fullfact.org/technology/government-learned-lessons-from-southport-riots/">riots</a> and political violence as ordinary citizens no longer feel they have a voice. The right to free speech is fundamental and not one to be tampered with. In the aftermath of the shootings of President Trump and, more recently, Charlie Kirk at a Utah university event, Americans should ask themselves: do they really want to follow Britain’s path and see what their country might look like without the First Amendment?
Just months after Britain’s Supreme Court ruled that transgender women are not legally considered female under the Equality Act, comedy writer Graham Linehan was arrested upon returning from the U.S. over allegedly transphobic posts on X. The writer of one of Britain’s most beloved sitcoms now says he is considering leaving permanently because there is “<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15071827/Graham-Linehan-never-return-Britain-arrest-anti-trans-tweets.html">no freedom of speech</a>” in Britain.
For any country to drive out its comedians because they fear speaking freely is a tragedy. For the birthplace of liberal democracy, it is nothing short of catastrophic.
Britain’s erosion of speech has been decades in the making. In 1986, the state <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/contents">passed</a> the Public Order Act, criminalising hate speech inciting violence. In 2003, came the Communications Act, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents">banning</a> “grossly offensive” online speech. This year, Britain has <a href="https://www.cityam.com/peter-kyle-defends-uk-free-speech-record-after-us-report-attacks-online-safety-act/">passed</a> the Online Safety Act, handing sweeping powers to a government-approved regulator over “legal but harmful” content. Slowly, my country has chipped away at free speech rights. America cannot afford to follow.
The United States cannot allow itself to politicize free speech in such a divided time. As political discourse is shutting down, especially on college campuses, the government and the American people must be the ones to stand firm to defend liberty. We are all aware of what happens after sensible debate is shut down, and that is actions, replacing words. The assassination of Charlie Kirk now serves as a prime example of the elimination of discord happening in America, and we must all make it our duty to ensure free discussion is indeed kept free. A knee-jerk reaction to being offended is not to hear it; however, to call out for certain speech to be banned only opens the door for the disenfranchised to lash out in the form of political violence.
Today in Britain, the police can investigate you for social media posts that aren’t even as criminal as ‘Non-Crime Hate Incidents’ (NCHIs). Anything that has the potential to offend could come back to harm you and <a href="https://www.slaterheelis.co.uk/articles/crime-category/non-crime-hate-incidents-how-they-can-affect-your-dbs-check/">your record</a> in the future. In practice, you either pretend that ‘<a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/banned-coinbase-ad-portrays-a-dystopian-britain-with-only-crypto-as-an-exit-f203ffda">everything is just fine</a>’, or risk state retribution for speaking your mind.
By comparison, America remains far freer, but even the “Land of the Free” has its faults. Consider flag-burning laws: though the Supreme Court rightly struck them down, many Americans still support restrictions when speech provokes or offends. That is precisely how the anti-speech lobby wins. Rolling back First Amendment rights, whoever the target, should be against every American’s interests. The same logic plays out with protests: the Left seeks bans on anti-immigration rallies as “racist,” while the Right campaigns to shut down pro-Palestine marches as “antisemitic.” But when peaceful protest is curtailed, political violence becomes far more likely.
Government regulation of speech carries disastrous consequences. It impacts institutions, which are fearful that hosting political speakers on campus might face retribution from the state. Ordinary citizens self-censor, silencing urgent debates in the name of “offence.” Once parties, not people, get to define ‘harm,’ the boundaries inevitably expand to serve partisan interests.
To avoid Britain’s fate, America must defend First Amendment rights without compromise. The cancellations of comedians like Dave Chappelle or Joe Rogan, for example, by private platforms should serve as a warning against normalizing censorship. The state must never follow suit. Britain’s ‘legal but harmful’ rules on speech should teach Americans that when regulation begins, free speech is never safe again. And once speech regulation is normalized, there is no going back. The only true safeguard is a culture of open debate, which begins in schools and extends across society.
Few today grasp just how precious freedom of speech is to the world. Silencing criticism, comedy, or art halts progress. Authors like Salman Rushdie and Richard Dawkins have been attacked or shouted down for presenting their arguments. Across Europe, cultural and religious hardliners insist that certain critiques should be banned, and too many journalists and academics are now afraid to speak out. To side with the aggressors is to let them win.
Only by championing freedom of speech and resisting every attempt to curtail it can democracy endure. Complacency breeds decline. If America wants to avoid Britain’s mistakes, it must show strength in the face of every demand to scale back the First Amendment.
* * *
Ted Newson is a Political Commentator with Young Voices UK.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

“Unite The Kingdom” Rally And Counter Rally By Stand Up To Racism Takes Place In Central London

Britain’s Free Speech Collapse Offers A Warning For America

Comedy

Freedom of Speech

Great Britain

Prison

Social Media Censorship

Attorney General Pam Bondi received swift backlash from conservatives after she threatened to prosecute Americans for using “hate speech.”
The attorney general endorsed “hate speech” prosecutions during an appearance on &#8220;The Katie Miller Podcast,&#8221; which is hosted by the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Bondi said that targeting purveyors of hate speech has become more important in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
&#8220;There&#8217;s free speech, and then there&#8217;s hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society,” <a href="https://x.com/theblaze/status/1967767257427386430">said</a> Bondi in a clip of the show released on Monday. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
Conservatives bashed the attorney general over her tacit endorsement of the term “hate speech,” an amorphous category of language better determined by how it is received than by what is said.
“Get rid of her. Today. This is insane,” Daily Wire host Matt Walsh said in a <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1967955017551478895">post</a> on X. Walsh was responding to an interview Bondi did with Fox News&#8217; Sean Hannity on Monday. During the interview, Bondi revealed that the Justice Department is considering charging Office Depot after an employee allegedly refused a request to print flyers with Kirk’s face on them.
“The employee who didn’t print the flyer was already fired by his employer. This stuff is being handled successfully through free speech and free markets. This is totally gratuitous and pointless. We need the AG focused on bringing down the left wing terror cells, not prosecuting Office Depot for God’s sake,” said Walsh.
On Tuesday, Bondi attempted to clarify her use of the term “hate speech” and her department’s role in pursuing “hate speech” cases.
“Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over,” Bondi <a href="https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/1967913066554630181">wrote</a>.
While Bondi narrowed her department’s remit to tackle hate speech, her use of the term at all gives credence to the term’s use on the political Left.

Pam Bondi

Calls Ignite For Bondi’s Resignation After AG Bungles ‘Hate Speech’ Message

Department of Justice

Executive

First Amendment

U.S.

MixCollage-05-May-2025-03-51-PM-2979

Woman Charged For Racial Slur. Your Free Speech Rights Are Gone.

Immigrants

Jail

Somalia

As a clinical psychologist, I help people find the words to express what they’re feeling. For most of my career, this was a straightforward process — mostly supporting clients with anxiety and relationship or career issues. But over the past few years, I’ve noticed a shift. More and more, clients arrive not just with anxiety — but with speech anxiety. They’re not afraid of public speaking. They’re afraid that voicing a viewpoint could harm others — or be interpreted as harm itself. 
 
We’re living in a cultural moment where phrases like “words are violence” have moved from the margins into the mainstream. The instinct behind the idea is understandable. It’s rooted in compassion and a desire to protect others from emotional pain. But as someone who works with people in distress, I can say this: equating speech with physical violence doesn’t foster safety. It fosters fragility — and avoidance of the very emotional tools we need to thrive. 
 
Yes, words can hurt. They can be cruel, dismissive, even traumatizing but to label words as violent collapses a crucial distinction. Physical violence is something we’re biologically wired to avoid at all costs. It triggers a primal response — fight, flight, freeze — that can be lifesaving, in the right context. But when we teach people to respond to challenging conversations as if they’re being physically attacked, we inadvertently hijack that same physiological stress response. We turn everyday discomfort into a perceived emergency. 
 
This distinction isn’t just philosophical — it’s embedded in clinical ethics. As a licensed psychologist, I’m legally required to break confidentiality if a client discloses an imminent threat of physical violence. But if a client tells me they plan to say something rude, offensive, or even hateful, I’m not only permitted to keep that information confidential — I’m obligated to do so. That’s because speech and violence are fundamentally different categories of concern. One may call for a conversation. The other may call for an intervention. Blurring that boundary in everyday life creates confusion, not clarity. 
 
This can lead to serious emotional fallout. Clients tell me they’ve ended friendships, distanced themselves from family, or left jobs because of political or social disagreements that they once would have handled with a spirited discussion. They often say they feel “unsafe” around people with differing views — not because of any actual threat, but because of what those views might represent. That interpretation leads not to empowerment, but to chronic anxiety. 
 
Over time, this kind of hypervigilance doesn’t just shape relationships, it reshapes the self. In therapy, I see people move through the classic defense mechanisms we’re trained to watch for: suppression, repression, and denial. Suppression is when you’re aware of a thought or feeling but actively push it down. Repression is when the mind buries those thoughts so deeply that you’re no longer even conscious of them. Denial occurs when a person distorts their view of reality to avoid an uncomfortable truth. 
 
When people feel they must stifle their thoughts or language to remain socially acceptable, suppression is often the first step. But if suppression becomes a habit, it can slide into repression — people lose access to parts of themselves. Eventually, they may engage in denial: reframing a difficult relationship or viewpoint not as a difference of opinion, but as a danger to be avoided. From a mental health standpoint, this is where we start to see symptoms escalate — more anxiety, more relational conflict, and a diminished capacity to process emotions with nuance. 
 
This dynamic also connects to a broader societal trend. In 2023, the U.S. Surgeon General <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37792968/">declared loneliness</a> a public health epidemic. We are more digitally connected than ever — and yet we feel increasingly cut off. That’s partly because people are afraid to express themselves authentically. If you’re always editing what you say — or editing who you are — you’re not really connecting. You’re performing. And performance doesn’t build intimacy. 
 
The goal isn’t to dismiss emotional pain or encourage rudeness. Psychological abuse is real, and words can leave deep scars. But we must be careful not to overextend the concept of harm to the point where disagreement feels dangerous. When that happens, people don’t just walk away from conflict — they walk away from each other. 
 
We also risk missing the bigger picture: that open dialogue is one of the most effective tools we have for growth, both individually and socially. Research in conflict resolution shows that meaningful change often begins with conversation — not censorship. Even in extreme cases — such as hate group de-radicalization — studies repeatedly show that dialogue, not silence, is what moves people out of entrenched thinking. 
 
What we need now is a more balanced framework — one that acknowledges the emotional impact of speech without mistaking it for physical harm. We should be equipping people with emotional skills: the ability to tolerate discomfort, name their feelings, and respond with clarity instead of retreating in fear. These are the building blocks of psychological resilience and they’re far more protective than trying to sanitize the world of anything potentially upsetting. 
 
In my work, I’ve seen that when people stop fearing their own voices — and stop fearing others’ — they grow stronger. They communicate better. They form deeper, more authentic relationships. That doesn’t happen when we treat words like weapons. It happens when we remember what words are for: understanding, connection, and sometimes, respectful disagreement. 
 
Words can hurt. But they can also heal. Let’s not confuse one for the other — because when we do, we risk losing the ability to use language as the powerful, human tool it’s meant to be.
* * *
Dr. Chloe Carmichael is a clinical psychologist, USA Today bestselling author of &#8220;Nervous Energy,&#8221; and a visiting fellow at Independent Women. Her <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/151078490X/ref=cm_sw_r_as_gl_apa_gl_i_BPB78R7NVWK0ZVAJQ088?linkCode=ml1&amp;tag=ivba-20">upcoming book</a> &#8220;Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly&#8221; (Skyhorse, Nov. 2025) explores the mental health benefits of open dialogue and the costs of self-censorship.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Medium shot of businessman discussing project with colleague

Words Are Not Violence And Here’s Why That Matters

Anxiety

Psychology

Violence

Woke Culture

Vice President JD Vance blasted a trio of German prosecutors who said during an interview with &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; that insults — both in person and online — are <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/guest-on-60-minutes-claims-german-citizens-have-free-speech-but-there-are-limits" target="_blank" rel="noopener">illegal</a> in their country.
The &#8220;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">60 Minutes</a>&#8221; segment that aired on Sunday reported on Germany&#8217;s enforcement of its &#8220;hate speech&#8221; law, which has been around since 2017, and showed police raiding German citizens&#8217; homes and confiscating electronics over social media posts. During the interview, all three German state prosecutors told host Sharyn Alfonsi that insulting someone in public and online is criminal. Those who break the law are usually punished with a stiff fine, but repeat offenders could be thrown in jail.
&#8220;The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet,&#8221; said state prosecutor Dr. Matthäus Fink, adding, &#8220;Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face to face, you insult me, I insult you, okay. Finish. But if you&#8217;re in the internet, if I insult you or a politician &#8230;&#8221;
&#8220;It sticks around forever,&#8221; Alfonsi said to Fink&#8217;s agreement.
State prosecutor Svenja Meininghaus added that reposting a lie — which could include gossip or fake quotes — is also a criminal action in Germany &#8220;because the reader can&#8217;t distinguish whether you just invented this or just reposted it.&#8221;
Along with fining offenders of the hate speech law, judges sometimes confiscate their phones.
&#8220;How do they react when you take their phones from them?&#8221; Alfonsi asked.
<a href="http://dailywire.com/subscribe">PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40</a>
&#8220;They are shocked,&#8221; replied Frank-Michael Laue as the prosecutors laughed.
Vance, who spoke in Munich last week and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-people-have-a-voice-vance-warns-europe-about-censorship-the-threat-from-within" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> Europe against censorship, blasted the &#8220;Orwellian&#8221; German hate speech law on Monday.
&#8220;Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships,&#8221; the vice president posted on X. &#8220;This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships. 
This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy. <a href="https://t.co/WZSifyDWMr">https://t.co/WZSifyDWMr</a>
&mdash; JD Vance (@JDVance) <a href="https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/1891467842106630244?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
During his Friday speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vance ripped European countries that have cracked down on free speech.
“I believe deeply that there is no security if you’re afraid of the voices, the opinions, and the conscience that guide your very own people,” Vance said. “Europe faces many challenges, but the crisis this continent faces right now, the crisis, I believe we all face together, is one of our own making. If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people who elected me and elected President Trump.”

JD Vance

German Prosecutors Tell ’60 Minutes’ That An Insult Is A Crime. JD Vance Blasts ‘Orwellian’ Law.

60 Minutes

Censorship

Germany

Global Politics

It’s one thing to hear the alarm go off … and another to roll out of bed and hit the ground running. After several years of increasing revelations about the growing complex of private enterprises, non-profit organizations, and governments — federal and state — that have been censoring Americans’ speech, it’s refreshing to see political leadership that throws back the covers and <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-the-weaponization-of-the-federal-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">confronts the danger head-on</a>.
Our newly re-elected president, to his credit, seems clear-eyed on what we’re facing. “If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country — it’s as simple as that,” now President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNcLWKdyiOY&amp;t=403s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told the nation</a> shortly after the November election. “If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple … like dominoes.”
Few people in the public eye have as much reason as the president to take seriously the blunt instrument of political censorship being wielded against all Americans by the <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Biden-WH-Censorship-Report-final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">federal government</a>, its <a href="https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2023/11/new-york-announces-it-will-take-citizen-surveillance-and-censorship-to-the-next-level/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blue state allies</a>, and their <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/free-speech-issue-our-generation-corporate-cancellations-threat-freedom/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">private enterprise proxies</a>. Even fewer are in so ideal a position to do something about that threat.
The mere fact that Trump is beginning his second term signals his remarkable personal triumph over the massive campaign of censorship hurled against him over the last 10 years. He was still serving his first term when he found himself removed from Facebook, invisible on Google, and locked out of what was then called Twitter.
“This censorship is unlawful, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s completely un-American,” he <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4d6jiGEXWU" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in 2021, announcing a class-action lawsuit against the three platforms. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow-banning, a stop to the silencing, and a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.” Four years don’t seem to have assuaged his determination to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNcLWKdyiOY&amp;t=4s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lay an axe</a> to the roots of the problem.
He won’t be swinging his axe alone. Another key member of the incoming administration, Elon Musk, has already taken some major initiatives, buying Twitter and rebranding it as “X,” after <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60979656" target="_blank" rel="noopener">raising his own questions</a> about political censorship on major social media platforms.
And Rep. Jim Jordan’s congressional subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has released multiple reports—including <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/final-report-weaponization-federal-government" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one</a> last month detailing the Biden administration’s largely successful “monthslong campaign … to coerce large companies … to censor books, videos, posts, and other content online.” This campaign, the committee’s report concluded, “needlessly imposed harm and suffering on Americans across the country.”
Earlier this month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg publicly <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhY5ggQK08" target="_blank" rel="noopener">confirmed</a> those findings, describing how Biden administration officials angrily and aggressively demanded that Facebook remove Covid-related content, “even things that were facts, or memes and humor. When we refused, we found ourselves under investigation by several agencies.” His was one of many social media platforms, he admitted, that buckled under the government’s pressure.
In fact, these revelations are only the tip of a very large iceberg. In recent years, an illegal Cold War against unwelcome messaging and messengers has targeted <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNhGAWtzbTY" target="_blank" rel="noopener">schoolchildren</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qvt5IBRBQ8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">college students</a>, <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/ohio-school-district-coughs-450k-settle-free-speech-case-teacher?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">teachers</a>, <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/families-doctors-affirm-counseling-based-biological-reality-effective?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">counselors</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vyja7NKrM">artists</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZE6KKpbj1U&amp;t=2s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pregnancy care centers</a>, <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/adf-court-church-speech-ban-must-go" target="_blank" rel="noopener">churches</a>, <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/de-banking-victim-steve-happ-indigenous-advance-ministries-bank-america-i-dont-want/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ministries</a>, and <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/babylon-bee-files-suit-against-humorless-california-censorship-laws/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">humor websites</a> all over the country, intimidating ordinary Americans through everything from <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/educators-have-rights-too/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">job termination</a> to <a href="https://adflegal.org/support/debanking-video/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">de-banking</a>, and with threats of <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/virginia-photographer-now-free-government-coercion/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">costly fines</a> and even <a href="https://adflegal.org/client/brush-nib-studio/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">jail time</a>.
But recognizing the threat — like hearing the alarm — isn’t enough. Someone has to rise to challenges posed by this Censorship Industrial Complex to cut Americans off from news, information, and viewpoints that some in positions of power and authority don’t want them to have.
Fighting this good fight is going to require significant and concentrated effort by the executive and legislative branches to root out the offenders — even within the federal government itself. All records evidencing governmental attempts to censor speech should be made public — after all, those records belong to the American people. The officials who acted to infringe rights of free speech must be held accountable. And each leader in every government agency must make one thing abundantly clear: state power may never be used to censor, limit, or diminish protected speech — it’s that simple.
Thankfully, the incoming administration seems intent on pursuing all these actions — and keenly aware of the stakes. “The fight for free speech is a matter of victory or death for America,” Trump recently said, “and for the survival of Western Civilization itself.”
So the president himself has sounded the alarm, most recently through his executive orders. Here’s hoping the rest of this administration won’t be caught napping.
* * *
Philip A. Sechler is senior counsel and director of the Center for Free Speech at <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu