{"id":3318,"date":"2026-07-06T19:15:42","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T19:15:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=3318"},"modified":"2026-07-06T19:15:42","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T19:15:42","slug":"america-250-free-speech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=3318","title":{"rendered":"America\u2019s greatest idea is still under threat"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The United States of America recently turned 250 years old. What a spectacle! The fireworks were amazing, and millions of proud people celebrated across the nation \u2014 even around the world. France lit up the Eiffel Tower; Japan had fireworks. French fighter jets flew above New York City with trails of red, white, and blue \u2014 our first major ally streaking our shared colors through the sky. Meanwhile, shameful white nationalists paraded through our nation\u2019s capital<\/a>. This has always been a country of paradoxes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Our 250th birthday counts back to the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The declaration was a radical and astonishing document that still serves as America\u2019s soul. But the beating heart of the nation wouldn\u2019t come until more than a decade later, when the Constitution was ratified. That <\/em>document is why I\u2019m able to write this to you today. And we need you to help protect it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The First Amendment to the Constitution is so potent that people across the world who live in places untouched by US law often seem to think they have the same rights it establishes. The First Amendment is our day-one theory of what makes a free society. It\u2019s literally the first cure by the framers for a project they knew would be forever imperfect and incomplete \u2014 fixable only by way of the right to free expression.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The Verge <\/em>exists today because of this great project. We believe in it deeply. The First Amendment affords us the knowledge that we\u2019re likely free from imprisonment from expressing our freedom to speak. But journalism and speech are always under assault. It\u2019s one of the reasons why we\u2019ll always need lawyers despite likely having the strongest editorial ethics policy in the industry.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Here\u2019s what the First Amendment says:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n

This is a compelling and beautiful idea. But we\u2019ve had to fight to keep it alive from the beginning..<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

John Adams, one of the fiercest revolutionaries who railed against British tyrrany and helped secure independence, completely fucked up the First Amendement when he became the second US president. Adams\u2019 series of Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 look positively Trumpian in retrospect, railing against foreigners, expanding presidential power to arrest, imprison, or deport people, and perhaps most insidiously, making it a crime for American citizens to print \u201cscandalous and malicious\u201d writings against the government. Adams surely loved the country he created, but nonetheless shrunk before the magnitude of its liberties.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Fast-forward to World War I, when the First Amendment was again under attack, this time by the Supreme Court. The court\u2019s fearful message about free speech still sticks with us. You\u2019ve probably heard the phrase \u201cyou can\u2019t shout \u2018fire\u2019 in a crowded theater\u201d \u2014 not actually true<\/em>. The misquoting and misinterpretation here<\/a> is darkly funny: Trevor Timm, in The Atlantic<\/em>, notes the court decision the phrase refers to was actually about whether an American socialist \u201ccould be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft.\u201d It almost sounds ripped from contemporary headlines. (Nearly a century later, the Espionage Act would be used again<\/a> to target, this time, a New York Times <\/em>journalist.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Misunderstandings about the First Amendment still abound. On the front lines we most readily see it in police confrontations where armed agents of the state bungle their constitutional duties with disastrous results.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Cops are routinely so terrible at understanding America\u2019s foundational law that there\u2019s now a cottage industry of streamers and influencers who work as \u201cFirst Amendment auditors\u201d \u2014 people who intentionally flex their right to record in public to bait dummies into abridging their freedom of speech. It\u2019s easy to go down TikTok rabbit holes where you\u2019ll find someone recording an illegal traffic stop from inside their car, or a fully kitted streamer recording harassment on a public sidewalk. When the police inevitably show up to hassle someone for exercising their rights, the stakes are immediately raised.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In a best-case scenario, a higher-ranking cop arrives and dispels their colleagues\u2019 unconstitutional conduct. In other cases, someone ends up getting detained or arrested for completely protected behavior.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

It\u2019s even worse than usual in 2026, because we now live under an administration that\u2019s flooding cities with barely trained federal agents who see constitutionally protected behavior as a threat. This has resulted in deaths<\/a>, assaults on reporters, and an untold broader cost of regular people having to endure the immense burden of confronting the justice system simply for doing things they have the fundamental right to do. The right to speak and assemble is especially valid when it\u2019s in protest of the government<\/em>. That\u2019s the whole point of this thing! And yet.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The latest assaults on the First Amendment have been encouraged by people all the way up the chain of command. We\u2019re being betrayed by officials who are supposed to protect us, people who swore an oath to the Constitution and ought to know better. The FCC is not supposed to regulate speech but has nonetheless become a nightmare of incompetence and civil rights suppression<\/a>. Do you miss Stephen Colbert on The Late Show<\/em>? Thank the Trump administration, which now operates a mob-like patronage system that has cowed the billionaire princes who own America\u2019s broadcast networks. Or ask Jimmy Kimmel, who got kicked off the air after conservatives went nuclear over his tame remarks about Charlie Kirk, a man who spent his time poisoning our national discourse with none of the grace or wit employed by national talk show hosts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The Trump regime in general has an incredibly disturbing record on free speech, from science<\/a> to the operations of the largest social networks<\/a>. Donald Trump rails against anyone who doesn\u2019t bow to him, and the list of his victims is too long to enumerate. But here\u2019s an important one: The president once threatened to jail Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg for life<\/em>. Zuckerberg is far more wealthy and powerful than Trump in many respects, but what did he do? Two years after the threat, Zuckerberg showed up on the White House lawn to celebrate Trump\u2019s insane UFC fight show. He tapped out against a bully.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

This is what makes everything really messy. We live in an age dominated by communication platforms that are so wealthy, powerful, and pervasive that they seem practically unrestrained by the US government, but paradoxically must still cozy up to a regime that has no actual respect for them or for their <\/em>free speech. Trump once threatened to blow up the entire internet<\/a> because he wanted platforms to censor things to his advantage. The CEOs of those companies still indulge him with flattery and photo ops.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

This blurring of public and private interests has fueled a funhouse-mirror idea of \u201cfree speech culture\u201d that\u2019s actually <\/em>designed to crack down on free speech. The loudest people crying about free speech culture do so as if theirs <\/em>is not the freest ever in history, while simultaneously supporting actual <\/em>government censorship, like banning books<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

I can\u2019t say it better than Ken White has, so just go read him on this point<\/a>. White explains how \u201cfree speech culture\u201d has emboldened the Trump admin and others to engage in real censorship. \u201cWhen enough people think that all of free speech\u2014including free speech law\u2014is bullshit, then free speech rights won\u2019t be enforced,\u201d he writes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Our constitutional punchbowl has been spiked by madmen who profit from confusion about our rights and the rule of law. It doesn\u2019t have to be this way. <\/em>Just remember: The First Amendment is a restraint on the government <\/strong>that prevents it <\/strong>from prohibiting your speech<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Moreover: Actual censorship is government suppression of speech.<\/strong> It\u2019s entirely understandable that we\u2019re confused about what censorship is because of how hard many people have worked to keep us confused. A social media platform moderating your post is not censorship \u2014 it\u2019s actually free speech<\/em>. Yes, that sounds completely counterintuitive, but it\u2019s true. The alternative is a situation where the government forces private citizens to publish things they don\u2019t want to, including hate speech.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Much was unsaid here, including the history of immense pain and suffering that has kept the First Amendment and our broader rights alive. I won\u2019t claim to know what the fix is for our current mess, but I\u2019ll say I really hate when our leaders say things like \u201cthis is not who we are\u201d when they talk precisely about the things that define who we are.<\/em> And part of who we are is a coalition that claims to want free speech in theory while simultaneously suppressing it in practice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

So what can you do? Yes, of course, vote. But there\u2019s much more to do. Write or call your congresspeople (I promise this does matter). Participate in local <\/em>elections, especially for school boards, which are on the front lines of book banning. And if you\u2019re reading this, thank you for subscribing \u2014 but consider also supporting other newsrooms.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Follow topics and authors<\/strong> from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.<\/span><\/p>\n