To tweak the wisdom of George Santayana, those who don’t learn the lessons of the past probably didn’t pay attention in history class.
One of the first lessons should have been that when the country is torn apart by internal strife or external threats, one of the first things to go are people's basic rights. Benjamin Franklin perhaps put it best in a letter he penned under a pseudonym in 1722: “Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
Those thoughts sprung to mind last week when the Washington Post reported that dozens of House Republicans seem to be on an ad hoc retribution tour (my term) to attack and punish those who have criticized conservative activist Charlie Kirk after his tragic assassination.
One of their first targets was Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) who was critical of some of Kirk’s positions in an online interview (in which she also abhorred violence and sympathized with Kirk’s widow and two children).
Both Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) introduced resolutions to censure Omar and remove her from the Budget and Education committees. A censured member must stand in the well of the House while the Speaker reads the resolution aloud, and is barred from speaking on the floor for the rest of the day. It is the modern-day equivalent of a public shaming. Last week, Mace’s resolution was tabled on a Democratic motion, 214-213, with only four Republicans breaking ranks.
President Trump appears to be responsible for prompting the latest retribution frenzy, blaming Charlie Kirk’s assassination on “radical left lunatics” before a suspect had even been arrested and charged. His remedy? “We just have to beat the hell out of them.”
He has since been joined by his vice president and White House deputy chief of staff in calling for a campaign against left-wing groups who have called for violence. Attorney General Pam Bondi joined the fray, promising a crackdown on "hate speech." After being reminded that hate speech is not illegal — only the incitement to violence is illegal — she quickly pivoted.
Nevertheless, a host of retaliatory actions have been proposed in the latest retribution campaign, mostly aimed at those in the government or the private sector who have been critical of Kirk’s positions. A group of 23 Republican members, led by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), called on House leaders to establish a committee to investigate the radical left’s “assault on America and the rule of law.”
Other members have suggested everything from blocking federal funds to entities that employ people who celebrate Kirk’s death to imposing lifetime bans from social media, or even denying driver’s licenses.
One Florida member called on his followers on X to provide the names of those government workers who celebrated Kirk’s death. Compiling such lists is reminiscent of the McCarthy era in the 1950s when people were encouraged to report government employees they suspected of being communist infiltrators. To cite a line from a popular satirical folk song at the time, “if your mommie is a commie then you’ve gotta turn her in.”
There have been some voices of reason from the right, including Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R), who said, “This is our moment. Do we escalate or do we take an off-ramp?” The retributionists bypassed the off-ramp and instead ramped-up their rhetoric in calling for retaliatory measures.
More recently, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took issue with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr who threatened to pull the licenses of television networks for being critical of the president. In Cruz’s words, “I think it is unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off the air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”
The threat to free speech is a byproduct of the culture wars and liberals’ use of “cancel culture” to block conservative views from the public square. Now, it is the conservative weapon of choice, even though the Republicans previously fueled political campaigns with attacks on liberals’ stifling of free speech.
Americans cherish their First Amendment freedoms. They look to their national leaders to set the right tone and response to any threats to those freedoms. The interplay between freedom and restraint is a recurring theme in our history. Our tripartite system has usually managed to hold those competing values in balance. Whether that balance can be maintained is a critical question.
Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000), and, “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018).
Hence then, the article about free speech was endangered both before and after the kirk assassination was published today ( ) and is available on The Hill ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Free speech was endangered both before and after the Kirk assassination )
Also on site :