“You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. ”
That line — fictional president Andrew Shepherd to the press corps in The American President — is the moral spine of the First Amendment. It’s easy to nod and smile when a speaker is charming or aligned with your views. The real test of “free” is whether you are willing to defend speech that makes your blood boil. That is what has always distinguished America from kingdoms of retaliation.
As much as I disagreed with almost everything Charlie Kirk said, I defend his right to speak his truth. That’s the point of the First Amendment. Stand up to him? Yes. Ridicule him. Scream your truth at the top of your voice. But sentencing a United States citizen to death for his words? That is cowardly. That is un-American. The answer to ugly speech has never been execution or censorship. The answer is better speech. Stronger speech. Truthful speech.
We are now living through a brutal test of that principle. The same man who demands the protection of the podium for his own vitriol — for conspiracy, for lies, for abuse — does everything he can to make sure the podium is closed to his critics. He sues journalists and networks into settlements, he leverages regulatory power to punish independent outlets, and he cheers when corporations punish comedians and anchors for saying things that annoy him. If you believe in the First Amendment as a principle and not a partisan tool, you should be livid, at least as angry as I am.
We begin with the obvious: a sitting or former public official has never been above satire, parody, or mockery. Presidents have shrugged off jibes from comedians and critics from the beginning of our republic. Barack Obama — famously — roasted Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The spectacle pushed Trump toward running for office. The exchange was not a crime; it was civic life. It was what the First Amendment was designed to protect. And Trump? He craved the power to one day “get even” with his critics. Unfortunately for America, he seized it.
In the last few years. Major media companies have paid out huge sums of Money to avoid fighting Trump in a court of law. ABC, CBS, and others have quietly settled lawsuits — not because they were wrong, but because their executives are cowards. These media giants determined that the cost of standing up to power and waiting on a politically connected FTC is too steep. Considering that these networks were born to serve the 1st Amendment, their cowardice is even more disappointing.
And ABC is still bending over for Trump. Jimmy Kimmel is suspended after a joke Republicans didn’t like. A late-night host is benched for satirizing the party in power. And when they ask the president of the United States for comment, he cheers. He congratulates ABC for “doing what needed to be done.” What? Any other president would be appalled. We are talking about something so important; our government made it the very 1st amendment to our Constitution. That’s not cancel culture from the left; that’s censorship from the top.
And here’s the kicker: Republicans constantly crow that the right to bear arms is embodied in the Constitution. They are right (though contextually wrong). The right to free speech is also embodied in the Constitution, with limited exceptions for “hate” speech.
Both the 1st and 2nd Amendments were born out of the same fear — that the brand-new federal government might morph into the very tyranny the colonists had just fought to escape. Free speech was the safeguard to call out corruption and abuse. The right to bear arms was a safeguard to resist it if the government crossed the line into oppression.
To elevate the 2nd while trampling the 1st isn’t just hypocrisy; it’s a betrayal of the entire spirit of the Bill of Rights. Then again, Republicans are quite consistent in their selective enforcement of our Constitution, consistently ignoring the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th Amendments. “Due process? What’s that?” The law does not permit our government leaders to pick their favorite Amendments and toss the others in the trash.
Do not miss the hypocrisy. The same cast of defenders of “free markets” and “speech” who cheer when this administration uses social media to amplify lies now weaponize lawyers and agencies to punish critics. They brand “Antifa” as terrorists while pardoning January 6 traitors and calling them “patriots.” They lionize “speech” when it’s deployed by friends and demonize it when deployed by contrarians.
The result is an inverted First Amendment: speech is free for the favored, while intimidation, abuse of power, litigation, or threats of regulation are used to penalize criticism and enforce silence.
This is not abstract. Trump’s paranoid sensitivity and abuses of power chill creativity. They chill investigative reporting. Producing a hard movie or a biting TV satire requires producers, insurers, and networks willing to risk possible lawsuits and political blowback. When litigation becomes routine and regulators become presidential pawns, the result is not merely fewer late-night jokes; it is fewer truth-telling documentaries, fewer investigative series, and fewer big-budget films that speak truth to power. And news reporters become afraid to report the truth.
A healthy democracy tolerates, no, cherishes, insults, lies, criticism, and critique of public figures precisely because public office is not a private fiefdom. The 1st Amendment embodies a radical generosity: you must tolerate the cruel, the stupid, and the false so that truthful, accountable government can survive.
Where does that leave us now? Should we tolerate lies? No. Remain silent? Absolutely not. We must shout at the top of our voices facts and opinions that hold our government accountable. We must respond with solid, truthful reporting, clear and crisp rebuttal, strong journalism, and sharper satire. We must refuse the Faustian bargain of trading constitutional principle for partisan advantage.
Andrew Shepherd was correct: Defend the speech you hate. Defend it at the top of your voice. Because if you do not, the next thing you lose will be far worse than a comedian’s monologue. If America continues along this dark path, we, the People, will lose our right to speak truth to power without fear of reprisal. And if that happens, can the right to vote be far behind?
Mark M. Bello is an attorney and author of 9 Zachary Blake Legal Thrillers and other legal themed novels and children’s books. For more information, please visit https://www.markmbello.com
