We rightly treasure the First Amendment, a short section that our founding fathers wisely wrote into the U.S. Constitution. What a gift that decision was. Liberty to make argument came to us from English tradition, and the key word there is tradition. Our cousins across the pond live under a constitutional tradition rather than a physical, written document. They are learning the hard way that traditions are easier to break than the written word. That once great nation through which the principle of expressive freedom came to America is now a place where police come door-knocking over social media posts considered offensive by lawmakers who choose to play active roles in the decline of their homeland. The British people cannot appeal to a physical constitution, a sad failure on the part of generations under the crown.
The same progressive impulses haunt many in the American halls of power and jurisprudence. Fortunately for us, revolutionaries inevitably run into a thick wall of resistance in our nation’s constitutional text:
“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 petitions the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This clearly-articulated rule is that the government cannot coerce or restrict a citizen’s speech. Nowhere does the First Amendment offer a warranty against consequence for repugnant expression. But that is just the argument we have seen quite enough of in recent days.
The premeditated assassination of Charlie Kirk brought out the worst in many people, including thousands of our fellow citizens in military service who expressed satisfaction, and endorsement of political violence toward those whose beliefs are grounded in moral reality. Much of the public rightfully found offense in those social media posts that fully embraced the worst impulses of radical left wing activism. We are seeing school teachers, medical practitioners, even members of our armed forces show themselves contemptuous of moral traditionalists. Rightly, many have been fired or relieved from their positions for violating the public trust required by their professions. Most visibly, late night host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended for just under a week for a grotesque mischaracterization of Kirk’s assassination. How was all of this framed? As an attack on freedom of speech, and an alleged right-wing cancel culture. Both are fallacy arguments.
Sinclair Makes Official Decision About ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’ After Preempting Show
Returning to the constitutional text, the government did not stop Kimmel nor anyone else from expressing repugnant perspectives on Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Thus, no violation of the First Amendment occurred. Second, cancel culture is a technique developed by progressives to shame and make unemployable those who say things that are true. We have seen much of that in recent years as, one after another, conservatives were chased from their jobs under left-wing smear campaigns.
Take for example how left-wing military commanders punished Space Force reservist Jace Yarbrough for quoting Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s warnings about how totalitarianism begins. He paid a price for speaking clear truth. That is cancellation. Condemning murderous rhetoric is not. As it turns out, some are now learning that professional associates prefer not to continue relationship with those who celebrate murderous violence. That is understandable. I would not want to receive medical services from someone who openly writes on social media that people like me deserve execution. Such is a basic human instinct of self-preservation, the same kind that prompts us to avoid dark alleys at night and apex predators in the wild. The left’s defensive and deflective reaction to being confronted with a mirror proves they know the difference between good and evil after all.
Freedom of speech isn’t immunity from consequence, something I know well. In 2019, cancel mobs came for me in response to writing a professional commentary that pointed out needs for improvement both among the Pentagon Press Corps and the military’s public affairs career field. Left wing readers didn’t call for more dialogue. Instead they greeted me with calls to be investigated, fired, physically assaulted, and even murdered. I continued making similar arguments, believing part of professional obligation is to seek improvement for one’s vocational craft. The result included being labeled as ‘problematic’ by many among the Army’s cadre of higher-ranking public affairs officers. One of them who liked me personally still denied my request to seek a future assignment as part of his team. I was considered too ‘risky.’
What was my incendiary speech? That military public affairs officers should be forthright and that reporters who work the national defense beat should be professional. No death chants, no endorsement of violence, no seditionist rhetoric. Repeatedly calling on those who communicate for and about the military to do better was enough to get me tagged with a scarlet letter.
Even now in civilian life, I know that arguing for military accountability does not help my social standing. My wife and I understood that the stands I take will exclude me from employment in corporate America, and probably even conservative organizations and political administrations. Those cheering me on in DMs vastly outnumber those interested in helping to support the effort. That does not make me a victim, but rather one who knowingly faces consequence for taking stands. There’s a reason many who share a similar calling do so under pseudonym, a tradition that goes all the way back in American history to those who authored the Federalist Papers. The inability of military members and defenders of left-wing extremism in the ranks to coherently explain what First Amendment protections entail is a further indicator of the constitutional illiteracy pandemic loose across the fruited plain. That failure of civic understanding is on purpose and presents one of the biggest threats to ordered liberty. We must fix it.
Critics of the work to expose extremist rhetoric by military officials say it’s a foul to criticize military members’ speech, but only for those who lean blue. Such argument ironically presupposes a right for progressives to censor constitutionally-aligned critique of left-wing murderous speech by those in the ranks. To them, commentary by Maj. Adam D’Ortona that calls soldiers to embrace warrior mentality aligned to founding principles constitutes a foul, while simultaneously arguing that social media posts endorsing political assassination on ideological grounds is exactly what the First Amendment is about.
This presents a paradox in which progressive infiltrators in the ranks simultaneously claim warrior embodiment, and victim identity when being held to long-standing, lawful consequences for expressing hostility toward citizens they’re sworn to serve. Should the act of criticizing extremist rhetoric by a subset of military members becomes off limits, we would fall under an intellectual military occupation. The Constitution’s Third Amendment might have something to say about that.
We should daily thank God that our founders made clear that the government shall not grab our tongues. That liberty comes with a responsibility to wield it honorably. Facing consequence for speaking murderous rhetoric is a function both of the court of public opinion—and for military members, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Shaming those who enthusiastically endorse cold-blooded murder is not an attack on the First Amendment. It’s common sense.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!