Mark Twain saw humorists as having a critical role: to challenge authority and consensus. He argued that irreverence is the "champion of liberty" because despots fear a laughing public more than anything else. This frames satire not just as entertainment, but as a vital tool for maintaining a free society.

Comedians who build their brands on being 'free speech warriors' and criticizing censorship reveal their hypocrisy when they accept large payments from Saudi Arabia under contracts that explicitly forbid criticizing the kingdom. Their principles are abandoned for financial gain, exposing their activism as performative.

Ro Khanna argues that the true measure of a commitment to free speech isn't defending allies, but defending the speech of opponents. He builds credibility by citing his record of defending views he disagrees with, asserting this consistency is lacking on both political sides.

The ultimate test of free speech is allowing potentially harmful ideas to circulate. While this may lead to negative consequences, it is preferable to the alternative. The 20th century saw 200 million people killed by their own governments, demonstrating that the tyranny required to enforce narrative control is a far greater danger.

Attempts to shut down controversial voices often fail. Instead of disappearing, suppressed ideas can fester and become more extreme, attracting an audience drawn to their defiance and ultimately strengthening their movement.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is reversing decades of deregulation by reasserting control over broadcast TV content while maintaining a hands-off approach to the internet. This creates a free speech double standard where the delivery mechanism, not the content, determines government scrutiny, targeting weaker legacy media.

Legal frameworks to punish 'hate speech' are inherently dangerous because the definition is subjective and politically malleable. Advocating for such laws creates a tool that will inevitably be turned against its creators when political power shifts. The core principle of free speech is protecting even despicable speech to prevent this tyrannical cycle.

When people can no longer argue, disagreements don't vanish but fester until violence becomes the only outlet. Protecting even offensive speech is a pragmatic necessity, as open debate is the only mechanism that allows societal pressures to be released peacefully.

Salman Rushdie posits that humor is more than just entertainment; it is a potent tool against oppression. He observes that dictators and narrow-minded individuals are characteristically humorless and that satire can provoke them more effectively than direct criticism, making it a crucial element in the struggle for free expression.