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.

Making misinformation illegal is dangerous because human progress relies on being wrong and correcting course through open debate. Granting any entity the power to define absolute 'truth' and punish dissent is a hallmark of authoritarianism that freezes intellectual and societal development.

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.

Senator Ed Markey argues that government overreach succeeds partly because large media companies choose to "roll over" and pay fines or accept chilling effects rather than legally challenging threats to their First Amendment rights. This corporate capitulation is a key, overlooked factor in the erosion of free speech.

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.

To circumvent First Amendment protections, the national security state framed unwanted domestic political speech as a "foreign influence operation." This national security justification was the legal hammer used to involve agencies like the CIA in moderating content on domestic social media platforms.

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.

While both the Biden administration's pressure on YouTube and Trump's threats against ABC are anti-free speech, the former is more insidious. Surreptitious, behind-the-scenes censorship is harder to identify and fight publicly, making it a greater threat to open discourse than loud, transparent attacks that can be openly condemned.