Staff ReportsJonathan Turley continues to be a crucial voice in the legal landscape, particularly as he highlights the threats that current political figures pose to the vital principle of free speech. As the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School, Turley brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the conversation. His recent commentary on Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz showcases an alarming trend in their views on the First Amendment, viewing it not as a fundamental right but merely a privilege that can be revoked at their discretion.
The duo has made it clear that they believe the Constitution should bend to their political whims. Turley recently addressed this concerning stance in his new book, exploring how the Biden-Harris administration stands as a formidable enemy of free speech, perhaps even surpassing the repressive environment of John Adams’ time. According to Turley, the censorship apparatus developed during this administration has garnered comparisons to Orwellian tactics, betraying a deep-seated intolerance for dissenting views.
Censorship and closure seem to be Harris’s default positions when faced with unfettered speech. Harris speaks of free speech as if it is a privilege bestowed by the government like a license that can be rescinded if you are viewed as a reckless driver…https://t.co/rosGvzpV94
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) September 4, 2024
In a recent CNN appearance, Harris pushed the narrative that platforms like X should be censored if they deviate from her preferred ideological norms. Her pronounced belief that unrestricted speech is a threat to the nation reveals her disposition towards censorship as a first resort. Harris lamented the idea that individuals can communicate freely to vast audiences without governmental oversight and regulation. Such sentiments evoke memories of totalitarian regimes rather than the democratic values that America professes to uphold.
Harris’s historical calls for silencing political opposition—specifically aimed at former President Trump—further underline how she and her allies see free speech as expendable. Turley has characterized this pervasive mentality as promoting a narrow conception of acceptable discourse, prevalent among many on the left. As Harris and Walz advocate for measures that could curtail diverse viewpoints, conservative voices feel increasingly threatened as the anti-free speech movement gains momentum, particularly in academic and political spheres.
As Turley underscores, the looming November election poses a critical juncture for Americans concerned about their free expression. With echoes of past elections where speech was a primary issue, this election could serve as a referendum on individual liberties. The stark choice before voters is not merely about party affiliation; it is about preserving the essence of democracy against an encroaching authoritarian mindset. Conservatives recognize the foundational importance of free speech, and elections like this one could very well determine how these rights are safeguarded moving forward. On that ballot, freedom must not be overshadowed by the overreach of political power.
