Free speech is our natural right, not a gift granted by politicians

By David McElroy · September 27, 2025

Donald Trump’s obscene efforts to shut up the speech of people he disagrees with have a lot of people talking about free speech. Democrats are acting angry and sanctimonious about the issue. Republicans are mostly defending their Dear Leader.

But it wasn’t that long ago when the roles were reversed. During the Biden administration, Democrats put pressure on tech companies to shut up speech they didn’t like. Because they went about it in a more pragmatic way — by putting behind-the-scenes pressure on companies such as Meta and Google to remove speech they didn’t like from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and more, they were more successful than Trump has been.

The left wingers of the Biden administration and the right wing populists of the Trump administration share this in common. They both want to shut up speech that offends them — for one reason or another — and they want to complain when speech from their own allies is shut down.

In other words, they’re both hypocrites, even though each side pretends the other is the anti-speech monster. They’ve been lying to themselves for so long that they believe this. And they can’t see that they are mirror images of one another on this issue.

But let’s put aside their partisan idiocy for now and look at the broader issue of free speech. There are some things that every rational person should understand about free speech — no matter which side of the political mainstream you love and which side you hate.

So here are 11 quick points about freedom of speech, in no particular order:

1) Government has no moral right to control or punish speech of any kind, either overtly or through implied threats. Governments have always infringed on the rights of individuals to speak freely, but it was wrong hundreds of years ago and it’s wrong today.

2) Private actors — individuals, companies, organizations, whatever — have every right to disassociate from people whose speech they don’t like. What we call “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply in private relationships. You can legally say whatever you want, but private parties are free to imposes consequences on the relationships they have with you.

3) Government doesn’t have the right to control broadcast speech any more than printed speech. Because the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically mentions “freedom of the press,” U.S. courts eventually took the position that governments can’t control printed matter. But politicians argued that broadcast was different. They argued that they ought to control broadcast speech, because that was in the “public interest.” That was never a valid moral argument, but it doesn’t affect the natural right each of us has to speak without political control.

4) Privately owned platforms — such as social media, for instance — don’t have any responsibility to allow speech they don’t want to allow. You don’t have any right to say what you want on Facebook or YouTube or any other platform that’s owned by anyone else, but you have every right to leave that platform if you disapprove of a company’s rules. (This is why I prefer to have my own site on the open web, because nobody can impose rules on what I can say here.)

5) Contrary to what you have been taught — and what most lawyers seem to assume — free speech is not a right that is granted by the First Amendment or by any government document. Politicians do not grant you any rights. They can choose to recognize a right or they can violate your right, but it’s your natural right regardless. Freedom to speak without government control is a natural human right, whether politicians recognize that or use their monopoly on violence to cheat you of your right.

6) You have the right to say whatever you want to say on your own dime, but nobody else is required to pay for your speech or tolerate your speech on their own property. If you want to say something — whether it’s religious preaching or vile hatred of others — you have the legal right to spread your words and ideas, but you don’t have the right to do that on someone else’s property. If a store has conduct rules, you have to obey its rules or else be forced out. If a newspaper doesn’t want to print your point of view, you can go start your own — if anybody will still read it — but you can’t force anybody to represent what you want said.

7) If you lie or mislead other people, you might very well be responsible for fraud against those people. They should be able to sue in a court for whatever damages occur as a direct result of your lies. (I’m inclined to treat all political promises as fraud, but that’s a cynical side point based on my time working as a political consultant years ago.) You can say things that aren’t true, but that won’t necessarily protect you from the consequences of your fraud. For instance, if you’re selling a car, you can express the opinion that somebody ought to buy the car, but you’ve committed fraud if you lie about specific facts about the fact — and someone relies on those facts in a way that leaves him damaged.

8) If you’re a decent human being, you will use your freedom to speak your mind in a responsible way, because civil society depends on voluntary cooperation by responsible individuals, even when idiots, con men and narcissists are misusing their right to speak freely. I don’t say things to people that are intended to hurt them unnecessarily. I sometimes will hurt people by telling the truth when it’s necessary, but I’m not going to intentionally insult and anger people just because I think they’re wrong. Just because you have the right to say almost anything doesn’t mean that a decent person doesn’t watch his words instead of insulting people for fun.

9) Contrary to what the political left has preached for decades now, speech is not violence. Even when you don’t like what’s being said and even if that speech is offensive to listeners, it’s just speech. Even if you hate the person you’re talking about, it’s not violence. And it’s sheer idiocy to pretend that speech you don’t like is violence.

10) The notion of “hate speech” is just an opinion. It has no rational legal meaning, any more than law can determine what is “funny speech” or “loving speech.” Calling something “hate speech” doesn’t mean you don’t still have the right to speak it. Carving out an area of public discourse and calling it “hate” doesn’t mean politicians have any moral right to punish you. Hateful speech might be impolite or mean, but that doesn’t stop your natural right to say it.

11) If you’re offended by someone’s speech, don’t listen to it. Don’t read it. Disassociate yourself from that person. Ask other people to shun him or her. Organize a boycott if you want. Argue with the person through your own speech if you think it’s worth it. But don’t pretend you have any right to make the person stop speaking the things that offend you.

Free speech is a natural right. Politicians have been trying to shut up the things they don’t like ever since the dawn of time.

This principle of natural rights applies far beyond speech. One of the most glaring historical violations was the vile human institution of slavery. This was a violation of the natural rights of many millions of people throughout the course of history. It didn’t become immoral just because governments started saying so. Politicians were slowly shamed into recognizing the basic right to self-ownership, at least to some extent. (I argue that every individual has the right to full self-ownership, but politicians still use force and threat of force to control us.)

We have a long way to go before all of us have our natural rights recognized by governments, but unless we can start with an understanding of what our rights are regarding speech, we can’t make any progress toward claiming all of the rights that are ours simply because we are human beings.

Right now, Democrats are acting as though free speech is their issue. A few years ago, Republicans acted as though it was their issue.

The truth is that free speech is everybody’s issue. You and I are born with natural rights — and insisting on those rights shouldn’t have anything to do with which political party you might (unwisely) support.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts