FREEDOM OF SPEECH
“Must be protected! My rights! Silencing truth! Fake News!” – the championed battle cries of the MAGA acolyte. Parroted daily, if not hourly, by the likes of Matt Walsh, Jack Posobiec, Laura Loomer, and countless other propagandists. I honestly frame it less as a noble defense of liberty and more as a “rules for thee, but not for me” charade, as is the case with most conservative talking points. Empty, delusional, and disingenuous.
The First Amendment, like everything else for Trump and his cult, is waved in our faces whenever they need to justify aggressive, violent, offensive, or outright irrational rhetoric. It’s Red Light Green Light from hell: the same champions who scream “free speech” are the first to silence any voice that runs counter to their message. They use wood to start a fire, then act shocked as that same fire burns the forest down. The very faction claiming to defend freedom of speech is actively working to destroy it — now almost entirely out in the open.
The nuance of free speech debates often causes any discussion of the First Amendment to quickly devolve into whataboutism or other unproductive detours. So it’s worth zooming out and examining freedom —and its limits—through the lens of two equally relevant concepts: the Paradox of Tolerance and the Right to Protest, or more broadly, Civil Liberties vs. Social Order. The Paradox of Tolerance, as articulated by philosopher Karl Popper, warns that unlimited tolerance can enable intolerant ideologies to rise and ultimately destroy the tolerant society itself—a lesson grimly illustrated by the democratic ascent of the Nazi Party in Germany, which used civil liberties to dismantle them from within.
Current protests across the United States—whether focused on racial justice, reproductive rights, or government overreach—underscore the essential role of public dissent in a functioning democracy. Yet the same mechanism has also been exploited by the right to justify January 6th, falsely equating a violent insurrection with a noble fight against tyranny. So, how do we protect freedoms robustly while recognizing when those freedoms are being weaponized against the very principles they exist to defend?
The First Amendment is a powerful, ambiguous, and heavily loaded doctrine – a foundational pillar of our society. It’s frequently cited by groups and individuals who lack a critical understanding of what it should, and more importantly, should not, protect. Both human interpretation and institutional application of the law are inherently subjective and responsive to social pressures. But what happens when we challenge those assumptions?
As I write this, Fit for an Autopsy is blasting through my headphones – fitting, given the subject matter of this piece. The band is an American metal group whose lyrics often confront terrible tragedies humanity has inflicted upon itself. Their words remind me of the past while simultaneously painting a grim warning for the future. Look at what we have done, or allowed to happen. War, famine, genocide-- millions of lives lost all at the whim of man. Where does it start? Why did nobody step in? What could have been done?
These questions, however late, need to be asked, constantly. It may come off as cliche, but holy fuck is it needed today. Not just 15-second Instagram posts, bullet points, or trivia, an actual in-depth look at how atrocities and terrors came to fruition. I was initially hesitant to write about Nazi Germany, for a few reasons:
Both sides tend to apply that label all too frequently, to the point where I’d argue the potency has diminished significantly.
Second is that Republicans and MAGA will dismiss any comparison to Nazis as an exaggeration, and will pearl clutch on behalf of the Jewish community.
Third being that there are MAGA adherents or supporters who not only embrace the comparison, but use it as validation to follow and continue the behavior.
The last point, sadly, is not an exaggeration; if you are still reading this, I imagine you may know someone who fits this bill. Nazi apologists are blatantly out in the open, across the internet, making it easier and easier for those who harbored such beliefs in the shadows to go out and broadcast them to the world.
The Paradox of Tolerance is a social concept first introduced by philosopher Karl Popper in 1945. It refers to the idea that:
If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
Now, let’s break that down by framing this concept within today’s world.
A tolerant society
This can be understood as the U.S. as a whole, or refined to political or social groups
Allows intolerant ideas and movements
MAGA, fascism, christian nationalism, etc.
Its ability to be tolerant
Via laws, checks and balances, fact checking, accountability, free press
Eventually be seized by or destroyed by the intolerant
Elimination of tolerance, suppressing dissent, imposition of the intolerant group’s own views
MAGA’s use of ‘DEI’ / war on ‘woke’
Systemic spread of disinformation
Propaganda
ICE attacking protesters
Those who do not conform are extremists, domestic terrorists, or some other designated enemy of the state
Popper argued that a tolerant society must defend itself by refusing to tolerate, or accept, the intolerant ideals of groups who threaten the rights and freedoms of others. This is the folly of ‘so much for the tolerant left’ that the MAGA cult loves to jibe with. They are constantly banking on the left’s tolerance to justify and allow their objectively hateful views and actions. Examples of this include:
Confederate icons
Hate speech
Proud Boy / The Base Rhetoric
Antagonistic behaviors - Jake Lang in Minnesota.
Each case involves the use of free speech protections by groups whose ideologies are fundamentally anti-democratic, discriminatory, or violent. A tolerant society protects their right to speak, but doing so allows them to spread hate and destabilize pluralistic norms—exactly what Popper warned about.
Prior to WW2, the Nazi party grew its power and expanded popularity by leaning into racist rhetoric, vilifying religious and cultural outsiders, all while ushering in authoritarian populism at a time when the German government was fractured and weakened. This setting allowed Nationalist Christians (Nat-Cs) to take full advantage of free speech, democratic elections, and economic turmoil, becoming the dominant political force in doing so. Another driving force was the Nazis’ mass propaganda operation, which broadcasted messages of nationalism, ethnic pride, genetic superiority, ya know, the same language being used today by DHS and the Trump administration. They literally employed some incel kid to run the DHS social media account, where he regularly posts dog-whistles to the far-right. As people with half a brain noticed the language and imagery similarities, Karoline Leavitt quickly brushes the findings off as unimportant or liberal mania.
On a daily basis, the Trump administration is exploiting the First Amendment by spewing false information, using intimidating language against reporters, and threatening citizens. Leavitt, Miller, Bondi, Noem, Homan, can all be found on any right-wing outlet suggesting that dissent of any kind is now an act of domestic terrorism. Their strategic use of inflammatory language clearly highlights their desire to raise tensions and divide the population. Using the First Amendment to single out and target those who do not fall in line or accept their authoritarian agenda, while simultaneously using the threat of the federal government to silence the First Amendment rights of any opposition.
Nazi Germany used the tools of language, discourse, propaganda, and state media to foster a social attitude of intolerance towards enemies of the state – Jews, immigrants, and political rivals. By vilifying the ‘other’, the Nazis were able to gradually revoke civil rights and push Germany into the hands of an authoritarian regime.
This is the exact same playbook MAGA and the Republican Party embrace and deploy today. We see it in real time across channels and feeds with such repetition it is near impossible to take pause. The internet and social media have amplified the speed and reach at which Trump can spew his hate. Fox News, MAGA influencers, algorithms, all working to polarize society and vilify the others of the United States – Democrats, immigrants, LGBTQ community, an independent press. Every single day, they poke and prod at the seams of a civilized democracy, hoping for chaos.
MAGA defenders will try to downplay the talking heads by saying words don’t mean anything, or that it’s simply trolling. I fully disagree with this sentiment; words are a precursor to actions, the Administration is intentionally using them as a vehicle for confrontation, which brings us to the First Amendment and protesting. When institutions fail to act or recognize the voices of the people they are supposed to protect, what recourse do the oppressed have?
Nazi Germany also had pockets of resistance, where opposition forces protested and faced the full wrath of the regime. Their examples should be both a source of inspiration and warning for how an unchecked government can treat its people. Here are some notable examples:
The White Rose (1942-1943) - A non-violent student resistance group at the University of Munich led by siblings Hans and Sophie Scholl. They distributed leaflets criticizing the Nazi regime and calling for passive resistance. Most members were arrested and executed.
The Rosenstrasse Protest (1943) - A rare successful public demonstration where non-Jewish German women protested in Berlin for a week demanding the release of their Jewish husbands who had been detained for deportation. Remarkably, the regime released the men, likely to avoid public unrest.
Confessing Church Movement (1930s-1940s) - Led by pastors like Martin Niemöller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, this Protestant church movement opposed Nazi interference in religious affairs and some Nazi policies. Many participants were arrested or killed.
Edelweiss Pirates - Working-class youth groups who rejected Hitler Youth membership and engaged in various forms of resistance, from minor acts of defiance to occasionally helping deserters and forced laborers.
July 20, 1944 Plot - While more of a coup attempt than a protest movement, this conspiracy by German military officers attempted to assassinate Hitler. It failed, and participants were executed.
These movements didn't result in policy changes during the Nazi regime - dissent was met with imprisonment, torture, or execution. The totalitarian nature of the state made organized protest extraordinarily difficult and dangerous. Here in the states, we still have a chance to fight back, we cannot afford to give up our right to protest, for if apathy and indifference prevail, we very well may end up being treated like the protesters of Nazi Germany. While they were criticized, abused, and killed, we can now factually say they were on the right side of history, and their sacrifices can serve as inspiration for today.
Anyone who says protesting doesn’t do anything is a moron. I see this sentiment from across the spectrum, and find it quite infuriating when speaking out via demonstration is belittled or dismissed. I have friends and family who think my comparisons here are extreme, alarmist, or paranoid. My question to them is simple; what else are we supposed to do when the government stops following the law? In a society where protesting is illegal, there are two options: accept and obey, or use violence to fight back. We, at the time of this writing at least, have a third option: protest as protected by the First Amendment.
I admit, the No Kings protests are not as powerful as tactics of the civil rights movement or general strikes, but they are at least a starting point. As I’ve discussed before, at a minimum they illustrate the sheer number of people, dwarfing MAGA, who are fed up with this shit. There are more of us than them, and simply knowing that can encourage people to take action they otherwise may not have. Since the last No Kings, we have seen people bravely protest ICE, where there have been deadly consequences. Clearly, protesting against a rogue federal agency deploying masked agents to American cities has ‘done something’ to make Congress question the tactics and legality of ICE, at a minimum.
Since the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the Administration has started to use language suggesting that protesting is no longer protected by the First Amendment. They are using words like “agitator”, “interference”, “disruptors”, or the classic “rioter”. This is intentional, an attempt to paint the protected actions of peaceful protesters as something criminal, thus justifying State-sanctioned violence against citizens. Holding a sign, recording a video, or using your voice to remind an ICE agent that he is a baby back bitch makes you a domestic terrorist. See how quickly the government can use words to reclassify your status as an American?
So what has protesting got us so far? Sustained pressure regarding the Epstein files, firsthand footage of ICE brutality and disregard for the law. Scrutiny over how DHS is operating, national attention on the depraved treatment of children in detention centers. Slowly and painfully, there have been some advances made. The Epstein files are finally waking people up, Bovino was booted from Minnesota, and Congress is blocking DHS funding, for now. Without Americans protesting and using their voice, none of this would have been possible, and we would not be in a position to keep up public pressure. No, it does not solve the problems, but it moves the needle in a way silence or compliance never will.
The First Amendment right to freedom of speech is never guaranteed. It is not a stretch to imagine waking up tomorrow to a federal declaration banning protests, citing danger to Federal ICE operations or safety of their agents. Would that be illegal? Of course, but that has not stopped this Administration in the past, who is willing to roll the dice in court. Just a few short weeks of martial law would surely result in more state vs. civilian violence. It is happening right now, in front of us every fucking day; we inch closer and closer to Nazi Germany.
This potential outcome alone is enough of a reason to keep speaking out, showing up, posting, and doing whatever is within our control to make MAGA and Trump uncomfortable. The naysayers and indifferent be damned, for the line between democracy and authoritarianism will always be built of protesters.
If you are reading this or have been following me, I know you likely agree. My aim is not to convince you, but to arm you with the same anger and intensity I feel every fucking day towards this joke of an administration and ICE. So when your MAGA uncle, or “it doesn’t affect me” friend tries to ignore Trump’s attacks on our democracy, you have the confidence to make them question their reality on the spot. MAGAs don't like being confronted with facts and history, this is not the time to enable their ignorance.
Edited by E. Sullivan
