America COMMENTARY


Free Speech Crucial To Our Democracy


Yet leaders in Washington seem intent on snufing out voices they don’t want to hear.


P BY KEN BUCK


oliticians in washington seem to be developing a thin skin. What used to be considered — and respected,


if not protected as — free speech has become grounds for censure. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.,


narrowly avoided becoming the latest member of Congress to be censured in October after four Republicans crossed the aisle and joined Democrats to block a procedural motion. In the past 40 years, six members


have been censured by the House, four of those within the last four years. I don’t agree with Omar’s reprehensible comments about the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk. Nor, I believe, do voters. But I defend her right to make


them. Free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy. The open debate of ideas —


however unpopular — is so central to independent governance that our Founders enshrined it in the First Amendment of the Constitution. As the late Supreme Court Justice


Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously wrote in his “Great Dissent”: “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate.” Animal Farm author George Orwell


put it well: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Instead, leaders in Washington


22 NEWSMAX | NOVEMBER 2025


seem intent on snuffing out voices they don’t want to hear. And, perplexingly, it’s some Republicans — the party that has long championed free speech (does anyone remember the pushback to former President Joe Biden’s efforts to police social media or discredit conservative news outlets?) — who are now leading this cancel culture.


The leſt has historically used inflammatory language of its own, which has contributed to the downward spiral of civil dialogue in our country.


Attorney General Pam Bondi


recently suggested the Justice Department would “go after” individuals who engage in “hate speech” — a comment that sparked immediate blowback from conservatives. Even President Donald Trump


promised to “find each and every one of those” whose “rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing.” Certainly, the left has historically


used inflammatory language of its own, which has contributed to the downward spiral of civil dialogue in our country. When Democrats label the


president a “dictator” and a “tyrant” and call on Americans to “put Trump in a bull’s-eye,” how can they be surprised when conservatives rally to the president’s side? But silencing speech is no answer, regardless of how distasteful it may be. In the marketplace of ideas, thoughts and speech should be allowed to compete, and, presumably, Americans will be well enough informed to raise what’s right and true to the top. This competition comes with


inherent risk — words have power — but the free exchange of ideas should outweigh the cost. That was a principle that Mr. Kirk espoused better than anyone. It might be politically expedient


for lawmakers to simply turn off those they disagree with. But such actions only lend themselves to more retaliation — what’s to stop Democrats from censuring Republicans the next time they have control of Congress? — and squelch debate of ideas, which is what good policy is built on. Joe Rogan, a libertarian who


has the courage to speak truth over party-line dogma, said it well when talking about Jimmy Kimmel getting pulled off the air for making comments many Americans, myself included, found inaccurate and troubling. “I definitely don’t think the government should be involved, ever, in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue,” he cautioned. “You are crazy for supporting this because this will be used on you.” Without question, ordinary Americans want to see civility restored to our government and political systems. We won’t get there by canceling those we disagree with.


Ken Buck, a former GOP congressman from Colorado, is a consultant focusing on political strategy for business development and public affairs.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112