Introduction
What if I told you that the way we currently understand “freedom of speech” is slowly destroying freedom of speech?
That sounds backwards.
But I want to challenge something many Americans take for granted:
That freedom of speech means anyone can say anything without consequences.
That’s not what we practice.
And it’s not what our society can survive.
If we want to keep freedom of speech — we need to reform what we think it means.
Myth vs. Reality
The First Amendment says:
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Most people hear that and think:
“Speech is absolute.”
But here’s the problem.
That sentence only restricts Congress. It doesn’t explicitly mention the executive branch. It doesn’t mention state governments. It doesn’t mention local officials.
And even more importantly — in practice — we already limit speech.
We have defamation law.
We have libel and slander.
We have fraud statutes.
We have laws against perjury — lying in court.
We have laws against inciting violence.
We have laws against threatening people with violence.
So what’s happening?
We say one thing is absolute in the Constitution…
But we practice something else in reality.
And over time, we’ve grown comfortable living with that contradiction.
That’s dangerous.
Because when the law says one thing and society practices another, people stop believing in the law.
A Real Crisis
Now look at where we are.
Public officials can knowingly lie to millions of people.
Candidates can make baseless accusations.
Influencers can spread provably false claims.
Media personalities can imply wrongdoing without evidence.
And the consequences are rare.
The result?
We no longer agree on basic facts.
We live in parallel realities.
People are demonized based on lies.
Communities are divided based on misinformation.
Trust collapses.
Freedom of speech depends on a shared commitment to truth and peaceful discourse.
When speech becomes weaponized dishonesty —
freedom doesn’t grow stronger.
It corrodes.
Why This Matters
A society cannot function without:
- Shared facts
- Basic trust
- Peaceful communication
If speech becomes a tool for manipulation without consequence, eventually the public will demand heavy-handed control.
History shows that when chaos rises, people trade liberty for order.
If we want to prevent that overcorrection,
we need to responsibly define the boundaries ourselves.
The freedom of speech was meant to protect the free exchange of ideas and especially political speech such as dissent and protest and petitions. And it’s common sense that these things are essential for robust democracy.
Freedom of speech was never meant to protect malicious deception. There’s evidence for that in the laws and customs that were already in place before the American Revolution. Lies, defamation, fraud, misinformation, violent threats, and incitement to violence are harmful to people and they’re harmful to society and they don’t need to be protected.
There is a difference.
Hard Questions
So here’s an uncomfortable question:
What if the concept of an absolute freedom of speech is part of the problem?
Because think about it:
Defamation already requires that someone knowingly made a false statement that caused harm.
Fraud already requires intentional deception.
Incitement already requires intent and likelihood of violence.
We already distinguish between mistakes and malicious lies.
We already use courts.
We already use judges and juries.
We already use due process.
The government is not inventing truth.
It’s providing a process to examine claims when harm is alleged.
So instead of pretending speech is absolute —
why not make explicit what we already practice?
What if the freedom of speech should be limited to protecting honest and peaceful speech?
The Reform
The reform I’m proposing is simple in principle:
Freedom of speech should be constitutionally defined as the right to honest and peaceful communication.
Speech that is:
- Knowingly false and intended to harm
- Fraudulent
- Defamatory
- Inciting violence
Should be eligible for legislation that makes perpetrators accountable — clearly and constitutionally.
Especially when the speaker is:
- An elected official
- A political candidate
- Or someone with massive public influence
Because when someone like that knowingly lies to millions of people about verifiable facts, they’re not just expressing an opinion.
They’re harming society.
They’re eroding the shared factual foundation democracy depends on.
And if we allow our society to disintegrate, the same society that protects all of our rights and freedoms, then we won’t have any rights or freedoms. They’ll be gone — including our freedom of speech.
The reform I’m proposing will help us preserve our rights and freedoms.
Objection!
Do I want the government to decide what’s true? No.
Am I asking for a Ministry of Truth to be created to monitor what everyone says? No.
Should the government be in charge of deciding what’s true? No.
We already have a process for resolving disputes over truth — it’s called the judicial system.
When someone sues for defamation, we don’t say,
“Oh no, the government is deciding truth.”
We say that we need due process:
Present evidence.
Have a trial.
Let a jury decide.
We already have a system for resolving disputes and conflicting claims that relies on evidence. We already have a standard for winning — proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And we already use judges and juries to ensure the process is fair and that the people deciding have no personal stake in the verdict.
It’s a cornerstone of our democratic civilization.
The difference is that right now our constitutional language doesn’t match our legal reality.
That mismatch weakens both.
We can fix this with the judicial system we already have.
Closing
The goal is not to shrink freedom.
The goal is to preserve it.
If we redefine freedom of speech as the right to honest and peaceful communication, we align our Constitution with what we already practice — and what democracy requires.
Freedom without responsibility collapses.
Freedom grounded in truth and peace can endure.
If we want to keep free speech…
We need to be brave enough to reform it.