The midterm elections are just around the corner, and voters will soon be heading to the polls with an unpredictable mix of passion, resentment, party loyalty and patriotism. Experts say the main issues driving turnout next month will be the economy, the war in Iraq, the candidates’ personalities and, of course, perceptions of the current president.
One issue that sadly gets no press – from our TV screens and podcasts, X-posts or bullying pulpits – is one that should receive overwhelming attention in any election, but especially this one.
This question is the focus of this week: national free speech week. Free speech, the foundation of all other freedoms, is especially threatened in our current political culture. Without this freedom we cannot advocate anything else. Suppressing speech limits our ability to address all other issues of personal and national concern.
Our candidates largely know this, but some go to great lengths to hide their determination to control voters’ personal and political conversations. Many politicians not only disagree with their opponents but also oppose their views. They want to use the power of the government to suppress them.
coloradoFor example, he is a typical representative of this kind of governance. Local officials have made it clear many times parents should not be allowed to ask about their children’s public school placements; that bookstore owner should be forced to call people by the wrong pronoun; that Tutor They should not be free to decide what is best for the young people who come to them for help.
what do they want to decide cake artist Writing and designing your own culinary creations, and what not graphic artist Publish on their website. This is a state where many officials appear to have contempt not just for their own people, but for the First Amendment itself, demanding ironclad control over the communications of its citizens.
They are not the only elected officials working toward this end, and there are examples from other parts of the world. Think of Britain, where ordinary people are arrested for standing on the sidewalk, pray silently. Or Finland, where a former cabinet minister is on trial for sharing biblical views on sex in a pamphlet she wrote for her church – 20 years ago.
Or Australia, where a man’s X account was blocked because he Question political appointments. Or Nigeria, where a man faces Died from sharing song lyrics he wrote.
Across the globe, censorship is sweeping across the political landscape. Across the United States, water levels are rising everywhere: basketball court arrive classroom, pulpit arrive private residence. The candidates who win the upcoming midterm elections are likely to have a decisive influence at the city, state, and national levels on the extent to which this censorship further eats away at our freedoms.
Speeches can be persuasive and debates can be healthy. But candidates are more than just their words. Voters should pay attention to how candidates stand up to encourage and protect free speech—whether for their opponents or their friends.
Check the candidate’s past performance. See who stands with them; listen who speaks for them. What speech-related legislation are these people pressing for? What do they think can be done to suppress social and political views with which they disagree? Are they willing to accept scrutiny if it reduces analysis of certain issues they don’t want voters to hear?
Political discussion should provide for informed viewpoints, an appreciation of history and tradition, and genuine respect for the rights and opinions of those who do not share our views. Thoughtful voters should look for these points in candidates’ words and actions, tracking patterns of character and behavior that go beyond clichés.
Yes, it takes time and some homework. We must pay attention. But in the end, it’s a small price to pay for good government. Candidates who censor their opponents and silence our speech are not vying for the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens—they are seeking to rule them. Their denial of free speech demonstrates a deep contempt for the people who elected them.
If we elect them anyway — if we give them the power and influence we arguably deserve — simply because we can’t be bothered to understand what they are really like — including the increasingly illiberal future we sentence ourselves and our children to.
***
Tyson Langhofer is senior advisor and director of the Free Speech Center Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADF Law).