Trumps rules for protesters; for thee, not me
Dare I say that Trump’s election left me feeling hopeful?
After 4 years under anonymous rule, watching the emperor forget what clothes are, it appeared we had met our low-water mark. Thank God I feel free to say so.
But here’s the problem;
The conversation around free speech in America has always been a complex one, often reflecting the political moment rather than a universally applied principle. Recently, former/current President Donald Trump, who has positioned himself as a “free speech absolutist,” has also stated that pro-Palestinian protesters should be deported—a statement that raises eyebrows and questions about consistency, rights, and the limits of protected speech.
Free Speech: A principle or a rally cry?
According to Reuters, Trump suggested that pro-Palestinian demonstrators should be subject to deportation, citing national security concerns and a perceived lack of patriotism. Somebody didn’t get the memo that free speech doesn’t only belong to the patriots. I haven’t given my life for any freedom, including the freedom of speech but I have a lot of reverence for those freedoms because of people who did. So how can someone expect PRIVATE COMPANIES to honor their freedom of speech without maintaining that expectation for the government?
Yes, that’s maybe the most painfully hilarious irony of this situation; in the very same day that Reuters published this report, it was reported that Facebook was settling for $25 million with the former/current President for banning him from their platforms. In other words, Trump strong-armed a private company into paying him for denying him freedom of speech, a right he is not guaranteed by any private business.
Free speech has historically been a sacred principle in American democracy, protecting everything from civil rights protests to controversial political movements. Yet, throughout history, leaders from both political parties have shown a tendency to support free speech selectively—defending it when it aligns with their views and restricting it when it does not.
Selective Free Speech: A Broader Pattern
This debate is not unique to Trump. The boundaries of acceptable speech have been shifting for decades, influenced by public sentiment, national security concerns, and political strategy. In fact, a large reason that I and many others felt more comfortable with a new Trump presidency this time around was because of the very same pattern of speech suppression as evidenced by the Facebook lawsuit. According to Mark Zuckerberg and the Twitter files, the Biden administration had a nasty habit of using the FBI against their detractors. They would contact platforms and “strongly suggest” that they remove unapproved speech.
To me this was a red herring; a horrifying example of how unstable our access to rights can truly be. There are countless examples where different administrations have defended or curtailed speech based on ideological alignment. Biden wasn’t the first, and as we learned today, he wasn’t the last.
Past movements—such as Vietnam War protests, and the Civil Rights Movement, both examples exhibiting governments arresting peaceful protesters, and more recently, January 6th demonstrations—have all sparked government scrutiny. The response to these events has often been shaped not by an objective standard of free speech, but rather by who is speaking and what they are saying. AOC tolerant of mostly peaceful protests conducted by BLM but yet fervently in opposition to January 6. Who was speaking in 2020 BLM protests and what were they saying that Dems would be tolerant of? Who was speaking on January 6th that they found so deplorable?
What Does This Mean for Accountability?
Regardless of political affiliation, a government’s stance on free speech ought to be consistent. If we allow speech to be criminalized or punished selectively, we risk undermining the very principle that makes democratic discourse possible. Rather than viewing this as a partisan issue, it should be seen as an opportunity to demand that all leaders, regardless of ideology, uphold free speech consistently.
At its core, this is not just about Trump, nor just about the pro-Palestinian protests—it is about the larger expectation we set for our leaders. If we believe in the First Amendment, we must be willing to defend it even when the message being expressed is something we disagree with.
Encouraging Thoughtful Reflection
As the conversation continues, it’s worth asking: Are we holding leaders to the same standard, regardless of political affiliation? When you read that Trump plans to deport protesters, does that give you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside? What about when you learned that Biden had been silencing “misinformation” on social platforms? Until you, yes you, look within yourself to identify your own patterns of thought, can we expect any better from elected leaders? Are we comfortable with free speech protections only when they align with our views? Recognizing these patterns is crucial to ensure a future where free speech is upheld consistently and not used as a political tool.
My rule for Trump: Operate on PRINCIPLE, not on pride.
