The Free Speech Double Standard

In recent weeks, free speech has become a hot topic in America.

Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show was briefly suspended after he commented on the political ideology of Charlie Kirk’s suspected killer. The suspension prompted free speech outcries, which were exacerbated by comments from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” A few days earlier, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi sparked outrage (even from many on the right) by saying the government should “absolutely target” people for “hate speech,” a statement she later walked back under pressure. 

We all value the First Amendment, but these moments reveal a pattern: government officials using their positions to push against speech they don’t like from the other side. So what counts as “going too far,” and who gets to decide? Why does “free speech” seem to mean one thing when your side is talking, and something entirely different when the other side speaks? And is censorship really the best way to combat ideas we don’t like?

Wielding Government Power to Shut Down Speech

One of the most persistent myths is that censorship is only a problem on the other side of the political spectrum. In reality, both conservatives and liberals have used government power to try to shut down speech they dislike.

At public universities in states like California and New York, student and faculty protests have led administrators—backed by Democratic-appointed boards—to cancel appearances by controversial speakers such as Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, or Ann Coulter. While framed as protecting students from “harmful” speech, these are taxpayer-funded institutions, meaning the government was directly involved in shutting down events protected under the First Amendment. (In each case, the university was eventually forced to allow the pundits to speak anyway and sometimes paid fines to campus conservative groups.) Democratic officials in Congress have also leaned on tech companies, often under the shadow of regulation, to remove political speech considered “harmful.”

Conservative-led states like Florida and Texas have championed laws restricting what schools and workplaces can teach about race, gender, and history. Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” went so far as to ban certain classroom discussions, until federal courts blocked large parts of it for violating the First Amendment. Book restrictions in school libraries, often targeting titles dealing with racism or LGBTQ identity, are another example of governments stepping in to limit what ideas can circulate.

This isn’t about splitting hairs over what counts as free speech. The bigger problem is the mindset: my side equals freedom, while your side equals oppression. That framing turns free speech into a partisan tug-of-war instead of a shared value.

The “Us vs. Them” Trap

Once speech is treated as a political weapon, consistency disappears. Each side paints itself as the guardian of liberty and the other as the true authoritarians. But when the political winds shift, those roles often flip.

In each case, the rhetoric of defending democracy or protecting citizens justified government crackdowns on speech. And in each case, the principle of free expression was sacrificed to the priorities of the moment.

Polarization intensifies this cycle: the more entrenched we become in our side, the easier it is to dismiss opposing voices not as fellow citizens exercising their rights but as threats to be silenced. And when the other side holds power, that fear flips—we start worrying our own rights could be next on the chopping block. Free speech (and its limits) essentially becomes a weapon in a zero-sum game. 

Who Defines “Speech”?

The fiercest battles erupt not only over restrictions but over definitions. Liberals often frame speech they see as causing harm as something the state should be able to limit. Marginalized groups argue that unchecked language can perpetuate systemic harm and oppression, so regulation is necessary.

Conservatives, meanwhile, frequently denounce restrictions as censorship. They argue that the liberal definition of “harm” often stretches too wide, labeling speech as dangerous when it may simply be disagreeable. Yet in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, some Republicans called for investigations into journalists and activists they accused of using harmful language. In other words, politicians who often criticize “woke silencing” were, in this moment, calling for state-led consequences against dissent.

These shifting definitions reveal a hard truth: they aren’t neutral. They’re shaped by power, history, and lived experience—and they change depending on whose side of the field the ball lands.

Breaking Out of the In-Group

All of this gets filtered through partisan media, which magnifies the sense of grievance. Conservative outlets spotlight examples of Democratic-led crackdowns, like the California misinformation law or campus speech codes. Liberal outlets focus on conservative-led restrictions, such as book bans and Trump’s lawsuits against reporters.

The result is a nation where both sides are convinced that free speech is only under attack from their opponents. Each side feels like the victim, and neither sees its own role in undermining the principle.

If free speech is only defended when it benefits your team, then it’s not really free speech. The true test is whether we are willing to protect speech we hate. Would you still defend free expression if it were your opponent’s rally, your opponent’s book, or your opponent’s joke? If the answer is no, then what you are defending isn’t free speech—it’s just team loyalty.

The Best Way to Fight Ideas You Dislike

At its best, speech should serve as a bridge rather than a weapon. That doesn’t mean offensive ideas deserve applause. It means the best way to fight bad ideas is through better ones, not through government bans.

The Kimmel controversy makes this clear. The issue isn’t whether his comments crossed a line. The real issue is how we choose to respond. Do we demand lawsuits, censorship, or government investigations? Or do we push back with more speech, more debate, and more dialogue?

Free speech has always been messy, but it only works if it’s consistent. If we want it to mean anything at all, we have to defend it vigorously—even when it stings. Especially then.

—Alex Buscemi (abuscemi@buildersmovement.org)