Left Develops Love for Free Speech, Now That it Serves Them

Only in America can we witness the political murder of a conservative icon like Charlie Kirk — a man vilified for years by the progressive establishment — and then watch the very same people who celebrated his de-platforming turn into civil libertarians overnight.

It's as if a switch was flipped in the collective brain of the Democratic Party: “Oh, free speech is actually important now that we’re the ones who feel threatened.”

The hypocrisy would be laughable if it weren't so grotesque. For eight long years under Obama and four more under Biden, the Democrats worked tirelessly to narrow the bounds of acceptable speech.

They cheered when Big Tech censored the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story in the final weeks of the 2020 election.

They applauded when the FBI labeled school-board parents as "domestic terrorists."

They nodded sagely when the DOJ threatened Catholic parishes with "monitoring" for extremism. They justified every new speech code on campus, every human resources training about "microaggressions," every firing of dissenters in the name of "inclusion."

But now - now that the right has been pushed so far that a beloved conservative voice was gunned down — only now are they suddenly talking about "preserving a culture of dialogue."

The New York Times runs op-eds about the "chilling effect" of cancel culture. MSNBC hosts wring their hands about the dangers of silencing dissent. CNN trots out panels on the importance of “hearing from all sides.”

Give me a break!

Where was this energy when conservative students were shouted down on college campuses, sometimes violently, for daring to invite speakers like Ben Shapiro or Heather MacDonald?

Where were the op-eds when anti-abortion activists were arrested for praying outside abortion clinics?

Where was the righteous indignation when churches were padlocked during COVID while casinos and liquor stores stayed open — because of course, whisky, vodka, and beer were "essential," but Sunday Mass was not?

Let’s remind everyone of something civics used to teach before we started replacing history class with DEI seminars: the First Amendment isn’t just about speech. It’s about religion, too. It guarantees the right to speak, the right to assemble, the right to worship freely —all without government interference.

Yet for more than a decade, Democrats have treated religious freedom like an inconvenient relic. They’ve tried to force Catholic nuns to buy birth-control insurance, sued Christian bakers for not celebrating same-sex weddings, and mocked anyone who suggested that faith deserved respect in the public square.

Now they lecture the country about "protecting our constitutional rights."

Spare us.

You don't get to cherry-pick which rights count depending on whether they advance your cultural agenda.

And let’s be honest: the reason the left has been so hostile to the First Amendment is because they’ve already built their own replacement faith.

It's a secular religion we now call wokeness. Like every religion, it has its catechism ("check your privilege"), its high priests (Ibram X. Kendi, Greta Thunberg), its sacred texts (The 1619 Project), and its inquisitions (Twitter mobs).

But unlike real religion — which has a long tradition of tolerance, grace, and redemption - this new faith has no forgiveness. Its only sacrament is public shaming.

Its only salvation is a groveling apology. And its zealots are some of the most dogmatic, intolerant fundamentalists you will ever meet.

If you think that’s hyperbole, consider this: during the height of cancel culture, a single wrong tweet from ten years ago could cost you your career.

Comedians self-censored. Journalists were purged from newsrooms. Even J.K. Rowling, for daring to say biological sex is real, was treated like a heretic worthy of excommunication.

That isn’t free expression. That's theocratic rule.

Only the theology is "equity and inclusion" rather than Christianity.

The silver lining is that America may finally be waking up to this madness. The backlash has begun. Parents are running for school boards to take back classrooms from ideological commissars.

States are passing laws to protect free speech on campus.

Even some liberals — real liberals, the kind who still believe in liberty — are breaking ranks and admitting that the left went too far.

But let’s be clear: this change of heart didn't come from introspection or moral growth.

It came from fear. The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a shockwave.

It forced the political class to confront what happens when you delegitimize, dehumanize, and silence half the country.

Eventually, words lead to violence. Eventually, someone pulls the trigger.

So yes, it's good that the Left is rediscovering the First Amendment.

But forgive us if we don't throw them a parade for finally getting there — after years and years of censorship, shaming, and moral bullying.

If Democrats really want to prove they've converted, they can start by applying free speech principles consistently: defend conservative voices on campus, protect religious liberty cases in court, and dismantle the government-tech censorship apparatus that operated like a "Ministry of Truth" during the pandemic.

Until then, all this talk about "dialogue" sounds less like a sincere conversion and more like a public relations campaign to protect their own power.

Charlie Kirk used to say that the only way to defeat bad ideas is with better ideas, not censorship. That’s as true now as ever.

But the left’s sudden embrace of free speech rings hollow when it comes only after they’ve destroyed careers, silenced churches, and criminalized dissent.

The First Amendment isn't a partisan tool. It's the bedrock of a free society.

If we want to avoid more violence — and more martyrs like Charlie — we must defend it for everyone, not just when it’s politically convenient.

And maybe, just maybe, the next time someone dares to speak an unpopular truth, the self-anointed guardians of democracy will resist the urge to cancel them and will remember that the real test of free speech is not protecting speech we like, but speech we hate.