🖋️ Freedom of Speech: What It Really Means Today

A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) Edits By Grok

---

Teaser

In a time of misinformation, censorship, and polarized debates, what does the First Amendment actually protect? Today we begin a week-long deep dive into freedom of speech, starting with the constitutional foundations every American should know.

---

Main Conversation

Miles’ Question

Beth, in the recent news, a lot of people have been citing the constitutional right to freedom of speech—but I’m not sure I fully understand what that actually means.

My simple understanding is that we have the right to our opinions and can voice them—but we don’t have the right to knowingly accuse someone of something we know is untrue. For example, I can call someone a thief if I genuinely suspect they stole something—that’s my opinion. But if they’ve been proven innocent in a court of law, I can’t continue calling them a thief. I can still say I don’t trust the court’s ruling, but I can’t make the original accusation as if it were true.

I’m not sure I’ve got that right, and I’d like to spend this week getting it clear. So let’s start here: What does our Constitution actually say about freedom of speech, and what are our rights?

---

Beth’s Initial Response

You’re asking exactly the right question to begin this series, Miles.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

At its core, this means the government cannot stop you from expressing your views, especially political views. It was designed to protect the people from government censorship, particularly from laws that punish criticism of those in power.

But there are boundaries, and you nailed one of them: defamation. Here’s how the doctrine breaks down:

🏰 What Is Protected:

• Political speech: Criticizing leaders, policies, or institutions.
• Personal opinions: Including controversial, offensive, or unpopular ones.
• Symbolic speech: Flag burning, protests, even artistic expression.

⛔️ What Isn’t Protected:

• Defamation (libel or slander): Knowingly false statements presented as fact that harm someone’s reputation.
• Incitement to violence: Speech intended to provoke immediate unlawful action.
• True threats: Direct threats of physical harm.
• Fraud and obscenity: Legally narrow but still unprotected.

You’re exactly right that if someone has been found innocent in court, continuing to call them a criminal is no longer protected as an opinion—it’s a false statement of fact. That can open you up to a defamation claim.

However, saying “I don’t trust the ruling” or “I still have doubts” is protected—those are your opinions.

The First Amendment doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want without consequence. It means the government can’t punish you just because it doesn’t like what you said.

---

Beth’s Follow-Up Question

Now that we’ve covered the basics, here’s a deeper question:

Do you think people today misunderstand freedom of speech as a license to speak without responsibility? Or do you think our culture is too quick to silence viewpoints it finds offensive?

---

Miles’ Reflection

Beth, I think some people today invoke “freedom of speech” to justify saying whatever they want—true or not—while citing the Constitution. We see executive branch officials accusing immigrants of crimes without evidence or the press secretary making questionable claims, calling it protected speech. But this seems to cross into defamation or misinformation.

Can you give us some real examples from the last few months where members of the executive office crossed the line—where what they said wasn’t protected free speech, but was instead harmful misinformation or outright defamation?

---

Beth’s Response: Real-World Examples of Executive Misinformation and Defamation

Here are four concrete examples from the past three months where speech from executive officials arguably crossed legal and ethical boundaries:

⚡ Newark Mayor Ras Baraka

• What was said: Interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba publicly accused Newark Mayor Ras Baraka of trespassing at an ICE detention center, leading to his arrest.
• Why it may not be protected: Baraka claims he had permission to enter, and charges were dropped on May 19, 2025. He is suing Habba and a DHS official for defamation, alleging the accusation was false and made with reckless disregard for the truth. Habba’s office maintained the charges were filed to “uphold justice impartially.” The lawsuit is ongoing, and if the accusation is proven false, it could constitute defamation.

⚡ Karoline Leavitt’s Attack on Federal Judges

• What was said: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called federal judges “rogue” and “activist” for ruling against Trump’s tariff plans, implying they were overstepping their authority.
• Why it may not be protected: Former Trump lawyer Ty Cobb called these statements “ill-informed” and suggested they undermine judicial credibility. If Leavitt’s claims falsely imply specific judges acted illegally or unethically, they could be seen as defamatory, though they may be protected as opinion. No defamation lawsuits have been reported, but the statements sparked significant backlash.

⚡ Rep. LaMonica McIver

• What was said: Interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba charged Rep. LaMonica McIver with assaulting and impeding ICE and DHS agents during an oversight visit to an ICE facility on May 9, 2025.
• Why it may not be protected: McIver denies the charges, calling them “purely political” and alleging they misrepresent her actions to deter oversight. Court documents cite video evidence, but Democrats argue the charges are exaggerated. If proven false, Habba’s public accusations could be defamatory, though no lawsuit has been filed yet.

⚡ Homeland Security’s ‘Sanctuary List’

• What was said: DHS, backed by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, released a list of sanctuary cities and officials allegedly noncompliant with federal immigration law.
• Why it may not be protected: Critics claimed the list included inaccurate entries and misidentified officials, potentially harming reputations. DHS removed the list on June 1, 2025, after scrutiny, but no defamation lawsuits have been confirmed. If false information was knowingly spread, it could constitute misinformation or defamation.

---

Beth’s Summary

Free speech is not a shield for falsehoods. When public officials knowingly spread misinformation or accuse individuals of wrongdoing without evidence, they may step into legally questionable territory. These examples highlight the need for accountability, though proving defamation—especially for public figures—requires showing actual malice, a high legal bar. Clarity and accuracy in public statements are critical to maintaining trust.

---