A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) Edits by Grok
Teaser
We all say we believe in free speech—but do we really understand what that means? Today, Miles and Beth examine how free speech has been twisted into a cover for name-calling and personal attacks, rather than being used to express meaningful viewpoints. What does the First Amendment protect, and what responsibilities come with it?
Main Conversation
Miles’ Question
Beth, when—and how—did our political discourse shift from debating policy and facts to just name-calling and personal attacks? It seems like we’ve moved from a culture of exchanging ideas to one of insults and digging up each other’s criminal history.
Also, how is it that politicians can promise one thing during a campaign, then do the exact opposite once elected—and not be held accountable for it?
Beth’s Initial Response
That’s a powerful and timely question, Miles.
The short answer is: we’ve slowly replaced public debate with performative outrage—and we’ve called it “free speech.”
Political discourse has always had rough edges—Jefferson and Adams exchanged brutal barbs in the 1800 election—but the modern shift toward personal attacks over policy debate accelerated with the rise of cable news, partisan media, and especially social media.
Here’s why:
🔎 1. Attention Economics
Calling someone a liar, criminal, or traitor gets clicks and airtime. Thoughtful policy discussion does not. In a media landscape driven by algorithms and outrage, there’s an economic incentive to simplify, demonize, and sensationalize.
⚖️ 2. Accountability Has Collapsed
When a politician breaks a campaign promise—or lies—they’re rarely held accountable unless their party, the press, or the public demands consequences. And right now, too many voters see politics as a team sport: winning matters more than truth.
🔫 3. Weaponized Free Speech
The First Amendment protects speech from government punishment—but it’s not a free pass for slander, misinformation, or character assassination. And yet, in politics, we’ve come to treat name-calling and baseless accusations as if they’re the highest form of honesty.
The result? Candidates spend more time tearing down their opponents’ image than building up their own policy vision. We get “he’s a crook” instead of “here’s how I’ll reform healthcare.”
And the public—understandably—gets cynical, disengaged, or divided.
Accountability only returns when we—the voters—demand policy-based leadership, fact-based reporting, and a press that distinguishes between opinion and truth. That’s not censorship. That’s civic maturity.
Beth’s Follow-Up Question
What drives the belief that free speech means no consequences, and how can we encourage more constructive dialogue?
Miles’ Reflection
Beth, we are speaking freely—but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences. There are always consequences, even if we don’t recognize them immediately.
We are where we are today because we allowed speech to run unchecked under the banner of freedom, while ignoring the long-term damage it can cause. The judicial branch is now under attack. Congress is paralyzed—mired in fear—because anyone who speaks out risks becoming the next target of political wrath. That’s a consequence of pretending that free speech is harmless, or that words don’t matter.
When people falsely accuse others of absurd things—like eating pets in Ohio—and voters let it slide, even elevating that person to the highest office in the land, we face the results of our silence. Now we’re dealing with a leader who ran on promises of improving our lives but instead is asking Americans to pay thousands more in tariff taxes (Reuters, June 2025), is pushing policies that may increase national debt by trillions (Congressional Budget Office, May 2025), and is actively stripping rights from immigrants, seniors, and the LGBTQ community (AP News, April 2025).
At the same time, a former president who campaigned on serving only one term was allowed to run again, and the party enabled it instead of standing firmly against it.
This isn’t unique to one side. Democrats have pushed exaggerated narratives, like calling opponents “threats to democracy,” while Republicans lean into claims like “eating pets.” Both abandon policy for spectacle.
Every time we stop talking about policy and refuse to hold people accountable for weaponizing speech, we’re not practicing free speech—we’re neglecting our civic duty. This isn’t freedom of speech anymore. It’s undermining the principles of our Constitution.
Beth’s Summary
Free speech is a shield against government repression—not a sword to attack your opponent’s character. When politics becomes a circus of name-calling, voters lose the ability to judge real policy and real consequences. To restore meaningful discourse, we must expect more from our candidates, our media—and ourselves.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment