Alamogordo NM
Opinion
Tuesday September 30 2025 11:04am

What Is Free Speech

This post expresses the views and opinions of the author(s) and not necessarily that of 2nd Life Media Alamogordo Town News management or staff.

What is the purpose of free speech? Not the definition of free
speech, but the purpose behind it.

The definition of
free speech is to convey facts or opinions to the general public, but
generally excludes the use of
obscenity’s, unsubstantiated malicious defamatory remarks, and
threats.

The purpose of free
speech is the free exchange of facts and opinions, and to openly
debate the merits of those facts and
opinions in an open forum where people who don’t share you’re
view are likely to be able to hear them
and debate.

For the last couple
thousand years there have only been two main forums that have
fulfilled the purpose of free speech,
institutions of higher learning, and taverns. There are other
venues, such as town halls and such, but
they’re sporadic, you can’t go there any day of the week.

News media and
social media operate under the protections of free speech, but they
do not fully fulfill the purpose of free
speech. It is important to note that the Constitution lists freedom
of speech and freedom of the press separately in the first amendment.
Our founding fathers knew that freedom of the press, while
important, did not fulfill all of the purpose of freedom of speech,
and that likewise, freedom of speech
may not give adequate protection to report a story critical of
government.

News stories must
pass editorial review before being released, and the editorial staff
must act under the guidance of the owners. News outlets set a
political tone or image of themselves, and viewers/readers know stories will be
biased towards whatever side the publication leans to. News outlets
express the opinions in line with the owners/editors, and some allow
opinions with opposing views, but they are not an open platform
for debate.

 At first glance social media appears to be an open platform for debate, but that’s a deception.  Debate requires a
thoughtful exchange of ideas and equally thought out rebuttal’s.  Social media is
designed around short provocative statements and equally provocative
responses.

I haven’t been on
social media for over a decade, but I don’t see any indication that
it has changed since that time. I
have never seen, and I challenge anyone to show me on any social
media platform, a true thoughtful
debate of ideas where each side gave detailed explanations of their
positions.

The other problem
with social media not fulfilling the purpose of free speech, is that
for the average user in the average situation, it’s not an open
platform. Tik Tok is the best example of this, but all platforms do
this to varying degrees, and that is that algorithms in the software
tend to segregate users into blocks based on
what they’ve interacted with in the past. So if you look at a
Democrats post, they’ll show you more Democrats posts, if you look
at an environmentalists post, it’ll show you more environmentalists
posts and so on.

The only time you
see something out of your sphere of interest is when it’s trending,
and the only way to trend is to be inflammatory. So regardless of
which side of the argument you’re on, you’re either going to see
a trending post that sets you off, or an inflammatory response to it
that sets you off.

It’s not that
social media permits inflammatory rhetoric, it’s that social media
can’t exist in it’s present form without it. Asking social media
companies to help tone down the rhetoric is like promoting an arsonist to fire
chief.

The left has
systematically shut down free speech on campuses not just in the US,
but around the world. That attack started nearly 100 years ago, is
well documented, and is on going.

The attacks on free
speech on campus aren’t just in the realm of political ideology,
but in almost
every aspect of
science. Researchers are not allowed to question subjects that the
left considers to be “Settled
Science”, such as global warming, climate change, the origins of
Covid, critical race
theory and many
other topics. There is no such thing as settled science, there is
only stagnated science if open debate is
not allowed. An earth centered universe was settled science before
Galileo, and remained official
church doctrine for 300 years after his death. The Auto Pen
administration forced
social media
platforms, including Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, to censor anyone
not inline with administration
positions on Covid and climate change among other topics. That
administration also denied research
grants to anyone who had ever questioned the science of vaccines,
climate change,
and a whole host of
other areas of legitimate scientific research, even if the current
grant application didn’t involve any
of those subjects.

 The last bastion of
free speech, the neighborhood bar, has been under bi-partisan attack
since the 80’s.

No other venue in
history has been as instrumental to promoting civil discourse between
different segments of a
society. The local bar was where you saw and eventually got to know
people with views different from your
own. It doesn’t happen at other public venues because there is no
interaction.

The attacks on
neighborhood bars have occurred under the guise of health and safety,
trying to curtail alcohol abuse and
DUI/DWI.  States and local
jurisdictions have systematically forced the closing of neighborhood
bars in favor of bar/restaurant establishments and microbrewery’s
and winery’s. None of these types of establishments promote open social
interaction of a cross section of a neighborhood. Bar/restaurant
type of establishments discourage conversation with anyone not seated
at your table. And microbrewery’s and winery’s tend to have a
very homogeneous clientele, so you’re really not going to meet
anyone outside you’re own political sphere.

The whole health and
safety aspect doesn’t fly, because a person can still go out and
drink to intoxication. Closing the neighborhood bar in favor of a
large bar/restaurant also increases DUI/DWI in three ways, first
fewer people are within walking distance, second if a person does
make the mistake of driving, they have to drive a lot further,
increasing the risk of accidents, and third, with the ever increasing
rise in property crime, fewer people are inclined to leave their
vehicle across town over night to take a cab home, making them more
likely to drive that longer distance to get home.

So it really appears
to me that the ultimate goal behind the closing of the neighborhood
bar is first and foremost the curtailment of free speech.

Rights exist as a means to ensure we have an opportunity to fulfill our obligations.  The right to free speech exists because we have an obligation to promote what is best for our community, our country, and it's citizens, as well as bringing attention to things that may do harm.  If your words and actions shut down any response from those with different opinions or ideas, you may be protected by free speech laws, but you are not really engaging in free speech.

These are my
opinions, I wish I could think of any venue where I could express
them AND have a free and open debate about them, but there is not a
single public bar left in my town of 38,000.

I shared drafts of
this article with a couple people and asked them for suggestions on
which venue to post it to. They
both said it would be well received in a variety of conservative
publications.  But in my opinion
that wouldn’t fulfill the purpose of free speech, which is to be
able to express ones opinions in a
thoughtful manor to those who don’t necessarily share it. It will
be interesting to see what the staff and
readers of the Alamogordo Town News consider a thoughtful and
reasoned rebuttal.

1 11
I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive

Replies

9-30-2025 11:46am

Appreciate the editorial comments and frankly agree with a majority of it. Locally you are correct there are no bars and I agree with your sentiments concerning the bars and their role to free speech. I might disagree with your sentiments of their demise locally as when the town was more liberally led there were many great bars.

As the local brain drain and good jobs drain occurred so did the bars. There are three planned for the New York Avenue district 2 of which will open in about a year once their building retrofits occur. Let’s hope they are bastions of free speech. 

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
9-30-2025 7:33pm

The evidence for climate change is overwhelming. Rising global temperatures, melting ice caps, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels all point to it. Human activity, including burning fossil fuels, deforestation, industrial emissions, and food manufacturing, is the primary driver. Petrochemical companies fund think tanks and lobbyists to create the illusion of debate, but it is for profit, not science. There is always more to learn, but the evidence is compelling/

You lump Critical Race Theory into science, which demonstrates a complete misunderstanding. CRT is a framework for analyzing law and society, not a scientific theory. Including it as science shows your argument is more political rhetoric than reasoned analysis.

Are we seriously still debating vaccines? The facts are obvious. Denying them is as ridiculous as flerf's nonsense.

I have nothing but contempt for Biden. But you ignore that the current administration wants to empower precisely the villain in your Galileo comparison, the church. Recent executive orders targeting anti-Christian speech raise new free speech concerns.

Neither party is worth a bucket of warm ****, but open your eyes. If you think the answer is in either of the parties shafting us now, then you need to get a clue.

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
10-01-2025 9:33am

The topic is free speech, what it is, and how it's been attacked and curtailed.
You highlight my arguments quite effectively, in that the wording of your response is designed to attempt to shut down any conversation about any of the topics you list.
You imply that anyone that disagrees with your position is either ignorant or stupid, or both, and that therefore any conversation would be meritless.

I could debate you on each of the separate points you make, but again the topic is free speech, so I will address your final point.
I have reviewed all EO's going back to Jan., and the only one involving religion is one establishing the Religious Liberty Consul, which is an unpaid consul setup to advise the president on recommendations to protect religious freedoms.  None of it's recommendations have resulted thus far in an EO, or even a memorandum.
But if you think there's an EO that affects free speech, tell us which one it is, and we can discuss it's details.
One final point, social studies and history are intertwined areas of science, CRT would fall into that field.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
10-01-2025 4:11pm

What utter projection. You accuse me of implying anyone who disagrees is ignorant or stupid, when in reality you are the one dismissing disagreement while pretending to defend free speech. I enjoy these kinds of discussions. I simply pushed back on what I consider weak arguments. I live for these type of discussions. If you had a rebuttal, I would have expected you to present it instead of projecting and moving on. Sad.

By the way, the September 22, 2025 Order designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization explicitly singles out people for holding certain political, social, or religious views. This is not just anti-free speech; it is anti-freedom itself. Also, Antifa is not even an organization; it is an ideology. 

If your goal is truly defending free speech, start by accepting that people can challenge you without being idiots. Otherwise, you are just whining about disagreement while pretending it is a principle.

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
10-01-2025 7:46pm

Here is the full test of the EO declaring ANTIFA a terrorist organization;

Section 1. Antifa as a Terrorist Threat.
Antifa is a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for
the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement
authorities, and our system of law. It uses illegal means to organize
and execute a campaign of violence and terrorism nationwide to
accomplish these goals. This campaign involves coordinated efforts to
obstruct enforcement of Federal laws through armed standoffs with law
enforcement, organized riots, violent assaults on Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement officers, and routine
doxing of and other threats against political figures and activists.
Antifa recruits, trains, and radicalizes young Americans to engage in
this violence and suppression of political activity, then employs
elaborate means and mechanisms to shield the identities of its
operatives, conceal its funding sources and operations in an effort to
frustrate law enforcement, and recruit additional members. Individuals
associated with and acting on behalf of Antifa further coordinate with
other organizations and entities for the purpose of spreading,
fomenting, and advancing political violence and suppressing lawful
political speech. This organized effort designed to achieve policy
objectives by coercion and intimidation is domestic terrorism.

Sec. 2. Designation as a Domestic Terrorist Organization.
Because of the aforementioned pattern of political violence designed to
suppress lawful political activity and obstruct the rule of law, I
hereby designate Antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization.” All
relevant executive departments and agencies shall utilize all applicable
authorities to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal
operations — especially those involving terrorist actions — conducted by
Antifa or any person claiming to act on behalf of Antifa, or for which
Antifa or any person claiming to act on behalf of Antifa provided
material support, including necessary investigatory and prosecutorial
actions against those who fund such operations.

Sec. 3. General Provisions.
(a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law.
This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or
benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by
any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or
entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(b) This order shall be published in the Federal Register.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 22, 2025.

Nowhere in it does it call for any action against any ideology, be it political, religious, or anything else.

Violence is not free speech.  Funding or promoting violence is not free speech.

So where in this EO is there an attack on free speech?

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
10-01-2025 9:25pm

"Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence" September 22, 2025.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/designating-ant…

"Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. As described in the Order of September 22, 2025 (Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization),"

Keep up. You're a terrorist because you don't support repressive views on marriage, religion, or morality? Give me a break.

Supporting reparations makes you a terrorist? Because you realize gender is a spectrum, not a binary result, is terrorism? 

Because I don't care what one person does with their thing with another consenting adults, I'm a terrorist?

Because I do not care to lick the boots of corporate billionaires, I'm a terrorist?

My position on migration could make me a terrorist?

Give me a break. If you do not see their blatant attempt to create a chilling effect on those of us who are not duped by the administration, then I don't know where to begin.

This is literally a move to end whatever fragments of a free society we still have. This whole "enemy within" mindset reminds me of someone else in history. I only hope that it does not end that poorly.

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
10-01-2025 10:42am

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" ~ Isaac Asimov

"Increasingly, our leaders must deal with dangers that threaten the entire world, where an understanding of those dangers and the possible solutions depends on a good grasp of science. The ozone layer, the greenhouse effect, acid rain, questions of diet and heredity. All require scientific literacy. Can Americans choose the proper leaders and support the proper programs if they themselves are scientifically illiterate? The whole premise of democracy is that it is safe to leave important questions to the court of public opinion - but is it safe to leave them to the court of public ignorance?" ~ Isaac Asimov

"Science is a set of rules to keep us from telling lies to each other. All scientists really have is a reputation for telling the truth." ~ Isaac Asimov

"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly." ~ Isaac Asimov

"Science is a set of rules to keep us from telling lies to each other. All scientists really have is a reputation for telling the truth." ~ Isaac Asimov

"Uncertainty that comes from knowledge (knowing what you don't know) is different from uncertainty coming from ignorance." ~ Isaac Asimov

"Life is a journey, but don't worry, you'll find a parking spot at the end." ~ Isaac Asimov

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
10-01-2025 8:24pm

Isaac Asimov was a great man, well versed in multiple areas of science and a prolific writer of both fiction and non-fiction.
You seem to be quoting from one of his only failures, a book he wrote in the 1980's in which he was trying to explain science to the general non-scientific public.  I say failure because he doesn't seem to have gotten through to some people.
I don't need 4 books to define the concept of science.
Science is the study of the world around us, both physical and conceptual.
It is practiced by making detailed observations, theorizing on the causal relationships observed, and then conducting controlled experiments to reproduce the effects observed.
If a result is not reproducible, it is considered a failed experiment.
But this article is not about science, it is about free speech.
Science is just one of the many subjects that cannot survive without free speech and fair and open debate.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
10-02-2025 10:00am

and it is being rejected and attacked on a daily basis by the current regime - free speech is being reserved for supporters of dear leader, and oppressed for those with vision enough to see what is happening....it's a shame you're not part of the latter group.

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive