Libertarian Position on Free Speech
Libertarianism prioritizes individual liberty, property rights, and minimal government interference, which shapes its stance on free speech across different contexts.
Government’s Role
The government must not censor or punish speech, as this violates core principles of liberty and the non-aggression principle. Free expression is absolute in the public sphere, protected from state intervention, aligning with protections like the U.S. First Amendment. Any attempt by the government to restrict speech is seen as authoritarian overreach.
Private Institutions
Private entities, such as companies, have the right to fire employees or restrict speech on their platforms because this falls under freedom of association and property rights. Employment or platform use is voluntary and contractual; no one has a right to compel a private business to host or employ them based on their speech. This includes social media companies moderating content or employers terminating staff for off-duty expressions that conflict with company values.
Cancel Culture
Often described as “mob rule,” cancel culture involves private individuals or groups using social pressure, boycotts, or calls for consequences (like firings) to punish disliked speech. From a libertarian perspective, this is permissible as an exercise of free speech and association—no government force is involved, so it’s not true censorship. While some libertarians criticize it as culturally stifling or hypocritical, they oppose any laws against it, viewing it as a market mechanism where ideas compete freely.
“Art of Hypocrisy” primer:
| Free Speech Issue | Left Fringe Hypocrisy (George Floyd Protests) | Right Fringe Hypocrisy (Charlie Kirk Assassination) |
| Picking and Choosing Free Speech | During the 2020 George Floyd protests, many on the left cheered massive rallies and marches, even when they turned chaotic, calling them vital free speech. But when conservative groups protested COVID lockdowns, leaders like NY Governor Andrew Cuomo slammed them as “dangerous” and “irresponsible.” Same rules, different treatment—free speech only seems okay when it’s their cause. | After Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, conservatives like Steve Bannon demanded firings and doxxed thousands online for celebrating Kirk’s death. Yet, these same voices cry foul when conservatives are “canceled” for their views. They love free speech—until it’s speech they hate. |
| Shutting Down Opponents | The left often pushes to silence “hate speech” (like criticism of BLM) by pressuring platforms or employers to cancel people. But during Floyd protests, fiery anti-police slogans or calls to “burn it down” were shrugged off as “passion.” They want free speech for their side, not yours. | The right’s been loud about Big Tech censorship, but post-Kirk, they’ve pushed to “cancel” people like an Oregon teacher or MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd for insensitive posts. Their “Professor Watchlist” already targeted left-leaning academics. Free speech? Sure, as long as it’s not against their heroes. |
| Why It Matters | Both sides claim to love free speech but flip-flop when it suits them. As a free speech absolutist, I say everyone should speak freely—no hate speech laws needed. But let’s be real: words can inflame. Both fringes could stand to think twice before speaking, not just point fingers. | Same deal here. The right’s quick to punish speech they don’t like while preaching “freedom.” If we want real free speech, everyone’s gotta take the heat—left, right, or in between. Mindfulness, not censorship, is the answer. |
Despite what the haters say, I am a free speech absolutist. You are free to say whatever you want. I am free not to associate with you. That’s how it works.
I just submitted a nomination of the LPNH for the Nackey Loeb First Amendment Award. Herewith:
I am writing to nominate the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) for the 2025 Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment Award, not in spite of their provocations–but because of them.
With their slogan, “Become Insufferable,” LPNH embodies the oldest and most uncomfortable truth of free speech: it isn’t meant to protect what’s popular, polite, or palatable. It’s there for the speech that makes your stomach churn. The kind that earns gasps, not claps. The kind that, historically, gets banned–right before everything else does, too.
Their social media posts–mostly lowbrow, often crass, frequently controversial, and sometimes downright offensive–force an urgent question into the public square: Do we still believe in free speech when it’s speech we abhor?
This is the very principle the ACLU defended in 1977, when they backed the National Socialist Party’s right to march through Skokie, Illinois. A Jewish lawyer, David Goldberger, argued that denying speech to the worst among us imperils speech for the rest of us. The Supreme Court agreed.
Like Skokie, the LPNH case is not about agreement or taste. It’s about whether the First Amendment applies equally to the unpopular, the indecent, the mad. Their July 2025 tweet–calling Martin Luther King a communist and mocking his legacy–was widely condemned, as was their 2024 post suggesting violence against Kamala Harris (later taken down). These are abhorrent messages to many, including to me. But this nomination isn’t about whether I like what they said. It’s about whether they had the right to say it.
LPNH insists they do–and they haven’t backed down. Even under pressure from national leadership, tech platform censorship, FBI inquiries, and widespread public backlash, they’ve doubled down on their core message: free speech must include the offensive, or it means nothing at all.
Legal precedent is on their side. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) clarified that even incendiary speech is protected unless it is both intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action. LPNH’s posts–though tasteless and provocative–have not crossed that legal threshold. What they have done is spark nationwide debate about the boundaries of protected speech in the digital age, about the line between rhetoric and violence, and about the role of political satire, trolling, and provocation in a polarized country.
Like Nackey Scripps Loeb herself, the LPNH uses its platform to challenge sacred cows and poke the establishment in the eye. You don’t have to agree with them–in fact, it’s better if you don’t. That’s the test. That’s the point.
I urge the committee to consider this nomination not as an endorsement of content, but as a defense of principle. In a world increasingly hostile to dissent, the LPNH’s unapologetic use of their First Amendment rights keeps the flame of free speech burning–messy, chaotic, and vital.
With respect and a deep belief in the power of defending the right to speak one’s mind, so that we may know which fools not to suffer gladly.
Just Because You Can Say It Doesn’t Mean You Should
Let me be very clear: I nominated the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire for a First Amendment award because the principle of free speech matters, not because I like what they’re saying. I don’t. Most days, I think they’re trolling themselves into madness.
Which is why we need to talk about something else entirely: just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should.
In the analogy I used—LPNH playing the part of the National Socialist Party in Skokie—I am, metaphorically, the Jewish lawyer defending their right to march through the neighborhood.
But let’s be honest: no sane person wakes up aspiring to be the Nazis in that story. So why are you—yes, you with the spicy meme account—cosplaying as the villain? Why are you trying to be hated?
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: speech isn’t neutral. It isn’t inert. Your thoughts become your words, your words become your deeds, and your deeds become your life. The stories you tell shape the world you live in. So if the vibe you’re putting out is cruelty masked as liberty, don’t be surprised when the only thing you attract is attention—and not the kind that builds anything worth saving.
Let’s ask the harder question: Why are you saying what you’re saying?
Is it truth-seeking or trauma-dumping?
Is it ego or principle?
Is it strategy or dopamine addiction?
If you contradict yourself from day to day, it’s not free speech. It’s noise. If you don’t know the why behind your message, you’re not building liberty. You’re building a brittle brand.
This was never about “mean tweets.” That phrase was a bullshit from the start—an excuse to pretend your behavior isn’t in question. Words shape reality. They turn you into what you are. Your words are the reason you are so gross.
Here’s the litmus test: Are your words serving Love or Hate?
And don’t get it twisted. Love is not weakness. Love is not censorship. Love is not holding hands and singing Kumbaya while tyrants stomp on your neck. Love is clarity. Love is truth-telling with spine. Love is fierce, and it defends the sacred. It doesn’t humiliate for retweets. It doesn’t mock the dead. It doesn’t bait its community for clout.
Liberty is not license. Free speech is not a dare to be the most grotesque. You don’t win moral authority by being louder, meaner, or “more based.” You win by being principled, consistent, and decent.
Life has taught me this much: what you put into the world is what you attract. If you lead with poison, don’t cry when all you find are snakes. If you sow division, don’t expect a harvest of community. If you weaponize words, don’t be shocked when people stop listening—or start fighting back.
In this polarized mess of a world, we don’t need more edge-lords with God complexes. We need courageous individuals who can hold two truths at once:
- You have the right to speak, even when it offends.
- You also have a responsibility to mean something when you do.
Choose wisely. You’re not just speaking into the void. You’re speaking into the future. A future your words create. If you hate, hate will follow. If you love, love will arise. Choose love.
Yes, I nominated LPNH for a free speech award. On principle.
Not because I like them. Not because I agree with their tactics.
But because I believe in the principle of free speech.
And, honestly? To prove Jeremy Kauffman is lying.
No, Jeremy. My issues with you aren’t about “mean tweets.”
You know that. I know that.
You can tweet all the edgelord bait you want under the assets you own.
That’s your right. The government can’t—and shouldn’t—stop you.
But here’s the thing you never seem to grasp:
Just because you can say something doesn’t mean people will want to stand next to you after you say it.
That’s not censorship. That’s consequence. That’s cause and effect.
Eventually, your former friends will stop pretending it’s edgy and start admitting:
It’s just exhausting. Cruel. Pointless. Weird. (Not in the good way.)
No one wants to hang out with a walking 4chan thread.
Also–and I say this with love, or at least a trace of grace–
What the hell is wrong with you?
You might want to… I don’t know… work on that.
LISTEN NOW… While most people say they’re committed to free speech, an alarming (and growing) number of Americans seem to be souring on the principle. Do they have good reason to abandon the country’s tradition of toleration and free expression? Find out with your hosts on this week’s episode of Told You So!
Even future senators get an evening off! Last night, together with friends (and literal neighbors), I met my husband, Louis, at the Wang Theatre in Boston to see Dave Chappelle and Jon Stewart, with surprise opener, SNL’s Michael Che.
"What???" you say. "Why would you go see a bunch of lefties make fun of things?" Because IT’S FUNNY.
I have a refrigerator magnet holding up my favorite photo of Nellie, our rescue, that depicts two women in a parking lot doubled over in laughter (pictured). The caption says, "A laugh is the shortest distance between two people." I believe this to be true.
You don’t have to agree with everything a comedian (or a politician, for that matter) has to say in order to have a good time. And while there were many things I do not agree with these two clowns on, they were still hilarious!
Jon Stewart, who followed an excellent and excited-to-be-there Che, broke down a very public Twitter spat between him and President Trump. I won’t deny it, I laughed at the exchange, and was left wondering who was trolling whom.
Both Stewart and Chappelle talked about guns, and school shootings, and both–inaccurately–made the point that it is too easy to buy a gun.
But there was much to amuse as well, including Chappelle’s contention that all Black people should all start arming themselves, because this would be the only way to get the powers-that-be to make it harder to purchase guns. This sort of "reverse psychology" has always been part of Chappelle’s schtick, and, because it contains grains of truth about social issues, it forces you to question things in a new light.
What I love about comedy is its unabashed bear hug of the First Amendment. Political correctness has no place in good comedy. If you’re offended, get over yourself–or better yet, keep it to yourself, and in the future, just don’t go to the show! Free market principles–withdrawing your consent by withdrawing your purchasing dollars–is the strongest, most immediate feedback loop. No need to get The Man involved!
Comedy highlights current events, politics, and social trends. It creates an avenue for dialogue. You can’t change someone’s mind if you have no idea what they are thinking.
This is why current threats to comedic expression is a problem–through campus speech codes, and online "outrage culture".
In recent years, several excellent documentaries have been released that delve into the overt attempts to enforce "PC-ness" in comedy, especially on college campuses, which have traditionally been testing grounds for new material.
If you are interested in this topic, I recommend the feature-length documentary, "Can We Take a Joke?", which explores the negative outcomes of trying to police comedic speech.
Said Sarah Ruger of the Charles Koch Institute at the event launching of the film: "Free speech allows us to question the status quo and challenge ourselves to be better. The arts are an essential pathway for social commentary and introspection, and now, more than ever, we need more toleration.”
Know what "toleration" means? It means if something is not your jam, move on. It doesn’t mean use the force of the state to make everyone comply with your personal sensibilities, mores, and will.
The only duty of a comedian is to be funny. When the Roseanne Twitter storm went down a few weeks ago, my position was, if it’s funny, and you’re a comedian, then regardless of who you offend, you are doing your job. If it’s not funny, you failed. Roseanne’s tweet wasn’t funny.
Interestingly, at last night’s show, audience members were asked to put their cell phones in fancy pouches that were sealed until after the show. I loved this!
It created an immediate intimacy within the large theater–we’re all in this together, for reals, no intermediaries, no distractions. Instead of watching people recording the show, with the glare of their screens lighting up the room, everyone was engaged with the experience of the experience itself. No selfies, no checking social media. Simply butt-in-chair time, with a desire to be amused.
And amused we were. Towards the end, Chappelle and Stewart took to the stage together and asked each other questions and shared past experiences, laughing and joking and telling stories as true friends.
It was a reminder that setting aside our difference (and our cell phones) and just talking to each other as fellow human beings is something worth striving for. The cliche is true: laughter is the best medicine. Let’s heal our world, one guffaw at a time!