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.
This is my post-TSA gate rape face.
Why? For about a decade, I opted out of the scanner, but a few years ago, I had such a shocking experience–the female agent literally stuck her finger into my lady parts–that I started to “obey.”
My last defiance is doing a double bird–FU fingers in the air–in the scanner.
This has resulted in interesting verbal exchanges.
TSA agent: “I saw what you did in there.”
Me, leaning in: “Good.”
Today? They claimed my nether regions–ensconced in leggings–“alerted”.
Total bullshit.
Probably retaliatory.
I’ll keep zapping the bird, but if I get another “random alert” resulting in another traumatic gate rape experience, I **will** sue.
Rights not asserted are lost.
I have the Constitutionally protected right to flip off Big Bro. And they don’t get to stick their dirty statist fingers up my cooch in retaliation. (As I’m writing this, I recognize that there is deep-rooted trauma this experience has exposed. I will try to write a more comprehensive essay later.)
Then you see stuff like this, and it makes you go, Hmm.
This post generated a lot of social media interest.
This is my post-TSA gate rape face.
— Carla Gericke, Live Free And Thrive! (@CarlaGericke) August 16, 2024
Why? For about a decade, I opted out of the scanner, but a few years ago, I had such a shocking experience–the female agent literally stuck her finger into my lady parts–that I started to "obey."
My last defiance is doing a double… pic.twitter.com/SO6CAKRauw
I decided to make some GROK art… let’s call it a new category: TSA MOLESTATION ART. I didn’t have time to tweak these to perfection, but you get the gist.
UPDATE 12/26/24: I have come to the conclusion I carry trauma from an experience in South Africa after returning from Brazil, traveling without a diplomatic passport for the first time in my life, and my dress was too short and my bobby socks too long, and that meant I was supposed to grin-and-bare-it while getting molested in a room with 3 “Paspoort Beheer” men.
Yesterday, Rosemary Rung, a NH Democrat, posted the tweet below, and I responded asking what we should call anti-freedom people like them. In response to that, some people chimed in, and then, in a reply to someone, I jokingly said: “Live free or comply, you non-essentials!”
Clearly, any thinking human would understand this was a choice point on the NH motto, and that I was not directing my comment to anyone, nor was I threatening anyone with “abusive or harassing” speech.
Regardless, Twitter decided to suspend my account for 12 hours, even after I deleted the post.
In case you haven’t been censored on Twitter yet, let me explain some of the steps:
1. They tell you you’ve violated a community standard, in this case, that my word are “abusive or harassing.” My words aren’t even directed at “someone”.
2. You can either click to acknowledge you have indeed violated a standard, in this case, forcing me to admit that my words are ABUSE AND HARASSMENT, in order to get your account back (this is de facto commie “admit you were wrong!”) or you can appeal.
3. The appeal box only allows a few lines of text, so you cannot make a cogent argument to defend your free speech honor.
4. They then give you another chance to “just delete it,” which, if you’re like me, you think, “Oh, ok, wth, you dumbasses, I’ll just cop to it, just gimme my account back” (that’s “app-crack addiction” right there).
5. Even after you admit to your dirty, dirty free speech violating ways, they STILL suspend your account for a certain period of time (this one for me is 12 hours).
These are the kinds of rules you could expect to see under a fascist regime. Oh wait, that is EXACTLY what Twitter is… a corporation claiming to be a private entity with its own “community standard” while also doing the Regime’s censorship for it.
If you need a primer on this topic, watch the latest episode, No. 34, of The Carla Gericke Show HERE. Please FOLLOW ME on Odysee or watch and SUBSCRIBE on Youtube. Thanks!
TL;DR: Free speech matters. Censorship sucks.
