free state project

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:

1. You have the right to speak, even when it offends.
2. 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.