True Patriots Are 'Free Expression Warriors'

By Stuart N. Brotman, Special to The MAHA Report

[Originally published in TheDerrick.com under the headline, “Free Expression Warriors Fight for an All American Right.” Republished with permission of the author, whose book, Free Expression Under Fire: Defending Free Speech and Free Press Across the Political Spectrum, was published earlier this year by Skyhorse.]

As America 250 unfolds this year, it’s a sure bet that the term “patriot” will be used more frequently to describe the brave fighters of the American Revolution and those who have followed in modern times.

In the past few years, that description has taken on multiple meanings, often viewed through ideological lenses. Historically, a term of national unity, “patriot,” is now frequently used as a wedge to separate “true” Americans from those with differing political views.

While patriotism once meant deference to national leadership (e.g., during the early War on Terror), it has evolved to mean “opposition to the government” for some conservative movements. Conversely, some traditional conservatives argue for a return to a definition of patriotism based on the Constitution and democratic institutions.

Maybe a bit more precision would help us restore meaning to patriotism, reducing ambiguity and increasing appreciation for the principles of our nation’s founding. Let’s start with the cherished values of free speech and free press in the First Amendment.

Last year, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr suggested ABC cancel Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show after a controversial joke that he made after the murder of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

A group of patriots — worthy of the new title of “Free Expression Warriors” — stepped forward to object to crossing the constitutional line that prohibits government action in response to expressed viewpoints. The Kimmel case fit squarely within the guardrails that the revolutionary patriots began to develop after they were freed of British control.

Surprisingly to some, these voices came from across the political spectrum, suggesting a new way of thinking about patriotism in a truer, more nonpartisan context.

Here are some prominent and diverse perspectives that emerged quickly and clearly:

• “I think it is unbelievably dangerous for the government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.” — Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

• “I do not want the FCC in the business of telling local affiliates that their licenses will be removed if they broadcast material that the FCC deems to be informationally false.” — Ben Shapiro, host, “The Ben Shapiro Show”

• “The duty to defend the First Amendment does not rest with government, but with all of us. Free speech is the foundation of our democracy, and we must push back against any attempt to erode it.” — FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez

• “I definitely don’t think that the government should be involved, ever, in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue.” — Joe Rogan, host, “The Joe Rogan Experience”

• “We the people must never accept government threats to our freedom of speech. Efforts by leaders to pressure artists, journalists and companies with retaliation for their speech strike at the heart of what it means to live in a free country.”— Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, in an open letter organized by the American Civil Liberties Union

“Can we still speak and report openly?” This critical question isn’t rhetorical; it demands an honest answer. And increasingly, that answer isn’t as clear as it used to be.

From newsrooms to classrooms, from corporate boardrooms to kitchen table conversations, Americans are grappling with unprecedented challenges to free expression. The twin pillars of democracy — free speech and free press — face pressure from all directions: government officials seeking to control narratives, tech platforms making content decisions, activists demanding accountability, and citizens caught in the crossfire.

Seemingly strange political bedfellows also can be good civic bedfellows. Those who pride themselves as among the Free Expression Warriors should continue their patriotic work to recruit the many to support their vital cause, and ours.

STUART N. BROTMAN is the digital media laureate at The Media Institute and the author of Free Expression Under Fire: Defending Free Speech and Free Press Across the Political Spectrum.