Increasingly, the First Amendment, particularly its free speech protection, has become problematic for Democrats. Indeed, Democrat politicians’ attacks against Americans’ free speech rights are reminiscent of their long-running attacks against the Second Amendment. Under the guise of preventing “hate speech,” “misinformation,” and “disinformation,” leading Democrats have justified throwing the First Amendment under the bus.

Of course, they don’t frame it that way. They’re not attacking Americans’ right to freely say what they want; rather, they are simply seeking to hold social media companies accountable for allowing the promulgation of “dangerous” speech. Indeed, they claim to be acting completely consistent with the First Amendment.

For example, Tim Walz falsely claimed there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” During the vice presidential debate with JD Vance, Walz defended his assertion by erroneously arguing, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test.”

The truth is, the Court rejected that argument over a hundred years ago. The crux of the issue behind freedom of speech is the question of who has the authority to be the arbiter of truth. Back in 1919, the Court made it clear that the government has a very narrow and limited role when it comes to adjudicating truth. In short, it’s not in the government’s purview.

But that hasn’t stopped the Democrats from beating the censorship drum regarding Americans’ online speech. And it always comes up surrounding one of their pet policy issues, such as climate change.

Two weeks ago, John Kerry bemoaned the First Amendment’s “major block” to their ability to censor and control the narrative surrounding climate change and to “hammer [disinformation] out of existence.” Of course, disinformation is defined as that which doesn’t support the climate alarmist narrative.

Hillary Clinton has also been voicing her opposition to free speech. Like Walz, she called for “repealing something called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996,” the provision that protects social media companies from being held liable for the speech that users post on their platforms. Clinton suggests these social media companies’ failure to police speech has caused much harm — i.e., she said, “we lose total control.” While we have a lot of bones to pick with Big Tech, our primary concern is the exact opposite of Clinton’s. Social media companies have been given free rein to censor Americans’ speech and, to make matters worse, they have colluded with the Biden-Harris administration to engage in specific censorship, a massive violation of the First Amendment.

What’s concerning is that, as with the Second Amendment, Democrats are increasingly abandoning any pretense of protecting speech because they see it as “dangerous.” Also like the Second Amendment, free speech can be dangerous, especially so for those who have visions of government tyranny dancing in their heads.