The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.” Taking it literally, this means you can say anything you want about anything or anybody, sometimes.
One exception is that you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire in progress.
The earliest form of widespread communication was the town newspaper. Then, as now, the content was controlled by the owner of the publication. What followed was radio, then television, and finally the internet.
In the last decade broadcasters have been canceling shows that conflict with their management’s, the audience’s, or advertisers’ view of the political scene. This has aggravated many people who don’t realize that this isn’t the first decade in which this has happened.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, two comedy shows, Laugh-In and The Smothers Brothers were a little too edgy for local TV stations in Boise, Idaho, which routinely canceled their broadcast without notice.
At the time, according to a Fox News post, “Johnny Carson warned against preaching in entertainment” in a 60 Minutes interview.
In the last couple of years, we have been hearing that “hate speech” should be regulated. The proliferation of 24/7 political opinionating on the public airways and social media has produced an unending stream of false information. Repeating the same falsehoods endlessly as if they were fact has me not believing anything I see or hear either in print or on social media.
The online Encyclopedia Britannica defines hate speech this way: “Typical hate speech involves epithets and slurs, statements that promote malicious stereotypes, and speech intended to incite hatred or violence against a group.”
The online dictionary Merriam-Webster defines malicious this way: “having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone.” Some would say that most political comedy or pre-election ads that paint a person in an unflattering way might fit this description.
I think that an objective observer would say trying to regulate free speech from a public policy perspective based on these definitions would involve subjective decision-making by whichever political party is in power. Therefore, asking the government to decide what’s “hate speech” would become very complicated.
It’s best left to the consumer who can simply research so-called “facts” and ignore those that are false.
Private industry—newspapers, radio, television, manufacturing, retail, and any other entity owned by a private person or corporation—is another story. The idea of free speech in any workplace is always subject to the interpretation of the business owner.
Considering that the current political atmosphere is akin to the rivalry between the Hatfields and the McCoys, whose families set out to eliminate each other in the late 1800s over some obscure disagreement, it’s no wonder that so-called “hate speech” has proliferated as each political party tries to gain more power.
But back to the basic question, should government regulate “hate speech”? Asking politicians to define it is a fool’s folly. Why? Because they would conclude that any negative comments about their performance in office or their stance on current issues would fit that definition.
The enforcement of any regulation would be fluid depending on which party was running the government. And if strictly applied, that definition would eliminate almost all public discussion of any issue.
To quote Alexander Hamilton—one of the founders of our nation who in the late 1700s wrote in the Federalists Papers—“I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth.”
That’s still true in 2025.
Ron Fink writes to the Sun from Lompoc. Send a letter for publication to letters@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Oct 2 – Oct 9, 2025.