Is free speech impossible

Remember Patrick Henry's words: "Give me liberty or give me death." Don't let illusions of impossibility silence you—act today to ensure free speech endures for tomorrow. What's one step you'll take right now?

Like, subscribe and comment. I read all comments
=
Free speech has been challenged before. In the US, World War I and World War II imposed wartime restrictions. The prolonged nature of the Vietnam War made such restrictions obvious, as did the war in Afghanistan. However, the failure of the press to remain free has led to remarkable academic debate. It is now claimed—and widely accepted—that free speech is illusory and not truly possible. Minor restrictions on style are said to mean that speech was never free. This view is Orwellian. What happened?
In antiquity, was there free speech in Athens when Socrates was ordered to leave? He drank poison rather than accept exile, but he had had his say. When Athens defeated Persia at sea, scuttling an invasion plan, the successful generals were ordered killed by their government. Although Athens had won, some sons had drowned, and the generals were blamed for not attempting to save them. Another win for free speech?
But what about today? What is happening now that makes free speech impossible? We have compelled speech to redress a past that may never have happened. We have restrictions on reporting what has occurred. There is the phenomenon of doxxing. The need to protect the abused means that abusers are restricted. A grandmother prays outside an abortion clinic and is arrested...?
Give me liberty or give me death?
Was the execution of Eddie Slovik part of this trend? A petty juvenile criminal, Slovik had married and settled down. Drafted into the army at the age of 24 in 1944, he was executed for desertion—the only US soldier executed for that offense in World War II. He had wanted to live and thus did not want to serve on the front lines. He asked to work behind the lines as a cook, but that request was denied, and he deserted. He was captured and detained. He admitted his guilt in writing and was sentenced to death. The President of the United States, FDR, declined responsibility, pointing out that the issue was for top military brass. The press was critical of Eisenhower while running interference for FDR. Slovik's execution was not a free speech issue, but it represented a bureaucratic implementation that restricted it.
Communism has led a long march through US institutions since the 1920s. Its repressive nature was initiated in the USA before Russia, when Woodrow Wilson began dismantling institutions that had partnered the GOP with Black people since Lincoln. Universities and Hollywood proved to be early adopters, as did Democrats and the media. Bureaucrats like Alger Hiss were involved. The protests against the Vietnam War morphed into a peace lobby. It is hard to know when communism gave way to the "swamp," but USAID seems to have exploited things since then and may have fueled peace protests.
It is doubtful that Mark Felt defected to the Weather Underground from communism, but maybe he was a USAID tool? The growth of the swamp within law enforcement has extended to the judiciary. Following the Civil War, the southern legal fraternity excused outrageous retribution against former slaves by former slaveowners and their kin. Was the assassination of Lincoln a conspiracy involving the secretary of state? So, perhaps the swamp predates communism.The swamp gained currency following the assassination of JFK, and then RFK, and the political assassination of Nixon. The media appeared as bystanders for JFK, but by Nixon's time, they had become active players.
USAID was not supposed to operate domestically. In Australia, one sees the infiltration of the Liberal Party following the death of Harold Holt. Gorton was rolled by McMahon, and then the press favored Whitlam. The new political division became a divided conservative party versus a socialist party with popular press support. Here, we see USAID in operation throughout the world. But the growth expanded and continued. Issues in Australia between Aboriginal peoples and the nation became toxic. With the Mabo decision, the High Court of Australia "read between the lines" of the constitution. But the same is happening around the world. USAID works to divide nations and promote socialist parties.
Academia has a basic tenet that anyone can have a good idea. But there have been recent restrictions on that. During the COVID crisis, when conventional wisdom was questioned, the credentials of the questioners were attacked. One US bureaucrat claimed he was science itself, and in promoting masking, lockdowns, and vaccines, he advocated three counterproductive measures. Those with credentials who dared to ask questions had them revoked. But COVID was about getting Biden into office, and the unrest around the world was just gravy.
Is free speech impossible because there are always limitations? Only if it is the case that there has never been free speech. Gutter children swearing is not free speech but free expression, and that is where academics and the judiciary are getting confused. Calling "From the river to the sea" is not free speech expressing a position in political debate, but abuse calling for genocide. Praying outside an abortion clinic is not a threat but an expression of free speech. And the judiciary is not confused but engaged in politics under the guidance of USAID.