SERIES: “Civil Discourse vs. Political Violence” Part 3
Part 3: Why Free Speech is Worth Fighting For — Even When It Hurts
By Ryan “Dickie” Thompson
Introduction
We’ve talked about Steven Crowder, Charlie Kirk, and the rise of political violence in Part 1. We’ve talked about my own activism—protests, pirate radio, YouTube, and civil discourse—in Part 2.
Now, let’s get to the root of it all: free speech.
Free speech isn’t just a constitutional amendment. It’s not just a legal technicality. It’s the foundation of a peaceful society.
And it’s under attack.
Not just from mobs with bricks and Molotovs, but from governments, corporations, and even ordinary people who’ve been convinced that silencing their opponents is “justice.”
This installment is about why free speech matters even when it offends, even when it stings, even when it makes you uncomfortable. Because once you lose free speech, you lose everything else.
Why Free Speech Matters
Let’s start with a simple question: why do we even need free speech?
The answer is because truth doesn’t emerge without friction. You don’t find truth in echo chambers. You find it in conflict—when two ideas clash, and one survives the test.
Censorship kills that process. When you censor an idea, you’re not proving it wrong—you’re just hiding it. And hidden ideas don’t go away. They fester. They turn into rage. And eventually, they explode in violence.
That’s why political violence is on the rise. Because instead of debating ideas, we’re silencing them.
Offensive Speech Is the Price of Freedom
Here’s the hard truth: free speech isn’t about protecting polite conversation. It’s about protecting speech you hate.
The First Amendment doesn’t exist so you can say “I like puppies.” It exists so you can say things that offend people, that challenge power, that make the comfortable squirm.
When Charlie Kirk gave speeches about conservative values, he offended people. When Steven Crowder set up his Change My Mind table, he offended people. When I went to drug court or tax day protests with a mic, I offended people.
Good. That’s how you know speech is working.
But here’s the flip side: I’ve also been offended. I’ve listened to people defend taxation, defend war, defend surveillance. I didn’t like it. But I let them speak, because that’s the deal. If I want the right to challenge them, they get the right to challenge me.
The moment you say, “I believe in free speech, but…” you don’t believe in free speech at all.
Censorship Creates Violence
Here’s the paradox: people think censorship prevents violence. In reality, it causes it.
Take the war on drugs. For decades, we censored honest discussions about addiction. We shut down anyone who suggested decriminalization or medical treatment. The result? Black markets, cartel wars, militarized policing, and mass incarceration. Violence everywhere.
Or take 2020. The media censored dissenting voices about COVID policy, lockdowns, and vaccines. What happened? Trust collapsed. Protests exploded. Some turned violent.
When you silence people, they don’t disappear. They harden. And eventually, some of them decide words don’t work anymore, so they pick up rocks or guns.
That’s where we are today. Censorship fuels the violence it claims to stop.
The Rhetoric from the Top
Part of the problem is the rhetoric coming from political leaders.
Joe Biden called half the country “semi-fascists.” Kamala Harris compared election skeptics to Confederates. Elizabeth Warren said pro-lifers want to strip women of their humanity.
When leaders frame their opponents as Nazis, fascists, or existential threats, what do you think their followers hear? They hear: “These people don’t deserve a platform. They don’t deserve dialogue. They don’t deserve to live.”
And so we get assassinations like Charlie Kirk’s. We get riots like Portland. We get targeted harassment campaigns against conservatives on campus.
It’s not because speech is dangerous. It’s because censorship and demonization have replaced dialogue.
My Experience With Free Speech Battles
I’ve lived this personally.
When I was on pirate radio, I knew the FCC could shut me down at any moment. But I did it anyway, because I’d rather risk fines than silence myself.
When I went to protests with my mic, I got yelled at, shoved, and threatened. But I kept asking questions, because the conversation mattered more than my comfort.
On YouTube, I’ve had videos demonetized, flagged, or shadowbanned. But I keep uploading—@xcannabiscom, @utahpirateradio, @slu2com—because these platforms, flawed as they are, are still avenues for dialogue.
Every time someone tries to shut me up, I double down. Because if they succeed, the alternative isn’t peace—it’s violence.
The Hypocrisy of “Hate Speech” Laws
One of the most dangerous trends in America and Europe is the rise of so-called “hate speech” laws.
On the surface, they sound nice. Nobody likes hate, right? But the problem is who gets to define it.
In practice, “hate speech” laws are just censorship with lipstick. They’re always applied unevenly. A conservative quoting the Bible can be charged. A progressive calling conservatives Nazis gets a free pass.
We’ve seen it in Canada. We’ve seen it in the UK. We’ve even seen it in parts of the US, with universities enforcing speech codes that ban “offensive” ideas.
But here’s the reality: the cure for bad speech isn’t censorship. It’s better speech.
If someone says something truly hateful, the best response is to expose it, debate it, and defeat it in the open. Shutting it down just makes martyrs out of fools.
Civil Discourse as the Alternative
The reason I keep circling back to civil discourse is because it’s the only real alternative to violence.
If I can sit across from someone who thinks taxation is noble, and I can calmly compare it to handing your wallet to the town drunk and hoping he buys groceries instead of whiskey, then we’ve had a dialogue. They may not agree, but we’ve exchanged ideas.
If instead I call them a fascist and they call me a bigot, the conversation ends. And when conversations end, fights begin.
That’s why I keep going out in public. That’s why I keep interviewing people. Because every conversation is a chance to defuse a bomb.
Why We Must Defend All Speech
The temptation is always to make exceptions. “Of course I believe in free speech, but not for that group. Not for Nazis. Not for racists. Not for extremists.”
But here’s the problem: once you make exceptions, free speech no longer exists. It becomes conditional. It becomes permission granted by the state. And the state never stops moving the goalposts.
Today it’s Nazis. Tomorrow it’s you.
That’s why I defend all speech—even speech I despise. Because the principle is bigger than the content.
If Charlie Kirk doesn’t get free speech, neither do I. If Steven Crowder doesn’t get free speech, neither do you.
The Way Forward
So what do we do?
- Reject censorship in all forms. No more hiding behind “hate speech” or “misinformation.” Those are just excuses to silence dissent.
- Recommit to civil discourse. Go out. Talk to people. Listen, even when you hate what they say. Debate, don’t destroy.
- Defend lawful self-defense. Talking doesn’t mean being defenseless. Dialogue is the goal, but security is the shield.
- Hold leaders accountable for rhetoric. Stop electing people who demonize half the country. Demand that politicians talk like leaders, not agitators.
- Build alternative platforms. Pirate radio, independent sites, Rumble, Substack—whatever it takes to keep the conversation alive.
Conclusion
Free speech is not just a right. It’s the thin line between civilization and chaos.
When speech dies, violence takes its place. We’ve already seen it with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. We’ve seen it with Crowder behind bulletproof glass. We’ve seen it in the riots, the firebombings, the silenced voices.
But it doesn’t have to end that way.
We can choose dialogue over violence. We can choose civil discourse over censorship. We can defend speech even when it hurts, because the alternative is far worse.
This concludes my three-part series on Civil Discourse vs. Political Violence.
- Part 1: Steven Crowder, Charlie Kirk, and the Rise of Political Violence
- Part 2: Civil Discourse in the Streets – Protests, Pirate Radio, and Public Debate
- Part 3: Why Free Speech is Worth Fighting For — Even When It Hurts
If you take nothing else from this, remember this: silencing speech doesn’t end conflict. It guarantees it.
Civil discourse is the best answer. Always.
Spun Web Technology SMART SEO
