{"id":16224,"date":"2025-10-04T23:09:06","date_gmt":"2025-10-04T23:09:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/disruptarian.com\/blog\/?p=16224"},"modified":"2025-10-01T23:18:29","modified_gmt":"2025-10-01T23:18:29","slug":"series-civil-discourse-vs-political-violence-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/disruptarian.com\/blog\/series-civil-discourse-vs-political-violence-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"SERIES: \u201cCivil Discourse vs. Political Violence\u201d Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Part 3: Why Free Speech is Worth Fighting For \u2014 Even When It Hurts<\/strong>
By Ryan \u201cDickie\u201d Thompson<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019ve talked about Steven Crowder, Charlie Kirk, and the rise of political violence in Part 1. We\u2019ve talked about my own activism\u2014protests, pirate radio, YouTube, and civil discourse\u2014in Part 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, let\u2019s get to the root of it all: free speech.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Free speech isn\u2019t just a constitutional amendment. It\u2019s not just a legal technicality. It\u2019s the foundation of a peaceful society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And it\u2019s under attack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not just from mobs with bricks and Molotovs, but from governments, corporations, and even ordinary people who\u2019ve been convinced that silencing their opponents is \u201cjustice.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Why Free Speech Matters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s start with a simple question: why do we even need free speech?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The answer is because truth doesn\u2019t emerge without friction. You don\u2019t find truth in echo chambers. You find it in conflict\u2014when two ideas clash, and one survives the test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Censorship kills that process. When you censor an idea, you\u2019re not proving it wrong\u2014you\u2019re just hiding it. And hidden ideas don\u2019t go away. They fester. They turn into rage. And eventually, they explode in violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s why political violence is on the rise. Because instead of debating ideas, we\u2019re silencing them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Offensive Speech Is the Price of Freedom<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s the hard truth: free speech isn\u2019t about protecting polite conversation. It\u2019s about protecting speech you hate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The First Amendment doesn\u2019t exist so you can say \u201cI like puppies.\u201d It exists so you can say things that offend people, that challenge power, that make the comfortable squirm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Charlie Kirk gave speeches about conservative values, he offended people. When Steven Crowder set up his Change My Mind<\/em> table, he offended people. When I went to drug court or tax day protests with a mic, I offended people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Good. That\u2019s how you know speech is working.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But here\u2019s the flip side: I\u2019ve also been offended. I\u2019ve listened to people defend taxation, defend war, defend surveillance. I didn\u2019t like it. But I let them speak, because that\u2019s the deal. If I want the right to challenge them, they get the right to challenge me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The moment you say, \u201cI believe in free speech, but\u2026\u201d you don\u2019t believe in free speech at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Censorship Creates Violence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s the paradox: people think censorship prevents violence. In reality, it causes it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or take 2020. The media censored dissenting voices about COVID policy, lockdowns, and vaccines. What happened? Trust collapsed. Protests exploded. Some turned violent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When you silence people, they don\u2019t disappear. They harden. And eventually, some of them decide words don\u2019t work anymore, so they pick up rocks or guns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s where we are today. Censorship fuels the violence it claims to stop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The Rhetoric from the Top<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Part of the problem is the rhetoric coming from political leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Joe Biden called half the country \u201csemi-fascists.\u201d Kamala Harris compared election skeptics to Confederates. Elizabeth Warren said pro-lifers want to strip women of their humanity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When leaders frame their opponents as Nazis, fascists, or existential threats, what do you think their followers hear? They hear: \u201cThese people don\u2019t deserve a platform. They don\u2019t deserve dialogue. They don\u2019t deserve to live.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And so we get assassinations like Charlie Kirk\u2019s. We get riots like Portland. We get targeted harassment campaigns against conservatives on campus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not because speech is dangerous. It\u2019s because censorship and demonization have replaced dialogue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

My Experience With Free Speech Battles<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve lived this personally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I was on pirate radio, I knew the FCC could shut me down at any moment. But I did it anyway, because I\u2019d rather risk fines than silence myself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On YouTube, I\u2019ve had videos demonetized, flagged, or shadowbanned. But I keep uploading\u2014@xcannabiscom\r\n \r\n <\/g><\/svg><\/span><\/a>, @utahpirateradio<\/use><\/svg><\/span><\/a>, @slu2com<\/use><\/svg><\/span><\/a>\u2014because these platforms, flawed as they are, are still avenues for dialogue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every time someone tries to shut me up, I double down. Because if they succeed, the alternative isn\u2019t peace\u2014it\u2019s violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The Hypocrisy of \u201cHate Speech\u201d Laws<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One of the most dangerous trends in America and Europe is the rise of so-called \u201chate speech\u201d laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the surface, they sound nice. Nobody likes hate, right? But the problem is who gets to define it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, \u201chate speech\u201d laws are just censorship with lipstick. They\u2019re always applied unevenly. A conservative quoting the Bible can be charged. A progressive calling conservatives Nazis gets a free pass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019ve seen it in Canada. We\u2019ve seen it in the UK. We\u2019ve even seen it in parts of the US, with universities enforcing speech codes that ban \u201coffensive\u201d ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But here\u2019s the reality: the cure for bad speech isn\u2019t censorship. It\u2019s better speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Civil Discourse as the Alternative<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The reason I keep circling back to civil discourse is because it\u2019s the only real alternative to violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019ve had a dialogue. They may not agree, but we\u2019ve exchanged ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If instead I call them a fascist and they call me a bigot, the conversation ends. And when conversations end, fights begin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s why I keep going out in public. That\u2019s why I keep interviewing people. Because every conversation is a chance to defuse a bomb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Why We Must Defend All Speech<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The temptation is always to make exceptions. \u201cOf course I believe in free speech, but not for that<\/em> group. Not for Nazis. Not for racists. Not for extremists.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But here\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today it\u2019s Nazis. Tomorrow it\u2019s you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s why I defend all speech\u2014even speech I despise. Because the principle is bigger than the content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Charlie Kirk doesn\u2019t get free speech, neither do I. If Steven Crowder doesn\u2019t get free speech, neither do you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The Way Forward<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

So what do we do?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Reject censorship in all forms.<\/strong> No more hiding behind \u201chate speech\u201d or \u201cmisinformation.\u201d Those are just excuses to silence dissent.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Recommit to civil discourse.<\/strong> Go out. Talk to people. Listen, even when you hate what they say. Debate, don\u2019t destroy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Defend lawful self-defense.<\/strong> Talking doesn\u2019t mean being defenseless. Dialogue is the goal, but security is the shield.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Hold leaders accountable for rhetoric.<\/strong> Stop electing people who demonize half the country. Demand that politicians talk like leaders, not agitators.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Build alternative platforms.<\/strong> Pirate radio, independent sites, Rumble, Substack\u2014whatever it takes to keep the conversation alive.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \n\n\n\n

    Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Free speech is not just a right. It\u2019s the thin line between civilization and chaos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    When speech dies, violence takes its place. We\u2019ve already seen it with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. We\u2019ve seen it with Crowder behind bulletproof glass. We\u2019ve seen it in the riots, the firebombings, the silenced voices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But it doesn\u2019t have to end that way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This concludes my three-part series on Civil Discourse vs. Political Violence.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n