There is a new, disturbing trend emerging within the Republican Party that should alarm everyone. The GOP is beginning to treat the First Amendment—not as an inalienable right—but as a privilege that can be revoked. This troubling shift isn’t limited to a few fringe individuals; it is echoed by some of the most prominent voices in the party, including former President Donald Trump and influential members of Congress.
The concern extends beyond Trump himself. For example, on her show, a GOP figure reportedly said, “For all the concern about the First Amendment, the First Amendment—they’re apoplectic, Jesse. What about all the amendments that Charlie Kirk lost? Because Charlie Kirk has no amendments right now. None.” The argument here implies that, because of a tragic event, a person’s rights somehow become less important.
This line of thinking is both dangerous and nonsensical. It’s especially perplexing considering how this same group would react if someone argued, “For all the concern about the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment—what about all the amendments that the victims of gun violence lost?” The inconsistency highlights a selective approach to constitutional rights that undermines their core purpose.
One of the most alarming consequences of this mindset is the gradual erosion of the right to protest. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to tragedy, but its implications run far deeper. When leaders suggest that criticizing them could lead to losing broadcasting licenses, this constitutes a clear threat to free speech—a right that should be absolute.
For instance, Trump has been quoted saying that evening news shows are not allowed to criticize him and that networks that give him “bad publicity” might lose their broadcast licenses. This rhetoric is a direct assault on the concept of a free press and is particularly troubling in light of events such as Charlie Kirk’s killing.
Perhaps the most explicit example of this new mindset comes from Senator Cynthia Lummis. According to a report from Semafor, the Wyoming Republican stated:
“Under normal times, in normal circumstances, I tend to think that the First Amendment should always be sort of the ultimate right. And that there should be almost no checks and balances on it. I don’t feel that way anymore.”
This statement represents a stunning reversal. To suggest that free speech is merely a privilege subject to checks and balances fundamentally rejects a core American value. Lummis linked this change of heart to a shift in cultural dynamics, referencing how some people are now calling each other “those kinds of insane things.”
While concerns about violence and death threats are understandable, the answer cannot be to chip away at the First Amendment. Doing so is a slippery slope that no one should want to embark upon. This reasoning has historically been used to justify restricting various freedoms in the name of safety—an approach that ultimately erodes liberty.
What we are witnessing is a major political party—long known as a defender of individual liberties—openly questioning the very foundation of free speech. This marks a complete 180-degree turn from the rhetoric heard for years. And the major difference now is that Trump is leading the party in this troubling direction.
https://wegotthiscovered.com/politics/gop-is-now-openly-saying-the-first-amendment-isnt-a-guaranteed-right-but-hey-dont-take-away-their-guns/