Illinois Finds Yet Another Ineffective Way to Raise Revenue by Implementing a Social Media Tax

Illinois' spending problems are nothing new, but how the Illinois General Assembly handles it is. Earlier this month, Illinois passed a new social media tax to help fund its proposed $56 billion budget. Platforms with 100,000 to 500,000 "Illinois users" will have to pay $0.10 per user each month; platforms with 500,000 to 1 million "shall pay $40,000, plus $0.25 per month" per user; and platforms with over 1 million users will pay $165,000, plus $0.50 per user, each month on the number of users over 1 million. 

Aside from dealing with budgetary issues, some view this tax as paying "its fair share." Some might view this as a fair and just tax. In practice, this is a complex, legally fraught tax that will cause all sorts of headache. 

Let's start with the first problem, one addressed by the Tax Foundation: no one seems to know what exactly is being taxed. For starters, what is a user? Is a user a person or an account? If a person has multiple accounts on the same social media platform, does each account constitute a separate user, or is the person one user? 

Then there is the question of whether someone with accounts on multiple platforms is taxed separately. What about who constitutes as an Illinois user? What happens if you are visiting from outside of Illinois temporarily? And what constitutes an Illinois user from whom a platform collects data? When lawmakers cannot clearly explain what is being taxed, businesses cannot reliably comply and taxpayers cannot hold government accountable.

Traditionally, governments have imposed special taxes on products that they regard as socially undesirable. Cigarettes have long been subject to punitive taxes. More recently, politicians have advocated taxes on sugary drinks, unhealthy foods, and other products they believe people consume too much of.

Instead of taxing economic activity neutrally, Illinois has singled out a particular industry for unique taxation. The state is effectively saying that because social media companies are viewed as problematic, they should bear additional financial burdens.

This approach suffers from the same flaw that afflicts most sin taxes. It substitutes political judgments for sound tax policy. Whether one believes social media has positive or negative effects is beside the point. Tax systems should raise revenue in the least distortive manner possible. They should not be designed to reward favored industries and punish disfavored ones.

One of the most troubling aspects of the social media tax debate is how quickly constitutional concerns are dismissed. Many people dislike social media companies, but constitutional protections do not vanish simply because the target lacks public sympathy.

The First Amendment issue is particularly significant. Social media platforms have become central venues for political discussion, news dissemination, and public debate. When government imposes a special tax on a particular category of communications platform, courts may reasonably ask whether the state is burdening speech-related activity in a manner that raises constitutional concerns.

The tax also raises questions under the Commerce Clause. Social media companies serve users across state lines, and internet activity rarely respects geographic boundaries. If Illinois can impose a unique tax based on user activity within the state, other states may adopt competing systems that subject the same activity to multiple layers of taxation.

Illinois’ social media tax is not really about social media. It is about a state government that has become structurally dependent on finding new revenue sources to support an ever-expanding set of spending commitments.

The problem is not that Illinois lacks creativity in taxation. The problem is that it rarely shows restraint in spending. When budgets become tight, the solution is rarely reform or prioritization. Instead, lawmakers turn to new, narrowly targeted taxes that are politically easier to justify than broader fiscal discipline. Matters end up being even worse when the tax is poorly defined and designed.

That pattern has consequences. Targeted taxes on unpopular industries may be politically convenient, but they do little to address the underlying fiscal imbalance. Worse, they risk creating a tax system that is increasingly fragmented, unstable, and vulnerable to legal challenge.

Social media companies may be unpopular today, just as smoking, fatty foods, and sodas have been in other political moments. But fiscal policy built on shifting political fashions is not a substitute for structural reform. Illinois does not need more inventive taxes. It requires a serious conversation about the scale and scope of government itself.

In Its Conversion "Therapy" Ruling, the Supreme Court Draws the Wrong Line in the Sand

Conversion "therapy" has long occupied a fraught space in public debate, and rightfully so. Historically, it referred exclusively to therapeutic efforts at changing an individual's sexual orientation. Many critics argued that not only they are ineffective, but they actively harm the patient. More recently, the term conversion "therapy" has expanded to include gender identity. Over the past decade, a growing number of states banned such practices for licensed therapists working with children. 

The Supreme Court threw a wrench in that approach. In a decisive 8-1 ruling, the Court struck down Colorado's conversion "therapy" ban, holding that even controversial or disfavored therapeutic conversations are protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the government does not get the ultimate say on what viewpoints a therapist is allowed to express. 

At first glance, this case seems like a familiar clash between freedom of speech and government regulation. Many are inclined to either view this simply as a free speech victory or a rollback of protections for vulnerable children, pick a side, and go on their merry way. Neither of these gets at the core issue here. The harder truth to accept is that this ruling lumped together two fundamentally different issues. Until those are disentangled, it will be hard to draw the line where it actually belongs. 

Stop Messing With Kids' Sexual Orientation

In 2018, I wrote about how conversion "therapy" was harmful for those trying to change sexual orientation. The research for sexual orientation-specific conversion "therapy" spans decades. Multiple studies, including the 2009 APA Task Force review and various retrospective reviews, show that the practice fails to change sexual orientation and is associated with such harms as depression, low self-esteem, and suicidal ideation. 

For minors, the state has a narrow, legitimate role in preventing harm. Just as we intervene in response to murder, fraud, arson, or assault, protecting children from conversion "therapy" is defensible, even under a libertarian framework. 

I have argued that adults should be allowed to make decisions I might not agree with, such as having children before marriage, entering a polygamous marriage, regularly smoking cigarettes, eating fast food daily, or not exercising. I also believe that as long as they are not harming anyone else, adults should make whatever decision, even if it harms themselves. Conversion "therapy" for an adult is not an exception. As for a minor, that is a whole different matter, as previously discussed.  

Gender Identity: Affirmation Isn't a Prescription

Unlike the decades of research on sexual orientation-specific conversion "therapy", the evidence base on gender identity-specific conversion therapy is much thinner and only goes back to 2018. Plus, many studies lump together sexual orientation and gender identity conversion "therapy," which means that research on gender identity-specific conversion "therapy" is scant. Meanwhile, the practices that so many call "affirming," whether that is social transitioning, puberty blockers, hormones, gender reassignment surgery, are experimental, risky, and often harmful:

• A Finnish study released just this week showed that transgender children have increased psychiatric morbidity as a result of gender reassignment surgery. 
• The Cass Review, which is the most comprehensive review on the subject, concluded that gender affirming medical interventions do not improve long-term outcomes, reduce suicide risk, or reliably address gender distress. 
• A long-term Dutch study found that over 80 percent of adolescents grow out of gender dysphoria by adulthood without intervention, which is to say that most adolescents who experienced gender dysphoria were never truly transgender to begin with. 
• England banned puberty blockers because they are shown to have some nasty side effects, like lower fertility, decreased bone density, deteriorating mental health, and a lower IQ.
• The American Society of Plastic Surgeons refused to endorse gender reassignment surgery because of insufficient evidence for long-term benefit, concerns about irreversible harm, and performing these procedures on developing bodies without clear, robust evidence. 

Here's an unpleasant truth. If gender "affirming" "medicine" is untested and harmful, then pressure to delay or question a minor's self-professed gender identity is not inherently evil. If anything, it is most likely a protective measure. Given that gender identity itself is conceptually incoherent, and medical interventions to affirm it carry real risk, withholding affirmation could plausibly spare children unnecessary harm. 

Protecting Children without the U.S. Becoming a Nanny State

Many of the Justices in this ruling framed this strictly as a First Amendment issue, claiming that the Colorado law was regulating speech based on viewpoint. If it were mere abstraction, I would wholeheartedly agree. Some might see my stance on conversion "therapy" in conflict with me defending abstract speech, such as opinions, insults, or political rhetoric. That apparent paradox dissolves once we recognize a core principle: speech is protected unless it is inseparable from conduct that reliably and objectively causes harm. 

Last year, I presented my case that words are not violence because abstract speech by itself does not cause objective harm. In 2018, I argued for the protection of hate speech because "hate speech" is often a cudgel for "opinion I dislike." I even argued for the First Amendment rights of pro-Palestine protesters protesting peacefully, which is quite the litmus test because I view them as the modern-day equivalent of Nazis. Where I drew the line with the pro-Palestine crowd was when their speech crossed over into the realm of harmful conduct. 

That concept applies here. Conversion "therapy" is not abstract speech or merely expressing an idea. It is a professional intervention in which a therapist uses speech as a tool with the goal of changing a child's sexual orientation. Even if conversion "therapy" has a component of speech, it is an embedded professional practice that has a direct, predictable record of causing harm. 

Conversion "therapy" is not the only scenario in which speech is a component of harmful conduct. With fraud, speech is inseparable from the act of taking someone's money under false pretenses. With direct threats and incitement, the harm is embedded into the speech itself. With perjury on the stand, the false statements can cause harm and legal or financial injury. Doctors or therapists giving advice or treatment that foreseeably harms clients is considered malpractice, and conversion "therapy" for sexual orientation falls under that category of malpractice.  

From a libertarian standpoint, this distinction is ultimately consistent. We protect words when they are abstract, subjective, and speculative in harm (which is the vast majority of words), but we allow narrow state intervention when speech is inseparable from predictable, harmful action. Regulating conversion "therapy" is not an attack on free expression. It is a principled defense of vulnerable children against a practice with a long-documented record of harm. At least for sexual orientation, it would sit comfortably alongside other recognized exceptions to the First Amendment.....if the Supreme Court ruled as such. 

The Wrong Line in the Sand

Instead, the Court chose to frame the case purely as a free speech issue while missing the crucial distinction between abstract expression and professional conduct that causes predictable harm. By choosing to protect conversion "therapy" for both sexual orientation and gender identity, the Court drew the wrong line when they should have drawn the line by protecting the speech for gender identity only.  

This decision has another dimension beyond the harm caused to children. It is a reflection of a broader problem in how LGBT discourse has evolved. By lumping sexual orientation together with gender identity in legal, social, and research contexts, the unique experiences and vulnerabilities of gay people ends up being overshadowed. The result is policies, rulings, and societal practices that leaves gay people more harmed, a concept I discussed in 2024 when arguing for the gay rights movement to divorce from the trans rights movement.

For sexual orientation-specific conversion "therapy," SCOTUS' ruling is a missed opportunity to defend minors while protecting libertarian principles, especially when it comes to the intersection of freedom of speech and the nonaggression axiom. It is a reminder that conflating distinct issues can have real-world implications for those who should, even under a libertarian framework, be protected. 

Sticks, Stones, and Statutes: Words Are Not Violence and Free Speech Must Never Become a Crime

Imagine a world where saying something controversial would not be considered speech, but rather an act of harm. I am not talking about metaphorical harm as in emotional discomfort, but actual violence. For most of history, that notion would have been considered extreme or exaggerated, but not anymore. Welcome to 2025! According to a recent survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), over 90 percent of college students believe that words are actual violence. 

Harm Is Not the Same Thing as Violence

To understand why these survey findings matter, we must first discuss why words are not violence in any meaningful sense. Those who believe that speech is violence do so under the assumption that harm is sufficient to consider speech violence. Let us think through that for a second. There are many things that can cause psychological harm: job loss, breakups, gossip, divorce, a lousy boss (I have had a couple), or facing failure in life. It would mean that a professor issuing a failing grade, a therapist confronting their patient, a friend talking an addict out of addiction, or a partner breaking up would all be considered acts of violence. This is not to say that words cannot cause harm, whether that is stress, fear, psychological deterioration, or other emotions. Words do matter and they have the potential to wound deeply. At the same time, the existence of harm does not erase the distinction of what makes violence so reprehensible. 

Why Violence Is a Distinct Moral and Legal Category

Violence has been its own distinct moral and legal category, and for good reason. Violence refers to the use of physical force or coercion against someone else. Violence describes a type of action, not an intensity of outcome or effect. It is a definition that matters because there is a fine line: violence bypasses consent and autonomy entirely. A punch to the face does not ask to be debated. Violence does not persuade, argue, or appeal; it overwhelms and removes agency. This is why violent acts have been treated seriously under the law. It is such a bright line that even under a libertarian lens, it justifies defensive force and criminal punishment precisely because it leaves no room for choice or bodily autonomy. 

Speech Preserves Agency, But Violence Eliminates It

One reason that "hate speech is violence" is problematic is because this equivocation undermines personal responsibility. Speech can cause harm, but at least it still allows for moral agency. Moral reasoning implies that individuals can hear words, experience discomfort or even experience harm, and still choose how to respond. As Stoic philosopher Epictetus stated that, "Men are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them." First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt famously said "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Speech can persuade, insult, inspire, or offend, but it does not compel. Even the harshest of rhetoric gives the listener the freedom to reject it, ignore it, or respond in kind. Violence gives people no such quarter. Believing that speech is violence is not a progression in morality. Treating speech as violence implies that people are passive victims of words and have zero agency. It is subtly dehumanizing because it robs people of their dignity and their moral resilience. 

Why Treating Speech as Violence Harms the Law

If the U.S. government were to ever categorize "hate speech" as a category of violence, the country would be screwed because it collapses useful distinctions upon which law, morality, and civil society depend. As I detailed in a previous piece I wrote about gender identity and legal categories, I argued that when the law abandons clear definitions in favor of vague, ever-expanding categories, it cannot protect human rights. The same danger exists here. If there is not a clear legal definition of violence and if the state ever decided that violence included hurtful speech, both the self-defense doctrine and freedom of speech boundaries would crumble. Disagreement would become an act of assault and there would be no distinction between persuasion and coercion. 

This concern is not new. In a 2023 piece I wrote, I warned how the woke Left's attempt to control language was already beginning to erode a sense of clarity. Today, the stakes are even higher. Labeling words as "violence" follows the same pattern, which collapses distinctions that allow society to separate persuasion from coercion, disagreement from assault, and offense from real harm. Without distinguishing between regular communication and assault, the definition of violence would be broken. 

When "Violence" Becomes a Euphemism for Disapproval

This pernicious definition would give the government a carte blanche to police speech. Why? Because especially in our age of fragility, the list of what can trigger or cause emotional distress is subjective and never-ending. Under this framework, violence would simply become a catch-all phrase for "I find this to be unpleasant, offensive, or emotionally distressing." The word no longer defines a uniquely heinous or dangerous act, but rather is a euphemism signaling moral disapproval. Once that happens, nothing is violence in any meaningful sense.

This is why the need to protect speech is more urgent than ever. As I argued in a 2024 piece, with roughly half of Americans openly hostile to certain kinds of speech, society cannot afford to redefine disagreement as assault. Without clear boundaries, we do not only risk misunderstanding. We risk the suppression of dialogue. If we took that authoritarian premise to its logical conclusion and caved into every microaggression or instance of emotional discomfort, freedom of expression would be dead. 

How Calling Words "Violence" Leads to Real Violence

Labeling words as violence would open the door for people to be physically violent towards one another because once words are labeled as "violence,” responding with force can be framed as self-defense rather than retaliation. Counter-violence would be legitimized and there would be a cultural permission for escalation, thereby increasing the risk of a downward spiral towards more violence. After all, this moral flattening and equivocation is how political activist and author Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Violence must mean actual violence, and not merely emotional harm or discomfort. Otherwise, the very concept that justifies society's strongest prohibitions is emptied of any actual substance. In short, saying that words are actual violence would cause society to take a nosedive.  

The Grave Cost of Losing the Meaning of Words

Even after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the vast majority of college students believe that words are violence. I find this to be disturbing. After four years of so-called "education" and tens of thousands of dollars spent in tuition, most students these days cannot understand the difference between conversation and coercion. This is the end-result of an educational culture that values emotional validation over facts, logic, or reason. All violence causes harm, but not all harm causes violence. Losing that distinction between violence and harm means that society cannot tell the difference between force and freedom. It also means that Charlie Kirk will be the first of many to be a victim to the toxic notion that "words are violence." America can and must do better if it is to remain a free, democratic society. Otherwise, do not be surprised when the United States descends into greater political polarization and political violence.

Jimmy Kimmel, Net Neutrality, and Why the FCC’s Control of Speech and Broadband Must End

The murder of conservative political activist and author Charlie Kirk sent shockwaves through the United States because it showed how fragile freedom of speech is in the United States. A few days after Kirk's murder, comedian Jimmy Kimmel joked on his late-night show that Trump supporters were trying to paint Kirk's murderer as liberal to score political points. It does not matter that Kirk's murderer was indeed on the Far Left. The Trump administration did not appreciate Kimmel's jab. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr threatened ABC's network broadcasting license. One could argue that this move is hypocritical considering that in 2019, Carr said that "the FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the 'public interest.'"

A day later, ABC suspended Kimmel. The suspension was lifted a few days later. Kimmel came back on the air to talk about using anti-American tactics to suppress freedom of speech. While I do not appreciate threats from the FCC, I also have to question Kimmel's sincerity about freedom of speech when he cheered on the cancellations of President Trump from Twitter, Roseanne Barr, or Tucker Carlson. Whether Kimmel came around on the First Amendment and realizes that he took it for granted or his passion for freedom of speech only extends to himself and those who agree with him remains to be seen. Irrespective of whether Kimmel became a free speech advocate after being suspended, this suspension debacle brings up a question about freedom of speech and the FCC's role in broadcasting regulation. 

For those of you who think that FCC censorship is some unprecedented move with President Trump, it truly is not. The government has exerted its top-down control of the airwaves since the 1927 Radio Act, which predates the creation of the Federal Communications Commission in 1934. Shortly after the FCC's founding, President Franklin Roosevelt used the FCC to target and silence conservative broadcasters who opposed his New Deal. That is one of the many reasons I dislike what FDR did during his presidency. If the modern Left cannot tolerate Trump criticizing journalist or using the FCC to imply ABC loses its license, then surely they cannot ignore how FDR wielded the FCC in an authoritarian manner. Regardless, the FCC's abuse did not stop with FDR.

In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled in NBC v. United States that the government can regulate network broadcasting practices to prevent monopolies and ensure that they served the "public interest, convenience, or necessity." We would never allow for the government to monitor our phone calls to determine if our conversations are fair, balanced, or responsible. Yet that is exactly what this court case allows the FCC to do with public communication. 

While the "Fairness Doctrine" started in 1949, it was particularly used by Presidents Johnson and Nixon to target critics of their policies. Nixon was the most blatant abuser by using license challenges as leverage to get broadcasters to back off on criticizing Nixon. This Doctrine remained in place until Reagan eliminated it in 1987. These examples show that politicization of the FCC is not a recent phenomenon, but rather a recurring feature in FCC history. Because NBC v. United States has not been overturned, the FCC still retains those broad powers to this very day. 

The same 20th-century mindset of media being scarce and the public needing gatekeepers also underlies what I discussed last month with taxpayer funding for such outlets as NPR and PBS. When airwaves were limited and national programming was costly, public media had a stronger case relative to now. However, in a world of podcasts, YouTube, and livestreams, the idea that the government should bankroll a certain media outlet is outdated. We did not need a state-approved version of "quality content" then, and we sure do not need it now. Regardless of whether it is through regulation or subsidy, the belief that speech needs Big Government to guide it is both misguided and dangerous, even more so in a digital age. 

What makes the FCC more onerous is not simply what is being said, but it seeks to control how information flows in the digital age. The net neutrality debate is a prime example of the FCC exerting that control. What net neutrality ends up being is a one-size-fits-all mandate that degrades broadband quality, reduces innovation, and undermines the very decentralization that made the internet a haven for free expression. 

Net neutrality is a government mandate requiring internet service providers (ISPs) to treat all online content equally, regardless of source, type of bandwidth demand. While presented as a way to level the playing field, it is a backdoor for the FCC to control online discourse. By dictating internet traffic be treated equal, the FCC statutorily places itself as the arbiter of what constitutes "fair" access. This is because the FCC has used "reasonable network management" in its 2010, 2015, and 2024 Open Internet Orders. Combined with vague definitions of what constitutes as "reasonable" with the precedent NBC v. United States ruling, it would give regulators the legal ambiguity and institutional cover to micromanage internet traffic under the guise of neutrality. Similar to how the FCC has suppressed dissenting voices on the radio and television, net neutrality opens the door for similar abuses on the internet. 

If it was not enough that net neutrality has implications for the First Amendment, its impact on broadband service is equally disconcerting. This was something I explored in further detail last year. Net neutrality does not level the playing field or improve broadband services. Because it operates under the outdated Title II regulations, it wrongfully treats the internet as a public utility, which I argued in 2017. As a result, it discourages private investment in broadband and stifles innovation. Ultimately, net neutrality translates into slower and less reliable internet. Instead of government heavy-handedness, the internet needs a market-centric approach if we want faster and more accessible internet for all. Thankfully, the Sixth Circuit court reversed the Biden administration's most recent attempt at net neutrality. The fact that these court cases need to be have due to these power grabs show how much power has been granted to the FCC.

The FCC was created for a different world. We do not live with a media landscape that has limited bandwidth, top-down broadcasting, and government-engineered fairness. Our information ecosystem is fast, global, decentralized, and wildly abundant. Yet the FCC operates with a mindset that there are only three main television stations and Franklin D. Roosevelt still sits in the White House. Whether it is censoring content, dictating how ISPs route traffic, or overseeing digital speech, the agency treats the flow of information as something to be managed in a top-down fashion. This approach is a threat to both liberty and innovation.

This is not merely a matter of outdated bureaucracy using frameworks and regulations that no longer fit today's ever-evolving media landscape. It is a more profound issue on how government shapes speech. It does not matter if you agree with Kimmel or not. Political disagreements should be settled with speech and in the intellectual marketplace, not through state intimidation or licensing threats. While I have criticized Left-wing cancel culture extensively (see here, here, here, and here), this is a disturbing trend in the political Right adopting that same authoritarian impulse. Using the FCC to silent dissent is the exact sort of tactic that Charlie Kirk would have opposed and is probably having him roll over in his grave as we speak. The Right should not succumb to these tactics because free speech is one of those core values that we should uphold in a modern, democratic society. 

It is not simply because the government is prone to abusing its power to regulate freedom of speech. The government has set the dangerous precedent that our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, is something that the government gives us, rather than being something they have no right to take away in the first place. Both the Left and Right need to remember that the power to silence your political opponents today could be used against their side in the future, and often more aggressively and with fewer restraints. The fact that speech has had this much oversight from the FCC is surreal. The FCC does not merely need reform. Whether it is because of freedom of speech concerns or practical ones, it needs to meet its demise to make speech free again and make sure everyone has high-quality access to broadband services. 

Political Violence Is Rare, But Charlie Kirk's Murder Marks a Chilling Turning Point for Freedom of Speech

In light of last week's events, it looks like we might have the 21st-century equivalent of the "shot heard 'round the world." While giving a public debate at Utah Valley University, conservative political activist and author Charlie Kirk was shot and murdered as part of his American Comeback Tour. The impact of Kirk's assassination cannot be overstated. 

Kirk was a defining voice for the modern-day conservative movement. As a co-founder of the organization Turning Point, Kirk helped mobilize a generation of young right-wing activists on college campuses, institutions that are known to notoriously lean far to the Left. Kirk was also known for touring college campuses. His open debate forum and confrontational Q&A sessions often sparked national debates. He was a key figure in the culture battles over freedom of speech and ideological diversity at institutions of higher learning, which are prone to Left-leaning ideological lockstep. 

As horrific as such examples of politically motivated violence as Kirk's murder is, it is a statistically rare occurrence. Using terrorism as the broadest definition of politically-motivated violence, the Cato Institute found that there have been 3,599 political motivated murders since 1975. Excluding the 83 percent of those murdered on 9/11, this brings the figure down to 620 murders. Murders committed in terrorist attacks accounted for 0.35 percent of all murders since 1975. 

Yes, politically motivated murders are statistically rare. Like with any murder, politically motivated murder is unacceptable and morally reprehensible, regardless of the political persuasion of the target. What makes politically motivated murder so socially corrosive, is in no small part, the symbolism behind his death. He was murdered while speaking publicly on campus, which is especially emblematic because a college campus was the signature venue for his activism. A question that I have is how the political Right and conservative activists will react. Will they become more cautious because they want to avoid the fate of Charlie Kirk? Will they become more emboldened, more defensive, or more radical? How will the conservative movement's overall evolve in response? Given his rare combination of oratory skills, media savvy, policy knowledge, and organizational acumen, it also begs the question of who will guide the conservative moment from here on out. 

Some accuse Charlie Kirk of spreading hate. I am not going to dissect some of his more controversial statements because it is irrelevant to the following argument. Similar to my criticism of "hate speech" in 2017, the reality is that hate speech often becomes shorthand for "speech I do not like" and also that there is no universally accepted definition of hate. What is hateful for one person could be considered a respectful disagreement for another person. Or to quote the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, "Men are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them." If we are to live in a free society, we cannot define hatred based on ideology or feelings because then free speech would only be for the powerful or the majority. For freedom of speech to work in a democratic society, it needs to apply to all. That includes people whose opinions I find detestable, such as pro-Palestine protestors.

To support freedom of speech means that diverging viewpoints exist within a democratic society. Allowing those viewpoints to exist and to be expressed allows for tolerance of others who think, believe, and act different to co-exist in the same society, which ultimately creates a more cohesive civil society. We could get into his debate tactics or the extent to which the comments he made were considered controversial. While his critics question his tone or tactics, this does not change the fact that Kirk's ideal was open debate and having discussions with those with whom he disagreed. He helped to create a mass movement based on the persuasiveness of his arguments, and that appeal revived the conservative moment in the United States. 

To quote the First Amendment advocacy group FIRE, "Words are not violence. Words are what we use instead of violence to resolve our differences." Charlie Kirk was using his words to engage college students, and he got murdered for practicing the very freedom he preached. Being part of a free society means feeling safe to express opinions and ideas without the fear of getting shot. People should not have to wonder whether expressing their beliefs requires metaphorical or literal body armor. Speaking your mind, especially on controversial issues, should not come with a high personal risk. If those hesitate to raise their hands, speak their voices, publish their essay, or partake in political activism as a result of what happened to Charlie Kirk, the foundation of dialogue erodes and democracy loses. 

I fear that people could self-censor out of this level of fear, which would make the intellectual marketplace suffer, people cling to echo chambers, and have extremism fester. There is a risk that the Trump administration could use this assassination as pretext for political witch hunts, expanded executive powers, or restarting the War on Terror. 

In short, I dread that this could be a pivot point in which the United States heads towards greater authoritarianism, and it would hardly be unprecedented. The assassination of Tzar Alexander II in Russia led to repression and stonewalling liberal reforms. A 2016 coup attempt in Türkiye inspired Erdoğan to consolidate power. The assassination of Anwar Sadat led to a 30-year declaration of emergency. Since I am currently in Peru, I bring up the Maoist Shining Path's political violence that led to democratically-elected Alberto Fujimori dissolve Peruvian Congress and commit human rights abuses in the name of fighting terrorism. 

Such moves towards greater authoritarianism are not exclusive to non-democratic societies. Modern-day democracies have also experienced authoritarian backlash, whether it was expanded police presence in France as a result of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Israel using emergency responses to curtail civil liberties in response to war and intifada, the Patriot Act in the United States, or the United Kingdom's Anti-Terrorism Acts that allowed for infinite detention. I am not here to say that authoritarianism is the inevitable outcome, but rather to illustrate that any country, including constitutional democracies, can drift into authoritarianism in response to political violence. 

 

As I have brought up before, as long as people want more power and/or money, freedom and democracy will always be on the defensive. Freedom of speech is no exception. Both the Left and the Right believe that the assassination was spurred by the violence that the other side fomented. If the citizens of the United States are to get past this political assassination, there needs to be a cultivation of the ideals that Kirk strived towards, including open debate and respectfully engaging with those whose opinions are disagreeable or unpalatable. 

This country has undoubtedly steered far from those ideals. I highlighted survey work last year showing that most Americans do not care for the First Amendment. Even more disturbingly, a survey from Yale University found that about 40 percent of college students believe that violence is a justifiable response to speech, including death. 

In spite of these trends showing a lack of appreciation for the First Amendment, we need to keep our eye on the ball. One study from the Research Institute of Industrial Economics shows that greater freedom of expression eases social conflict (Bjørnskov and Mchangama, 2023), which is to say that we need to foster freedom of expression. The people of America need to stop viewing dissidents as "other" or as downright evil. We cannot accept the notion that speech is violence and that actual physical violence is an appropriate response to disagreeable opinions. Using that logic would mean that it would become acceptable to murder people for their opinions, and that would only increase intolerance and political violence. 

We either resolve our differences by discussions and a peaceful process or we do so with violence and bloodshed. As this Politico article detailing the analysis of political violence experts shows, the United States is not doomed to violence, but it is at a dangerous crossroads. There are declining democratic norms, increased divisions, and political incitement. If opponents continue to be demonized and if politicized violence continues to increase, this cycle of political violence can become entrenched in U.S. society. Unless there is a major course correction, America will do more than cease to be a city on a shining hill. It will risk trading its place as a beacon of liberty and be one step closer to becoming the authoritarian hellhole that the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid. 

Pulling the Plug: Why NPR and PBS (Or Any Public Media) Should Not Be Taxpayer-Funded

For over half a century, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has supported public radio and television, including National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Last week, CPB announced that it will be shutting down next month. This announcement came in response to President Trump rescinding $1.1 billion in funding for the nonprofit over the next couple of years. While Trump can hardly be considered a libertarian, he has at least downsized multiple government agencies, including the Department of Education, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and now CPB. I would prefer he tackle such major budgetary drivers as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. At least on this topic, Trump and I are on the same wavelength: the government has no business funding public media. 

Let us start with the fact that PBS' and NPR's funding primarily comes from private sources. About 15 percent of PBS' funding comes from the federal government, whereas it is under 2 percent of annual revenue for NPR. To be fair, there are additional federal funds that flow into the affiliate stations and the affiliate stations in turn pay NPR or PBS. Government revenue represents about 10 percent of local affiliate revenue on average, although that could be upwards of 25 percent for rural stations. When factoring in that indirect support, that means that PBS gets about a quarter of its revenue from the federal government, whereas it is a bit over 10 percent for NPR. Since most of their revenue does not come from the government, the argument that PBS or NPR would automatically disappear is unconvincing.

I grew up watching Sesame Street. I have fond memories of Big Bird and learning to count from Count von Count. It was enjoyable and educational television. PBS and NPR have produced award-winning programming, so they have the potential to survive without the federal funding. This potential is greater given the median NPR-watching household makes $100,000, which is over $30,000 more than the median U.S. household. PBS and NPR already have the fundraising mechanisms in place to raise more funds, the brand loyalty and trust, and an affluent viewership. Their programming should be able to stand on their own if it really is that top-notch. Similar to the argument against student loan "forgiveness," is it really fair if the average worker is funding programming for people with six-figure incomes? Is this really the most efficient or even most equitable use of taxpayer money? 

This brings me to my next point and stating the obvious: the year is 2025 and the media landscape is different than what it once was. Unlike in the 1960s, there are thousands of media outlets worldwide that the American people can access, including cable television, podcasts, streaming platforms (e.g., Netflix, Hulu, YouTube), newspapers, and magazines. Public media no longer fills the unique gap it once did. NPR and PBS are but two media providers in a diverse and competitive marketplace. If people want to consume programming from PBS and NPR that they consider high-quality, that is fine. I am not calling for PBS and NPR to be shut down. What I am asking is that NPR and PBS programming no loner be taxpayer-funded, but rather competes with the other media providers in the market. 

This brings me to the theme of political bias. There is bound to be at least some bias in reporting the news. Editors make multiple choices, including what stories to cover or not cover, what perspective to take, and what language to use. There can be an argument made that there is a Left-leaning bias at NPR. This is not only because NPR is about 7 times more likely to be consumed for news by Democrats than Republicans. An insider of NPR, Uri Berliner, documented how ideological conformity and groupthink have eroded NPR's editorial balance.  

Although Berliner's account corroborates bias, it would not matter if it had not. The deeper problem inherently remains that any news outlet funded by the government risks politicization, either because of perception of state endorsement or actual influence. Public trust erodes when journalism and government are financially entangled. 

And once that bias creeps in, government funding is not merely questionable, but dangerous. At that point, you are not subsidizing the news, but a narrative. Media outlets have a right to air their perspective, but none are entitled to public funding because the government should remain neutral regarding public discourse. Would the NPR-listening crowd be okay with the government funding Fox News, Breitbart, or the Washington Examiner? I very much doubt it! Discontinuing funding for CPB does not violate the First Amendment. Rather, it reinforces it because free speech best thrives when it is free of state sponsorship. 

During the Reagan years, former NPR chair Frank Mankiewicz tried to have NPR become independent of federal funding, and I think he was right to do so. Ultimately, this is not about silencing NPR or PBS. This is about having these media providers succeed on their own merits in an open, diverse, competitive market. NPR and PBS have the infrastructure, audience, and financial base to do so. Other media outlets did not require government subsidies and neither should NPR or PBS.

Much like I argued in 2017, taxpayers should not be on the hook for $535 million a year for programming that caters disproportionately to wealthier Americans or that carries a partisan tilt. In a country that is at least in theory supposed to support freedom of speech and limited government, it follows that public discourse should be shaped by the people, not underwritten by politicians in Washington, DC. If PBS and NPR are truly indispensable, they will survive without the largesse of the federal government. 

Age Verification Laws Do Not Protect Children, Data Privacy, or the First Amendment

Disclaimer: This blog entry does not contain any pornographic images or links to pornographic websites. This blog entry functions as a criticism of age verification laws. 

If you listen to social conservatives, they will tell you that pornography and other adult content are some of the major scourges in our society. Last year, I wrote a two-part series (see Part I and Part II) about how the social conservatives' war on pornography and other adult content. I detailed how a) porn does not increase sexual assault, b) that the health effects of pornography are mixed at best, c) what a consenting adult does in the privacy of their home is no one else's business because of this is supposed to be a free country, d) banning porn would have major First Amendment implications, and e) forcing porn in the underground markets makes matters worse. 

Even if one were to concede that porn consumption is acceptable for adults, what about children? Should it not be the government's priority to protect children from material that is not age-appropriate? I have covered the "think of the children" mantra multiple times, whether that has been with harmful COVID-era school closures, universal preschool, banning violent video games, or banning same-sex adoption. None of these instances merited government intervention, but maybe this time is different. 

I would start out with the burdens that age verification laws create. The age verification law debate is not new in U.S. politics. There was a flurry of age verification laws in the 1990s, and the courts struck them down because they impose undue burden on adult speech, whether that is the First Amendment right to anonymity, user access, website feasibility, or a violation of the vagueness doctrine (especially with censoring LGBT content). This does not even get into the murky waters of having the government defining what constitutes as age-appropriate, which could be manipulated by policymakers to censor certain information.

Better technology does not resolve these issues because the French government found with their age verification laws that they use neither verify age accurately, are user-friendly, nor do they protect user privacy. In modern times, these systems would be collecting sensitive data, whether that is government IDs or biometric information. With the prevalence of data breaches, I would contend that it causes greater risks than benefit. And imagine a world where everything you do online would be tracked to your government ID or other biometrics because that is exactly what proponents are asking for. 

For argument's sake, let's give the social conservatives a benefit of the doubt and say that sacrificing the First Amendment and data privacy are acceptable prices to protecting the children. This leads to a more fundamental question of whether age verification laws protect children. According to a working paper from researchers at New York University and Stanford University released earlier this month (Lang et al., 2025), the answer to that question is a resounding "No!" 

What did these researchers find about age verification laws that make them so ineffective? In short, people find ways around age verification laws. One is to find content providers that are not compliant with these laws. Another is to use virtual private network (VPN) services. VPN services allow a user to mask their location, thereby circumventing age verification laws. Another researcher from the University of Toronto similarly found that people find ways around the age verification laws (Spencer, 2025). When arguing against aTikTok ban, I pointed out that bans, whether it is illicit drugs, sodas greater than 16 ounces, or high-capacity magazines for guns, can be circumvented. Age verification laws are no exception.

I have pointed out the problem with multiple instances of bans driving people to underground markets or less savory options, whether it is with sports betting, marijuana, human organ sales, payday loans, or with regards to prostitution. According to one of the researchers, age verification laws do not reduce overall traffic, but rather "drive users toward potentially less regulated and more dangerous alternatives." 

To summarize, age verification laws do nothing to protect children while harming data privacy and the First Amendment. Even the Right-leaning American Enterprise Institute recommended the market solution of greater parental controls instead of more government intervention. As TechFreedom's Corbin Barthold points out, "there is nothing conservative about letting the state watch your kids. If you're not overseeing your children's internet use..., laws are not going to keep them out of trouble." Much like with Trump's English as an official language executive order, age verification laws are an example of Right-wing virtue signaling that do not produce any material good.

Half of Americans Hate on the First Amendment: Why We Need a First Amendment More Than Ever

Earlier this month, Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz was on MSNBC when he said something I found shocking: "There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy." As I covered in 2017, there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Even "hate speech" is constitutionally protected. Reason Magazine brings up how misinformation is more complicated. Libel, lying to a government official, or fraudulent charitable fundraising are punishable. Conversely, some lies are protected (e.g., New York Times v Sullivan, 1964; United States v. Alvarez, 2012).

Sadly enough, Tim Walz is hardly alone in this authoritarian view and using "misinformation" as a pretext to want to stifle First Amendment rights. According to a recent survey from the Foundation for Individual Expression (FIRE), 53 percent of Americans believe on some level that "The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees." That partisan breakdown is over 60 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. This is a perturbing trend given that the U.S. Left had been a major advocate for freedom of speech, especially during the birth of the Freedom of Speech movement in the 1960s. Although Republicans are less likely to take issue with the First Amendment, it is a more prevailing view that has taken over.  

What a majority of American citizens are really saying is that they wish they had fewer civil liberties. Benjamin Franklin once said that "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The feeling of security not only applies to national security, but also the security blanket that one's beliefs or worldviews holds. 

Not everyone believes, thinks, speaks, or acts the same way as you do. There is no constitutional right to not be offended. I cannot stand pro-Palestine protesters and their blatant lies. Nevertheless, I still believe in their First Amendment rights to [peaceful] protest and freedom of speech. Why would I take such a view? A few reasons:

1. As I brought up in 2017 with political correctness, the list of triggers and what is deemed as offensive is subjective and never-ending. If being offended were a right, there would be no upper limit on what could be banned or prohibited.
2. Freedom of speech is indivisible. For freedom of speech to work, that right has to apply to those with whom I emphatically disagree, as well as those as with whom I agree.
3. To support freedom of speech means understanding that diverging viewpoints exist. Allowing for those viewpoints and beliefs to be expressed means fostering tolerance towards those who are different from us. 
4. Historically, the government has wielded its raw power to silent dissidents and those who speak truth to power. Freedom of speech, religion, and protest are almost always the freedoms that authoritarian governments stifle first. It is no coincidence that authoritarian governments commonly and often coerce and silence journalists. That is because those that are too insecure in their own beliefs or ideas feel the need to strong-arm those that disagree or reveal information that is unflattering to an authoritarian's worldview. 
5. Freedom of speech is neither inherently "left-wing" or "right-wing." It is for everyone, regardless of one's political views, religion, race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Having an intellectual marketplace allows to advance new ideas and find like-minded individuals to inculcate social and political change. 
6. The First Amendment gives us the ability to express ourselves openly. As long as people are not harming others vis-à-vis the non-aggression axiom, I want people to live their lives as freely and happily as possible. That includes their freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. To quote Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, "the human spirit...demands self-expression. Such expression is an integral part of the development of ideas and a sense of identity. To suppress expression is to reject the basic human desire for recognition and affront the individuals's worth and dignity." 

Many Americans seem to view freedom of speech with a "fine for me, but not for thee" mentality. When they can express themselves, it is acceptable. However, when it is someone with whom they disagree expresses their views and opinions, it is a whole different scenario. This attitude comes from a society that prefers to avoid or silent dissent instead of learning how to have difficult conversations on controversial issues. What is unnerving is that Americans have more tolerance for unprotected conduct than they do various forms of protected speech, much as we have seen with the recent pro-Palestine protests on college campuses.  

When I criticized the Danish government last December for banning Quran burnings, I was dismayed at how the "free world" is putting the kibosh on free speech. However, I at least had a sigh of relief saying "at least the United States still has a First Amendment." One of the reasons that the United States has historically been a great country is because of the First Amendment rights that it offers. Yet the trend towards hating the First Amendment makes me wonder where my country has gone. If the government starts choosing which ideas or beliefs are "hate speech" or "misinformation," we will find ourselves in an Orwellian state in which 2+2 = 5. I do not want that. 

As long as people want more power and/or money, freedom will always be on the defensive. I want to be free. So many revolutions across history were fought because of a desire to be free. With snowflakes on both sides of the political aisle, we need to fight against those who want to censor and make cancel culture woven into the fabric of U.S. society. More than ever, we need to reignite the part of society that values the freedoms that the First Amendment enshrines and have historically made the United States a shining city on a hill. Otherwise, the United States will become an authoritarian nightmare that is negatively depicted in so many dystopian movies and books. 

The Lies of Pro-Palestinian Activists Are Contemptible, But Denying Them Freedom of Speech Isn't the Answer

It was not bad enough that the terrorist organization Hamas carried out the worst single attack on Jews since the Holocaust last month. Over 1,200 Israeli civilians were murdered. Hamas also kidnapped, tortured, raped, and decapitated civilians. There was no shortage of carnage and mayhem from Hamas on October 7, 2023. What I also found to be jaw-dropping was how pro-Palestine activists and protestors reacted. They showed no indignation for what was clearly a violation of human rights. Quite the opposite!

At a pro-Palestine rally in Sydney, they were cheering "Fuck the Jews" and "Gas the Jews." In DC, they were screaming "Long live the intifada." In Arabic, intifada (انتفاضة) literally means "shaking off." In a political context, it refers to violent uprisings against Israelis that previously took place in the late 1980s and the early 2000s. There were those in New York cheering for what Hamas did. There is no shortage of "hate marches" in the western world in recent weeks.  

The pro-Palestinian hypocrisy is also stomach-churning. It is not only that they call Israel a genocidal state, even though it is not. They are cheering for Hamas, an anti-Semitic, homophobic terrorist organization that carried out a pogrom to incite a war with Israel and then has the gall to play victim. Hamas has made their genocidal intent clear since its founding in 1988. And the chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," what do you think it means? It calls for the erasure of the Jewish state, or in other words, ethnic cleansing. 

These activists demand empathy and decency, but are basically cheering to wipe out about half of the Jewish population. I know we just had the clocks turn back because Daylight Savings ended, but I didn't think we turned those clocks back to the 1930s when anti-Semitism was fashionable. Not only is it hateful, but the pro-Palestine side bases its arguments either on outright lies, half-truths, exaggerations, or events wholly taken out of context. They misuse such terms as occupation, colonizer, and apartheid to mask Jew-hatred. 

On a personal level, I despise this assault on truth and human decency. It is an affront to so much of what I value and stand for in life. I believe such vile has no place in civil society. Given the uptick in anti-Semitism that has manifested as a result, I honestly wish that pro-Palestinian activists would collectively shut their trap. As much as I cannot stand it, I believe in their right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Before continuing, I want to state that freedom of speech does not include violence, true threats, bona fide intimidation, incitement of violence, discriminatory harassment, or the heckler's veto. The aforementioned exceptions are not covered under the First Amendment. That being said, why am I standing on the side of preserving the freedom of speech of pro-Palestine protestors? 

1. Freedom of speech is indivisible. For free speech to be free, it does not only apply to those I agree with. Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience have to apply to those that I vehemently disagree with, as well. That extends to people having the right to hate Jews or cheering on a terrorist organization raping and murdering innocent civilians, as upsetting as it is. After all, hate speech is still a form of free speech. 
2. If that power to suppress freedom of speech could be used against anti-Semites , it could also be used against those who are in favor of Israel if anti-Israel politicians got into power. Giving government that sort of power would mean that no one's freedom of speech would be guaranteed. 
3. Allowing for their freedom of speech creates greater tolerance in society. Keep in mind that acceptance and tolerance are not the same thing. I do not accept the lies or hatred that are prevalent in the pro-Palestine movement. I don't have to agree with their viewpoints. Conversely, if we are to live in a pluralistic, democratic society, we have to have a threshold for opinions we disagree with, as well as a basic level of respect for those who we do not agree with. Tolerance is key for creating a more peaceful, cohesive society. 
4. I want to know who hates Jews so much that they end up being apologists for depraved mass murderers. Bring them out into the light and expose their hatred. At least I know where they stand. That is freedom of association. Plus, haven't there always been consequences in the professional world if you go as far as glorify terrorists? If someone celebrated 9/11 on September 12, 2001, what do you think would happen? They would most likely lose their job or not get a job offer. I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe that freedom of association means disassociating from someone who has a view you find disagreeable or repugnant. 
5. A working paper from the Research Institute of Industrial Economics shows that increased freedom of expression helps ease social conflict (Bjørnskov and Mchangama, 2023). This paper's findings suggest that censorship would only increase tensions because it would limit legitimate avenues for discussion. 
6. Banning something is not the same thing as defeating or eliminating it. As we see with other bans, it most likely means making the problem worse. This is a war of worldviews and we need to use freedom of speech to fight against Islamist extremists and Jew-hatred. Let them come with their fallacious arguments. This is about preserving a marketplace of ideas. It is up to us to refute the lies and the hate. Now is the time to stand up not only for Jews or Israelis, but for human rights, democracy, civilization, and plain human decency. 

Why a Federal Ban of TikTok Would Be a Ticking Time Bomb Waiting to Erode Our Rights

TikTok is a short-form video hosting service that has made the news lately. While the video-sharing app has brought entertainment and information to millions, it is facing the possibility of a ban in the United States. But why? It is true that TikTok collects data, gets people addicted on social media, and can be used to find what some would deem inappropriate or inaccurate information. TikTok also has had its share of vulnerabilities, privacy violations, and dubious practices. But the same could be said for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. What is different about TikTok? In two words, Chinese influence. 

TikTok is a company that is owned by ByteDance (字节跳动有限公司). ByteDance is headquartered in Beijing and incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The issue with ByteDance are the allegations that ByteDance answers to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Ownership by a Chinese company brings up national security concerns about data privacy, propaganda, cyberattacks, and disinformation from the CCP. 

Whether or not the CCP already has collected TikTok data does not negate that the CCP could plausibly compel ByteDance to fork over TikTok data to the CCP. After all, modern-day China has a propensity towards surveillance, censorship, and overall cracking down on freedom. Plus, as the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation brings up in its report TikTok Generation: A CCP Official in Every Pocket, there are laws already in place that could make that possibility a reality. Furthermore, FBI Director Christopher Wray recently testified that TikTok "screams national security concerns."

It could explain why according to Pew Research, U.S. citizens favor a TikTok ban by nearly two to one. There might be a plausible case to disallow the use of TikTok for government officials and employees who guard state secrets or have Top Secret security clearances. After all, such government employees already have other restrictions on their lives due to the nature of their work. Outside of that notable exception, let me run through the reasons why a nationwide ban of TikTok would be highly problematic.

The first issue with banning TikTok is that it is unconstitutional. As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) brings up in his op-ed, the First Amendment applies to speech whether you like it or not. The second is that a bill of attainder, which is a bill against a specific person or company, is prohibited under the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3). Odds are that a TikTok ban would be overruled by the Supreme Court, especially since a federal court previously overruled former President Trump's TikTok ban. 

In the event that a TikTok ban were to be upheld by the Supreme Court, it would have serious ramifications for the freedom of speech. It is not only that TikTok is used by 150 million U.S. users, 10 percent of adults in the U.S. receive their news from TikTok, or that a TikTok ban would be the largest impairment of freedom of speech in the United States. If the government could ban TikTok, it would set precedent for the federal government to control what apps and technologies that U.S. citizens could use to communicate. 

What makes you think that this sort of oversight and regulation would ultimately be limited to TikTok? A TikTok ban is merely a pretense for more government power. That is not mere conjecture or fantasy. Take a look at this spot-on analysis from the Cato Institute on Congress' latest attempt at a power grab: the "Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology" Act, also known as the RESTRICT Act. The power under the RESTRICT Act to define "adversary" nations and which companies could be subject to government restrictions would be a nightmare for freedom of speech and privacy protections. If the RESTRICT Act were to pass, China would not be the only potential threat to American citizens.  

Do you really want the the federal government to have the power to restrict free speech, along with other rights, like that? It would make no sense for U.S. politicians to be so appalled by China's disregard for civil liberties while responding by emulating the CCP's behavior of suppressing freedom of speech and free enterprise. How does embracing government overreach and censorship show that the United States is the land of the free? You think we would have learned from the civil rights abuses from the Patriot Act, but here we are. 

While we are on the topic of liberty, Americans should have the right and freedom to use the TikTok app. To quote the Foundation of Economic Education, "The government has no business telling people what apps they have on their phone. If individuals want to take the risk of exposing their data to the CCP, that should be their choice." If we are to maintain a free and open internet, individuals should take responsibility for their own data privacy. This would include reading privacy policies for given apps, using virtual private networks (VPNs), favoring apps that use encrypted messaging and other privacy features, or simply not using a smartphone to track you. 

There has been a lot of postulating and handwringing about potential national security issues. Let's ask some questions about whether the government could come up with a national security justification for the ban:

• 71.2 percent of TikTok users are between the age of 18 and 34. If CCP were to get its hands on the data of the average TikTok user, especially given age demographics, how would that threaten national security? 
• TikTok has a special-purpose subsidiary called TikTok U.S. Data Security that contracts with the company Oracle to store U.S. data. Is there proof that TikTok is actually sharing U.S. user data with the CCP, even in spite of the existence of this subsidiary? (Answer: not as of yet.)
• Why is there no evidence that the CCP has tampered with TikTok's content recommendation to disseminate CCP propaganda or disinformation?
• If TikTok were so pro-China that it was a puppet of the Chinese government, why is TikTok banned in China? Why do Chinese citizens have to use Douyin instead?
• If China were such a national security concern, why does the U.S. government still allow for the production of such consumer goods as smart appliances, pharmaceuticals, personal protective equipment, and computer chips to be consumed in the U.S.?

At this juncture, the national security harms of TikTok are conjectural. But let's forget for a moment that the national security concerns are not based on hard evidence or specific, concrete examples. TikTok colluding with the CCP on content acquisition is bad business. If TikTok were to facilitate pro-CCP tampering, it would be a public relations disaster for TikTok. They have a profit incentive to play by the free speech norms that are in the Western world, much like U.S. companies have had to comply with the Great Firewall of China if it wants to do business in China. The Chinese government also has a macroeconomic incentive for companies such as TikTok to be able to compete in the greater global market.

Finally, what good would a TikTok ban do? Bans can often be circumvented. If someone like Mayor Bloomberg tries to ban sodas greater than 16 ounces, you can buy two sodas under 16 ounces and consumer just as much, if not more, sugar. Illicit drugs could be purchased on the black market. A mass shooter could get around a high-capacity magazine ban by changing magazines or bringing multiple weapons. As for TikTok, users could circumvent the ban by purchasing a VPN and using TikTok that way. Given the number of TikTok users that exist, could you imagine the regulatory apparatus to monitor millions of smartphones and computers? 

As the Brookings Institution points out in its analysis on why a TikTok ban will not guarantee consumer safety, "much of the information collected by TikTok is like that compiled by many companies that host consumer facing products." Also, the CCP already has the ability to buy demographic, health, geographic, and political data (as well as device identifiers, and face or voice prints) from private third-party data brokers. In short, if the CCP wanted those data, it can already get a hold of them.

None of this even gets into the economic impact that a TikTok ban would have on a variety of professions, including life coaches, influencers, and small business owners. Instead of focusing on banning TikTok, Congress should be asking itself how it can pass broad-based data privacy rules or laws. By asking ourselves how to enact laws that protect the data privacy of consumers and individual freedom, the U.S. government can protect our values and democracy while not taking the authoritarian path that the Chinese government uses to censor and limit freedom.

The Woke Left Controlling Language Will Not Put Itself on the Right Side of History

I don't know if you have noticed or not, but the English language has been undergoing a lot of changes in the past five or so years. These changes are due to the puritans of our time: the woke Left. Mothers have become "birthing people." Affirmative action is now "diversity." Disinformation has become wokespeak for "speech I disagree with," which has a similar vibe to the phrase "threat to democracy." Infrastructure went from "roads and buildings" to "anything the Left deems essential for the government to spend tax dollars on." There are more examples that I will provide below, but it begs the question of what is happening and why. To quote the American Institute for Economic Research:

Wokesters quickly grab the moral high ground and ruthlessly denounce any deviation from the neo-orthodoxy du jour. Social media provides a conduit for quickly detecting tough and lifestyle infractions, shaming deviants into compliance or having them 'cancelled.'

This shift to gain the moral high ground is seen in a number of instances. We went from a fight for equality (i.e., equal treatment under the law) to one of equity (i.e., attempting to correct past discrimination with present discrimination, often to the point of "equality of results"). While inclusion has meant "everyone is welcome," it has an additional woke meaning of "a space that restricts speech to cater to those who are offended." Then there is anti-racism. Forget that almost no one is pro-racist. We used to fight for a colorblind society, but that is now deemed racist. And if you disagree, that is considered racist. Don't pay any heed to the fact that the obsession over race in the anti-racist world is its own form of racism. 

I want to point out a couple of notable examples from recent months to accentuate the woke Left's attempt to control language. Let's start with a list from Stanford University's Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) created this May. The Wall Street Journal discovered the list in December and had a field day with it. Here are a few good suggestions from the list:

• Calling it a "blind review" insinuates that blindness is abnormal and negative, furthering an ableist culture. Similarly, calling it obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is insulting, which is why EHLI suggests calling it detail-oriented. Way to minimize OCD!
• "Burying the hatchet" is considered cultural appropriation, as is the word guru. 
• Calling someone brave is an insult to the Indigenous people.
• Using such words as freshman, congressman, gentlemen, or chairman perpetuates gender binary language. 
• Instead of using Hispanic, EHLI suggests using the condescending, linguistically inaccurate, and exclusive term Latinx. 
• Calling it a white paper denotes that "white = good," which is why you should call it a position paper.
• "Beat a dead horse" perpetuates violence against animals. 
• Survivor is a good substitute for "victim" because it gives agency, but it's not good enough for Stanford. 
• It is bad enough that woke institutions try to thrust the usage of preferred gender pronouns onto the rest of us. In an attempt to out-woke everyone else, EHLI now says that calling the pronouns "preferred" is bad because it suggests that being gender nonbinary is a choice and a preference.

This list reads like a parody from the satirical site Babylon Bee. Yet these examples are coming from a well-known university being serious about linguistic shifts. A person with normal sensibilities would look at the list and dismiss most, if not all of it, as ridiculous. It is not only Stanford University making these sorts of modifications to the English language. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has put itself in charge of administering woke language in the health sector by releasing Preferred Terms for Select Population Groups and Communities. 

Calling someone a smoker is considered offensive, so the CDC thinks you should use the term "person who smokes." Forget the fact that the CDC has trademarked the phrase "Tips From Former Smokers®." The CDC being incapable of taking its own advice is another reason I cannot take the CDC seriously. Calling someone an addict is deemed incorrect by the CDC. The CDC thinks "criminal" should be replaced by "person who is incarcerated or detained." Out of all the things a criminal in jail is going to worry about, do you think being called a criminal is at the top of that person's list? 

Yes, there are some truly offensive words out there. There needs to be a balance between being a society of sociopaths and being a bunch of snowflakes who have not developed the basic emotional resilience to handle words that are not considered offensive by the vast majority of people. The woke Left is incapable of striking such a balance. 

The woke Left's obsession over language is less about offensiveness because they do not care about offending anyone who disagrees with the woke in-group. Odds are that changing language is not going to address real issues because the legitimate problems facing us (and not micro-aggressions) entail solutions that go much deeper than making words less offensive for the least stoic and emotionally resilient in society, i.e., the woke. One of the main functions of language is to clearly communicate ideas, but all wokeness has done is muddy up and bastardize language for political purposes. Wokeness, or what was formerly referred to as political correctness, is thought and speech control in the guise of brotherhood (sorry, I mean all humans getting along in a harmonious fashion). To quote the Right-leaning The Federalist:

The obsession with over-complicating language is not incidental and has in fact been a consistent and identifiable strategy to muddy theaters of political discourse and frame discussions in a way that benefits the Left from the outset of the conversation.  

The woke Left's strategy is "control the language, control the conversation and how stories are told." Confucius once said that "when words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom." The ability to express oneself is an essential part of freedom. It is no accident that freedom of speech is in the First Amendment. It is also no accident that the woke Left is trying to control speech: because they want us to conform to their way of thinking. The only way to deal with the woke Left's Orwellian doublespeak is to speak up and fight back. As I brought up in October 2021, we should not be encouraging fragility or victimhood. We need emotional resilience and anti-fragility in our society. We also have to call out the woke B.S. and create institutions that counter the wokeness. 

As British magazine Spiked pointed out, "Society tends to oscillate between periods of liberalism and puritanism or conservatism. We are currently living through a puritan age. Soon will come a reaction, a swing once more towards liberalism....The people of the future will probably damn the generation of 2023 for its suffocating, moralizing, Philistine culture of censorship and its desire to wipe out the past." That shift cannot come soon enough. Much like with the ridiculous barrage of ineffective and harmful COVID restrictions, I anticipate that future generations will look at the woke attempts to mess with language with the same disdain and ridicule that it rightly deserves.