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. 

Colbert, the FCC, and the Case for Sunsetting the Obsolete Equal Time Rule

Late night television has reached the news cycle once more. Comedian and television host Stephen Colbert was going to broadcast an interview with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico. However, the interview did not take place. Colbert claims that CBS barred him from conducting the interview to the point where he could not even mention not having Talarico on the show, although the interview was later streamed on YouTube. CBS claimed that it had to do with the equal time rule. 

You are probably wondering what the equal time rule is. This rule comes from the Communications Act of 1934. This particular rule of the Act, which is in §315(a) of the Act, governs political candidates. The rule requires broadcast stations to provide equal opportunities to all legally qualified candidates for public office if they allow any candidate to use their platform. This rule applies to broadcast stations, which include radio and broadcast television. This means that the rule is generally not applicable to cable, satellite, or internet platforms. 

The argument back then was that there were a limited number of radio stations that could broadcast. Those advocating for the rule went under the assumption that broadcast stations had near-control over political speech at the time. The thing is that radio was a nascent form of media communication for the masses. Newspapers, pamphlets, and community meetings were the primary forms of political communication back in the 1930s. 

The scarcity argument did not make sense, and it makes even less sense now. As I brought up last year in my argument about why PBS and NPR should not receive public funding, there is a much more diverse media landscape than there was last century with cable television, satellite TV, internet platforms, podcasts, and social platforms. This rule is downright irrelevant because the free market provides platforms for political candidates better than a subset of broadcasters can. As such, the equal time rule is an incoherent regulation that distorts a market with an abundance of options. 

Not only that, but regulatory relics like the equal time rule risk creating arbitrary burdens and risks political abuse. Last year, late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel made controversial remarks about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr threatened ABC, a move that Carr does not regret to this day. Last month, the FCC released guidance saying that talk shows and late-night shows should not be exempt from the equal time rule. 

As I brought up last year in my criticism of the FCC's handling of the Kimmel situation, presidents dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt have abused federal power to coerce broadcasters, so it is not as if Chairman Carr's coercion is historically unique. At the same time, the equal time rule is what happens when the federal government is given this much leeway to regulate the airwaves. Not only is it ripe for suppressing freedom of speech, but it is a rule built for a media landscape that no longer exists. Scarcity may have been the impetus for the rule, but a rationale from nearly a century ago for a market dynamic that no longer exists does not justify using it a guise for silencing or quashing political speech. Removing this unnecessary and irrelevant rule is long overdue.

He, She, They, or Free Speech: Why Compelling "The Right Pronoun" Is Not Kind

Everyday social life is made more civil by small, unremarkable acts of politeness. Saying "please" and "thank you," holding a door open, or waiting in line instead of cutting in line are habits that reduce friction and make shared spaces more bearable. They are not acts on the level of piety of Mother Theresa, but they function as small acts of kindness nevertheless. In recent years, the use of preferred pronouns has been presented in a similar way: as a simple courtesy, a minimal act of respect, something decent people do without complaining. Questioning the practice is often treated as evidence of cruelty or bigotry rather than mere disagreement. 

This framing has always carried an implicit form of pressure. As I brought up in my 2022 criticism of the practice, pronoun usage is not merely suggested. Even if done so subtly, it is morally demanded and with social consequences for noncompliance. What is changing now is not the underlying logic, but the level of enforcement. A group of Long Island school organizations is in the process of suing New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleging that the state is pressuring schools to mandate "the right pronouns," transforming social coercion into government-backed compulsion.   

I will tell you what my qualms and counterarguments are not. This is not a hit piece on transgender people. I have been consistent on this blog for about a decade about the fact that civil rights for all also means for transgender people. I have opposed transgender bathroom bans, transgender military bans, and stripping transgender people of their Second Amendment rights. Those policy positions come from the same place as my opposition to compelling pronoun usage, which is a commitment to individual liberty. 

Freedom of Choice

In a free society, transgender people have the right to live the way they choose, whether that is to medically transition at their own expense (as an adult only), to dress how they want, and to live their life as if they were the opposite biological sex. However, there is an element of "my rights begin where yours end" here. 

Transgender people can do all the things I just mentioned, but freedom for all also means that others are allowed to disagree, to reject another person's identity claims, and to decline such compelled speech as using someone else's preferred pronouns. Liberty does not require agreeing with everyone. Tolerance does not need affirmation to exist. After all, I, as a Jew, do not need to confirm the religious affirmations of a Christian, Muslim, or another religious person in order to treat them with dignity. Moral decency is how we treat people in spite of our disagreements. Being free to claim a certain identity does not mean you get to steamroll another individual's freedom of conscience or freedom of speech in the process.

Kindness Must Be Voluntary

Beyond this political dimension of freedom, framing pronoun usage as kindness obfuscates a certain reality. Kindness, by its very nature, is voluntary and presumes agency: it is not a one-way street. Kindness cannot be defined solely by the desires of the recipient. It requires a choice on the part of the person giving the kindness. If this practice were only about kindness, it would not require shaming, threats, accusations of bigotry, or use of government coercion. That is because much of pronoun usage is not about being kinder, but coercing a worldview. If kindness is coerced, whether by government mandate or social pressure, that is not compassionate or kind. It ceases to be a moral virtue and turns into compliance and ideological enforcement. Coercing pronouns erodes the very kindness that the practice was meant to encourage.  

Compelled Speech and Honesty

Compelled false affirmation compromises honesty because speech is not merely mechanical; it is expressive. Pronouns are not neutral placeholders. They convey claims about sex and gender, as we will see shortly. When someone is forced to use pronouns that affirm a view of sex that they do not believe to be true, they are asked to speak dishonestly, even if no malice is intended. 

Self-Respect and Resentment

This compelled speech also erodes self-respect. Being forced to affirm what one rejects is a form of self-suppression that signals that one's view is not merely wrong, but illegitimate. Over time, that does not breed kindness; it breeds quiet resentment. Psychological reactance theory posits that when people perceive their autonomy threatened by controlling language, they are more likely to resist and form negative attitudes toward the source of the message. This reactance could be contributing to why there is backlash against the trans rights movement, even when there is otherwise an absence of explicit malice. 

Movements that seek broad social acceptance depend on persuasion and goodwill, not compliance. I would argue that this "live and let live" approach was a major component of what made the gay rights movement so successful. When affirmation is extracted instead of earned, you might get the compliance. But it also means withdrawing the sympathy, which undermines the acceptance that such a policy is meant to promote. 

Stable Categories and Legal Clarity

The consequences of this pronoun usage go beyond social resentment and undermining kindness itself. This struggle with pronouns is also about language and reality. This was something I discussed extensively in April when praising the U.K. Supreme Court's decision that only biological women are actually women. Biological sex is not a societal construct nor is it a matter of self-definition. It is a legal category with concrete implications in such areas as sports, medical policy, and sex-segregated spaces. Laws need to be stable and intelligible categories to properly function. This is why I am so critical of gender identity-based legal protections. Creating categories without clear, limiting principles creates confusion about what is being protected and why. Pronoun mandates accelerate this confusion by requiring people to speak in a way that obscures rather than clarifies material distinctions that the law has recognized. When terms rooted in biological sex lose clear meaning, it makes it more difficult to protect gay rights and women's rights.

Truth, Morality, and Language

However, this is not solely about legal concerns. This is about whether people are permitted to speak plainly about biological reality, even when the truth is uncomfortable or inconvenient. Lying or being compelled to express something one knows to be false is neither factually nor morally neutral. Words carry meaning and language is meant to convey ideas in as precise and accurate of a manner as possible. Distorting meanings, especially when to fulfill a political agenda, undermines trust and erodes personal integrity. False statements have real-world consequences, from misapplied laws to confused social expectations. Kindness generally does not go hand in hand with lying or deception. Speaking truthfully, even when difficult, is essential for moral integrity and for preserving a shared understanding of the world. 

Conclusion: Obedience Is Neither Kind Nor Without Cost

Using preferred pronouns may seem effortless or costless. The reality is that this practice comes with the cost of punishing dissent, compromising truth, and violating freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Saying "it costs nothing" is nothing more than linguistic sleight of hand. Kindness cannot be coerced because morality is only meaningful when freely chosen. Language is a primary tool for navigating reality, forming relationships, and creating laws. When language is distorted, all of these facets of life suffer. Respect must be earned, not enforced. If society values honesty, freedom, well-functioning laws, and genuine goodwill, we need to resist the temptation to equate the obedience behind compelling pronouns with kindness. 

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. 

"Free Palestine" Rhetoric Has Become a Free Pass to Justify Anti-Semitism and Attacking Jews

October 7, 2023 was a horrific day for Israel. Hamas militants crossed into Israel to carry out the worst pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust. They carried out unspeakable acts against humanity: rape, kidnapping 251 civilians, murdering over 1,200 civilians, torture, decapitation. In terms of per capita death rates, October 7 was the equivalent of September 11 about 15 times over. The bodies of the murdered were not even buried and yet the pro-Palestine "activists" were already out protesting against Israel. This first wave of post-October 7 Jew-hatred broke out before the Israeli Defense Forces even entered Gaza, which tells you how much the motives are about hating Israel and Jews. Since October 8, 2023, these protestors have been out in full force across the planet. 

Fast-forward to May/June 2025. In a two-week timespan, there were two violent and unfortunate anti-Semitic attacks that made international news. The first was the murder of two Israeli embassy staff members outside of the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington D.C. The murderer was screaming "Free Palestine" as he was being arrested for this heinous act. 

The second attack took place in Boulder, Colorado. There was a rally for the hostages who have been held captive in Gaza for over 600 days. The assailant threw Molotov cocktails at the participants. The savage seriously injured eight participants, including an 88-year Holocaust survivor. As he threw the Molotov cocktails, he was screaming "We need to end Zionists." These attacks got me thinking a lot about the rhetoric used by pro-Palestine protestors and how it influences anti-Semitism and violence against Jews in the Diaspora. Let us examine the most commonly used rhetoric.  

"Globalize the Intifada". The word intifada comes from the Arabic انتفاضة, which is derived from the Arabic verb that means "to shake off" or "to get rid of." Within the political context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there have been two intifadas. The First Intifada was in the late 1980s to early 1990s, whereas the Second Intifada took place in the early 2000s. In both intifadas, there was political violence against Jews that resulted in over 1,000 Jewish deaths. Suicide bombing was commonly used during the Second Intifada. Since intifada against Israel has historically meant indiscriminate violence against Jews, does it surprise anyone that globalizing the intifada would translate into violence against Jews, Israelis, and pro-Israel institutions across the world?   

"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". It would behoove us to ask which river and which sea. Answer: the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. What country is between those two bodies of water? Israel. This is not a call for a two-state solution, but to extend the clout of this proto-state (if you can call it that) by eliminating the state of Israel. At a bare minimum, this translates into the ethnic cleansing of Jews. More likely, it is a call for the genocide of the Jewish people, especially after the pogrom of October 7 and the uptick of anti-Semitism afterwards. This phrase ends up being problematic in practice because it is ultimately not about a call for justice or equality; it crosses the line into bona fide anti-Semitism and the political extremism of eliminating the world's only Jewish nation-state. 

"Resistance by any means necessary." This little beaut is commonly used by anti-Israel group Within Our Lifetime - United for Palestine (WOL). Hopefully, this one should not require that much explanation. Any means necessary means the ends justify the means. This includes multiple acts of violence, whether that is slaughtering children and the elderly, suicide bombings, shootings, and setting synagogues on fire. If you have any doubts about that, October 7 and the subsequent rise in anti-Semitism across the global should have settled that "any means necessary" literally means "any means."

False accusations of genocide and settler colonialism. Genocide and settler colonialism are evils in the world. The problem in this instance is that Israel is guilty of neither. When you are under the delusion that Israel is committing genocide (see my three-part refutation of the false genocide accusation here, here, and here), this sort of accusation fuels the flames of Jew hate. Why? 

It does not matter that the Jews are indigenous to Israel (also known as Judea) or that Israel has legal rights to the land under international law, thereby refuting the "settler colonialism" argument. If your take is mistakenly that the "evil Jews" are the most heinous human rights violators out there (especially when you are ignoring actual violations of human rights), then you might be inspired to do something drastic about stopping these misperceived injustices, as was the case in the Washington DC and Boulder attacks. 

Postscript

As I pointed out last October, anti-Semitism has been on the rise and at significantly higher rates than anti-Muslim crimes. Anti-Semitism has only gotten worse since the war between Israel and Hamas began in October 2023. Let there be no mistake. Words have power. When pro-Palestinian protestors chant "From the river to the sea" or "Globalize the intifada," what they are doing is endorse, glorify, and encourage the bloodshed of Jews and Israelis. It is the public celebration of mass murder.  

What is jarring is that this rhetoric has become normalized and covered up with the excuse of "We're not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist," a phenomenon I explored in 2016. It does not matter what your views about Israeli policy are. It is possible to criticize the Israeli government without calling for its eradication. Israeli citizens do so frequently. Far too many on the pro-Palestine side has gone beyond mere political disagreement about Israel's foreign policy and venturing into bona fide anti-Semitic territory. What makes this even more horrifying is that these slogan gain traction and become normalized, thereby making the speech seem like "mere rhetoric" or "protected dissent" (e.g., Farrand, 2023; Álvarez-Benjumea and Winter, 2020). Obviously not every chant of "Free Palestine" results in violence. However, using militant and existential slogans in mainstream protest culture blurs the line between protest and atrocity. 

To those skeptical of rhetorical causality: Yes, we cannot trace a single murderer's inner logic perfectly. But we can observe when violent actors adopt the same slogans, when media hesitate to condemn those slogans, and when protests precede violence like they did shortly after October 7, 2023 (even before the Gaza operation began), that ends up being the evidence of rhetorical facilitation, not mere correlation. If we are to live in a free, democratic society, support for violence against Jews needs to be deemed as abhorrent and unacceptable. Anything less is letting the terrorists win.  

Anti-Semitism across the world has become loud, brazen, unapologetic, and violent in a way that is giving me a taste of how Jews felt in 1930s Europe as the Nazi Party ascended to power. It is even worse when the "mainstream media" sanitizes the anti-Semitism in its reporting and parrots Hamas propaganda without doing a basic fact-check, which begs the question of how much the likes of BBC, Washington Post, and New York Times can be held accountable for spreading libel. It is even worse still because the pro-Palestine attempts to normalize violence against Jews as a form of being a freedom fighter or social justice warrior. What is scary about this framework is that it is working. The silent majority across the world has kept quiet as jihadism and anti-Semitism become palatable and trendy.

Yes, I am for the First Amendment right of peaceful protest, even that of pro-Palestinian protestors who I have come to view as the modern-day equivalent of Nazis. Where the present situation gets murky in practice is when the anti-Semitism of these chants are normalized and become weaponized as a justification to attack Jews. The line between acceptable free speech and incitement of violence has become blurred, which begs the question of what does a Jew who advocates for freedom of speech such as myself believe should be done. 

I both value freedom of speech and believe that Jews should be able to live without having to constantly worry about violence being carried out against them simply for being Jewish.  Granted, Jews have adapted to anti-Semitism over the centuries and are continuing to do so. At the same time, I have no easy answers in this muddled grey area. I am inclined to believe that charging those who commit illegal acts not covered under the First Amendment, such as violence, incitement of violence, threats, intimidation would be a good start, as would be dismantling radical groups calling for revolutionary violence. That way, violence can be targeted without degrading freedom of speech. 

You might be reading this and think this only affects the Jews, so you should probably be fine. Why does this affect everyone? The Jews have historically been the canary in the coal mine. What is befalling the Jewish people will eventually reach other groups of people, especially those who have been oppressed or disenfranchised. Plus, this global intifada will not stop with the Jewish people. As I pointed out in my critique of "Islamophobia" earlier this year, Islam is the one religion on the planet whose mainstream followers seek to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. As we already see in Europe, this political violence will get worse if not confronted. Until this rhetoric is addressed and we can make political discourse civil once more, this sort of domestic violence will continue to be normalized and the pro-Palestine side will continue to wreak havoc on civil society. 

UK Supreme Court Acknowledges Biological Reality That Only Biological Females Are Women

Henry Ford once said that "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right." The premise behind his quote was that the power of mindset and belief in terms of achieving goals. Cultural relativists have taken that concept to a whole new level with gender identity. While biological sex refers to one's chromosomes, hormones, organs, and anatomy, gender identity proponents argue that gender identity pertains to "one's inner sense of being male or female," i.e., inner self-perception. Under this framework, gender identity aligns with one's biological sex for the vast majority of people. However, there are a small minority of people for whom there is a disconnect between biological sense and gender identity, which is where gender dysphoria comes into play. The diagram below summarizes the differences. 

As this diagram illustrates, the idea of biological sex and gender identity are, at least conceptually, two different things. Even if that were the case, where the left took a turn to Looneyville is by conflating the two and asserting that your gender identity is biological reality to the point where denying someone's gender identity is tantamount to bigotry. Under this schema, you can become a man or woman (or however you choose to identify) simply by identifying as one. It is how those in the trans rights or trans activism world and its allies support biological men playing in women's sports, supporting gender-affirming "care" when the evidence base is anything but affirming, or ironically (or maybe that is unironic) being homophobic enough to insist that gay people should date trans people lest they be branded transphobes. 

This concept of gender identity brings us to current events. Last week, the United Kingdom's Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the case of Women Scotland Ltd. vs The Scottish Ministers that the word "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to male and female, as determined by biology. While those on the Left view it as an indictment of how prevalent anti-trans sentiment has spread, I view it as a win of reality over adhering to ideology. The ruling is a reminder that acknowledging biological reality is not a form of bigotry and that no amount of bureaucracy can transform a man into a woman.  To quote media outlet Spiked Online: 

"Cosmetic surgery and a piece of paper don't make a man a woman any more than a deep desire to be female does. Besides, gender identity has always just been about feeling and pronouncement. It is not a concrete, verifiable, or coherent concept." 

Gender identity is neither concrete nor coherent. 

Those who profess the importance of gender identity treat it as some sort of objective truth, but that it can also be changed at one's subjective whim. And if you do not accept the new gender identity, you will get labeled a bigot like J.K. Rowling did. If gender identity were that concrete, they would have come up with a definition of "what is a woman" that does not rely on the circular logic of "a woman is someone who feels like a woman." Not that I agree with Matt Walsh on everything, but this circular logic was the whole point of his documentary "What Is A Woman?" This adherence to ideology would explain why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson could not provide a definition of a woman at her confirmation hearing. 

The fact that some on the Left argue that gender is a social construct and others argue that gender identity is internal and biological further illustrates its incoherence. After all, if your genitals do not establish your gender, then why does removing them affirm your gender? Gender cannot be simultaneously a social construct and inherent to the individual. It cannot simultaneously exist as self-chosen and a product of socialization. Nor can gender simultaneously be independent of sex and defined in reference to sex.

This particular incoherence puts the LGBT community in a real bind. If the idea of "man" and "woman" are based on biological sex, then LGB is intelligible and the T makes less sense because then the definitions of "man" and "woman" are based on sexual attraction. If being a "man" or "woman" is not tied in biology or physical form, then sexual attraction/orientation or being LGB is no longer intelligible. This point came up when I wrote a piece last year showing how advocating for the trans community and kowtowing to every demand of trans activists means a path towards gay erasure.

Simply because you feel something or identify as someone does not automatically make it so. 

I have an affinity for the Latino world and my Spanish is good enough where I have passed for Argentinean on multiple occasions. I do not going around claiming that I am Latino, even when there are days that I wish I were Latino. If anything, I correct people when they call me Latino because the truth is that my ancestors are from northern and central Europe. Someone who is 50 or 60 years old who identifies as 16 does not magically become a teenager by simply wishing they were younger or identifying as a teenager. Since those who believe in gender ideology opened the Pandora's box in terms of "your identity is your reality," I can go as far as saying that if a friend of mine were to identify as a cat, I would not congratulate him/her and go out to buy a scratch pole and litter box. I would be legitimately concerned for their mental health. 

Truth and words matter. 

Trans activists argue that trans issues only affect those who identify as "trans men" or "trans women," but this affects everyone because truth and what constitutes as a fact are on the line. What is the harm by linguistically accommodating someone by using their preferred pronouns or chosen name? 

If a consenting adult wants to undergo gender affirming surgery, I do not mind as long as it is done with informed consent. I wish those who are dealing with gender dysphoria the best in overcoming or at least learning to live with the dysphoria. I am against this procedure for children because a) the evidence base does not show significant benefit while there are considerable harms and b) over 80 percent of adolescents that experience gender dysphoria outgrow it by their adulthood without medical or surgical intervention. Both points undermine the need for such procedures as a norm rather than an exigent exception. Part of being libertarian is allowing consenting adults to do what they want with their lives as long as they are not harming others, and that includes transgender individuals, but I am getting off track. I am okay with transgender people serving in the military, I think a transgender bathroom ban is unnecessary, and I believe that transgender individuals should be able to participate in society without having to deal with discrimination, much like with other minorities or disenfranchised individuals. 

What I take issue with is that we are being asked is to accept a lie. As much as gender-reassignment surgery could be helpful for a small minority of those dealing with gender dysphoria, and as much I try to imagine the struggle of those undergoing gender dysphoria, it does not change the reality that surgery does not magically turn a man into a woman, or vice versa. 

How we navigate, describe, and refer to the world matters if we want to observe an objective reality. It is with that discernment that we can best identify problems in public policy and in society, as well as come up with solutions. After all, how can we protect human rights if we are not doing so on the basis of reality or what humanity entails? It does no one any good to perpetuate a lie, especially if your political posturing is that of "follow the science." As Ben Shapiro would say, "Facts don't care about your feelings." 

The fact that we even need to have a Supreme Court ruling to declare a basic biological truth that has been obvious across civilizations and centuries, not to mention in the animal kingdom, shows how much global society has devolved in recent years. Up is down, terrorists are freedom fighters, and men are women. Welcome to 2025! It is good to see people stand up to the relativism. As much gaslighting as there has been with "transmen are men" and "transwomen are women," more people are waking up instead of being woke. 

We should wake up because our freedom of speech and expression are at stake. Self-assured social movements have no need of censorship -- only the morally unsure and intellectually insecure require such brute instruments. It would explain why the trans rights movement leans on censorship and conformity to try to get its way. Contrast that with the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, or the gay rights movement that did not have to resort to such tactics. 

The UK Supreme Court ruling is another data point that shows that the Far Left went too far with gender ideology and to reaffirm that manhood or womanhood are more than a matter than self-identify or what legal paperwork might say. I do not want there to be a backlash that results in violence against trans individuals, but I also want a world where we can speak truth to power and not feel intimidated in speaking out simply because disagreeing with one’s perception of the world or oneself is too much for someone to handle. I hope this Supreme Court ruling is an indication that freedom of expression is heading the right direction in terms of there being less authoritarianism, less ideological overreach, and greater free speech for all. 

Making English an Official Language of the United States Is Unnecessary

This past Saturday, President Trump signed an executive order designating English as the sole official language of the United States. According to the executive order, Trump would like to "promote unity, cultivate a shared culture for all citizens, ensure consistency in government operations, and create a pathway to civic engagement." Reading this executive order, I have to question the necessity of this executive order. 

First and foremost, this is the first time in over two centuries that the United States has had an official language on the federal level. Trump's slogan since he ran for President in 2016 has been "Make Great America Great." If Trump wants to make America great again, that would mean that there was a previous time America was great. Guess what? During that first time America was great, English was not an official language of the United States. 

Although the Constitution and Declaration were written in the English language, the Founding Fathers did not see a need to declare English as the official language. Yes, English has been the de facto primary language of American society. However, America's economy grew to the point of having the world's largest economy. America became a haven for immigrants seeking a better life. Not only did America become synonymous with the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" or a "shining city on a hill," but America ascended to become a player on the global stage and a superpower. It did all of that without English being an official language of the country. So why do we need one now?

Second, the English language is not under threat. There are 1.5 billion English speakers on the planet, thereby making it the most spoken language in the world. Over three-quarters of Americans already exclusively speak English in the home (Census Bureau). Yes, Spanish is spoken by 42-plus-million Americans and rising. It is also true that third- or higher-generation Latino-Americans are much less likely to speak Spanish than their first-generation counterparts (Pew Research). Immigrants do not need an official language to realize that English is the de facto language and not knowing English while living in the United States makes life that much more difficult. English is not going anywhere.

One could argue that most other nations have an official language. However, I would point out that those nations are not automatically stable simply because they have an official language. I would not exactly consider such nations as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, or Yemen to be stable or unified countries, even though they all have official languages. There are also countries that have multiple official languages, such as Belgium, Canada, Finland, India, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Switzerland. Conversely, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom do not have official languages. Essentially, declaring a sole de jure official language does not ensure the unity Trump thinks it does. There are much more significant factors playing into the present divisiveness of the United States. 

I would contend not having an official language is a reflection of what historically has made America great. We do not need an official language or religion because it reflects not only the diversity of this nation (350 languages spoken in the United States and counting), but also that the American Dream is based on the freedom to choose how to live our lives, including which language or languages to speak. Freedom of speech under the First Amendment includes being able to speak in whichever language you would like. Instead of respecting citizens' constitutional rights to self-express in a language other than English, Trump has participated in some serious right-winged virtue signaling, time which could have been spent focusing on more pressing matters. 

Meta Removing Fact-Checkers and Its DEI Initiative Are Welcomed Steps Towards Freedom and Sanity

As we approach the inauguration of Donald Trump for his second term, the tech company Meta is making the news. Meta is famous for such products and services as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Threads. The reason for the hullabaloo around Meta is because last week, Meta made a major announcement about how it will approach content moderation. You can read analysis from the Cato Institute about what the changes entail.  

In response to the 2016 election, Zuckerberg hired fact-checkers to give users better information and combat misinformation. In reality, it ended up destroying more trust than it created because the fact-checkers were too politically biased, as Zuckerberg declared on The Joe Rogan Experience last week. In light of Meta's fact-checkers backfiring, Zuckerberg decided to replace fact-checkers with a Community Notes function similar to X (formerly Twitter). 

Barring extreme exceptions, the Community Notes option allows user to flag posts and add notes to it rather than downright censorship. While imperfect, studies examining Community Notes has been shown to mitigate the spread of misinformation while still preserving freedom of speech. It beats the inconsistency and frequent biases (typically those Left-of-center) that come with fact-checkers. 

I think this freedom of speech aspect of this policy change is important. Zuckerberg admitted that during the pandemic, the Biden administration would call to pressure Meta employees to suppress various COVID information that it deemed "misinformation." Given how off the mark the government was with providing accurate COVID-related information, a topic that I have covered extensively since the beginning of the pandemic, I can hardly blame people for feeling hoodwinked. 

While I think in part it was a decision to curry favor with President-Elect Donald Trump, it was also a good business move. Why? Because for-profit businesses care about their bottom line. They are not in business for charity, but to maximize the amount of business they conduct. When market demands shift, businesses need to change with those demands if they want to remain in business. As Zuckerberg recognized, there has been a shift in demanding reliability, transparency, and freedom of speech. 

Not only are they demanding greater freedom of speech, they are demanding an end to the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) insanity. That market trend would explain why Meta announced last week, a few days after the announcement about content moderation, that it would discontinue its DEI program.

I would argue that the trend against DEI started when the Supreme Court rightfully affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits racial discrimination except in the most narrow of circumstances, which would include affirmative action. Since then, a number of major companies have discontinued or scaled back considerably their DEI initiatives, including Ford, Walmart, McDonald's, John Deere, and Toyota. I hardly blame these companies. 

DEI perpetuates racism, not to mention that it is a narrow-minded worldview that harms people of all races. As a formidable study from Rutgers concluded last year, mainstream modern-day DEI initiatives unsurprisingly increase hostility, racial tensions, and left-winged authoritarianism. This sort of toxicity is bad for the workplace and bad for business, which is why I would surmise that Zuckerberg realized the extent to which people have had it with DEI, especially when he said that the election was a cultural tipping point for free expression.  

The ones that are upset with Zuckerberg's decision are the ones that were happy with the censorship and DEI reigning supreme, mainly those on the Far Left who have loved controlling the narrative. They are upset because it is a potent sign that the people are fed up with Left-wing, woke authoritarianism and yearn to be free. Between the results of the 2024 elections and the increasing anti-woke sentiments, the Left is losing both its political power and cultural clout. Regardless of the reason for Meta's policy changes or how the political Left reacts to these cultural and political changes, I hope that we continue to see greater freedom of speech on social media instead of treating freedom of speech as something optional and conditional that can be swept aside when the government declares an emergency, much like it did during the pandemic.