Free speech has become one of the Democrats’ favorite talking points. Anytime Donald Trump pushes back against media smears or criticizes political opponents, they leap to accuse him of being a threat to the First Amendment. They paint him as a looming authoritarian ready to muzzle dissent. But the hypocrisy could not be clearer, those same Democrats are the ones who routinely shut down debate, censor speech, and block Americans from responding.
Scroll through their social media accounts and the pattern is obvious. Again and again, Democrat leaders post sanctimonious lectures about Trump being “anti–free speech” while having replies and comments turned off. They do not want criticism. They do not want debate. They want curated praise. The very people claiming to “defend democracy” are the ones silencing voices in real time.
Hypocrisy on Display
Free speech is more than the right to say what you believe. It is also about whether leaders in power are willing to listen to dissent. When Democrats disable comments so only cheerleaders can respond, they are not defending free speech, they are exposing their fear of it.
Meanwhile, they accuse Trump of crushing debate. But Trump does not control who can or cannot reply to their posts, they do. Turning comments off is their choice, and it reveals just how little respect they actually have for open dialogue.
The contradiction is so glaring that it raises an obvious question, if Democrats truly believed in the First Amendment, why do they keep finding new ways to undermine it?
Hillary Clinton: Punish “Wrong” Speech
One of the worst offenders has been Hillary Clinton. In a 2023 interview, she compared devoted Trump supporters to a “cult” and suggested they may need “deprogramming.” More recently, she went even further, floating the idea that Americans who share what she deems “misinformation” should face civil or even criminal penalties.
That is not a defense of free speech. That is a direct assault on it. You cannot champion liberty while at the same time threatening jail time or fines for posting political opinions online. Clinton’s rhetoric shows the true mindset of the modern Democratic Party, free speech is only free if they approve of what is being said.
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz: “Speech Isn’t Free”
Hillary is not alone. During campaign events, Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz repeatedly echoed the phrase that “speech isn’t free.” Think about what that means. They want Americans to believe that free expression must come with government imposed restrictions, punishments, and financial consequences if it challenges the establishment narrative.
That is not a slip of the tongue, it is a worldview. When candidates for the highest offices in the land openly argue that speech must be policed and punished, it tells you everything about their priorities, power first, liberty last.
Biden’s Assault on Free Speech
And we cannot forget who set the modern precedent, Joe Biden’s administration. Biden’s White House leaned heavily on social media companies to censor Americans, pressuring platforms to remove posts that challenged their COVID talking points or other political narratives. That is government coercion, exactly the kind of First Amendment violation the founders warned against.
Even worse, Biden’s Department of Justice prosecuted an American for posting a meme. Yes, a meme. While violent criminals walked free in Democrat run cities, Biden’s DOJ found the time to drag a man into court for online satire. If that does not scream abuse of power, what does?
The message is clear, the Biden administration sees online speech not as a right to be protected, but as a threat to be managed and suppressed.
Biden’s Attempt at De-Banking Conservatives
It was not just speech the Biden administration tried to silence. Financial access was next. Through regulatory pressure and “guidance” to banks, the administration signaled that certain conservative causes and organizations were “high risk.” Payment processors and financial institutions began cutting off accounts linked to right-leaning groups, gun rights advocates, and outspoken critics of the regime.
This tactic, often called “de-banking,” is censorship by another name. You may not be thrown in jail for your views, but you can be frozen out of the economy. No ability to fundraise, no access to credit, no platform to operate. It is the same end achieved by a different weapon. By choking off access to financial tools, the Biden administration effectively punished Americans for their political beliefs without ever passing a law or holding a trial.
Biden’s “Disinformation Governance Board”
As if censorship of speech and finances were not enough, Biden’s Department of Homeland Security unveiled the Disinformation Governance Board in 2022. Branded as a harmless advisory group, it was quickly exposed for what it really was, a federal agency designed to decide what is true and what is false for the American public.
This board was nicknamed the “Ministry of Truth” for a reason. It would have empowered DHS to label dissenting opinions as “disinformation” and coordinate with social media companies to suppress them. From COVID to elections to border security, the government would have held the power to determine which narratives could be shared and which would be silenced.
After public backlash, the board was “paused” and then quietly shut down. But the fact that the Biden administration even attempted such a blatant attack on free expression shows how far Democrats are willing to go.
California’s Assault on the First Amendment
Democrats are not just pushing censorship in Washington, they are exporting it to the states. Nowhere is this clearer than California, where a trio of bills shows just how hostile they have become to the First Amendment.
SB771 – State Controlled Speech Online
California’s SB771 would give bureaucrats sweeping authority to pressure online platforms into suppressing content deemed “misinformation.” This bill effectively hands politicians the power to decide what speech is acceptable, paving the way for government directed censorship masquerading as “safety.”
AB2655 – Criminalizing Political Speech
Assembly Bill 2655 takes it further, proposing harsh penalties for individuals who share content that state officials label as misleading, even if it is opinion or satire. Imagine being fined or prosecuted simply for posting the “wrong” meme or questioning the government’s narrative. That is not democracy, that is authoritarianism.
AB2839 – Expanding the Censorship Net
And then there is AB2839, which broadens the definition of punishable “disinformation” and empowers agencies to monitor and crack down on a wider scope of online speech. This bill does not just target bad actors, it risks criminalizing everyday citizens who dare to challenge state approved talking points.
Taken together, SB771, AB2655, and AB2839 form a censorship trifecta. Instead of protecting free expression, California Democrats are building an infrastructure of speech control that would make authoritarian regimes proud.
Obama’s Record: IRS Targeting and Newsroom Monitors
This pattern did not begin with Biden, it can be traced back to the Obama years. Under Obama, the IRS was caught targeting conservative groups, slow walking or denying their tax exempt status simply because they opposed the administration’s agenda. It was blatant political discrimination designed to silence opposition voices.
And it did not stop there. The Obama administration floated a plan to place monitors inside newsrooms, under the banner of studying “media diversity.” In practice, it meant government officials would have had direct influence over how stories were selected and covered. Imagine bureaucrats sitting in a newsroom deciding what counts as fair coverage. That is not press freedom, that is intimidation.
These episodes from the Obama era laid the groundwork for the culture of censorship we see today, where Democrats believe they can manipulate the rules, pressure institutions, and weaponize government power to silence anyone who challenges them.
Election Reform Proposals: Regulating Speech Around Elections
Democrats also embedded speech restrictions into their election reform agenda. Take S.1, the so-called “For the People Act.” While it was sold as a voting rights and election integrity package, free speech advocates and conservative groups warned it contained provisions that would regulate what websites and media outlets could publish around elections.
Critics argued these sections of the bill placed unconstitutional restrictions on political speech. Broad definitions of “electioneering communications” and “digital ads” risked forcing websites and independent outlets to comply with government reporting rules or face penalties. In practice, it meant Washington could monitor and chill online conversations about candidates, policies, and campaigns.
Instead of empowering voters, proposals like S.1 would have empowered bureaucrats to police political speech during the most critical moments in American democracy. Free societies cannot function when the government decides which election speech is permissible.
Why These Bills and Actions Matter
California likes to call itself a “trendsetter.” And in many ways, it is. What starts in Sacramento often spreads to other blue states, and eventually finds its way into federal policy. If SB771, AB2655, and AB2839 become law, they will not stay confined to California. They will serve as a model for nationwide censorship, giving Democrats in Washington cover to push similar measures coast to coast.
Likewise, when presidents and administrations use agencies like the IRS or DOJ as weapons against citizens, create “disinformation boards,” attempt to regulate election speech through bills like S.1, or weaponize the banking system to punish dissent, it sends the message that free speech and free association are conditional. Speak out against the regime and you may find yourself audited, de-platformed, de-banked, or even prosecuted.
This is why these bills and past abuses are not just bad policy, they are a direct threat to the national principle of free expression. By criminalizing dissent and centralizing control over online platforms, financial systems, elections, and media outlets, Democrats are setting the stage for an America where only state approved opinions are allowed.
The Broader Pattern
From Hillary Clinton’s calls to punish “misinformation,” to Harris and Walz insisting “speech isn’t free,” to Biden’s DOJ prosecuting memes, to Biden’s attempts to de-bank conservatives, to Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board, to California Democrats codifying censorship into law, to Democratic election reform proposals like S.1 restricting campaign speech, and even Obama’s IRS targeting conservatives and trying to insert monitors into newsrooms, the pattern is undeniable.
Every step chips away at the same core right, the ability of Americans to speak freely without fear of government retribution. And every step exposes the same hypocrisy, Democrats claim to be defending democracy, while undermining the very liberty that democracy depends on.
Why It Matters
When politicians claim to defend free speech while silencing their own constituents, it sets a dangerous precedent. It teaches Americans that “free speech” is just a campaign slogan, not a principle. It shows that Democrats only invoke the First Amendment as a weapon against rivals while ignoring it at home.
This double standard erodes trust in government and makes their “defending democracy” act look hollow. Free societies depend on the free exchange of ideas. When one party censors critics, threatens legal punishment for dissent, cuts off financial access, creates “truth ministries,” tries to control election speech, and hides behind locked replies, it is not democracy they are protecting, it is their own power.
The Bottom Line
Democrats cannot lecture the nation about Trump being against free speech while hiding from their own voters. Either you believe in free expression or you do not. From Hillary Clinton’s threats of punishment, to Kamala Harris and Tim Walz campaigning on the idea that “speech isn’t free,” to Biden’s administration coercing social media companies, attempting to de-bank conservatives, and creating a Disinformation Governance Board, to California’s SB771, AB2655, and AB2839 institutionalizing censorship at the state level, to Democratic election reform proposals like S.1 threatening to regulate political speech, to Obama’s IRS targeting conservatives and attempting to place monitors inside newsrooms, the record is clear.
They have chosen censorship over liberty. And Americans are watching.
About the Author
Discover more from SHR Media
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
