THE FIRST AMENDMENT: A HISTORY OF SUPPRESSION FROM BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT By Josimar Salum

 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT: A HISTORY OF SUPPRESSION FROM BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT

By Josimar Salum

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1791, declares:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It protects five fundamental freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. These rights were established to prevent the government from controlling thought, belief, and expression.

From the earliest years of the Republic until today, history shows that both the Leftand the Right have attempted to restrict these freedoms whenever they held power.

The Right’s Historical Attempts to Restrict the First Amendment

1. Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)

Passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress under President John Adams, these laws aimed to silence opposition during tensions with France. They consisted of four acts:

• The Naturalization Act, extending citizenship waiting periods to target immigrants aligned with the Democratic-Republicans.

• The Alien Friends Act and Alien Enemies Act, allowing the President to deport foreigners deemed dangerous.

• The Sedition Act, criminalizing “false, scandalous, or malicious writing” against the government.

Impact: Journalists and editors were arrested for criticizing federal policy. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison condemned the acts in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, declaring them unconstitutional. The laws expired by 1801 but set a lasting precedent for government suppression of dissent.

2. Comstock Laws (1873)

Named for moral crusader Anthony Comstock, these federal laws banned the mailing of “obscene, lewd, or lascivious” materials — including contraceptives, abortion information, and sex-education literature — under the U.S. Postal Code.

Impact: Violators, including doctors and educators, were prosecuted for sending medical pamphlets or educational texts.

Comstock saw himself as defending national morality, but his laws blurred the line between moral protection and censorship, giving the federal government authority to police private communication.

Though most of the laws were repealed or narrowed by the courts, they established the idea that federal power could regulate moral speech.

3. McCarthy Era (1950s)

During the early Cold War, Senator Joseph McCarthy led a campaign to root out Communists in government, education, and the arts. The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) held public hearings where citizens were interrogated about their political beliefs.

Impact:Writers, teachers, and entertainers were blacklisted, losing employment for alleged sympathies. Accusations were often based on rumor or association, not evidence. The climate of fear silenced dissenting voices, while the media amplified hysteria. Although McCarthy was later censured by the Senate, the period remains a warning of how fear can justify attacks on free expression.

4. The Patriot Act (2001)

In response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, greatly expanding surveillance powers for intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Impact: Authorities gained access to emails, phone records, and financial transactions without standard warrants. Libraries and journalists were monitored under “national security” provisions. Supporters said the act protected against terrorism, while critics warned that it eroded privacy and due process. The Patriot Act represents the enduring dilemma between national security and civil liberty, showing how fear of danger can lead to long-term limits on freedom.

5. State-Level Restrictions in Schools and Libraries (Recent Decades)

Across the United States, school boards and state legislatures have periodically removed or restricted books and educational materials. Reasons given include protecting minors from sexually explicit content or ideological indoctrination and preventing exposure to material considered immoral or age-inappropriate.

Criticism: Civil libertarians argue this limits intellectual freedom, while defenders insist that communities have a right to guide children’s education.

Constitutional Principle: The First Amendment prohibits the government from banning publication — not from determining curriculum standards.  These controversies concern age and parental rights, not the elimination of ideas from society.

The Left’s Historical Attempts to Restrict the First Amendment

1. Espionage and Sedition Acts (1917–1918)

Passed during World War I under President Woodrow Wilson, these acts criminalized anti-war expression.

Impact: Over 2,000 Americans were prosecuted for “disloyal” speech, including union leaders and pacifists. Socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to ten years in prison for opposing the draft. The Supreme Court upheld convictions in Schenck v. United States (1919), establishing the “clear and present danger” doctrine. These laws were later repealed or softened but marked one of the harshest government crackdowns on speech in U.S. history.

2. World War II Internment (1942–1945)

After Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing the forced relocation and imprisonment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens.

Impact: Families were removed from their homes and sent to camps without trial. Critics of the policy faced censorship, and the press largely complied with wartime propaganda. The Supreme Court upheld the policy in Korematsu v. United States (1944). Decades later, the United States apologized and paid reparations, admitting the policy was based on racial prejudice and political hysteria — a direct violation of constitutional principle

3. School Prayer Cases (1962–1963)

The Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp(1963), ruled that organized prayer and Bible readings in public schools violated the Establishment Clause.

Impact: These rulings prohibited any school-led or state-sponsored prayer. The intent was to maintain religious neutrality, but critics argue that it imposed state-enforced secularism, excluding faith from public education. This shift redefined “neutrality” as the absence of religion, fundamentally changing the moral tone of public institutions.

4. Abortion and the Sexual Revolution (1970s–Present)

The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling legalized abortion nationwide, framing it as a constitutional right under “privacy.”

Impact: The decision federalized a deeply moral issue that had been left to the states. For nearly fifty years, dissenting voices — particularly religious and pro-life advocates — were marginalized in education and public policy. In 2022, the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe, returning authority over abortion to the states. The abortion debate illustrates how the Left’s framing of moral and cultural issues as “civil rights” often left no room for conscientious objection, limiting open discussion.

5. Modern Digital-Age Restrictions (2015–Present)

In recent years, evidence has shown extensive coordination between federal agencies and social media companies to monitor and suppress online content.

Examples: The Twitter Files (2022–2023) revealed communications between the FBI, CDC, and major platforms to label posts on elections, COVID-19, and gender issues as “misinformation.” Algorithms, shadow bans, and “fact-checking” systems shape the visibility of opinions, effectively limiting public discourse. Universities and corporations have introduced speech codes that penalize disagreement with prevailing ideologies on identity, gender, and sexuality.

Constitutional issue: While social-media companies are private, government coordination with them to silence speech constitutes indirect state censorship, violating the First Amendment.

The First Amendment in the Present Age

Today, the most visible conflicts center on education, media, and the internet.

On the Right:

Some states have restricted sexually explicit materials in public schools, arguing that minors should be protected from radical ideologies about gender and sexuality. These actions do not suppress adult expression but reflect community standards for youth.

• On the Left:

Government agencies and allied institutions have pressured platforms to remove politically inconvenient content, often under the pretext of “public safety” or “hate speech.” These efforts extend beyond schools — reaching into universities, corporations, and media — where ideological conformity is demanded.

The conflict reveals the enduring question: Who decides which ideas are safe?

Protests and Assembly

The First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceably assemble. Peaceful marches and demonstrations remain fully protected under law. But violence, looting, or destruction of property are not protected forms of expression.

Events in the past decade — from riots to politically charged protests — have tested the distinction between peaceful protest and criminal activity. The principle remains clear: the Constitution protects protest, not anarchy.

Books, Children, and Society

It is vital to distinguish between removing books from schools and banning them from society. Communities and school boards decide what is age-appropriate for minors. Adults remain free to publish, buy, and read any book. The First Amendment forbids the government from outlawing expression, not parents or local authorities from setting educational boundaries.

This distinction lies at the heart of the balance between freedom and responsibility.

The U.S.: A Republic, Not a Democracy

The Constitution (Article IV, Section 4) guarantees that every state in the Union shall have a “Republican Form of Government.” This means that power originates from the people, laws are made through elected representatives, and the rule of law—not the will of a ruler or a mob—governs society. The clause prohibits monarchies, dictatorships, and direct democracies at the state level, ensuring that all states remain republics. The Founders feared that pure democracy could easily devolve into mob rule, where fleeting passions or majority impulses could silence minorities and destroy liberty. In a republic, laws and institutions are designed to safeguard certain rights beyond the reach of popular vote.

The Electoral College is one of the mechanisms that upholds this republican framework. Established by Article II of the Constitution, it ensures that smaller and less-populated states retain a voice in choosing the President, preventing a few large states or urban centers from dominating national elections. It reflects the federal structure of the Union, balancing the sovereignty of the states with the consent of the people.

However, movements within the progressive Left have repeatedly sought to abolish or weaken the Electoral College, framing it as outdated or undemocratic. These efforts—including proposed constitutional amendments and interstate compacts—would replace the current system with a direct popular vote for President. Critics warn that such changes would effectively transform the United States from a constitutional republic into a centralized democracy, eroding the balance between state and federal power that the Founders carefully designed.

While proponents of abolition claim to be expanding democracy, opponents argue that these reforms would destroy one of the key protections against majoritarian tyranny. Eliminating the Electoral College would mean that the votes of citizens in populous regions like California, New York, or Illinois could overwhelm those in smaller or rural states, silencing regional voices and consolidating power in metropolitan areas. This would undermine the very principle of republican government guaranteed by the Constitution—a government of laws and limited powers, not one ruled by shifting majorities.

The Founders understood that liberty depends on restraint. The Guarantee Clause and the Electoral College were both intended to protect the republic from emotional waves of public opinion and political manipulation. Today, as calls grow to abolish these institutions, Americans must remember that the Constitution’s design was not accidental. It was written precisely to prevent any single faction—whether of the Right or the Left—from gaining unchecked control of the nation.

The Guarantee Clause, also found in Article IV, Section 4, states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.” This clause requires that every state maintain a government based on representative democracy and the rule of law, rather than a monarchy, dictatorship, or direct democracy. Power must come from the people, leaders must be chosen by free and fair elections, and government must operate under established laws.

The Founders included this provision to preserve republican principles and prevent any state from abandoning self-government. James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 43 that it ensures “the preservation of republican principles in the States.” The Supreme Court has held that questions arising under this clause are political, not judicial, meaning that Congress and the President are responsible for enforcing it.

Although rarely invoked, the Guarantee Clause remains fundamental to the American system of government. It ensures that every state remains a republic, governed by elected representatives under the Constitution, and protects the balance of federalism designed to secure liberty under law.

The Bill of Rights ensures that freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petitioncannot be removed even by popular demand. Thus, the First Amendment places truth above political power.

Contemporary Debate: Who Threatens Freedom Most?

Many observers argue that the progressive Left has caused deeper and more enduring harm to First Amendment culture through its long-term use of academia, entertainment, and corporate institutions to shape acceptable public discourse. Unlike earlier conservative attempts to enforce morality through law, the Left has often relied on institutional influence— schools, universities, traditional media, and government bureaucracy — to define what can be said, published, or believed.

However, the rise of social media and independent digital platforms has transformed that landscape.

Platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Rumble, Substack, Truth Social, and others have broken the monopoly of establishment media and created new spaces for open expression.

As a result, control over information is now contested terrain. Legacy media and universities still lean Left and shape public narratives, while alternative media increasingly amplify dissenting voices, giving conservatives, libertarians, and free-speech advocates a growing platform to challenge ideological control and restore balance to the public square.

The Cultural Shift and the Rise of Evangelical Influence

The ongoing battle over culture is real—and recent trends suggest that the dominance of the progressive establishment is being challenged. For decades, universities, media, publishing, and Hollywood have reflected progressive values more than conservative ones, giving them outsized influence over social norms and national narratives. Yet new dynamics are emerging: evangelical Christians have embraced political identity more decisively, movements connecting faith and national purpose are gaining visibility, and conservative youth outreach is growing as younger generations push back. Christianity Today has even noted a swing among Gen Z toward more traditional convictions. The progressive establishment still holds structural power, but it no longer enjoys uncontested cultural hegemony.

One of the most striking signs of this shift is the rise of faith-based and evangelical cinema—a visible expression of cultural renewal among Christians in America and beyond. Productions such as Jesus Revolution (2023), The Forge (2024), and I Can Only Imagine(2018) have achieved remarkable success, drawing millions to theaters and streaming platforms. What began as a niche effort has evolved into a movement that bypasses Hollywood’s ideological filters and speaks directly to audiences hungry for stories rooted in faith, family, and redemption. These films are more than entertainment; they are a counter-narrative to secular culture and a quiet form of cultural evangelism.

As studios, investors, and streaming services recognize the economic strength and loyalty of Christian audiences, faith-based storytelling has entered the mainstream. This phenomenon reflects a broader societal trend: while the progressive establishment continues to dominate traditional media, evangelical and conservative voices are reclaiming influence through art, media, and technology. In doing so, they are transforming screens into modern pulpits—proclaiming values of faith, freedom, and moral renewal to a generation searching for truth and hope.

Conclusion

From 1798 to the present, the record is clear: both the Left and the Right in the United States have sought to limit First Amendment freedoms whenever it served their political or ideological purposes. 

The Founders wrote the Bill of Rights because they understood a permanent truth — all governments, regardless of party, will attempt to silence dissent. They believed that rights come from God, not from government. The First Amendment does not grant freedom; it acknowledges it and restrains government from violating it. Its survival depends not on politicians, but on vigilant citizens and faithful courts willing to defend it. The First Amendment is not a gift from government — it is a boundary placed upon it.

The battle for the First Amendment is being won precisely because of the First Amendment itself. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights remain the greatest written defenses of human liberty — second only to the Bible in their influence on the moral and spiritual survival of Western civilization. These documents do not create freedom; they affirm it as an exclusively inheritance from God and protect it from human tyranny.

At a time when ideologies seek to silence dissent and redefine truth, the endurance of the First Amendment stands as evidence that truth cannot be permanently suppressed. Its strength lies in its divine foundation: freedom of conscience, speech, and faith are not privileges granted by the state but rights given by God. And as long as men and women believe that truth is higher than power, the foundations of liberty will remain unshaken.