That principle guided a recent vote of mine, and that vote drew criticism from some (but not all) of my fellow Republicans. Last month, I voted against a resolution to censure Rep. Ilhan Omar for comments she endorsed after Charlie Kirk\u2019s brutal assassination. The proposed censure would have stripped Omar of committee assignments, taking away her participation in a key legislative process, and would have compelled her to stand in silence on the House floor as the resolution was read.<\/p>\n
I condemn Omar\u2019s comments completely. Her remarks about Kirk and his supporters were grotesque and wrong. Of course, not all speech is constitutionally protected: true threats and incitement to violence, for example. But Omar\u2019s comments, however offensive, were political speech at the heart of what the First Amendment protects. And Congress is free to voice its disapproval. But it crosses a line when it turns that disapproval into legislative punishment, which is what this censure would have done. Free speech means letting voters hold us accountable, not weaponizing House procedures to silence colleagues for what they\u2019ve said on social media.<\/p>\n
I knew my position and my vote carried political risks. My political opponents say I \u201cwent soft.\u201d The truth is the opposite: The easy vote would have been to join most others in my party; that would have cost me nothing. I instead chose to defend the principle.<\/p>\n
Some more thoughtful constituents have told me they respect the free speech principle, but believe the situation and speaker here were just too egregious. I am certainly sympathetic to those arguments. But principles matter most when it\u2019s hard: The right to think freely and to speak freely don\u2019t need defenders when it\u2019s easy. And the same principle that protects misguided words is the one that safeguards truth. In his classic work, \u201c1984,\u201d George Orwell said it well: \u201cFreedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.\u201d Once the government claims the power to decide what political speech we can and cannot say, every other right is at risk.<\/p>\n
When the FCC chairman recently pressured broadcasters to remove Jimmy Kimmel from TV \u2013 warning it could be done \u201cthe easy way or the hard way\u201d \u2013 alarm bells should have gone off for every American. We saw the same dynamic during the pandemic, when federal officials leaned on social media companies to suppress debate about COVID-19\u2019s Chinese origins. Those discussions, previously branded \u201cmisinformation\u201d and suppressed, are today the subject of serious inquiry by our own intelligence agencies. Government pressure like this runs headlong into the First Amendment. The government should never punish or threaten speech because of political views. It\u2019s wrong to do it against conservatives, and it\u2019s wrong to do it against liberals. It\u2019s wrong to do it against the unpopular, and it\u2019s wrong to do it in the name of science.<\/p>\n
To their great credit, many of my most stalwart conservative and Republican constituents have told me they understand the principle and support my free speech vote, as politically tough as it is. Popular speech doesn\u2019t need protection. It\u2019s the unpopular, the offensive, and the uncomfortable political speech that tests whether we really believe in freedom. And I can\u2019t be afraid of losing my job for doing what I believe to be the right thing.<\/p>\n
In the long run, I trust that most constituents will see defending free speech \u2013 even at political cost \u2013 was the right choice. We don\u2019t win by silencing. We win by persuading. That\u2019s how you honor free speech, and that\u2019s how we keep freedom alive for the next generation.<\/p>\n