“Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee”: The Double Standard of Power
In contemporary political discourse, the concept of freedom of speech has become a powerful tool wielded by influential figures to navigate the complexities of public opinion, dissent, and accountability. Here, we examine how prominent actors, notably political leaders, like former and current US President Donald Trump, have employed the tenets of free speech to distance themselves from violent actions taken in their name, while simultaneously seeking to suppress dissenting voices.
The January 6 Capitol Riots
On January 6, 2021, a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Congressional investigation and media reporting found that ten people died and many more were injured due to the events of January 6. In the aftermath, Trump faced intense scrutiny for his role in inciting the violence through his rhetoric. His defense largely hinged on the interpretation of free speech, claiming that his statements were protected under the First Amendment. Trump argued that he did not directly call for violence, thereby absolving himself of responsibility for the chaotic events that unfolded.
This use of free speech as a shield highlights a critical aspect of political power: the ability to manipulate public discourse to evade accountability. While Trump framed his rhetoric as a legitimate expression of political opinion, the consequences of that speech—including physical violence and loss of life—were stark and undeniable. By invoking free speech, he effectively deflected blame, illustrating how powerful actors can exploit legal protections to mitigate the fallout from their influence.
Silencing Dissent: The Arrest of Pro-Palestinian Protesters
Fast forward to 2024 and 2025, and we see a starkly different use of presidential power in response to campus protests against the war in Gaza. Thousands of students across the U.S. have organized peaceful demonstrations calling for an end to U.S. support for Israeli military actions. These protests have been overwhelmingly nonviolent, and in many cases, explicitly anti-violence.
While both the Biden and Trump administrations cited antisemitism and threats against Jewish communities as justification for restricting the free speech of protesters, there have been no reported deaths or injuries to Jewish individuals directly linked to the actions of anti-war demonstrators.
In stark contrast, since President Biden amplified the widely discredited story of “40 beheaded babies,” at least four incidents have resulted in the deaths or injuries of Palestinians in the United States. Shortly after Biden referenced the now-debunked claim, authorities reported the killing of a Palestinian American child, Wadea Al-Fayoume. According to the sheriff’s office, “the child was stabbed 26 times and succumbed to his injuries.” The attacker reportedly shouted, “you Muslims must die,” while assaulting the boy and his mother.
In another incident, three Palestinian men were shot in Vermont. Additional reports of violence targeting Muslims and Arabs have emerged across the country.
Despite numerous documented cases of violence against Muslims in the wake of the war in Gaza, neither the Biden administration nor the Trump administration has made significant efforts to curb the rising tide of anti-Muslim hate speech in the U.S. Yet, in the absence of any deaths in the Jewish community linked to anti-war protests, the government has continued to invoke antisemitism as a rationale for silencing voices critical of the war—voices that call for justice, peace, and the recognition of Palestinian rights.
In stark contrast to his defense following the Capitol riots, Trump’s administration took a harsher stance against those who voiced dissent regarding U.S. foreign policy, particularly concerning the Gaza conflict. This pattern underscores the selective application of free speech protections. While Trump and his supporters leveraged free speech to defend violent actions taken on their behalf, they sought to silence voices that challenged their narrative on international issues. In doing so, they disregarded the broader implications of hate speech and targeted rhetoric that have led to violence against marginalized communities, including the tragic killing of a six-year-old Palestinian American child.
The examples of January 6 and the crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests illustrate a troubling pattern: powerful individuals often manipulate the discourse surrounding free speech to protect their interests while simultaneously stifling dissent. This duality not only undermines the foundational tenets of human rights norms but also perpetuates a culture of fear among those who seek to express opposing views.
Weaponizing Antisemitism to Silence Criticism
One of the most insidious tactics used in this crackdown on dissent has been the weaponization of antisemitism. By conflating criticism of Israeli government policy with antisemitism, powerful figures have created a chilling effect on legitimate political speech. Protesters calling for Palestinian human rights have been smeared, censored, or punished under the guise of protecting Jewish communities.
But this defense is not only dishonest, it’s dangerous. It risks turning Jewish identity into a political tool, when in fact, many Jews themselves support Palestinian rights and oppose the Israeli occupation. The Jewish community must refuse to allow antisemitism to be used as a shield for authoritarian overreach and to justify abuse of basic human rights—the most important of which is the rights to speech, thought, and expression. Today, it may be anti-war protesters being silenced in the name of Jewish safety. But tomorrow, the same machinery could use “anti-Christianism” or “anti-Americanism” to silence Jews and others who dare dissent. This is not a hypothetical—it’s history. Jews were persecuted by Nazis under similar pretenses of “protecting” national identity.
The First Amendment is not a weapon of convenience. It cannot mean “freedom for me, but not for thee.” If powerful leaders are allowed to incite violence and then claim immunity while cracking down on peaceful dissent, the risk of losing the very freedoms they claim to protect becomes a reality, not hypothetical. The fight to preserve free speech is not about defending what might be harmful ideologies, it’s about ensuring that the government cannot silence people based on political disagreement. Failure to uphold that principle universally will hand over the tools of repression to those who will wield them against the weakest in society.