The United States and Censorship: How America Is—and Has—Been Silencing People Who Want Change:

By Paul Fimiano

Introduction: Freedom For All is The Greatest Lie Ever Told:

Has the United States of America ever had true freedom of speech? For straight white men, the answer is yes, but what about everyone else—women, people of color, and others? The truth is that free speech has never been fully realized in this country; it often silences or blacklists those who speak out for change, labeling them as radicals or un-American. Freedom of speech has been denied to everyone—the lower class, women, people of color, and LGBTQIA+ people—except for straight white men. We, the people, must fight to reclaim it. We, the American people, have to take back what was never granted to us. We need to organize and fight for our freedom—this is the only way to ensure freedom of speech for all. I will show how free speech has been silenced by the U.S., offering examples from American history and current protests, such as those advocating for the freedom of Palestine.

A black-and-white photograph of a man with an American flag bandana covering his mouth.

Section I: A History:

“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 peacefully to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Const. Amend. 1). This phrase is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; it guarantees citizens—no matter what—the right to free speech and expression through the word "no." This single word stops the government from interfering with what we do, say, or express—they cannot legally deny us our inalienable rights because of it. However, this does not stop them from silencing us—not everyone is guaranteed the right to speak freely.

When the First Amendment was written, it did not guarantee anyone outside of white men the right to free speech—black people (both before and after the Civil War) did not have this right due to slavery and discriminatory laws (black codes and Jim Crow laws). Women rarely had the right to speak their minds freely—they were immediately shut down because of the hyper-patriarchal society that existed during the writing of the First Amendment (and we still live in a patriarchal society). How could free speech have existed—both socially and legally—if it did not grant anyone, outside of white men, the right to speak? True freedom of speech has never existed because of these realities.

An article was written by Ellis Cose—an author and columnist—for the American Civil Liberties Union, titled “The Short and Curious Death of Free Speech in America”; in it, Ellis explores the nuances and complexities of the First Amendment—especially before the Fourteenth Amendment. Ellis states this in his article: “But even after the Reconstruction era [the era of integrating slaves into American society], free speech, as we understand it today, was nothing but an aspiration, which is one reason that Southern states could effectively outlaw agitation for abolition.” What Ellis is saying is this: Even after the Reconstruction era—with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, granting citizenship to all people born or naturalized in the U.S.—freedom of speech was still an idealistic aspiration. He uses the term “aspiration” to highlight that, even after slaves were freed, they were still not recognized as full citizens; even as they underwent integration—and throughout the process—they were denied the right to speak freely in American society.

Ellis further emphasizes this point by stating, “Free speech always had limits.” There were always restrictions on who could speak, what could be said, and how speech could be expressed—it was never an absolute right but rather a concept shaped by nuances. The term "limits"—referring to who could exercise free speech—limited it to straight—sometimes wealthy—white men, excluding women, people of color, and the lower class from full expression.

Freedom of speech is not just suppressed through laws for these groups—women, people of color, the lower class, and LGBTQIA+—it is also a systemic and social issue that remains unsolved. This is especially true for women—and all the other minority groups I mentioned—because our country was built on patriarchal ideals. Our society remains inherently patriarchal, suppressing women through sexism and misogyny. Throughout the history of the United States—and other cultures—men have ruled based on the belief that they were better "leaders" than women and that their opinions mattered more. Women’s freedom of speech and expression was also censored by these factors: religion (mainly Christianity), public shaming by men, and the cultural and social expectations of womanhood.

To return to how our patriarchal society has censored—and still censors—women’s freedom of speech and expression, consider this quote from a 2021 United Nations article: “Women’s voices are suppressed, controlled, or punished explicitly by laws, policies, and discriminatory practices, and implicitly by social attitudes, cultural norms, and patriarchal values.” Legally, women were oppressed in numerous ways—especially when it came to accessing education, expressing political opinions, and laws that restricted them from running for office, among other things.

I want to focus on the second half of this quote and how many of us—particularly in the United States—have been conditioned to embrace the values of patriarchy. The term “implicitly”—along with attitudes, norms, and values—refers to how we were taught what it means to be a man or a woman (please bear with my heteronormativity). Whether it be through religion, our environment, or the media we consume—yes, Disney movies portrayed patriarchal values—a majority of us have been conditioned to believe that women were supposed to act a certain way (kind, non-assertive, submissive, and anything of this nature). They implicitly indoctrinated us—as the quote suggests—by consistently exposing us to and reinforcing these values across generations. Throughout history—and even today through the Tradwives movement—the Christian Bible has been used to justify the belief that women should remain silent unless permitted to speak by a man, even during the women's suffrage movement.

Free speech for women has never been granted—they are still fighting for it today, especially by fighting cultural and societal norms that are not only implicit but deeply embedded into our systems. And when it comes to the First Amendment, “free speech for all can only ever mean free speech for [white] men” (Franks). The term “only” emphasizes that, within our past and current social systems, there are only two groups who can truly speak freely: straight white men and the wealthy. If these systems remain in place, this reality will persist.

The lack of free speech for groups—people of color, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and women—persists today. Censorship, the suppression of free speech, and the deliberate silencing of voices continue to occur. Mahmoud Khalil—a Palestinian activist—was silenced by the U.S. government for protesting the genocide in Palestine. He is just one of many victims of America's deliberate suppression of dissent and its failure to uphold true free speech.

Section II: Today and Free Speech:

Mahmoud Khalil—a Palestinian activist at Columbia University, born in a Syrian refugee camp in 1995—was censored on March 8th, 2025, for his support of Palestinian liberation from the Israeli regime. This was a deliberate act of censorship by the Trump Administration—Trump aimed to set an example by targeting the so-called “extremists.” Sadly, Mahmoud is one of many victims of this type of action in the so-called “land of the free.”

Photo of a person in a city protesting for the release of Mahmoud Khalil with a sign.

Many lawyers and law professors have come out saying that the deliberate censoring of Mahmoud Khalil is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment. A quote from the Washington Post says this: “The First Amendment protects the right of citizens and noncitizens alike to criticize government policies and positions. It is regularly invoked to protect racist and other hate speech. As long as Khalil is in the United States, he is protected by it, like others on American soil” (Elison, 2025). The phrase “he is protected” is interesting here—no one is truly protected, and Mahmoud's unconstitutional arrest proves that. It demonstrates that, throughout U.S. history, only (rich) straight white men have been able to speak freely; if minorities spoke, they could receive the same treatment as Mahmond—or worse. 

The same article also said, “This is the heart of the speech the First Amendment is intended to protect” (Ellison, 2025). The word “intended” is crucial—it was meant to protect us, and in theory, it does. But in practice, it has never protected anyone except those at the top. This is why we silenced communists in America—individuals who were doing exactly what Mahmoud did—during the Second Red Scare. The word “intended” in this sentence brings us to a scary reality: The First Amendment does not truly protect our freedom to speak and express ourselves. The article also makes a crucial point: “You have a constitutional right to engage in advocacy, including advocacy the government does not like” (Ellison, 2025). While we do have this right, the word "intended" in the previous quote says this about the First Amendment: You—the American people—are not always protected.

Conclusion: Fight:

We, the American people, must stand up and fight for true freedom of speech and expression—this is the only way to achieve genuine protection of our rights. Throughout history, the First Amendment has primarily benefited (rich) straight white men, while minorities and those who spoke out against America's prevailing views were punished. I leave you with this: Fight—fight for your freedom.

References ✍️:

Cose, Elise. “The Short Life and Curious Death of Free Speech in America.” American Civil Liberties Union, 2020, https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/the-short-life-and-curious-death-of-free-speech-in-america. Accessed 17 Mar. 2025.

Ellison, Sarah. “Mahmoud Khalil’s Arrest Violates First Amendment Protections, Lawyers Say.” The Washington Post, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/13/khalil-columbia-trump-arrest-anti-semitism/. Accessed 17 Mar. 2025.

“Gender equality in freedom of expression remains a distant goal—Un Expert.” United Nations, 2021, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/10/gender-equality-freedom-expression-remains-distant-goal-un-expert. Accessed 17 Mar. 2025.

Kaufman, M., Brett. “In New Filing, Mahmoud Khalil Urges Court to Protect His First Amendment Rights.” American Civil Liberties Union, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/mahmoud-khalil-habeas-petition-first-amendment. Accessed 17 Mar. 2025.

Franks, Mary Anne. “Speaking of Women: Feminism and Free Speech.” Signs Journal, n.d., https://signsjournal.org/franks/#google_vignette. Accessed 21 Mar. 2025.

"First Amendment." Constitution Annotated, n.d., https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/. Accessed 21 Mar. 2025.