Witt/Henke
Freedom of Speech is a crucial aspect of American Society, however there is an ever-growing sea of questions regarding its limits. Not only is this question emerging into the legal realm but also becoming a pressing issue within culture. In a poll done in November of 2025, 74% of Americans feel that free speech is heading in the wrong direction, a 10-point increase from the precious year. Similarly, 9 in 10 College students believe free speech is essential, with confidence in its security dropping by 30% since 2016. However, Americans are not against certain restrictions on speech. According to the CATO Institute, 70% of Americans believed society can prohibit hate speech while still protecting free speech with 62% believing that it is the role of the Supreme Court to decide what speech is too extreme.
The Witt/Henke ticket recognizes the crucial role that freedom of speech plays in order to have a free society and protect liberty. However completely unrestricted freedom of speech would send the liberty we enjoy in this country into chaos. We must balance proper restrictions in order to have true freedom within speech. As part of the Perseverance stance, we believe in as few restrictions as possible in order to prioritize freedom, while still maintain ordered liberty. Completely unrestricted freedom is not freedom. And over restriction causes the same problem. We must maintain a balance between valuing individuals’ ability to speak freely, and the necessary restrictions to maintain that freedom.
Not all speech should be protected in every environment. For example, as established in the 2006 Supreme Court case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, the court ruled that the first amendment does not protect Public Employees when they are speaking pursuant to their official duties. This does not mean that Public Employees receive no protection, but rather that their protection is limited when the speech is given through official channels of communication which they could only reasonably have access to by virtue of their employment. ((2nd) Weintraub v. Board of education, 2010). This restriction is necessary as it protects the institution from damaging speech by their employees. Without this, employees could say anything they want about their employer or the public entity they are employed at and their employer would have no grounds to fire them, without violating their liberty. But this does not leave the employee censored. The Supreme Court ruled in Pickering v. Board of Education in 1968, that speech given by employes in the compacity of a private citizen is protected speech.
Similarly, there are necessary restrictions for various categories of speech like Defamation, which protects individuals from false statements of fact communicated to a third party which causes injury to another person’s reputation. Obesity, which is measured by the Supreme Courts 3 prong Miller test that the speech must meet the requirements of 1. Prurient Interest 2. Paternal Offence and 3. Lack of value. And threats which according to the 2023 Supreme Court case of Counterman v. Colorado, must be “True Threats”, containing willful communication, intent to instill fear, a credible prospect of violence, and reasonable fear. In a more recent 2024 decision the Supreme Court decided in Lindke v. Freed and Moody v. NetChoice LLC that Private Platforms, like Instagram, Facebook and X, have their own First Amendment rights to moderate content because all of the users on the platforms have agreed to the terms and conditions of that platform.
The Witt/Henke ticket believes that there is a necessary balance which prioritizes the freedom of the individual, while still providing the necessary protections for institutions, employers, and other individuals, in order to best protect liberty.