Rodriguez/Marsh
Technology is advancing quickly, and the number of internet related incidents where free speech is infringed upon, has grown exponentially, leaving policy makers in a difficult position. Misinformation, and censorship, have led to the loss of American liberty, caused by both domestic and foreign entities. It is for this reason the Rodriguez/Marsh Ticket stands with the perseverance party in the belief that American free speech is at risk of continually being stifled by government censorship, in the modern age of digital communication. Current policy does not solve modern free speech problems, because government oversight cannot properly protect free speech, leaving the solution to be a restriction of government power, and allowing the public to self-moderate discourse, through transparency and dialogue. Current policy stands on broad First Amendment protection with narrow exceptions, and more government oversight is not a dependable solution. It is clear from 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis 2023, that government oversight does not solve the problem at hand. The supreme court said “The government may not compel a person to speak it’s own preferred messages.” As they sided with a web designer who had been compelled to create a message they disagreed with.
The unaddressed problem is that our government cannot be left to decide which lawful ideas are too harmful, dangerous, or misleading for Americans to hear and share. In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Court rejected a system of informal censorship where the government pressured book distributors to suppress certain publications. Norwood v. Harrison (1973) later made the same principle clear: “A state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” The point is simple. If the government cannot censor speech directly, it should not be allowed to do it indirectly.
We propose to defend free speech by restricting government power, keeping public discourse open, and leaving harmful speech to be answered by truth, persuasion, civic responsibility, and existing laws for true threats and incitement. In NRA v. Vullo (2024), the Supreme Court warned that government officials cannot pressure private groups to punish disfavored speech. This shows that censorship is dangerous even when it is indirect. Perseverance offers a better answer: open dialogue, transparency, and truth over government control.
Vision sees the danger of private censorship, but risks giving the government too much power over speech. Compassion - sees the danger of harmful rhetoric, but risks making the government the judge of acceptable ideas. Both parties see real dangers, but risk government overreach. Perseverance protects free speech through open dialogue, not censorship.
We stand with the perseverance party, convinced that free speech must be protected from excessive government oversight, in order to preserve our first amendment rights in this new era of mass online communication. This is not just an issue of law, or philosophy, the way freedom of speech is protected has a direct impact on families, businesses, churches, schools, and the next generation of Americans. The intentional protection of free speech cannot be muddled by excessive government oversight; it must be protected.