Here’s the thing about free speech: you don’t get to choose when it applies and when it doesn’t. Free speech is one of those foundational principles we all say we believe in—until it gets uncomfortable. And that’s the problem. This isn’t a “we can change the definition when it’s convenient for us” situation; we must be consistent. Free speech is a principle, not a preference.

We’ve built a society that prides itself on the freedom to speak, protest, publish, and challenge authority. It’s written into our Constitution, taught in our schools, and echoed in our political rhetoric. But lately, we’re quick to defend free speech when it aligns with our views, and just as quick to suppress it when it doesn’t.

Our elected officials have a responsibility to protect the principle of free speech, even when it’s inconvenient. Especially when it’s inconvenient and uncomfortable.

Yes, there are exceptions—but they’re very limited and focused on public safety. These exceptions aren’t vague or situational. They’re specific, and they exist for good reason. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire? That’s not protected. Libel—knowingly lying about someone’s actions or character in a way that causes harm? Also not protected. And then there are nuanced cases, like employees speaking publicly while being affiliated with a company. Most organizations make it clear that employees don’t speak on behalf of the company unless explicitly authorized. That distinction matters more than ever today.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: even when someone is fired for speaking out, they still have the right to share their views. They may lose access to a major platform or the spotlight that came with their job (and the paycheck), but they’re not silenced. They can write, post, speak, and share their views elsewhere. The only real barrier is money—not legality.

Platforms are private companies, yes, but they’ve become the public square. When controversial voices are de-platformed, it raises questions about who decides what’s acceptable and why. And when elected officials cheer those decisions because they align with their own agendas, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Historically, journalism and public media have been sacred spaces for sharing opinions. Writers could express personal views without fearing for their jobs. Sure, they might be ostracized socially, but employment wasn’t on the line. That’s changing. And it’s worth asking why.

Free speech isn’t about protecting popular opinions. It’s about protecting unpopular ones. If we only defend speech we agree with, we’re not defending free speech—we’re defending conformity.

This isn’t just about speech. It’s about consistency. We apply double standards all the time—especially when politics are involved. Take pregnancy, for example. Is a fetus a baby? Does it count as a life? The answer often depends on the situation. And that inconsistency is political, not scientific.

Free speech should be above politics. It should be a principle we defend even when it’s uncomfortable. Especially when it’s uncomfortable.

So, here’s my challenge: Protect speech, even when it’s messy. If you believe in free speech, believe in it for everyone—not just the people you agree with. Build laws that uphold principles, not preferences.

Free speech isn’t a luxury. It’s a right. And it’s one we all need to defend, together.

Dr. Jennifer Buss is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. CEO Insight is a forum where she shares her thoughts on science, technology, and other national issues.