First Amendment panelists discuss free speech, political polarization

Free speech has long been a defining feature of American democracy — but how has its definition changed amidst today’s turbulent political climate?

That question centered Tuesday morning’s First Amendment Panel at Meyer Green, part of Stanford’s fifth annual Democracy Day program. The event brought together representatives from The Daily, the Stanford College Democrats and the Stanford America Club for a conversation on the state of free expression and how the First Amendment is understood and practiced on campus. 

On the panel were Opinions managing editors Jennifer Levine ’28 and Zach Gottlieb ’28, Stanford College Democrats vice president Robert Liu ’28 and America Club president Joe Nail M.B.A. ’26.

Levine and Gottlieb began by noting that The Daily depends on First Amendment protections, as it operates independently from the University. She added that journalism’s role in democracy extends beyond reporting.

“We think it’s really important that people are able to voice their opinions,” Levine said. “For us, that means propagating diverse beliefs, diverse ideas, well-warranted arguments and sparking dialogue… You can’t have a proper democracy without informed voters.”

Gottlieb added that The Daily puts these values into practice by publishing opinion articles from writers of diverse political backgrounds and identities.

Liu agreed with Gottlieb, adding that the strength of the First Amendment doesn’t necessarily come from “a legal document written centuries ago” — rather, it comes from individuals upholding their responsibility to engage in civic dialogue and engagement.

He described how global politics have affected student engagement, saying that the “erratic actions” of the Trump administration have “absolutely created a chilling effect” on speech. “There were several international students who were afraid to join our club, be on our mailing list, attend our events — even if they wanted to — because they thought joining our club would get their visa or green card revoked,” Liu said. 

The panelists agreed that free speech is an essential part of democratic discourse. 

“Censorship has almost become a modern-day weapon,” Gottlieb said, noting that Americans on both sides of the aisle have become so polarized that they’ll do whatever it takes to silence those with opposing political beliefs.

Nail concurred, saying open dialogue is the best solution to division. According to Nail, disagreement should be answered with “more speech and to make a better argument… not to prevent a debate from happening altogether.”

“I am a free speech advocate. I think that it is absolutely someone’s right to be able to burn the flag, to be able to criticize the United States.” Nail said, warning against taking protests “too far” and advocating respect for the constitutional rights that permit free expression.

“Our goal as [the America] club is restoring a culture of patriotism, and to do that, you have to be absolutely unfailing in your commitment to civil discourse and free speech,” Nail said.

Liu said that to understand the state of free speech today, it is crucial to understand America’s history with censorship. 

“We should learn from these periods of history,” Liu said. “What did we do to overcome McCarthyism? What do we do to overcome the Red Scare? And from that historical lesson, then we can move forward as a country.” 

The panelists emphasized the importance of balancing the right to speak freely with the responsibility to keep dialogue constructive in an increasingly divided nation. 

“The goal of debate and discourse is not to be right or to win — it’s to learn something,” Levine said. “We’re not going to learn if we’re in an echo chamber on any side.”

The post First Amendment panelists discuss free speech, political polarization appeared first on The Stanford Daily.