By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming stated that the First Amendment may no longer be the “ultimate right” in America, sparking debate over free speech. These comments followed the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show after controversial remarks concerning Charlie Kirk and his subsequent murder. This situation has ignited a broader national conversation, particularly regarding the line between free speech and hate speech, and the role of the government in regulating media. While opinions vary widely, from support for Kimmel’s suspension to concerns over censorship, the FCC Chairman has hinted at further actions, indicating the debate is far from settled.
Read the original article here
Republican Senator Says First Amendment Shouldn’t Be the ‘Ultimate Right’ – Now, that’s a statement that certainly raises an eyebrow, especially when it comes from an elected official. The First Amendment, the cornerstone of American freedoms, has always been held as a sacred right, the bedrock upon which all other rights are built. It’s hard to imagine a healthy democracy functioning without the protections it provides: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government. To suggest it’s not the “ultimate right” feels like a direct challenge to the very principles that define this nation.
It’s worth considering the implications here. If the First Amendment isn’t the ultimate right, then what is? And what does that mean for other fundamental rights? Does this open the door to limiting free speech, to controlling the press, or to stifling dissent? This is the kind of slippery slope that erodes the foundations of freedom and opens the door to tyranny. It’s a dangerous game to play. The very fact that a senator can express such views freely is *because* of the First Amendment.
The notion that someone would question the primacy of free speech feels like a betrayal of the oath of office. To swear to uphold the Constitution, and then to seemingly dismiss a core component of it, is a profound disconnect. It begs the question: What is the senator’s understanding of the role of government? Are we to believe that other values, perhaps ones that align with a particular political agenda, take precedence? It also brings to mind the oath of office, where the elected official swears to defend the Constitution.
The First Amendment is not just some arbitrary addition; it’s the first because it is the most important. It protects all the freedoms that allow the people to hold the government accountable. It allows citizens to speak truth to power, to challenge the status quo, and to shape the future of their nation. It’s meant to allow the people to speak freely to avoid tyranny. The right to question, to criticize, and to dissent is what prevents a nation from falling into authoritarianism.
The comments on this topic also raise interesting points about the changing views on free speech, and about the concept of rights overall. If we start to view some rights as more expendable than others, how do we prevent the erosion of those core freedoms? What happens when the protections of the First Amendment are diminished, or when they are reserved only for those who agree with the prevailing political sentiment? In essence, we can’t have freedom if we pick and choose which freedoms are worth upholding. All rights are equally important.
It’s alarming to see elected officials seemingly disregard the very foundations of American liberty. It’s a sign that something has gone wrong, that the values of freedom and democracy are under threat. This is a moment that requires a thoughtful response. It’s a moment to stand up for what’s right, to defend the principles of free speech, and to make sure that the First Amendment remains the “ultimate right” in America.
It’s easy to see how such comments can be seen as an anti-American sentiment. There seems to be a level of hypocrisy at play, as the same people who may claim to be patriots also seem to be willing to undermine the very rights that are fundamental to this nation.
The idea of limiting free speech has a long history of being used as a tool of oppression. It is the beginning of authoritarian control. If we don’t value free speech, how can we expect to maintain a free society? Why would you oppose the thing that allows you to say the thing?
This whole situation is a reminder that the fight for freedom is never truly over. It requires constant vigilance and a commitment to defending the rights that make this nation so unique. It also begs the question, is the “ultimate right” the 2nd Amendment instead?