Censorship and self-censorship is vile, in any form that it may surface, whether it is by the government, organizations, or elected officials who cannot handle criticism. Censorship and self-censorship should make anyone’s stomach turn. Censorship and self-censorship is a sign of weakness. Censorship kills, as we have witness in broad daylight. Censorships and self-censorship ruins societies, whole civilizations. Censorship and self-censorship is the death of a free nation.
I was told by fellow Republicans to self-censor, to use a fake name or pen name when posting blogs and comments on social media, to “stop the bullshit” and this came from one of our elected officials, and to not post or blog in ways that criticizes elected officials. This elected official warned that several elected officials in our county were upset and that I had made them adversaries because I have spoken openly and unfiltered against their actions, such as covering up wrong-doings by other elected officials, running in districts they don’t live in, deals made behind the scenes (and don’t deny it, as it happens everywhere). See previous blogs. When they deny it, know that they are gaslighting you.
This was triggered by a comment I made on an article published by The Daily Sun about “Kids are in a ‘reading recession'” in which I stated that “Public schools are far behind still” – and government schools are factually behind – and in which I speculated, based on rumors about who may get appointed to Charlotte County School Board Seat 2, as Kim Amontree has resigned in District 2 and is now running for Commissioner in District 4, although she does not live in District 4. This comment was posted on social media under my name, not a fake name, not ‘Anonymous’.
The criticism revolved around the fact that I should not speak openly against elected officials because of my position in the REC. This individual hinted that I should resign for speaking against elected officials. This is the practice of “Rules for thee, but not for me” and of imposing indirect censorship. There is a subtle threat under that surface. It is what the Founders warned against.
But I slept on this, pondered the underlying message, the threats that grievances could be filed against me – which is the underlying message of “shut up and obey or someone will file a grievance against you” but also indicative of the accuser’s own weaknesses, and it is the ideology at work underneath the call for my silence or my resignation.
Let’s just consider how ‘to grieve’ is defined: to feel distress or great sorrow, a shifting emotional and psychological experience that can affect thoughts, body, behavior, and sense of identity. If the insignificant comment I made would cause those kinds of severe emotional and psychological distress in an elected official, that person, point blank, is not fit for public office in the first place.
But I pondered the dangers that this attitude is in fact what has caused civilizations to fall, to ultimately fight wars, the bloodshed censorship and silencing people has caused for generations, including in very recent times, such as the vile assassination of Charlie Kirk. I reflected on what kind of people we have in our government who proclaim to support freedom of speech, unrestricted, while calling on their own fellow Republicans to be silent, to “stop the bullshit”, to practice self-censorship – backstabbers? They are fundamentally not true supporters of freedom of speech, if it does not align with what they do, want, and say. That attitude, my follow Americans, that attitude is Marxism 101!
Freedom of speech is one of the foundational principles of the American republic. It is not merely a constitutional protection; it is a cultural value that allows citizens to exchange ideas, challenge authority, debate policies, and hold leaders accountable. Yet one of the greatest threats to free expression is not always government action. Sometimes it comes from within organizations, communities, and even political movements that claim to champion liberty.
A troubling contradiction emerges when individuals who publicly advocate for free speech simultaneously encourage censorship, self-censorship, or restrictions on expression in the name of being “professional,” “modest,” “civil,” or “nice.” While courtesy and professionalism certainly have their place, they should never become tools used to suppress lawful opinions, uncomfortable truths, or legitimate criticism.
History demonstrates that censorship rarely begins with outright bans. More often, it starts with social pressure. People are encouraged to remain silent, avoid controversy, or refrain from expressing viewpoints that may upset others. Over time, this creates an environment where individuals censor themselves out of fear of criticism, exclusion, or retaliation. The result is not harmony. It is conformity.
That is the worst mistake you can make is submission to the oppressors.
Ironically, this practice mirrors ideological approaches often associated with collectivist and Marxist systems, where maintaining approved narratives becomes more important than allowing open debate. In such environments, dissent is discouraged not through direct prohibition but through pressure to conform to accepted standards of speech and behavior. The label may be different, but the outcome is remarkably similar: fewer voices, less debate, and diminished freedom.
The label is irrelevant because it is the essence of that practice that is the problem indisputably. It is an attempt to mind-control, speech-control, and it is an attempt to oppress. Oppression of speech is fundamentally what Marxists do, and sometimes through threats and violent acts. They can dress up as conservatives, but it is with that as it is with The Emperor’s New Clothes: it is fake and it is an illusion only.
The principle of free speech must apply consistently. It cannot be defended when convenient and restricted when uncomfortable. If a political movement claims to stand for liberty, it must also tolerate disagreement, criticism, and diverse viewpoints within its own ranks. Otherwise, freedom becomes a slogan rather than a principle.
Equally concerning is the encouragement of anonymous attacks, pseudonyms, or fabricated identities used to influence public discussion. While there are legitimate reasons for anonymity in certain circumstances, creating fake personas to avoid being attacked from one’s own party members who are weak to criticism, to shape opinion, avoid accountability, or conceal motivations damages public trust. Citizens deserve transparency and honesty from those participating in civic discourse. Deception undermines credibility and contributes to growing skepticism toward organizations, institutions, and public conversations.
Healthy organizations do not fear speech. Healthy political activists do not fear freedom of speech nor reject it. Healthy organizations welcome discussion, tolerate disagreement, and trust their members to evaluate competing ideas for themselves. Open dialogue strengthens communities because it exposes weak arguments, improves strong ones, and promotes accountability. Politicians who have nothing to hide welcome criticism and being questioned as mature adults, and they do not need to encourage people to self-censor just because the outspoken individual holds a position in an organization.
When elected officials threaten to file grievances against their own party members or even warn by saying “I could file a grievance, but I’m not going to”, whether this member holds a position in an organization, they essentially practice Marxist ideology of censorship and they inadvertently admit to their own weakness.
Another symptom of a culture drifting toward censorship is the weaponization of grievances. Legitimate grievance procedures exist for good reasons: to address harassment, discrimination, threats, and true misconduct. However, when grievances are filed primarily because someone dislikes criticism, disagrees with an opinion, or feels uncomfortable being challenged, they cease to serve their intended purpose. These are illegitimate grievances and frivolous lawsuits. It’s a form of law-fare.
A healthy organization understands the difference between criticism and abuse. Criticism examines actions, decisions, policies, and ideas. It is an essential component of accountability. If every criticism is treated as a personal attack, organizations create an environment where members become afraid to speak honestly. The result is not unity but silence and the result is the fall of a civilization based on freedom and liberties for all. That is what the leftists want, including the closet leftists.
In many cases, what is labeled a grievance is simply an inability or unwillingness to tolerate disagreement. Rather than responding maturely with facts, evidence, or counterarguments, individuals seek administrative remedies to suppress speech they dislike. This transforms criticism from something to be debated into something to be punished. Often, elected officials use what in studies of narcissist behavioral science is referred to as ‘flying monkeys’ and ‘enablers’ to break through to the person “who had the audacity to questions them and “make them grieve””. This includes using lawyering up.
They are quick to say, “I’m gonna sue you, if you don’t take that shit down.” That came from another elected official in Charlotte County in August 2024 who flipped out on the phone on me when I had suggested on Facebook that her friend was illegally counting ballots while running as a candidate. Now, speaking of bullshit – to use the very word the first-mentioned elected official above used, the one that I referred to in the beginning of this article; This is the kind of bullshit that needs to stop. It is exactly what has killed – literally killed – millions of people for centuries; the oppressors of freedom of speech.
If holding a position requires denial of freedom of speech, then let a sheep do the job instead, but don’t call yourself conservative or republican if that is the oppression you support. I will take my freedom of speech rights over being oppressed just to hold a position that is voluntary work. I will not apologize to the oppressor for my opinions. Take it or leave it.
A free society depends upon citizens who can withstand scrutiny, defend their positions, and engage in vigorous debate. The answer to criticism is not censorship. It is more speech, better arguments, and a willingness to engage openly. Organizations that encourage resilience and open discussion grow stronger. Organizations that encourage grievances as a substitute for debate often find themselves cultivating resentment, distrust, and self-censorship.
The ability to hear criticism without demanding punishment for the critic is not merely a sign of maturity; it is a prerequisite for freedom itself.
Censorship remains censorship regardless of who practices it, what title they hold, or how noble their intentions may appear. Americans should reject efforts to silence lawful expression, whether they originate from government officials, private organizations, political activists, or members of their own political party. Free speech is not a partisan principle. It is an American one. Never bow to those who practice censorship nor encourage self-censorship.
When you vote in the Primaries in this election 2026, vote for the candidates who truly support freedom of speech, not for the establishment elite who won’t answer questions and won’t take accountability for some of the shady misconduct they are involved in.
Consider this: Charlie Kirk was killed because he practiced true freedom of speech.
By Karina Schmitt, Blog Contributor