This week, a significant shift has emerged within conservative circles regarding the concept of free speech, as leading figures confront the implications of their long-held beliefs. Following Tucker Carlson’s controversial interview with white supremacist Nick Fuentes, Ben Shapiro, co-founder of the Daily Wire, has been vocal in his condemnation. Shapiro labeled Carlson an “intellectual coward” and criticized him for helping to normalize Nazism within the Republican Party. In a dedicated 40-minute segment on his show, he emphasized that establishing moral distinctions between different viewpoints is not censorship, but rather an essential component of conservatism.
The discourse surrounding this incident reached a boiling point at the Heritage Foundation when its president, Kevin Roberts, expressed support for Carlson’s actions, sparking outrage and resignations from key staff members. In a leaked video, Roberts addressed the backlash, stating that while one can oppose cancel culture, it is equally important to clarify that not all viewpoints warrant endorsement, especially not those that promote harmful ideologies.
For years, prominent conservative figures have dismissed the notion that certain voices pose risks to public discourse, labeling such concerns as censorship. They have ridiculed critics as “hall monitors” and claimed that denying any opinion a platform undermines the concept of free speech. This rhetoric has fueled the spread of unfounded claims regarding the 2020 election, vaccine skepticism, and conspiracy theories surrounding immigration and the January 6 insurrection, all proliferating across platforms like X, Rumble, and YouTube under the guise of defending free expression.
However, the recent developments signal a reassessment among these figures. They now acknowledge that not all voices should be amplified, a stark contrast to the positions they previously espoused. The discussions they are currently engaging in echo longstanding concerns raised by journalists and public officials about the responsibility that comes with platforming radicalizing content. Questions are being raised about whether platforms like YouTube should continue to promote extremist videos and whether Rumble and X should cease amplifying hateful commentary from individuals such as Fuentes.
The evolution in the conservative stance on free speech reflects a sobering realization: the consequences of elevating destructive narratives must be addressed. Shapiro’s assertion that it is not “cancellation” to draw moral lines between viewpoints underscores a critical turning point in the ongoing debate about responsible dialogue in public discourse, suggesting that the right is beginning to grapple with the complexities of free speech in the modern age. This acknowledgment could foster a more nuanced discussion about the boundaries of free speech, benefitting the overall public dialogue.