It’s been two weeks since President Trump was sworn in and a whole lot has happened.
While the headlines have been filled with his Cabinet picks and a flurry of policy initiatives, the left has been trying to keep the American people in the dark about what the Trump administration is planning.
It has been this way since the day Trump took office.
That is, until Tuesday night, when the National Review published a piece titled, “The Trump Administration is Planning to Crack Down on Free Speech.”
It was a fairly typical conservative argument, arguing that the left was trying to censor the free speech of the Trump Administration and was attempting to destroy the American way of life.
The problem, as you might expect, is that the NRO article isn’t entirely wrong.
It’s just wrong in a way that leaves much to be desired.
For starters, it’s inaccurate.
First, let’s review the facts.
In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, the White House said that the goal was to “promote American exceptionalism.”
In the past, the Trump White House has also said that it wanted to “uphold the rule of law.”
While those statements are true, it is a bit misleading to characterize Trump as a “law-and-order” president.
In fact, as a candidate, Trump said he would enforce federal law with respect to immigration, drug legalization, gun control, abortion rights, and other issues.
The point here is that Trump’s administration has not sought to destroy American society.
Trump has made clear that he will continue to stand for free speech and free expression.
He has said that “the very foundations of our democracy are rooted in free speech,” and has promised to fight “political correctness” that seeks to “stifle our freedoms.”
In fact it is precisely this sort of political correctness that the president wants to take down.
The NRO piece then argues that free speech is “a core tenet of American democracy,” and that the government is trying to “censor” it.
The article is clearly saying that Trump will try to shut down free speech because he wants to make sure that “political speech is a core tenement of American society.”
It’s not just the NRE article that is misleading.
As far as the First Amendment is concerned, there are actually three different types of speech.
The first is the speech that is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The second is speech that may be offensive, including speech that promotes hatred, violence, or contempt for other people.
The third is speech protected by a free press.
The First Amendment specifically allows the government to “prohibit the acquisition of any dangerous and obscene weapon,” which includes firearms.
The Second Amendment to the constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
The Fourth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
This is a constitutional protection that protects against government interference with religious beliefs and beliefs of other groups.
The same goes for free expression, as long as it is not “controversial or controversiality.”
That last part is actually a bit more difficult to define.
The Supreme Court has been consistent in its view that free expression is a First Amendment right, and has held that speech is protected against government censorship.
If you read the First Circuit’s ruling in the case of West Virginia v.
Barnette, for example, you can see the court’s view.
In this case, the court held that the free expression of a Christian preacher could not be curtailed because it was part of his ministry.
In other words, this was a speech that the Supreme Court described as “a religious speech,” but that was not protected under the First or Fourteenth Amendment.
The court wrote: “[The] free expression may be of religious faith, but it is surely a matter of opinion whether it should be suppressed.”
Barnette is a perfect example of the First, Fourth, and Fourth Amendments being at odds.
In that case, a preacher in West Virginia claimed that he was a member of the church that teaches that Jesus is the son of God and was the “Son of God.”
This is one of the oldest beliefs in Christianity, and one that has been promoted for centuries.
The West Virginia Supreme Court rejected the preacher’s claims, and ruled that it was “inherently religious speech” and therefore protected.
It said that “[t]he First Amendment permits the government, in its discretion, to prohibit the sale of firearms to ministers who promote the views that the Second Amendment forbids.”
But that does not mean that the speech is also protected under those Amendments.
In other cases, the Supreme and Supreme Court have disagreed.
In United States v.
O’Brien, for instance, the Court found that the Free