Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

The right to assembly and freedom of speech have been topics of discussion for the past three presidential elections. What often comes into question is whether or not our society today is too sensitive to opposing perspectives and in turn restricts people’s right to freedom of speech. While this may be true for some under the Trump Administration, data and incidents from his presidency reveal an additional concerning trend of the suppression of voices correlating with a recent rise in police brutality.

In numerous protests, particularly those led by marginalized communities and activists, forceful responses from police and limitations on peaceful demonstrations points to a troubling disregard for fundamental American rights. In fact, during President Donald Trump’s first term in office, he called for police to use force and advocated for policies that promote profiling.

Trump directed comments like, “please, don’t be too nice,” to law enforcement officials in 2017. Such rhetoric not only impacts policing tactics, but also signals to citizens that dissent, particularly dissent challenging government actions and policies, would be met with law enforcement.

This selective support for freedom of speech creates a dangerous precedent and signals that these rights are conditional, subject to the political interests of those in power. Instead of reinforcing a universal right to speak and protest freely, the Trump administration’s approach implies that only certain voices and perspectives would be protected.

Alex Levy | Contributing Designer

Such comments made by the president create a ripple effect. We have seen other communities that were targeted after Trump made further statements stemming from ignorance and hate. During the rise of COVID-19, tweets made by Trump calling it the “Chinese Virus” fueled violence against Asian communities. When leaders use charged language, especially around health or race, the social impact can be all encompassing, exposing communities to prejudice and undermining social unity.

We can see this continue as we enter his second term. While the bill was rejected as of Nov. 13, it would have allowed Trump to eliminate dissent and target his political enemies. H.R. 9495, The Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties On American Hostages Act, would target nonprofit organizations, universities and news outlets that may uphold the mission, including human rights, reproductive health and immigrant rights advocacy.

With this in mind, it’s clear that freedom of speech exists for some but not all. Consistently, Americans have seen a disregard for the rights of those who challenged Trump’s administration in his previous term. This selective support for free speech creates a dangerous precedent as it tells citizens that their rights are conditional, under the control of the political agenda of those in power.

While, in absolute numbers, white Americans may appear most affected by police violence, a closer look at population-adjusted rates tells a different story. Black people make up approximately 14% of the United States population, but are killed by police at over twice the rate of white Americans.

This disparity highlights a systemic issue: Black Americans face disproportionate violence and suppression, especially when protesting for their rights. When this reality is met with a government response that implicitly or explicitly encourages aggressive policing, it compounds the barriers faced by marginalized communities in exercising their fundamental rights.

It’s vital to recognize that while free speech is protected, it also carries weight. Words have power, and when left unchecked, they can spark conflict, harm communities and erode trust. Responsible freedom of speech means acknowledging these consequences and using our voices to foster understanding rather than division. When claims go unchecked and the responsibility behind them is ignored, the consequences can ripple far beyond the initial statement — shaping narratives, influencing behaviors and even undermining the very freedoms we claim to protect.

True freedom of speech is a commitment to universality, free from bias and political manipulation. It’s a principle meant to empower diverse voices, protect individual expression, and support social progress. As we look to the future, it’s essential that we demand this equality in speech protections, recognizing that selective support for free expression not only undermines democracy but can also have serious consequences in society.

Sarhia Rahim is a senior policy studies major. Her column appears bi-weekly. She can be reached at slrahim@syr.edu.

Published on November 14, 2024 at 12:32 am