The sound of silence.
Free speech absolutists, this is your time to shine. Unless all that talk was really just political posturing after all?
Listen carefully, and you’ll hear an interesting sound.
Do you hear it? That’s the sound of hypocrisy.
It’s the sound of a lot of people’s so-called ideological commitment crashing into the reality of their true position. Listen close. You hearing it yet? No? You know why you can’t hear it?
It’s because that sound is the sound of silence, and in that silence is the lie. The lie they told their voters. The lie they tell the public. The lie they tell themselves and each other. The lie that these are “free speech absolutists.”
Yeah, except when it suits them.
“Free speech absolutists” on the political right—especially figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump—love to present themselves as defenders of unfiltered, unregulated expression.
But scratch the surface and their crusade quickly unravels.
The truth? These men aren't champions of free speech—they're gatekeepers of their own narratives, silencing voices they dislike while demanding platforms for their own.
Musk famously declared himself a “free speech absolutist” when he took over Twitter (now X). But his actions tell a different story.
In December 2022, Musk suspended several journalists—including reporters from CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post for reporting on the @ElonJet account, which tracked his private flights.
The reason? He claimed it was “doxxing.” The reality? These were journalists doing their jobs. Their sin was writing things Musk didn’t like.
Despite his supposed stance, Musk’s X has complied with censorship requests from authoritarian governments.
He blocked anti-Erdoğan content in Turkey ahead of elections and complied with India’s BJP government to remove criticism. It’s a long way from “absolutism” when the whims of strongmen are being honoured.
Musk has also used his power to retaliate against domestic critics. He fired Tesla employees who spoke out about safety concerns. He sued Media Matters after they exposed extremist content on X. And he used his reach to openly threaten advertisers, journalists, and public figures.
So much for defending the right to speak freely.
If Musk’s hypocrisy is corporate, Trump’s is authoritarian.
Trump claimed in 2025 that he had “restored free speech.”
But his record says otherwise. In his first presidency, he revoked press access for outlets like NPR and the Associated Press. More recently, he banned the AP from the Oval Office and Air Force One for using the term “Gulf of Mexico” instead of his preferred “Gulf of America.”
He tried to defund NPR and PBS through executive orders, labelling them “propaganda” because they occasionally criticised him.
He even moved to deport a Palestinian academic for making pro-Gaza comments. Not for breaking any law—just for speaking out.
Trump’s Justice Department also pursued journalists and critics. His second administration continues to push the line, probing news outlets like ProPublica and The Guardian over alleged “bias,” while letting right-wing platforms run wild.
And on his own “free speech” platform, Truth Social, speech is anything but free. Try posting about abortion rights, the 6 January riot, or Trump’s indictments—you’re likely to be shadowbanned or booted off.
It’s free speech for Trump fans, and nobody else.
This isn’t just about two individuals.
It’s a broader movement where “free speech” means the right to dominate the conversation—and crush dissent. Trump redefined “criticism” as “fake news” and used that label to delegitimise anyone who challenged him.
It’s become a badge of honour on the right to attack the press while pretending to be persecuted by them at the same time.
Musk echoes the same language. He paints himself as a victim of the “woke mob,” even as he bans trans activists, targets progressive journalists, and boosts conspiracy theories. And they’re not alone.
The same people who whine about cancel culture have banned books, attacked drag performances, passed anti-protest laws, and tried to crush university free speech. It’s not about principle. It’s about power.
Let’s be honest: no democracy allows absolute free speech.
We have rules against hate speech, incitement, libel, and harassment for good reason. The difference is that true defenders of freedom understand those limits and work to protect meaningful dialogue.
What Musk and Trump do isn’t principled. It’s performative.
Musk flip-flops constantly—banning, unbanning, banning again—based entirely on his moods and personal interests. Trump uses the state to punish his enemies, attacking newsrooms and individuals with a chilling mix of threats and executive orders.
They want you to believe they’re rebels fighting for your right to speak. What they really want is the right to decide who gets to.
And it’s not just in America, of course, the right here in Britain has been banging the drum for free speech for years now.
Free speech for racists. Free speech for bigots. Free speech for those who want to undermine state institutions they don’t happen to like.
But if an environmental or pro Palestinian or anti Israeli banner goes up in the wrong place at the wrong time you see how much tolerance they really have, and how much respect for the principle they actually hold.
That’s why I want you to listen to that sound—that loud, oppressive, heavy sound of silence, and I want you to think about what that silence means.
I want you to ask yourself that question in light of certain matters, close to home: like the attempt to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, or the police investigations into Kneecap and Bob Vylan over their comments at Glastonbury at the weekend. Kneecap, of course, are already on trial for previous remarks made while on stage.
I want you to listen for the sound of the free speech absolutists galloping to their defence. I want you to listen—really listen—to see if you can hear it.
Because if you can’t hear it, then we have to conclude that these people are full of it. That they don’t really mean a word they say. That their absolutism is absolutely not absolute—unless you’re sucking up to them. Unless you’re part of their little bubble, unless your views and their views align.
See, our media is pounding on the Glastonbury guys right now, and the liberal media is just as guilty of it as the right-wing press.
But at least the liberal media has never espoused the view that free speech should be absolute. Their position still stinks, but it’s not straight up hypocrisy. More a lack of backbone. Cowardice, to use the better word.
But free speech absolutism; that’s a right-wing idea and so they surely can’t stay silent whilst everyone else piles on, unless it was only ever invented so they could get away with spreading their intolerance and hate.
Because their intolerance and hate?
That’s perfectly fine, apparently.
If other people seem intolerant or hateful—well, that’s not fine. That’s a problem. That’s when the absolutists show you what’s really behind the mask. Not an ideal. Not a principle. It was just a convenient slogan to fool the easily lulled.
If you’re one of those people—then this should be your moment of clarity.
So take a second. Look around.
Ask yourself if these people mean anything they say.
Because if they lied about something like this, there’s no telling what else they’ve lied to you about.
Is it one thing? Is it everything?
Because that sound—that silence—that's what exposes who they really are.