- Well-meaning progressives often argue for speech-suppressing laws to prevent authoritarianism, but history shows these laws are eventually weaponized by the powerful to silence critics.
- In Mexico, laws designed to protect the marginalized, such as against gender-based political violence, are being used to imprison journalists and suppress satire, as seen in the case of politician Mara Chama Villa and Radio Teocelo.
- The chilling effects are widespread, with fines, mandatory apologies, and registry placements used against reporters, while activists and crime reporters also face sanctions under similar laws, leading to self-censorship.
- Such laws are defended as combating unacceptable acts like gender-based violence or terrorism, but their broad application makes them tools for abuse, as no one can oppose them without seeming to support those evils.
- Historical examples, like hate speech laws in Weimar Germany, demonstrate that speech restrictions fail to stop authoritarians and are instead co-opted by them once they gain power, turning laws intended for protection into weapons of oppression.
- The key test for any speech law is to imagine it wielded by the most distrusted politician, as power inevitably shifts, and relying on good actors to hold it first is naive wishful thinking.
- Strengthening elections, institutions, and public education is a more effective way to combat authoritarianism than outlawing speech, which risks abuse by those in power.