Let’s dive into a topic that’s becoming increasingly relevant in today’s heated debates about free speech: the anti-free speech stance taken by Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under President Clinton. Reich has consistently argued for limitations on what he deems “dangerous” speech, and his recent attacks on Elon Musk are just the latest in a long line of efforts to curb free expression.
Reich has been a vocal critic of Musk ever since the billionaire purchased Twitter, now rebranded as X, and pledged to reduce censorship on the platform. For Reich and his allies, this move was nothing short of “dangerous nonsense.”
In fact, Reich’s opposition to Musk’s approach has been so intense that he’s gone as far as suggesting that regulators worldwide should threaten Musk with arrest if he doesn’t comply with demands to censor speech. This is a chilling escalation that reveals just how far Reich is willing to go to silence voices he disagrees with.
Reich’s views are part of a broader anti-free speech movement that I discuss in my recent book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. In this movement, figures like Reich are increasingly pushing the idea that certain types of speech—those they consider harmful—should be regulated or outright banned.
The irony, of course, is that these efforts are often framed as necessary to protect democracy, when in reality, they do the opposite by undermining one of its core principles: the right to free expression.
What’s particularly concerning about Reich’s stance is his willingness to appeal to foreign governments to enforce censorship. Alongside figures like Hillary Clinton, who also called for a crackdown on Musk after his acquisition of Twitter, Reich seems comfortable with the idea of relying on European regulations, such as the Digital Services Act, to force censorship on American platforms. This reliance on external pressure to control domestic speech is a dangerous precedent that threatens to erode the sovereignty of American free speech rights.
Reich’s arguments boil down to a belief that free speech should be regulated in the “public interest,” a concept that authoritarian regimes throughout history have often used to justify censorship.
By positioning himself as a gatekeeper of what constitutes “healthy public conversation,” Reich is essentially advocating for a system where dissenting opinions are silenced, and only approved narratives are allowed to circulate.
This brings us to the heart of the issue: Reich’s idea of a “healthy public conversation” seems to involve him dictating what can and cannot be said, while the rest of us are expected to listen and comply. His call to focus less on free speech and more on how we “direct people’s attention” is a clear signal that he believes some voices should be muted in the name of public policy.
