In last week’s installment of The Problem with Progressives, we talked about the cancerous mass that is identity politics. The progressive focus on identity as the final arbiter of who should talk, who should be listened to, and who should be believed is like any other tumor – benign only if it’s not impeding the vital structures of the body, or in this case, the body politic. Unfortunately, as we discussed last week, identity politics aren’t benign. They’re unnecessarily dividing the progressive movement, and this week, we’re going to talk about one of the structures of progressivism that’s been most impacted: The much-vaunted and much-abused First Amendment, AKA “free speech”.

Most people don’t have a great understanding of free speech. Free speech, to them, means “I can say what I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want, and nobody can stop me without infringing on my rights.” This is sort of correct, except there’s a second half to that sentence, beginning with the all-important word ‘but.’ Free speech, to me, means “I can say what I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want, and nobody can stop me, but if my free speech harms somebody else, I have to stop it.” Speech that harms other people isn’t protected under the bill of rights. In the United States, you can’t destroy someone’s reputation, shout “fire!” in a crowded theater when there’s no fire, or deliberately incite violence without facing some kind of consequence.

Seems simple, right? Wrong. If you’re one of a certain breed of progressive, you’ve taken that definition of free speech and put it through a series of contortions that make it look like an Olympic-level gymnast on cocaine. First, in a progressive world, the definition of “harm” has undergone a radical expansion, much like the British Empire in colonial days. "Harm" no longer means being placed in physical danger. The new definition of "harm" is “anything that makes me mildly uncomfortable – like criticism, debate, and/or "facts.” Secondly, the class of protected speech has been expanded, as well. Now it’s acceptable to defame, slander, and threaten violence against someone if they say something that falls under the new progressive definition of “harm.”

There’s a bit of a flinch reaction to this, because it sounds like something conservatives say. But unfortunately, in this case, they’re not exactly wrong. Progressivism in the 21st century has increasingly become a game of orthodoxy, ideological purity, and censorship. There’s no such thing as reasoned debate. If you criticize any popular progressive ideology, prepare to be called a racist, a fascist, and a bigot – even if the only thing you said was that a particular maxim doesn’t entirely make sense.

The takeaway from all this? No movement or ideology is immune to criticism, and for progressives to pretend that they’re somehow part of the only political movement that’s never done a single thing wrong is ridiculous. Political movements need critique. They need diverse voices, they need debate, and damn it, they need freedom of speech. As long as our current crop of progressives insists on labeling every person who offers even the slightest criticism a bigot and a fascist, the progressive movement will remain on the fringes. We’re on the fringes now. It’s not a nice place to be. And we’re not getting any closer to the center by doubling down on censorship.