October 1, 2025 • 22 mins
What happens to a free society when speech goes quiet? We open the Equalizer Series by tracing the moral, historical, and legal roots of free expression—from “Let there be light” to the First Amendment—and make the case that words don’t just describe reality; they create it. Evan lays out his worldview shaped by faith, family, service, technology, and firsthand political experience, then builds a clear framework of first principles to show why speech is the bedrock that upholds conscience, press, assembly, and petition.
We dig into Scripture’s view of language as creative and accountable, where the tongue holds the power of life and death, prophets speak under pressure, and Babel warns that words can unite or scatter nations. From there, we scan Greece’s isēgoria and parrhesia, Socrates’ fate, Rome’s eloquence and hierarchy, the Magna Carta’s checks on power, and Milton’s Areopagitica, arguing that truth thrives in open contest. By the Enlightenment, natural rights theory points straight to America’s design: a First Amendment that protects religion, then speech and press, then assembly and petition, each layer reinforcing the next.
Breaking down the amendment’s order reveals why the founders put speech at the heart of liberty’s architecture: without it, faith can’t be confessed, the press can’t investigate, people can’t gather, and grievances can’t be heard. We draw a firm line between state censorship—which must be resisted—and personal responsibility—which must be embraced. Speech is a right to defend and a duty to steward, the “oxygen of freedom” that keeps a nation honest, curious, and capable of change.
If this conversation gave you something to wrestle with, subscribe for more Equalizer deep dives and share this episode with someone who cares about faith, freedom, and first principles. Leave a review with your take: what speech would you defend even if you disagree?
Facebook & Instagram: @Theunmentionablespodcast
Twitter/X: @UnmentionablesX
YouTube: @TheUnmentionnablesPodcast
TikTok: @theunmentionablespodcast
Web: https://heart4change.org/heart-for-change-media
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Evan (01:16):
Welcome to the very first episode of the Equalizer Series,
part of the Unmentionablespodcast.
I'm your host, Evan, and thisis the series where I will take
time to break down big issues,sometimes controversial, but
always crucial for us to wrestlewith honestly.
Before we get to the main topicof this first episode, I want
to take some time to introducemyself and what you can expect
(01:36):
from me.
My name is Evan Quaich, and I'mhere to put truth back on the
scales in the Equalizer series.
I co-host a weekly podcast, TheUnmentionable, with my
incredible wife andaccountability partner, Melissa.
On that show, we would discussthings we've been told not to
talk about, with an emphasis onencouraging our listeners to
talk about trauma, mentalhealth, and to learn to be okay
with not being okay while alwaysstriving to be aware and to
(01:57):
recognize it in the peoplearound us.
I'm a former Marine who servedin the Middle East during the
Iraq War.
I've been part of nationallyfocused political campaigns,
helped build politicalmovements, founded a
history-based educationalnonprofit, and run for political
office myself.
I've served on school boards,and I'm a father of three and a
bonus dad to four more kids onthe spectrum.
(02:18):
Most of my work life has beenspent in technology, and so I
have an appreciation of thingslike AI, social media, and the
digital domain, both in terms ofpracticality and the pace of
change.
I've seen success and I've seenfailure.
I've made mistakes and I'vetasted victory.
Like most people, I'm stilllearning when to hold them and
when to fold them.
I've been dealt a lot of hands,and I know how to get up when I
(02:39):
get knocked down or trip overmy own feet.
I know what it feels like tofeel like the weight of the
world is on your shoulders, andI know the feeling of the wind
in your hair.
In other words, I'm really notthat much different from most of
you out there.
I just have a microphone andopinions to share.
My personal worldview isprobably best summed up by lines
from a couple of country songs.
God is great, beer is good,people are crazy.
And I'm a little crazy, but theworld is insane.
(03:01):
I do my best to live with thefollowing concepts in mind.
God is real.
Jesus died for our sins.
It's best to lead with lovealways, but also speak truth
without fear.
What's this show about?
On this show, I focus on faith,family, freedom, and first
principle.
I know the common narrative isthat there should be a
separation between faith andpublic policy.
(03:23):
Somehow because ourconstitution protects us from a
state religion, we must separateour morality and beliefs from
all government and policy.
I personally disagree with thisassessment.
I don't think politics andreligion can be separated.
I think they're inextricablylinked because we should be
advocating for the things thatglorify God and merge with our
principles.
The truth is, if you assess theprinciples of every faith,
(03:44):
almost without fail, the basicprinciples generally align.
Fundamentalists and extremistswill always venture outside of
these shared principles and theapplications across faiths won't
always be the same, but thoseare really the extremes.
And the answers are almostnever in those margins.
I believe the Bible is truthand that its wisdom is timeless.
I often point to the key tenetsof Christian faith and I ask
(04:05):
where any other faith trulydiffers.
Even if we really don't believethe exact same thing, if we
live our basic lives by biblicalprinciples daily, does it harm
us?
To do good to one another, toact out of love and with respect
and decency, to put othersfirst while ensuring our own
safety and stability?
Does that harm any of us?
I don't think so.
I elevate the family as thecentral unit.
(04:26):
Each of us has a personalrelationship with God and the
Christian faith, and next toGod, the family is the next most
important thing.
The Bible describes faith andthe dynamic of the family.
God the Father, Jesus the Son,the church as the bride, the
congregants as God's children,non-believers as lost children.
And I believe that our childrenare a blessing, even though
they drive me batshit crazy attimes.
I also believe that being aparent is the most demanding and
(04:49):
rewarding job on the planet.
If you have the blessing to bea parent, crazy not to do
everything you can to live forthem.
Also, we're not meant to dolife alone.
We need a partner in our lives,especially when there's kids
involved.
I believe very strongly in theNuclear Family, and I encourage
people to live life young, finda partner, marry them, have
kids, and raise them together.
I've been through divorce as achild and as an adult.
I know what it feels like onboth sides, and I know the
(05:10):
challenges it creates.
But I don't judge people whodon't follow this blueprint.
Life happens.
But we do well by ourselves andothers to try to look at this
blueprint as an avenue to life.
Freedom to me is old schoolliberty.
I always lean toward the sideof a topic that gives the most
freedom to individuals.
I'm skeptical of government,but acknowledge its necessity at
some level.
I deeply believe thatfederalism, as described in the
Declaration of Independence inthe Constitution, is the source
(05:33):
of more positive growth in humanhistory than any other system.
Speaking of the Constitution,it is, in my opinion, with the
Bill of Rights, the greatestpolitical document and
government charter in thehistory of the world.
I believe that free marketcapitalism is the most fair and
equitable economic system everdevised because it gives the
individual the most power tocontrol how the market works.
I also believe the currentsystem of state crony capitalism
(05:53):
has eroded the effectiveness ofthe free market too much, and
we should reverse much of theoverreach that's happened in the
last hundred years.
Individual rights are the bestbarometer to morality and
fairness as related togovernment systems and good
government.
Strong economies require moraland engaged citizens.
Ordered liberty is important.
There's got to be some law, asSam Elliott said in Tombstone as
Virgil ERP.
(06:14):
But that law should be in placeat the level closest to the
people and only where it'sabsolutely necessary.
Where cultures have sharedagreement on principles, those
rights should be enshrined andprovided equally to all.
I was raised to understand thatthere are simple, basic
foundational truths that createfundamental building blocks upon
which more complex ideas areconstructed.
I call these first principles.
Here's a few examples.
(06:34):
We talk about government firstprinciples.
Order is necessary forsurvival.
Power must be legitimized, itmust come from the consent of
the government.
Freedom and control exist intension.
Every government balances thatindividual liberty versus the
collective security order.
Justice requires rules, laws,and norms are necessary.
Governments exist to serveshared human needs.
(06:56):
On economics, resources arescarce.
There's always going to be morewants than means to satisfy
them.
Humans act with incentives.
Choices are driven by costs,benefits, and trade-offs,
whether rational or not.
Value is subjective.
Goods and services have noabsolute value.
Worth depends on whatindividuals are willing to give
up in exchange.
Exchange creates wealth.
Voluntary trade allowsspecialization, comparative
(07:18):
advantage, and a greater overallprosperity.
All systems must allocateresources.
Societies have to decide whogets what, how, and why.
And what gauges a society'smorality makes it better than
others is how they make thosedecisions, in my opinion.
On science, the universe isknowable.
Knowledge comes fromobservation.
(07:39):
Explanation must be testable.
Hypotheses have to befalsifiable and subject to
experimentation.
Doubt is essential.
Skepticism, repeatability,willingness to discard ideas
when evidence contradicts themisn't is critical.
And models approximate reality,they don't define it.
Science builds theories andthey simplify and describe
reality, but they are alwaysprovisional and they're open to
(08:01):
refinement.
Sometimes you have to changeyour opinion because the facts
no longer support it.
I also don't immediately acceptthe narratives that I'm
provided, nor would I ask you toaccept the narratives I provide
to you.
Do your own homework.
Be curious and question boldly.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote,Question boldly even the
existence of God, because ifthere be one, you must more
approve the homage of reasonthan that of blindholded fear.
(08:24):
The pursuit of truth can onlybe found in skepticism, and if
belief survives scrutiny, it'ssturdier than unquestioned
dogma.
I believe that God wants us toknow him, and in order to know
him, you have to be curious andseek answers.
Those answers may beself-evident, like the idea that
all men are created equal andendowed by our creator with
certain unalienable rights, andsome will be less obvious,
(08:45):
requiring introspection orexternal truth seeking.
Which means you have to askquestions.
Why is one of the mostbeautiful words in the English
language, and we should use itmore often.
This is why I'm drawn to thescientific method and problem
solving in general.
It's important that we seektruth, and that's why I'm here.
Well, today we're gonna talkabout speech.
Not just words, but why speechis powerful, why it matters to
(09:06):
God, how societies have tried toprotect or suppress it, and why
the founders put it first inthe Bill of Rights.
Here's the question I want youto keep in the back of your
minds for today's episode.
If speech is silenced, whatelse do we lose?
Let's start where all speechbegins, with God.
In Genesis 1 3, creation beginswith speech.
God says, Let there be light,and light explodes into
(09:26):
existence.
Words create.
In Genesis, the process ofGod's creation is detailed, and
at every step God said orcalled, and in that act the
universe came to life.
Even man was created throughGod's speech, and as man was
created in God's image, we toohave the power to create with
our words.
Proverbs 1821 says, Death andlife are in the power of the
tongue.
Speech is never neutral.
(09:46):
It can heal or it can destroy.
And just as God gave us thepower to create, he also gave us
the power to destroy and totear down.
James reminded us that thetongue is small but mighty.
Matthew takes it further, everycareless word will be judged,
he says in 12, 36, 37.
That's how much weight wordscarry in heaven.
And it's time to ask ourselvesif the next words we utter are
going to be judged well inheaven.
And then there's the Tower ofBabel.
(10:08):
Humanity had one language, onespeech, and it united them, but
in pride against God.
So God confused their speech,scattered them, and showed us
that words can unify or dividenations.
We see this daily from ourpolitical leaders who far too
often choose the dividing wordsover the uniting ones.
The prophets couldn't staysilent even when it cost them
everything.
Jeremiah says God's wordsburned in his heart.
(10:28):
In Acts, Peter and Johnproclaim we cannot but speak the
things that we have seen andheard.
It's a powerful force, speech.
And freedom itself, realfreedom, is tied to speech.
Paul says in 2 Corinthians,where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom.
Galatians tells us to standfirm in that freedom.
So biblically, speech is adivine gift, but it comes with
moral responsibility to tell thetruth, to glorify God, and to
(10:51):
build others up.
Have you noticed the Biblenever treats speech as optional?
It's always powerful, alwaysaccountable.
Now let's step out of scriptureand look at history.
Greece is recognized to havehad the first democracy in the
world, and Socrates is a keyfigure at that time.
He questioned authority,traditions, and the very
foundations of Atheniandemocracy.
His charge at his trial,corrupting the youth and
(11:12):
impiety.
Far less about a specific crimeand more about the perceived
destabilization of social orderthrough speech.
That's the problem with speech,is it can be construed and
taken in many different ways,and if it's not protected, it
can be used against you very,very easily.
There was a tension there,individual inquiry versus
collective conformity.
Even in a democracy, too muchfree questioning could be seen
(11:34):
as a threat to stability inthose times.
The Greeks had the idea ofIsigoria, equal right of speech
in the assembly, and this meantthat every citizen, well, as
long as you were an adult male,not enslaved, not a woman, not a
foreigner, had a chance tospeak, so equality was bound by
status.
And they understood Parisia,bold, frank speech, valued but
(11:54):
dangerous.
It allowed truth telling andcritique of leaders, yet it
carried risk, and Socrates' fateshowed that it wasn't always
protected.
So do we take away from Greece?
Early democracy promoted speechas central, but it was both
empowering and perilous.
Speech rights existed, buttheir boundaries were socially
policed.
Moving ahead in time to Rome,Cicero connected libertas or
(12:15):
freedom to speech.
For Romans, freedom meant notliving under tyranny, and one
proved and defended liberty byspeaking well in public life.
Of course, only elites had thisprivilege.
Speech was tied to status,citizenship, and rhetorical
skill, much as it had been inGreece.
Commoners had very limitedavenues to engage.
Roman free speech was bound topolitical fractionalism.
(12:35):
Speak against the wrong powerand you rest exile or death.
Cicero learned that message.
Speech was celebrated asessential to liberty, but
liberty itself was stratified.
It was hierarchical rather thanuniversal.
Jumping ahead in time again to1215, we have the Magna Carta.
Not as much about free speech,per se, but it was about
limiting the king's authority.
And that was important becauseit planted seeds of
(12:57):
constitutionalism, it plantedseeds of checks and balances
with authority, and it shiftedpower from the crown to nobles.
But of course, the idea ofconstraining rulers opened the
door to later debates aboutliberty.
It created an avenue forindividual liberty to be
recognized.
Moving ahead again, we haveMilton's Aropogetica, who was
written against censorship ofthe press in England.
(13:19):
And he argued, truth emergesthrough contest.
So let her and falsehoodgrapple.
Whoever knew truth put to theworst in a free and open
encounter?
Very simply, let truth andfalsehood debate.
And almost never you're goingto find out that truth wins.
In fact, never.
Truth always wins.
He placed freedom of expressionat the heart of intellectual
(13:41):
and moral progress.
Still not absolute, Miltonaccepted limits on blasphemy and
libel and sedition, but a hugestep toward freedom of speech
and freedom of expression.
By this period, freedom ofexpression was shifting from the
privilege of elites to aprinciple of political
legitimacy, but it wasconstantly negotiated against
authorities' need for order.
(14:01):
So in early history, we have anarc of freedom of speech as a
civic participation, veryfragile.
Moving forward, it became tiedto status and rhetorical power.
By the Middle Ages, we startedto see some checks and balances
on power, more freedom ofspeech, and in the early modern
era, speech was defended asessential for truth seeking,
(14:22):
still carried some conditions.
So this shows how speechevolved from a civic tool to a
status marker to a check onpower to further a moral
necessity for truth.
By the Enlightenment, JohnLocke had tied freedom of
thought and expression tonatural rights.
Voltaire, whether he actuallysaid it or not, was linked with
the famous idea, I disapprove ofwhat you say, but I will defend
(14:42):
to the death your right to sayit.
Then in America's founding era,these threads come together.
The First Amendment wasn'twritten in a vacuum.
It's the First Amendment.
It was born out of persecution,censorship, and a recognition
that liberty lives or dies bywhat we can say.
Let's break down the FirstAmendment because its structure
is brilliant.
Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of
(15:03):
religion, or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof, or
abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press, or the right
of the people to peaceablyassemble and to petition the
government for a redress ofgrievances.
Notice the order here.
Religion, then speech, thenpress, then assembly, then
petition.
Religion comes first.
Free will central to faith.
The government has no right toforce allegiance to a state
(15:25):
church, nor does it have theright to suppress churches that
don't align in state values.
Speech in the press followbecause faith and conscience
can't be protected unless youcan declare and defend them.
In the 1700s, press reallymeant pamphlets, books,
newspapers, even Bible.
It was strongly related to thephysical printing press, the
means by which words made it topaper.
Now, of course, we have digitalpress.
(15:46):
Same concept, same idea.
The right of the peoplepeaceably to assemble.
The peaceably part is extremelyimportant for those of you who
are out in Portland, otherplaces.
That protects the right toworship together and to protest.
See, the British tried tried tocontrol both.
A crucial component ofreligious freedom is the ability
to worship.
The British government hadrestricted the right of
(16:06):
congregations to meet unlessapproved by them.
Keep in mind that mostmeetings, quote unquote meetings
of that time, occurred in thecontext of a congregational
church setting.
In other words, you would go tochurch and you would get some
God and you get some politics.
You get some, you know, socialtime.
So in this clause, the foundersprotected the right to meet for
(16:27):
worship and for the right toprotest.
Petition, that right's inthere.
Why is that there?
Well, that mirrors what GodHimself allows.
God asks his people to bringgrievances before him through
prayer.
And if we can appeal to God,surely we must be able to appeal
to human governments.
Moses, Aaron, Nathan, QueenEsther, Daniel, Paul, many
others are documented biblicallyto call out to government
(16:48):
leaders to seek justice andresolve grievances even at God's
command.
God wanted them to seek redresswith the other humans before he
would act on their behalf.
Here's the key.
Free speech means thegovernment cannot censor you.
It doesn't mean you're freefrom consequences.
See, remember, Jesus told usevery careless word will be
judged.
But the government doesn't havethe right to silence you.
(17:09):
That's what the First Amendmentis telling you.
And that's the important parthere.
That's why this amendment isthe bedrock.
If speech goes, religion,assembly, petition, all of it
goes with it.
Let's tie it all together.
In the Bible, we learn thatspeech is divine, powerful,
accountable, it creates anddestroys, unites and divides.
In history, we see speech iscivic.
It's necessary for truth andfor democracy to flourish.
(17:31):
In law, we see speech asfundamental, it's the first
protection of our liberties.
Speech is not just a right,it's a stewardship.
Much as God gave us the planetas stewards, to look over it, to
care for it, to treat it well,to use it for maintaining us,
but also to care for it.
Through speech, God creates andcommunicates.
Through God's word, we knowthat we are created in his
(17:53):
image, and that gives our wordsthe power to create and destroy.
And the founders, influenced byboth faith and philosophy, knew
that well.
So here's where we land.
Speech is the oxygen offreedom.
Without it, nothing else cansurvive.
And yet, speech is not justabout what we can say, it's
about what we should say.
Voltaire supposedly said atbest, I disapprove of what you
(18:13):
say, but I will defend to yourto the death your right to say
it.
Or biblical terms, by yourwords you will be justified, and
by your words you will becondemned.
Next time we're going to lookat modern threats to free
speech, campus protests, cancelculture, YouTube's free
censorship under governmentpressure.
And yeah, we'll even talk aboutlate night television, Jimmy
Kimmel, and all of that.
(18:34):
So stay tuned for that.
Until then, remember this if welose our speech, we lose our
freedom.
Use it wisely, use it boldly,and never let it be taken away.
Before you go, let me leave youwith this.
If today's episode gave yousomething to think about,
there's more where that camefrom.
Subscribers get access toexclusive content like with the
equalizer series, Deep Dives youjust heard, plus other behind
(18:55):
the scenes conversations wecan't always put in the public
feed.
It's our way of giving you moresubstance, more context, and
more truth without compromise.
So hit that subscribe button,join the community, and make
sure you don't miss what's next.
Because here on the equalizer,truth isn't optional, it's
essential.
Welcome to the very first episode of the Equalizer Series,
part of the Unmentionablespodcast.
I'm your host, Evan, and thisis the series where I will take
time to break down big issues,sometimes controversial, but
always crucial for us to wrestlewith honestly.
Before we get to the main topicof this first episode, I want
to take some time to introducemyself and what you can expect
(01:36):
from me.
My name is Evan Quaich, and I'mhere to put truth back on the
scales in the Equalizer series.
I co-host a weekly podcast, TheUnmentionable, with my
incredible wife andaccountability partner, Melissa.
On that show, we would discussthings we've been told not to
talk about, with an emphasis onencouraging our listeners to
talk about trauma, mentalhealth, and to learn to be okay
with not being okay while alwaysstriving to be aware and to
(01:57):
recognize it in the peoplearound us.
I'm a former Marine who servedin the Middle East during the
Iraq War.
I've been part of nationallyfocused political campaigns,
helped build politicalmovements, founded a
history-based educationalnonprofit, and run for political
office myself.
I've served on school boards,and I'm a father of three and a
bonus dad to four more kids onthe spectrum.
(02:18):
Most of my work life has beenspent in technology, and so I
have an appreciation of thingslike AI, social media, and the
digital domain, both in terms ofpracticality and the pace of
change.
I've seen success and I've seenfailure.
I've made mistakes and I'vetasted victory.
Like most people, I'm stilllearning when to hold them and
when to fold them.
I've been dealt a lot of hands,and I know how to get up when I
(02:39):
get knocked down or trip overmy own feet.
I know what it feels like tofeel like the weight of the
world is on your shoulders, andI know the feeling of the wind
in your hair.
In other words, I'm really notthat much different from most of
you out there.
I just have a microphone andopinions to share.
My personal worldview isprobably best summed up by lines
from a couple of country songs.
God is great, beer is good,people are crazy.
And I'm a little crazy, but theworld is insane.
(03:01):
I do my best to live with thefollowing concepts in mind.
God is real.
Jesus died for our sins.
It's best to lead with lovealways, but also speak truth
without fear.
What's this show about?
On this show, I focus on faith,family, freedom, and first
principle.
I know the common narrative isthat there should be a
separation between faith andpublic policy.
(03:23):
Somehow because ourconstitution protects us from a
state religion, we must separateour morality and beliefs from
all government and policy.
I personally disagree with thisassessment.
I don't think politics andreligion can be separated.
I think they're inextricablylinked because we should be
advocating for the things thatglorify God and merge with our
principles.
The truth is, if you assess theprinciples of every faith,
(03:44):
almost without fail, the basicprinciples generally align.
Fundamentalists and extremistswill always venture outside of
these shared principles and theapplications across faiths won't
always be the same, but thoseare really the extremes.
And the answers are almostnever in those margins.
I believe the Bible is truthand that its wisdom is timeless.
I often point to the key tenetsof Christian faith and I ask
(04:05):
where any other faith trulydiffers.
Even if we really don't believethe exact same thing, if we
live our basic lives by biblicalprinciples daily, does it harm
us?
To do good to one another, toact out of love and with respect
and decency, to put othersfirst while ensuring our own
safety and stability?
Does that harm any of us?
I don't think so.
I elevate the family as thecentral unit.
(04:26):
Each of us has a personalrelationship with God and the
Christian faith, and next toGod, the family is the next most
important thing.
The Bible describes faith andthe dynamic of the family.
God the Father, Jesus the Son,the church as the bride, the
congregants as God's children,non-believers as lost children.
And I believe that our childrenare a blessing, even though
they drive me batshit crazy attimes.
I also believe that being aparent is the most demanding and
(04:49):
rewarding job on the planet.
If you have the blessing to bea parent, crazy not to do
everything you can to live forthem.
Also, we're not meant to dolife alone.
We need a partner in our lives,especially when there's kids
involved.
I believe very strongly in theNuclear Family, and I encourage
people to live life young, finda partner, marry them, have
kids, and raise them together.
I've been through divorce as achild and as an adult.
I know what it feels like onboth sides, and I know the
(05:10):
challenges it creates.
But I don't judge people whodon't follow this blueprint.
Life happens.
But we do well by ourselves andothers to try to look at this
blueprint as an avenue to life.
Freedom to me is old schoolliberty.
I always lean toward the sideof a topic that gives the most
freedom to individuals.
I'm skeptical of government,but acknowledge its necessity at
some level.
I deeply believe thatfederalism, as described in the
Declaration of Independence inthe Constitution, is the source
(05:33):
of more positive growth in humanhistory than any other system.
Speaking of the Constitution,it is, in my opinion, with the
Bill of Rights, the greatestpolitical document and
government charter in thehistory of the world.
I believe that free marketcapitalism is the most fair and
equitable economic system everdevised because it gives the
individual the most power tocontrol how the market works.
I also believe the currentsystem of state crony capitalism
(05:53):
has eroded the effectiveness ofthe free market too much, and
we should reverse much of theoverreach that's happened in the
last hundred years.
Individual rights are the bestbarometer to morality and
fairness as related togovernment systems and good
government.
Strong economies require moraland engaged citizens.
Ordered liberty is important.
There's got to be some law, asSam Elliott said in Tombstone as
Virgil ERP.
(06:14):
But that law should be in placeat the level closest to the
people and only where it'sabsolutely necessary.
Where cultures have sharedagreement on principles, those
rights should be enshrined andprovided equally to all.
I was raised to understand thatthere are simple, basic
foundational truths that createfundamental building blocks upon
which more complex ideas areconstructed.
I call these first principles.
Here's a few examples.
(06:34):
We talk about government firstprinciples.
Order is necessary forsurvival.
Power must be legitimized, itmust come from the consent of
the government.
Freedom and control exist intension.
Every government balances thatindividual liberty versus the
collective security order.
Justice requires rules, laws,and norms are necessary.
Governments exist to serveshared human needs.
(06:56):
On economics, resources arescarce.
There's always going to be morewants than means to satisfy
them.
Humans act with incentives.
Choices are driven by costs,benefits, and trade-offs,
whether rational or not.
Value is subjective.
Goods and services have noabsolute value.
Worth depends on whatindividuals are willing to give
up in exchange.
Exchange creates wealth.
Voluntary trade allowsspecialization, comparative
(07:18):
advantage, and a greater overallprosperity.
All systems must allocateresources.
Societies have to decide whogets what, how, and why.
And what gauges a society'smorality makes it better than
others is how they make thosedecisions, in my opinion.
On science, the universe isknowable.
Knowledge comes fromobservation.
(07:39):
Explanation must be testable.
Hypotheses have to befalsifiable and subject to
experimentation.
Doubt is essential.
Skepticism, repeatability,willingness to discard ideas
when evidence contradicts themisn't is critical.
And models approximate reality,they don't define it.
Science builds theories andthey simplify and describe
reality, but they are alwaysprovisional and they're open to
(08:01):
refinement.
Sometimes you have to changeyour opinion because the facts
no longer support it.
I also don't immediately acceptthe narratives that I'm
provided, nor would I ask you toaccept the narratives I provide
to you.
Do your own homework.
Be curious and question boldly.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote,Question boldly even the
existence of God, because ifthere be one, you must more
approve the homage of reasonthan that of blindholded fear.
(08:24):
The pursuit of truth can onlybe found in skepticism, and if
belief survives scrutiny, it'ssturdier than unquestioned
dogma.
I believe that God wants us toknow him, and in order to know
him, you have to be curious andseek answers.
Those answers may beself-evident, like the idea that
all men are created equal andendowed by our creator with
certain unalienable rights, andsome will be less obvious,
(08:45):
requiring introspection orexternal truth seeking.
Which means you have to askquestions.
Why is one of the mostbeautiful words in the English
language, and we should use itmore often.
This is why I'm drawn to thescientific method and problem
solving in general.
It's important that we seektruth, and that's why I'm here.
Well, today we're gonna talkabout speech.
Not just words, but why speechis powerful, why it matters to
(09:06):
God, how societies have tried toprotect or suppress it, and why
the founders put it first inthe Bill of Rights.
Here's the question I want youto keep in the back of your
minds for today's episode.
If speech is silenced, whatelse do we lose?
Let's start where all speechbegins, with God.
In Genesis 1 3, creation beginswith speech.
God says, Let there be light,and light explodes into
(09:26):
existence.
Words create.
In Genesis, the process ofGod's creation is detailed, and
at every step God said orcalled, and in that act the
universe came to life.
Even man was created throughGod's speech, and as man was
created in God's image, we toohave the power to create with
our words.
Proverbs 1821 says, Death andlife are in the power of the
tongue.
Speech is never neutral.
(09:46):
It can heal or it can destroy.
And just as God gave us thepower to create, he also gave us
the power to destroy and totear down.
James reminded us that thetongue is small but mighty.
Matthew takes it further, everycareless word will be judged,
he says in 12, 36, 37.
That's how much weight wordscarry in heaven.
And it's time to ask ourselvesif the next words we utter are
going to be judged well inheaven.
And then there's the Tower ofBabel.
(10:08):
Humanity had one language, onespeech, and it united them, but
in pride against God.
So God confused their speech,scattered them, and showed us
that words can unify or dividenations.
We see this daily from ourpolitical leaders who far too
often choose the dividing wordsover the uniting ones.
The prophets couldn't staysilent even when it cost them
everything.
Jeremiah says God's wordsburned in his heart.
(10:28):
In Acts, Peter and Johnproclaim we cannot but speak the
things that we have seen andheard.
It's a powerful force, speech.
And freedom itself, realfreedom, is tied to speech.
Paul says in 2 Corinthians,where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom.
Galatians tells us to standfirm in that freedom.
So biblically, speech is adivine gift, but it comes with
moral responsibility to tell thetruth, to glorify God, and to
(10:51):
build others up.
Have you noticed the Biblenever treats speech as optional?
It's always powerful, alwaysaccountable.
Now let's step out of scriptureand look at history.
Greece is recognized to havehad the first democracy in the
world, and Socrates is a keyfigure at that time.
He questioned authority,traditions, and the very
foundations of Atheniandemocracy.
His charge at his trial,corrupting the youth and
(11:12):
impiety.
Far less about a specific crimeand more about the perceived
destabilization of social orderthrough speech.
That's the problem with speech,is it can be construed and
taken in many different ways,and if it's not protected, it
can be used against you very,very easily.
There was a tension there,individual inquiry versus
collective conformity.
Even in a democracy, too muchfree questioning could be seen
(11:34):
as a threat to stability inthose times.
The Greeks had the idea ofIsigoria, equal right of speech
in the assembly, and this meantthat every citizen, well, as
long as you were an adult male,not enslaved, not a woman, not a
foreigner, had a chance tospeak, so equality was bound by
status.
And they understood Parisia,bold, frank speech, valued but
(11:54):
dangerous.
It allowed truth telling andcritique of leaders, yet it
carried risk, and Socrates' fateshowed that it wasn't always
protected.
So do we take away from Greece?
Early democracy promoted speechas central, but it was both
empowering and perilous.
Speech rights existed, buttheir boundaries were socially
policed.
Moving ahead in time to Rome,Cicero connected libertas or
(12:15):
freedom to speech.
For Romans, freedom meant notliving under tyranny, and one
proved and defended liberty byspeaking well in public life.
Of course, only elites had thisprivilege.
Speech was tied to status,citizenship, and rhetorical
skill, much as it had been inGreece.
Commoners had very limitedavenues to engage.
Roman free speech was bound topolitical fractionalism.
(12:35):
Speak against the wrong powerand you rest exile or death.
Cicero learned that message.
Speech was celebrated asessential to liberty, but
liberty itself was stratified.
It was hierarchical rather thanuniversal.
Jumping ahead in time again to1215, we have the Magna Carta.
Not as much about free speech,per se, but it was about
limiting the king's authority.
And that was important becauseit planted seeds of
(12:57):
constitutionalism, it plantedseeds of checks and balances
with authority, and it shiftedpower from the crown to nobles.
But of course, the idea ofconstraining rulers opened the
door to later debates aboutliberty.
It created an avenue forindividual liberty to be
recognized.
Moving ahead again, we haveMilton's Aropogetica, who was
written against censorship ofthe press in England.
(13:19):
And he argued, truth emergesthrough contest.
So let her and falsehoodgrapple.
Whoever knew truth put to theworst in a free and open
encounter?
Very simply, let truth andfalsehood debate.
And almost never you're goingto find out that truth wins.
In fact, never.
Truth always wins.
He placed freedom of expressionat the heart of intellectual
(13:41):
and moral progress.
Still not absolute, Miltonaccepted limits on blasphemy and
libel and sedition, but a hugestep toward freedom of speech
and freedom of expression.
By this period, freedom ofexpression was shifting from the
privilege of elites to aprinciple of political
legitimacy, but it wasconstantly negotiated against
authorities' need for order.
(14:01):
So in early history, we have anarc of freedom of speech as a
civic participation, veryfragile.
Moving forward, it became tiedto status and rhetorical power.
By the Middle Ages, we startedto see some checks and balances
on power, more freedom ofspeech, and in the early modern
era, speech was defended asessential for truth seeking,
(14:22):
still carried some conditions.
So this shows how speechevolved from a civic tool to a
status marker to a check onpower to further a moral
necessity for truth.
By the Enlightenment, JohnLocke had tied freedom of
thought and expression tonatural rights.
Voltaire, whether he actuallysaid it or not, was linked with
the famous idea, I disapprove ofwhat you say, but I will defend
(14:42):
to the death your right to sayit.
Then in America's founding era,these threads come together.
The First Amendment wasn'twritten in a vacuum.
It's the First Amendment.
It was born out of persecution,censorship, and a recognition
that liberty lives or dies bywhat we can say.
Let's break down the FirstAmendment because its structure
is brilliant.
Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of
(15:03):
religion, or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof, or
abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press, or the right
of the people to peaceablyassemble and to petition the
government for a redress ofgrievances.
Notice the order here.
Religion, then speech, thenpress, then assembly, then
petition.
Religion comes first.
Free will central to faith.
The government has no right toforce allegiance to a state
(15:25):
church, nor does it have theright to suppress churches that
don't align in state values.
Speech in the press followbecause faith and conscience
can't be protected unless youcan declare and defend them.
In the 1700s, press reallymeant pamphlets, books,
newspapers, even Bible.
It was strongly related to thephysical printing press, the
means by which words made it topaper.
Now, of course, we have digitalpress.
(15:46):
Same concept, same idea.
The right of the peoplepeaceably to assemble.
The peaceably part is extremelyimportant for those of you who
are out in Portland, otherplaces.
That protects the right toworship together and to protest.
See, the British tried tried tocontrol both.
A crucial component ofreligious freedom is the ability
to worship.
The British government hadrestricted the right of
(16:06):
congregations to meet unlessapproved by them.
Keep in mind that mostmeetings, quote unquote meetings
of that time, occurred in thecontext of a congregational
church setting.
In other words, you would go tochurch and you would get some
God and you get some politics.
You get some, you know, socialtime.
So in this clause, the foundersprotected the right to meet for
(16:27):
worship and for the right toprotest.
Petition, that right's inthere.
Why is that there?
Well, that mirrors what GodHimself allows.
God asks his people to bringgrievances before him through
prayer.
And if we can appeal to God,surely we must be able to appeal
to human governments.
Moses, Aaron, Nathan, QueenEsther, Daniel, Paul, many
others are documented biblicallyto call out to government
(16:48):
leaders to seek justice andresolve grievances even at God's
command.
God wanted them to seek redresswith the other humans before he
would act on their behalf.
Here's the key.
Free speech means thegovernment cannot censor you.
It doesn't mean you're freefrom consequences.
See, remember, Jesus told usevery careless word will be
judged.
But the government doesn't havethe right to silence you.
(17:09):
That's what the First Amendmentis telling you.
And that's the important parthere.
That's why this amendment isthe bedrock.
If speech goes, religion,assembly, petition, all of it
goes with it.
Let's tie it all together.
In the Bible, we learn thatspeech is divine, powerful,
accountable, it creates anddestroys, unites and divides.
In history, we see speech iscivic.
It's necessary for truth andfor democracy to flourish.
(17:31):
In law, we see speech asfundamental, it's the first
protection of our liberties.
Speech is not just a right,it's a stewardship.
Much as God gave us the planetas stewards, to look over it, to
care for it, to treat it well,to use it for maintaining us,
but also to care for it.
Through speech, God creates andcommunicates.
Through God's word, we knowthat we are created in his
(17:53):
image, and that gives our wordsthe power to create and destroy.
And the founders, influenced byboth faith and philosophy, knew
that well.
So here's where we land.
Speech is the oxygen offreedom.
Without it, nothing else cansurvive.
And yet, speech is not justabout what we can say, it's
about what we should say.
Voltaire supposedly said atbest, I disapprove of what you
(18:13):
say, but I will defend to yourto the death your right to say
it.
Or biblical terms, by yourwords you will be justified, and
by your words you will becondemned.
Next time we're going to lookat modern threats to free
speech, campus protests, cancelculture, YouTube's free
censorship under governmentpressure.
And yeah, we'll even talk aboutlate night television, Jimmy
Kimmel, and all of that.
(18:34):
So stay tuned for that.
Until then, remember this if welose our speech, we lose our
freedom.
Use it wisely, use it boldly,and never let it be taken away.
Before you go, let me leave youwith this.
If today's episode gave yousomething to think about,
there's more where that camefrom.
Subscribers get access toexclusive content like with the
equalizer series, Deep Dives youjust heard, plus other behind
(18:55):
the scenes conversations wecan't always put in the public
feed.
It's our way of giving you moresubstance, more context, and
more truth without compromise.
So hit that subscribe button,join the community, and make
sure you don't miss what's next.
Because here on the equalizer,truth isn't optional, it's
essential.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Male Room with Dr. Jesse Mills
As Director of The Men’s Clinic at UCLA, Dr. Jesse Mills has spent his career helping men understand their bodies, their hormones, and their health. Now he’s bringing that expertise to The Male Room — a podcast where data-driven medicine meets common sense. Each episode separates fact from hype, science from snake oil, and gives men the tools to live longer, stronger, and happier lives. With candor, humor, and real-world experience from the exam room and the operating room, Dr. Mills breaks down the latest health headlines, dissects trends, and explains what actually works — and what doesn’t. Smart, straightforward, and entertaining, The Male Room is the show that helps men take charge of their health without the jargon.