I have already written about the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution, and that, contrary to common understanding or attempts by those who have always wanted to abuse it, it is not just about the freedom of speech, and even the part that is related to the freedom of speech, is not a blanket permit to disseminate lies and misinformation/disinformation. Here is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As we see, the amendment does not even start with the part on freedom of speech, but rather by prohibiting the congress from making any law that establishes an official religion for the country, or prohibits practicing any religion. This is most notable to those on the extreme right, from regular citizens to politicians and lawmakers, who without any sense of shame or discomfort, and openly through various propaganda media, claim that the United States is a country for Christians, and that symbols of Christianity such as the Ten Commandments should be displayed in the classrooms of public schools, or that bible studies should be part of the mandatory curriculum for public schools. And if anyone attempts to point out their hypocrisy, they quickly resort to the First Amendment, falsely claiming that it provides the permission for them to say or claim whatever they want.

Then comes the part on freedom of speech and assembly, which again prohibits the congress from making any law that limits the freedom of speech and the press, or the right of the people for peaceful assembly and to petition the Government for a complaint or remedy thereof. I have intentionally added emphasis in the form of italic fonts, to highlight the fact that the entire emphasized portion is under a single verb (in the text of the amendment, the portion starts with the verb “abridging,” and extends through the end of the amendment). In my understanding, the fact that the Framers have used this specific wording, placing all four items of “the freedom of speech”, “the freedom of the press”, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” and “the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of the grievances” under the same verb or preamble that “Congress shall make no law abridging,” has been intentional, and highlights the fact that they were considering these four rights to be interrelated.

In my opinion, the Framers were not worried about protecting the rights of the politicians or government officials so that they can misrepresent the facts or tell outright lies for their own political benefit whenever they wanted to, nor were they worried about protecting the rights of cheaters and grifters to misrepresent the facts for their own financial benefit. I find it hard to believe that the Framers thought that the ability and freedom to disseminate falsehoods for personal gain while endangering the lives of other individuals including private citizens or law enforcement officials or members of the judicial system, was necessary for the proper function of the system of governance that they were establishing.

What stands out from the text of the amendment to me is that the Framers were worried and concerned about the Government’s retaliation against people or the press who expose and criticize its wrongdoings, or it preventing people from peacefully assembling about the same. I don’t believe this to be a very narrow interpretation of the amendment, as it is a widely agreed upon fact that, similar to any other right, there are limitations to the freedom of speech. For example threatening another person’s life, even verbally, is not considered to be protected and legal. Similarly, openly criticizing your employer within their premises, even when fully justified, is not something that is protected by the First Amendment.

Bottom line, it is my understanding that all four items of “the freedom of speech”, “the freedom of the press”, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” and “the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of the grievances” were meant to protect citizens’ rights to expose and criticize wrongdoings by the Government without fear of retaliation, and not to provide a permission for dissemination of falsehoods.

But I digress. This post was not meant to be on the freedom of speech itself, but rather on who has more power to exercise this freedom. It is both unfortunate and interesting to see that those who are usually believed to be very powerful, through their wealth or control of large portions of some sectors of the economy, are indeed most vulnerable when it comes to exercising their freedom of speech. It is no secret that the CEOs of the largest tech companies such as Amazon, Google, and Meta did not, and most likely, still do not, view the incoming president very favorably, at least when it comes to his personality and admiration of the world’s worst autocrats, or potential aspiration to become one of them. So it is both sad and abhorrent to see them race to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring, make donations to his inaugural fund, or prepare to attend his inauguration. Granted, some tech companies or their CEOs have made donations to the inaugural funds of the previous presidents as well. But traveling to the residence of the incoming president for private meetings, or attending the inauguration, in my understanding, is something different and quite unusual. Add to that the close to $250 million donation to the incoming president’s campaign by Elon Musk, and the $40 million payment by Amazon CEO to the incoming president’s wife for the rights to produce her biography in motion picture, and you will probably agree with me that something seems out of place here.

Without being cynical, I would like to ask if anyone really believes that all these CEOs had a sudden change of heart and that all these donations and expressions of affection are sincere and only for the purpose of contributing to the success of the incoming administration. My own answer, call it cynical, is no. The only reason for these shameful acts and demonstrations of obedience is that they have to protect the interests of their shareholders, and that they have too much at stake, either in the form of government contracts or highly regulated products and services, where the incoming administration can handsomely influence their bottom line. Especially considering the promises made during the campaign speeches that the new administration is going to be one of “retribution,” and the fact that it is no secret how much the incoming president values and rewards “loyalty.”

So, you see, an obscure engineer like me can freely exercise their freedom of speech by discussing and criticizing former or current presidents without fear of retribution, as a retaliation against someone like me will undoubtedly involve explicit violations of laws and regulations, whereas the seemingly powerful individuals listed above, not only are not able to speak their minds but also have to make donations (and other payments which I don’t know what to call, such as the $40 million mentioned above by Amazon), because they have so much at stake. It may sound ridiculous, but still it feels good to at least once find oneself more powerful than the tech billionaires soon to turn into oligarchs.