Tone it down, senator. There is no fire in this theater.

I did two things when I heard Sen. Cynthia Lummis was floating the idea of tinkering with the Constitution, downgrading the free speech clause of the First Amendment to a murky halfway house of kinda-sorta constitutional rights. 

First, I checked the Wyoming State Bar to see whether she was licensed to practice law. 

Then I grieved.

In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and a poorly timed monologue by late night TV comedian Jimmy Kimmel, Sen. Lummis stated she no longer considered speech under the First Amendment a guarantee. 

Surely the senator, an attorney who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, one whose congressional ancestors crafted the language she now seeks to unwind, understands the implications of greenlighting limitations of speech. 

Kimmel’s Sept. 15^th monologue mocked President Trump, questioning the depth of Trump’s grief. It was terrible and cruel. It was also the exact type of language the First Amendment protects. That’s the point. We do not become uneasy with free speech until we are outraged.  

Under the First Amendment, we can be provocative, we can say uncomfortable things, we can create works of art that make us squirm and challenge our belief systems, we give voice to the vile and despicable, the lewd and profane. 

We can choose to look or ignore, not because the government restricted our access to such expression, but because our democracy gives us agency. We are free to look away. Better yet, we are free to debate, to dialogue with our opponents. Just like Charlie Kirk did.  

Yet, Lummis told Semafor, a digital news site, “Under normal times . . . I tend to think that the First Amendment should always be sort of the ultimate right. And that there should be almost no checks and balances on it. I don’t feel that way anymore. I feel like something’s changed culturally. And I think that there needs to be some cognizance that things have changed.”

Speak more to this, senator. Who gets to decide what are “normal times”?  Walk us through the criteria for re-routing the First Amendment simply to conform to this fevered moment? Justify your turnabout from 2023, when you introduced the “Free Speech Protection Act” under the Biden administration, which sought to expand the very thing you now want to limit. 

I do not buy the argument that this time is different. Agreed, political violence — the rapidity of which is alarming — is on the rise. Yet,  I remain unconvinced Lummis’ menacing statement was made for the good of the order, rather than for the supplicating promise of power or pandering to a grieving and skittish base. 

Historian David McCullough reminded us there has never been a simple time in our history. Each generation carries its burden of crisis and conflict, charlatans and heroes, and an ugly catalog of political violence.  

Over a third of the presidents in the 20th century experienced assassination attempts, two of them were killed, according to PolitiFact. In the first half of the 20th century, during the Jim Crow era, ordinary citizens, especially Black Americans, were regularly lynched. The 1960s and 1970s experienced a dramatic rise in political violence when President John F. Kennedy, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., and presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy and George Wallace were shot. President Trump himself has been the target of two assassination attempts.

Let’s not forget the violence of the Jan. 6^th attack on the Capitol where, as described in the Jan 6th report, Oath Keeper Leader Steward Rhodes amassed an arsenal of military-grade assault weapons, spent approximately $7,000 on two night-vision devices and a weapon sight, an additional $6,000 on an AR-style rifle, and firearms attachments. Yet, I recall no efforts to downgrade speech in response to those actions.   

There are strategies to consider before we dicker with our founding documents. Quit re-posting the hate. Block the nutjobs. Don’t take the bait. Lock the gun cabinet. Do we really need to iron fist this moment above which we may rise?  

Raising political candidates is like having children. Our state loves and nurtures them. We see the promise in them. We grow and support them and happily send them out to the big wide world to represent us. Once launched, we hope they become someone to which the rest of the country aspires so that we can boast “look what noble statesmen we produced, this visionary, one with a keen intellect who sees beyond the gloomy horizon. You’re welcome.” 

But we do not live in times of statesmanship, and Sen. Lummis is not that. 

May this unnormal time be different, may we place people in positions of power with a steady hand, those who learn from history, its missteps and mistakes.  

Lummis’ statements were a knee jerk response to a lightening charged environment, one which gave license to the idea we can restrict language just because we don’t like it.  Her comments were reactionary, irresponsible and dangerous. 

Kind of like crying “fire!” in a crowded theater.  

Susan Stubson serves on WyoFile’s board of directors. Neither she, nor any other member of the board, have the authority to direct or determine coverage.