Chilling Effect on Free Speech

[DISCLAIMER]

I imagine that the one or two people who infrequently peruse my blog for psychoeducational lessons on my approach to Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) may be surprised to occasionally encounter content related to 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.

Why would a psychotherapist and life coach concern himself with such matters? Besides, isn’t the role of one who provides professional care for mental, emotional, and behavioral health (collectively “mental health”) better suited for telling people things that make them feel better?

Who wants to visit a mental health blog and learn about the myriad ways in which the United States (U.S.) government directly infringes free speech (e.g., the U.S. President Donald Trump’s unconstitutional measures to combat so-called anti-Semitism)? Who feels better about that?

From the same blog, who desires to read about the innumerable examples regarding how the U.S. government indirectly infringes free expression (e.g., the U.S. government unconstitutionally partnering with other Five Eyes intelligence allies)? Who feels better in this case?

Given my approach to REBT, I’m less interested in helping people to feel better than I concern myself with trying to help people actually get better. As such, I mostly address real-world rather than ideal-world events within my blog. I do this for a reason, listed at the end of this blogpost.

In any event, one topic which I often addressed during Joe Biden’s presidential term was so-called hate speech. About this matter, one source states:

Hate speech is a term with varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition. Cambridge Dictionary defines hate speech as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation”.

The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that hate speech is “usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation”.

Hate speech can include incitement based on social class or political beliefs. There is no single definition of what constitutes “hate” or “disparagement”. Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.

The vagueness of so-called hate speech policies, mandates, laws, or otherwise allows the government, government-adjacent, non-government organizations, and others to therefore engage in oppression (unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power). I oppose oppression.

When addressing topics such as “hate speech,” free speech, and other matters of free expression within my blog, I invite people to consider whether or not the thoughts and beliefs which they use are rational (in accordance with both logic and reason).

Logic is the interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable, and reason is a statement offered in explanation or justification. For instance, a modus ponens syllogism uses the following logical form: If p, then q; p; therefore, q.

Noteworthy, when using this logical form, it’s inferred that premises p and q follow without completing the syllogistic form. As such, merely proposing ‘if p, then q’ assumes to represent truth about reality, which is why further assessment of the proposition is necessary.

Given this understanding, I’ll present a straightforward example: If under the auspices of the Constitution (i.e., the Bill of Rights) hate speech is considered to be permissible in the U.S. (p), then no U.S. government entity can legally infringe free expression of U.S. citizens (q).

This proposition follows logical form. In other words, as one source states, “Logical consequence is a fundamental concept in logic which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements.”

Of course, it isn’t all that difficult to express a proposition that serves a logical consequence. For instance, if you want to eliminate the problem of poverty (i.e., $32,150 for a family of four and $15,650 for an individual) in the U.S. (p), then kill everyone who falls below the threshold (q).

The logic follows, though I argue that the proposition isn’t reasonable. Thus, it isn’t rational. Presuming you now understand why further assessment of a logical proposition is necessary, let us return to the modus ponens syllogism concerning free speech.

The logical construct proposes that the Bill of Rights enshrines free speech as a constitutionally-protected right. This means that so-called “hate speech” is protected speech. Thus, reasonably, no U.S. government entity can legally infringe free expression of U.S. citizens. This is rational.

Comprehending how to assess whether or not one’s thoughts and beliefs are in accordance with both logic and reason affords a person the opportunity to address the unpleasant matter of self-disturbance (how people upset themselves with any of the four major irrational beliefs).

Specifically, REBT uses the ABC model to illustrate that when an undesirable Action occurs and you Believe an unhelpful narrative about the event, it’s your unfavorable assumption, not the occurrence itself, that causes an unpleasant Consequence. This is known as self-disturbance.

As proposed, there are four predominate irrational beliefs which people often use to upset themselves: global evaluations, low frustration tolerance, awfulizing, and demandingness. When contemplating these unproductive beliefs, I invite you to think of the acronym GLAD.

As an example, you hear someone saying something that you deem as hateful (Action) and you unhelpfully Believe, “Anti-Semites are worthless [G] and I can’t stand them [L], because horrific speech [A] shouldn’t be protected [D],” as you then become angry (Consequence).

Addressing how people upset themselves with unhelpful attitudes, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unproductive philosophies of life in order to explore Effective new beliefs. Whereas rigid beliefs cause self-disturbance, flexible beliefs result in an un-disturbed condition.

Unfavorably, many individuals fail to realize that from a psychological standpoint people disturb themselves using a Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection. Still, this isn’t to suggest that in the context of the naturalistic or physical world there is no Action-Consequence (A-C) connection.

From an A-C perspective, killing every poor person (Action) may ultimately eliminate poverty (Consequence). Yet, from a B-C view, if you read this crude example being used in my blogpost (Action) and you maintain unhelpful Beliefs, then you’ll likely endure unpleasant Consequences.

Regarding free speech, many people in the U.S. disturb themselves when using B-C connections. As such, they tend to seek infringing so-called protections to shield them from encountering objectionable opinions, as I thusly addressed this matter in a blogpost entitled Hate Speech:

I remain aware of the chilling effect on free speech that such behavior has, as one source clarifies:

A chilling effect is generally understood to be when an individual, organization, or group is prevented from exercising their legal rights, self-censoring either the sharing of information or abstaining from doing an activity, out of fear of repercussions and harm if they act.

For context, one source states that self-censorship is “the act of censoring or classifying one’s own discourse, typically out of fear or deference to the perceived preferences, sensibilities, or infallibility of others, and often without overt external pressure.”

Have you ever experienced the chilling effect on free speech by intentionally silencing your honest opinions about different topics? I have. For instance, in a blogpost entitled Crazy, I discussed how I resolved self-censorship by reintroducing the word “crazy” to my vocabulary:

I’ve since altered my outlook. Crazy is as crazy does. If some self-disturbed individual is acting crazy, I’m going to call out what simply is while at the same time rejecting language policing from those who advocate self-censoring behavior.

For context, language policing is the practice of monitoring, regulating, or correcting language to enforce social norms, standards, or ideologies, often involving the imposition of subjective morally and ethically linguistic correctness propositions. This is the stuff of demandingness.

When providing psychoeducational lessons on matters such as the chilling effect on free speech, I realize that talking in abstraction isn’t entirely useful. Thus, allow me to highlight a concrete example of how one group’s B-C self-disturbance impacted another group. Per one source:

An explosive FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] document obtained by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reveals the FBI targeted eight Republican senators’ personal cell phones for “tolling data” as part of its Arctic Frost investigation.

Perhaps, similar to me, you don’t have a particular affinity for politicians. Therefore you reason that the FBI having apparently violated the rights of U.S. senators isn’t of concern to you. How might your conclusion be represented syllogistically?

If the feds infringe the free expression of politicians for whom I have no compassion (p), then the FBI is welcome to chill the free speech of individuals for whom I don’t care (q). Essentially, Artic Frost may befall those people you deem unworthy of your consideration.

That’s a logical proposition. Is it reasonable though? Imagine that instead of eight Republican senators being targeted for “trolling data” regarding their personal cellphones, the FBI includes you in a similar investigation. Take a look at your texts. Would you want feds reading them?

Maybe you’re one to admit, as one of my ex-girlfriends once stated (and understand that she is an ex for a reason), that you have nothing to hide. Why not allow whoever wants to investigate you to have unbridled access to your texts, calls, emails, and other content on your cellphone?

Do you consider this to be a rational proposal, given that I’ve already stated the case for a rational proposition in support of protections recognized by the Bill of Rights? Do you truly support a chilling effect on free speech, by which you’re prepared to self-censor ad infinitum?

Suppose you do. Understand that I don’t value that proposal. Then what? How would we resolve the tension of A-C spying from the feds with B-C self-disturbance associated with our diverging opinions on this matter? It’s almost as though there’s a document that exists in this regard.

Oh yes, the Bill of Rights. Plausibly, you reject the constitutional framework established by that document. Alternatively, I cherish the inalienable rights protected by—though not given from—the Bill of Rights. This sort of gridlock, if left unresolved, is how civil conflict occurs (i.e., war).

Now, do you understand why people visiting my blog may encounter content related to the First Amendment? I try to help people use rational thoughts and beliefs before nonadaptive behavior results from self-disturbed B-C connections. This is a particularly important topic at the moment.

I state this, because I’ve increasingly encountered online content regarding support of the chilling effect on free speech. It doesn’t necessarily take FBI personnel to infringe the free expression of others, as I’ve observed many emotional calls to suppress free speech as of late.

One group claims that such action is rational, basing its argument on irrational appeals to emotion (e.g., antisemitism). A separate group professes that such action is irrational, basing its proposition on rational citation of constitutional protections.

Without using an agreed-upon standard for conflict resolution, tensions between these groups continue escalating. Meanwhile, I’m over here using rational thoughts and beliefs as much as possible, as not to self-disturb. Now, I offer you a similar prospect.

Given your limited control and influence in life, you don’t have to drive yourself crazy with GLAD beliefs—irrespective of the group with which you identify concerning the free speech argument. Thus, I invite you to use the ABC model when encountering opinions you don’t like.

Rather than a chilling effect on free speech, why not take the many opportunities available to hone the REBT skills demonstrated herein? If enough of us can practice these tools, then perhaps we can stave off that civil conflict I mentioned moments ago. So, how about practicing REBT?

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.

At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

Photo credit, fair use

References:

Constitution Annotated. (n.d.). First Amendment. Retrieved from https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

EyeEm. (n.d.). Portrait of man wearing hood during winter [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/premium-photo/portrait-man-wearing-hood-winter_115982457.htm#from_element=cross_selling__photo

FIRE. (n.d.). Is hate speech legal? Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Retrieved from https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/hate-speech-legal

Hollings, D. (2023, October 14). Appeal to emotion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/appeal-to-emotion

Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions

Hollings, D. (2024, November 24). Automatic thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/automatic-thoughts-and-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, August 7). Awfulizing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/awfulizing

Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern

Hollings, D. (2025, September 17). Civilization isn’t inherently civilized. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/civilization-isn-t-inherently-civilized

Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation

Hollings, D. (2024, September 14). Crazy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/crazy

Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness

Hollings, D. (2024, October 21). Desire. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/desire

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2022, December 26). Elimination of harmful language. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/elimination-of-harmful-language

Hollings, D. (2025, March 9). Factual and counterfactual beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/factual-and-counterfactual-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use

Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being

Hollings, D. (2022, November 13). Fear. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fear

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1

Hollings, D. (2025, March 5). Five major characteristics of four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/five-major-characteristics-of-four-major-irrational-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations

Hollings, D. (2022, August 24). Green with anger. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/green-with-anger

Hollings, D. (2025, October 4). Hate speech. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/hate-speech

Hollings, D. (2025, September 7). Have to. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/have-to

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2024, April 27). Ideal-world vs. real-world. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideal-world-vs-real-world

Hollings, D. (2025, April 17). Ideologically inconsistent. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideologically-inconsistent

Hollings, D. (2024, May 10). Inferred meaning. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/inferred-meaning

Hollings, D. (2024, January 2). Interests and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interests-and-goals

Hollings, D. (2025, March 4). Justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/justification

Hollings, D. (2025, October 13). Knowledge, wisdom, understanding. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/knowledge-wisdom-understanding

Hollings, D. (2022, November 10). Labeling. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/labeling

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Legal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/legal-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance

Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-emotional-and-behavioral-health

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens

Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics

Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude

Hollings, D. (2025, August 2). My philosophy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-philosophy

Hollings, D. (2024, June 2). Nonadaptive behavior. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/nonadaptive-behavior

Hollings, D. (2025, November 3). Normativity standard. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/normativity-standard

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth

Hollings, D. (2024, November 18). Opinions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/opinions

Hollings, D. (2025, September 19). Power. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/power

Hollings, D. (2025, May 3). Predictability of logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/predictability-of-logic

Hollings, D. (2025, April 25). Preferences vs. expectations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/preferences-vs-expectations

Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt

Hollings, D. (2025, August 13). Rational versus irrational thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-versus-irrational-thoughts-and-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, July 18). REBT flexibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-flexibility

Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous

Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2025, June 11). Stop the violence. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/stop-the-violence

Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism

Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection

Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection

Hollings, D. (2025, October 22). The construct. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-construct

Hollings, D. (2025, January 2). The distinction between law and justice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-distinction-between-law-and-justice

Hollings, D. (2022, December 14). The is-ought problem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-is-ought-problem

Hollings, D. (2024, February 6). This ride inevitably ends. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/this-ride-inevitably-ends

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2025, February 9). Value. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/value

Hollings, D. (2023, May 3). Want vs. need. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/want-vs-need

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. (2025, October 6). Biden FBI spied on eight Republican senators as part of Arctic Frost investigation, Grassley oversight reveals. Retrieved from https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/biden-fbi-spied-on-eight-republican-senators-as-part-of-arctic-frost-investigation-grassley-oversight-reveals

White House, The. (2025, January 29). Additional measures to combat anti-Semitism. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/additional-measures-to-combat-anti-semitism/

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Artic Frost investigation. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Frost_investigation

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Chilling effect. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Chuck Grassley. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Grassley

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Constitution of the United States. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Donald Trump. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Five Eyes. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Hate speech. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Joe Biden. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Logical consequence. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Self-censorship. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

Wikipedia. (n.d.). United States Bill of Rights. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights