Free Speech or Selective Speech? The Lessons of Freeport
FREEPORT, IL – September 24, 2025
The First Amendment: A Foundation of Liberty
The right to free speech is one of the most defining features of American democracy. Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment protects citizens from government censorship and ensures that ideas—whether popular or unpopular—can be expressed openly. Yet this right has never been absolute. From the Sedition Act of 1798 to wartime crackdowns, and through landmark Supreme Court rulings like Schenck v. United States in 1919 and Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, America has continually struggled to define the limits of expression.
At its best, free speech empowers citizens to hold leaders accountable, challenge injustice, and inspire change. At its worst, it provides cover for lies, hate, and division.
The Power of Free Speech at Its Best
When used responsibly, free speech has advanced America’s greatest causes. The civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, and countless other battles for equality were won because people dared to speak out. Whistleblowers, journalists, and ordinary citizens have used speech to expose corruption and abuses of power. Writers, comedians, and artists have challenged cultural norms and sparked new ideas that pushed society forward. In these moments, free speech proved not only to be a constitutional right but also a moral compass guiding the nation toward justice.
The Darker Side of Free Speech
But freedom of expression also has a destructive side. Hate speech, while legal in most forms, deepens divisions, fuels prejudice, and can inspire violence. Disinformation spreads faster than truth in the age of social media, undermining public trust and destabilizing institutions. Corporate power, amplified after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, allows wealthy interests to pour unlimited money into elections, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans. The same right that has served as a shield for liberty has also been exploited as a weapon against truth and unity.
Freeport’s 2024 Halloween Controversy: A Local Case Study
In the fall of 2024, Freeport became the stage for a local-level debate over free speech. At the corner of South Park and West Empire, homeowners Thomas Nadycz and Patty Tricker created a Halloween display that sparked outrage throughout the community.
The display included an effigy of Vice President Kamala Harris in a straitjacket chained to a tree. Another effigy depicted President Joe Biden lying in a coffin.
The fallout was immediate. Neighbors and community members gathered to protest outside the home, demanding that the decorations be removed. Critics condemned the depiction of Vice President Harris as racist, pointing out that placing a Black woman in chains at the base of a tree evoked the violent legacy of slavery. Tensions rose so high that the Freeport Police Department had to intervene.
In the middle of the chaos, State Senator Andrew Chesney appeared—not to calm tensions, but to champion the display as protected free speech. He refused to engage with outraged neighbors or acknowledge the protests, instead seizing the moment as a political opportunity in front of the news cameras. Even more telling than the display itself was the hypocrisy surrounding it. The very people who shouted loudest about defending the homeowners’ “right to free speech” were at the same time attacking the protestors for exercising theirs. In Freeport, free speech suddenly became a one-way street: noble when used to mock national leaders, but unacceptable when used by neighbors to object to hateful imagery.
The display remained. No fines were issued, and no legal action was taken. Constitutionally, the homeowners were within their rights. Yet for many in Freeport, the issue was not legality but morality. Just because something is legal does not mean it is right.
The controversy raised a haunting question: will those who defended this display be just as quick to champion free speech, this year, if a neighbor creates a display of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein on an island surrounded by children? Would the Senator defend a depiction of a local politician covering up a drunk driving accident that killed another teenager? Or does free speech only deserve protection when it aligns with one’s personal beliefs?
The 2024 Halloween display exposed the selective way many invoke the First Amendment. It was Freeport’s test, and it revealed how easily free speech can be weaponized.
The Hypocrisy of Political Free Speech
The selective defense of free speech is not limited to one political party. Republicans frequently defend free expression when it protects controversial views, political advertising, or campaign rhetoric, but simultaneously push for book bans, classroom restrictions, and laws that silence protest. Democrats position themselves as defenders of expression in the realms of art, activism, and social justice, yet have pressured technology companies to suppress opposing voices, often labeling them as “disinformation.”
Locally, Mayor Jodi Miller’s silence on the Halloween controversy spoke just as loudly. As the community was divided, her administration offered “no comment.” Inaction is a choice too, and in this case, it was a choice that left residents feeling abandoned.
Libel, Slander, and the Line Between Speech and Harm
The First Amendment protects opinion, satire, even offensive or hateful ideas — but it does not protect deliberate lies that cause harm. This is where libel and slander come in. Libel refers to written falsehoods, and slander refers to spoken ones. Both fall outside First Amendment protection because they can inflict real, measurable damage.
If someone knowingly spreads false claims that ruin a person’s reputation, career, or business, they can be taken to court. Victims of libel or slander have the right to seek financial damages, court-ordered retractions, and in some cases punitive damages meant to punish malicious intent. The law recognizes that while free speech is vital, speech that is knowingly false and destructive is not a public good — it is an abuse.
Courts have been clear: the Constitution is not a shield for lies. In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that public officials must show “actual malice” to win a defamation case — meaning the falsehood was made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. For private citizens, the threshold is lower: they only need to prove that the statement was false, damaging, and negligent.
This matters in communities like Freeport, where falsehoods are regularly dressed up as “jokes” or “just opinions.” A fabricated Facebook review, a slanderous nickname, or a viral rumor can stick permanently, reshaping how neighbors see one another. Take the homophobic nickname that circulated in Freeport, where a gay candidate’s home was mockingly dubbed and renamed on Google the “Freeport Fudge Factory.” That was not political critique, nor satire. It was an attempt to demean someone’s identity in a way that inflicted reputational harm.
The same can be said for Andrew Zimmerman’s so-called “review,” in which he invented sexualized details about a person he had never even met: “Quaint atmosphere, wait staff was eager to please, soft jazz and candles. I enjoyed the complimentary foot massage, his hands were quite soft. I’m not much of a tipper, but boy did I give him a good tip that visit.” That is not satire. It is a lie, and if proven in court as defamatory, it could carry consequences in the form of lawsuits and damages. These are not the kinds of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect.
Words are powerful — powerful enough to destroy families, businesses, and lives. The law draws a bright line: you may criticize, you may protest, you may even offend, but you may not knowingly spread lies that cause real harm. That is not freedom of speech. That is an abuse of it, and it comes with consequences.
The Freeport Lesson
The First Amendment was not written to protect the powerful from criticism; it was written to ensure every citizen could speak without fear of government reprisal. But democracy depends not only on liberty but also on responsibility.
In Freeport, the 2024 Halloween controversy revealed both the strength and the fragility of free speech. It showed us that while the Constitution may protect what is legal, it cannot dictate what is moral. That responsibility lies with us as citizens.
The real question is not whether free speech exists—it does. The question is whether we apply it equally, defend it consistently, and use it responsibly. If we only defend free speech when it aligns with our own views, then we do not truly believe in the First Amendment. We believe in selective freedom. And selective freedom is no freedom at all.
