Glenn Greenwald Highlights Political Parties' Shifting Free Speech Stances Based on Power Dynamics

Journalist and constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald recently asserted that political parties in the United States consistently alter their stance on free speech depending on whether they hold power. In a recent social media post, Greenwald highlighted what he perceives as a fundamental hypocrisy within the American political landscape regarding this foundational right. His observation underscores a recurring theme in his commentary on civil liberties and government power.

"Both parties always 'rethink speech' the minute they get into power. In the US, you can almost always tell who is screaming about free speech: those who are out of power," Greenwald stated in his tweet. This declaration suggests that the defense of free speech is often a strategic tool rather than an unwavering principle for political entities. Greenwald, known for his investigative journalism and advocacy for civil liberties, has frequently critiqued the selective application of principles by those in authority.

This perspective aligns with Greenwald's long-standing focus on power dynamics and their influence on fundamental rights. His past work, including his reporting on government surveillance and his own 2012 article in The Guardian on human rights hypocrisy, demonstrates a consistent critique of how governments and media outlets selectively apply principles based on political expediency. He has often argued that genuine commitment to principles like free speech means defending them even for those with unpopular views.

More recently, Greenwald has continued to apply this critical lens to contemporary issues, such as his public dispute with CNN anchor Jake Tapper. In this instance, Greenwald accused Tapper of hypocrisy regarding the coverage of President Biden's health, suggesting a selective approach to journalistic scrutiny. Such critiques underscore Greenwald's consistent argument that the media and political establishment often exhibit double standards when it comes to upholding principles like transparency and free expression.

Greenwald's analysis prompts a broader discussion on the integrity of political discourse and the consistent application of constitutional rights. His view suggests that a party's fervor for free speech often wanes once it gains control, transforming the principle into a weapon for opposition rather than a universal value. This highlights an ongoing debate about the sincerity of political rhetoric surrounding civil liberties in the U.S.