North Carolina is moving in the right direction on speech. Our universities are opening up to more voices — with the left losing its grip on discourse on campus — as are our ballots, after courts ordered the North Carolina State Board of Elections to certify RFK Jr’s We the People Party and Cornel West’s Justice for All Party.

But there are worrying signs that freedom of speech is under threat more broadly. And, like so many other parts of American politics, it’s being polarized along party lines.

Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Waltz’ recently summarized the divide, saying, “There’s no guarantee to free speech for misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

It’s a common view on the left. But it’s fairly shocking to hear for everyone else.

The entire purpose of freedom of speech is to protect different worldviews, especially regarding what is true and what is good. If one side can simply enforce their conception of what is true against “misinformation” and of what is good against what they deem bad and hateful, there is no free speech. The dominant worldview has in effect implemented blasphemy laws.

And it’s not just “folksy” Tim Walz shooting from the hip. These gaping exceptions to free speech are a common understanding across the West of how speech should be regulated. In the United States, we’re lucky that it’s not the legal status quo.

But consider the British government’s approach to “hateful content” and “misinformation” being posted online by its citizens. Their laws do not appear to protect any challenge to what is considered true and good by the majority.

A man got 20 months in jail for posting on social media that he didn’t want his money going to “immigrants who rape our kids and get priority.” Not allowing people to speak openly on matters like rampant rape gangs among Muslim immigrants does not prevent hatred and violence. It bottles it until it explodes.

And that’s what happened, after multiple British girls were stabbed, while in a dance studio learning Taylor Swift moves, by a 17 year old whose parents immigrated from Africa. Anti-immigration riots then erupted across Britain. Rather than simply arresting those participating in violence on all sides, multiple government sources moved to crack down on online speech. Even retweeting or sharing a post could result in prosecution if that post was framed in a way that authorities felt could “inspire hatred.”

At a later press conference, London Met Police Commissioner Mark Rowley said “keyboard warriors” outside of the UK could even be charged under British terrorism laws.

And then, inciting the speech regulators further, Donald Trump decided to rejoin Twitter, now called X. Trump was booted from most major social-media platforms after Jan. 6. Even after he was readmitted to X later, he decided to almost entirely remain on his own Truth Social platform. But this week, he returned to making the “mean tweets” he was known for.

Enemies of free speech around the world immediately lost their minds. Despite being across the Atlantic Ocean, the European Union decided to put its proverbial foot down. Thierry Breton, minister of the EU’s executive commission, wrote an official letter to X’s owner, Elon Musk, demanding that he not hold an interview with Trump because “there is a risk of amplification of potentially harmful content.”

That’s right. A foreign political body demanded an American media company not host a former American president, who is also a current candidate for the same office, because of a high risk of harmful words.

On our side of the pond, an alleged reporter at the Washington Post had similar concerns and asked the White House whether they were planning on doing anything to block Donald Trump from speaking to such a large audience on Twitter/X.

I say “alleged reporter” because an actual reporter may have asked something like, “What is the White House’s reaction to former President Trump rejoining X and scheduling an interview with its owner, Elon Musk?” This gentleman, on the other hand, stated his opinion that “misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue; it’s an America issue,” before demanding to know “What role does the White House have in stopping” the discussion between Musk and Trump.

I’m sure to the reporter and Walz and all the others with a similar mindset, this kind of question is perfectly reasonable. Trump says things that they believe are hateful and not true; therefore, he should be stopped. But freedom of speech is not freedom of speech if it doesn’t include allowing your rivals to say things you think are wrong or bad.

This is non-negotiable. Because without true free speech, all that’s left is for people with different understandings of what’s true and good to fight over who gets to enforce their views on the others. Politics becomes a zero-sum game rather than a dialogue about the common good.