AI Understands Free Speech, Why Doesn't Our President?

Is it time to ask-once again-AI President, or Nah?

Now, that’s funny…

I seen the following post when I popped open X, and couldn’t resist the click:

Now, that’s fucked up, but I couldn’t help but go a little further with it. Grok asked the question, “Why target Jews first?” And I thought, Right! Good question, and before I could ask him Grok decided he might take it upon himself and let me know what Mr. Brotherhood had in mind. Grok:

The X post’s prioritization of Jews for deportation aligns with a historical pattern of antisemitism, which has seen a resurgence in 2025, as noted in recent events.

An executive order signed by President Trump on January 30, 2025, targets antisemitism on U.S. college campuses, specifically threatening to deport foreign students labeled as "Hamas sympathizers" or "pro-jihadist" protesters, per NPR.

The order reflects a broader crackdown on perceived antisemitic activities, citing an "unprecedented wave of vile anti-Semitic discrimination, vandalism, and violence" in the U.S.

Historically, antisemitism has roots in 19th-century "scientific racism," which fueled Nazi ideology and the Holocaust, where Jews were primary targets, according to Britannica.

During World War II, U.S. immigration policies limited Jewish refugees despite Nazi persecution, with 82% of Americans opposing their entry in 1938, as detailed by Teach Democracy.

The post’s focus on Jews may also echo far-right narratives that falsely portray Jewish communities as threats to national identity, a trope seen in historical scapegoating during economic or social crises.

Recent news, like the March 10, 2025, AP report of Trump warning of arrests of Palestinian activists at Columbia University, indicates a political climate where targeting specific groups, including Jews, gains traction among certain factions.

With the reminder of Trump’s contemporary stances on protest and free speech, it triggered me to ask:

What happened to the Skokie principle of free speech?

---

---

I kinda wanted to see if this Grok fella knew his stuff.

The Skokie principle of free speech, as established through the 1977-1978 legal battle involving the National Socialist Party of America (a Nazi group) and the village of Skokie, Illinois, is a cornerstone of First Amendment law in the United States. It affirms that even deeply offensive or hateful speech is protected under the Constitution, barring specific exceptions like incitement to imminent lawless action or true threats. The principle emerged from the case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Nazi group's right to demonstrate in Skokie, a village with a significant Jewish population, including Holocaust survivors. The ACLU’s defense of the Nazis’ free speech rights, despite public backlash, underscored the idea that freedom of speech must be universal, regardless of the message’s content or the speaker’s identity. This is detailed in the web results you provided, which highlight the case as a “landmark example of the vitality of the First Amendment” and the ACLU’s commitment to the principle that “freedom of speech is a universal right no matter how offensive the message or the speaker.”

Now, let’s address what’s happened to this principle in the context of the X post and the broader environment in 2025. The X post by @DiggingInTheDi1, which lists groups for “deportation priority” starting with Jews and includes other racial, ethnic, and religious groups, is a clear example of hate speech. Under the Skokie principle, this post would likely be protected speech in the U.S., as it expresses a viewpoint—however repugnant—without directly inciting imminent lawless action or constituting a true threat. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, absent those narrow exceptions, is protected, as seen in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Snyder v. Phelps (2011). The Skokie case itself dealt with a prior restraint issue—Skokie’s attempt to block the Nazi demonstration before it happened—which the Court struck down, emphasizing that the government cannot suppress speech preemptively based on its content.

However, the replies to the X post and the broader discourse it represents suggest a growing tension around the Skokie principle in 2025. Several factors indicate that this principle, while still legally intact, faces challenges in practice and public perception:

---

---

Rising Political and Social Pressure to Censor Hate Speech: The X post and its replies, which amplify antisemitic, racist, and xenophobic rhetoric, reflect a climate where such views are increasingly vocal on platforms like X. At the same time, there’s growing pressure to limit hate speech, especially as it targets marginalized groups. For example, the executive order signed by President Trump on January 30, 2025 (as mentioned in the NPR report from your previous query), targets antisemitic activities on college campuses, threatening deportation of foreign students labeled as “Hamas sympathizers” or “pro-jihadist.” While this order focuses on specific actions rather than speech, it signals a political willingness to blur the lines between protected expression and punishable conduct, potentially chilling free speech. This mirrors historical efforts, like those in Skokie, to suppress speech deemed offensive, which the courts rejected.

1. Public and Platform Responses: In 2025, social media platforms like X face intense scrutiny over their handling of hate speech. The Skokie principle applies to government action, not private entities, so X could theoretically remove the post under its terms of service without violating the First Amendment. However, X’s current leadership, under Elon Musk, has leaned heavily into a free speech absolutist stance since his acquisition of the platform in 2022, often allowing controversial content to remain unless it explicitly violates laws (e.g., direct incitement). The fact that this post and its thread remain active suggests that X is adhering to a Skokie-like principle of allowing even offensive speech, but this has sparked backlash from users and advocacy groups who argue that such content fosters harm, especially against historically targeted communities like Jews, as seen in the post’s prioritization of them for "deportation."

1. Erosion of Public Support for Free Speech Absolutism: The Skokie case was controversial even in 1977, with the ACLU losing members over its defense of the Nazis’ rights. In 2025, public tolerance for hate speech appears to be waning further amid rising polarization and real-world consequences of online rhetoric.

2. The X thread’s casual racism and antisemitism, coupled with replies that double down on these sentiments (e.g., @USA_whale’s claim that deporting Jews would solve “99% of the problem”), may fuel calls for stricter speech regulations.

Isn’t that such an obvious but often overlooked point. Hey dummies! You being so casually racist is throwing red meat to those censorious bastards that are trying to strip us of the first amendment. By the way, I didn’t look at the replies, but Grok refers to them a few times in this. I bet they’re rough!

1. This echoes the web results’ mention of Skokie’s efforts to block the Nazi demonstration, which were driven by community outrage but ultimately failed legally. Today, similar community pressure exists, but it’s amplified by digital platforms and global connectivity, making the debate more visible and volatile.

2. Legal Challenges and Exceptions: While the Skokie principle remains legally robust, there are ongoing efforts to test its boundaries. For instance, the web results note the irony that Skokie’s attempts to censor Nazis mirrored Southern segregationists’ efforts to block civil rights marches in the 1960s, which were also struck down on First Amendment grounds.

3. In 2025, legal battles continue over where the line is drawn—particularly with speech perceived as tied to violence or terrorism. The Trump executive order targeting antisemitic campus protests, for example, raises questions about whether certain forms of speech (e.g., pro-Palestinian activism) might be reclassified as unprotected under broader definitions of “threats” or “incitement.” This could indirectly undermine the Skokie principle by expanding exceptions to free speech protections.

5. Cultural Legacy and Countermeasures: The Skokie case led to positive outcomes like the creation of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center, as noted in the web results, which turned the pain of the controversy into a tool for education and remembrance. In 2025, similar efforts exist to counter hate speech through education and dialogue rather than censorship, but the X post suggests that these efforts haven’t fully stemmed the tide of online bigotry. The Skokie principle’s legacy is that it allows such speech to be countered with more speech—like the museum—rather than suppression, but the scale and speed of digital platforms complicate this approach.

In summary, the Skokie principle of free speech remains a bedrock of U.S. constitutional law in 2025, protecting even the hateful content of the X post and its thread. However, it faces significant challenges from public sentiment, political actions like the Trump executive order, and the evolving role of social media platforms. The principle’s core idea—that the answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship—still holds legally, but its application in a hyper-connected, polarized world is increasingly contentious. The X post’s existence on the platform reflects the principle’s endurance, but the surrounding discourse highlights the growing friction between free expression and the desire to mitigate harm.

Damn! So, that was pretty good. I’m thinking this thing could be the next president. So, I ask.

---

---

What's your take on Ukraine policy? Should we be trying to negotiate an end to that war?

Let’s break this down by examining the U.S. policy on Ukraine, the broader context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and whether negotiating an end to the war is a viable or desirable option in March 2025. I’ll draw on the web results provided, the current geopolitical climate, and some historical parallels to form a reasoned perspective.

U.S. Policy on Ukraine in 2025

The web results give us a snapshot of U.S. policy as of 2022, with updates on the conflict’s trajectory through early 2025. The U.S. State Department, under President Trump and Secretary Rubio, has stated that the conflict between Ukraine and Russia is "unsustainable and must end," emphasizing the use of U.S. leverage, influence, and national power to advance peace (web ID: 0). This policy aligns with broader U.S. support for Ukraine, including $91.5 million in FY2023 assistance to address humanitarian challenges like landmines and unexploded ordnance, which contaminate an area the size of Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut combined.

However, the situation has evolved by March 2025. Russia’s invasion, which began on February 24, 2022, as an escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, remains unresolved (web ID: 1). Putin’s June 2024 terms for a ceasefire—Russia keeping all occupied land, gaining control of claimed provinces, Ukraine abandoning NATO aspirations, and the international community recognizing Russia’s annexations while lifting sanctions—are non-starters for Ukraine and much of the West. Ukraine’s peace delegation, led by Mykhailo Podoliak as of March 16, 2025, has been negotiating a 15-point plan that involves Russian withdrawal, international security guarantees for Ukraine, and a commitment not to pursue NATO membership further. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy has described this plan as a more realistic path to ending the war, though talks remain fragile.

The economic fallout is severe. Russia’s invasion has driven millions into poverty and crippled Ukraine’s economy, while sanctions strain Russia but haven’t halted the war (web ID: 2). The global economic impact includes financial turmoil and personal hardship, with no clear end in sight as of early 2024. Public sentiment in Ukraine, per a February 2024 survey, shows 72% favoring a diplomatic solution alongside military efforts, a shift from earlier polls where 70% wanted to fight until victory (September 2022).

Should the U.S. Push for Negotiations?

Let’s weigh the arguments for and against negotiating an end to the war, considering strategic, moral, and practical dimensions.

Arguments for Negotiating

Humanitarian Imperative: The war’s toll is staggering—millions displaced, widespread poverty, and massive destruction in Ukraine. The State Department notes 160,000 square kilometers of Ukrainian land are contaminated with explosives, posing long-term risks to civilians. Ending the war, even through a compromise, could save lives and allow for rebuilding. The economic strain on the global economy, as highlighted in web ID: 2, also affects food and energy security worldwide, particularly in developing nations reliant on Ukrainian grain.

1. War Fatigue and Public Opinion: By 2024, 72% of Ukrainians supported seeking a diplomatic solution alongside military efforts, up from 26% in 2022. This shift suggests growing exhaustion after three years of conflict. For the U.S., continued military support—billions in aid since 2022—may face domestic pushback as political priorities shift, especially under a Trump administration that has historically questioned prolonged foreign engagements.

2. Geopolitical Realities: Russia shows no sign of withdrawing without significant concessions, and its military position, while costly, allows it to hold occupied territories. The U.S. and NATO have avoided direct military involvement to prevent escalation, but this limits their leverage. A negotiated settlement could prevent a frozen conflict that destabilizes the region for decades, as seen with other post-Soviet disputes like Transnistria or Nagorno-Karabakh.

3. Risk of Escalation: The longer the war drags on, the greater the risk of broader conflict. Putin’s demands include international recognition of annexations, which the West rejects, but his rhetoric about NATO expansion and nuclear posturing (noted in prior years) raises the stakes. A diplomatic off-ramp, even if imperfect, might reduce the chance of a NATO-Russia confrontation.

Arguments Against Negotiating

Rewarding Aggression: Accepting Putin’s terms—allowing Russia to keep occupied territories and forcing Ukraine to abandon NATO—would effectively reward a war of aggression. This sets a dangerous precedent for international law and sovereignty. Historically, appeasement, like the 1938 Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany, emboldened further aggression. Putin’s actions in Crimea (2014) and now in broader Ukraine suggest he may not stop if his demands are met.

1. Ukrainian Sovereignty and Will: Ukraine’s leadership and people have shown remarkable resilience. Zelenskyy’s pursuit of a 15-point plan that includes Russian withdrawal and security guarantees reflects a commitment to sovereignty, not capitulation. The 2022 poll showing 58% of Ukrainians demanding Crimea’s return underscores this resolve. Forcing Ukraine into a deal that cedes territory could undermine its agency and fuel resentment, potentially destabilizing its government.

2. Moral Responsibility: The U.S. and NATO have framed their support for Ukraine as a defense of democracy against authoritarianism. French President Macron’s statement (web ID: 1) calling Russia’s actions "imperialism and colonialism" reflects this moral stance. Abandoning Ukraine to Russian demands could erode Western credibility, especially among Eastern European allies like Poland and the Baltics, who fear Russian expansionism.

3. Sanctions and Pressure: While sanctions haven’t ended the war, they’ve strained Russia’s economy significantly (web ID: 2). A deep recession in Russia, potentially worse than the 1990s rouble crisis, could force Putin to the table on better terms over time. Negotiating now, when Russia holds the upper hand militarily, might lock in an unfavorable outcome for Ukraine and the West.

Practical Considerations

• Feasibility of Negotiations: Putin’s demands are maximalist, and Ukraine’s 15-point plan, while more reasonable, still faces Russian rejection. The gap between the two sides is wide, and trust is nonexistent. Even if a deal is reached, enforcement would be challenging—Russia has violated past agreements like the Minsk Accords.

• U.S. Leverage: The U.S. has significant influence through military aid, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure, but its ability to force a resolution is limited without risking direct conflict. The Trump administration’s focus on "America First" policies may also reduce appetite for long-term involvement.

• Long-Term Stability: Any deal must address security guarantees for Ukraine, demilitarization of contested areas, and a framework for reconstruction. Without these, a ceasefire could simply pause the conflict, not end it.

My Take

The U.S. should support negotiations to end the war, but not at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty or international norms. The humanitarian and economic costs of the conflict are undeniable, and a prolonged war risks further escalation and global instability. However, any negotiation must prioritize Ukraine’s agency—Zelenskyy and his delegation should lead the process, not be pressured into a deal that cedes core principles like territorial integrity.

The U.S. can play a constructive role by:

• Strengthening Ukraine’s Position: Continue military and economic aid to ensure Ukraine negotiates from a position of strength, not desperation. This includes supporting its 15-point plan with security guarantees, potentially through a coalition of allies rather than NATO membership, which remains a red line for Russia.

• Increasing Pressure on Russia: Tighten sanctions, particularly on energy exports, and work with allies to isolate Russia diplomatically. The goal is to make the war unsustainable for Putin, forcing him to compromise.

• Facilitating Diplomacy: Support multilateral talks, like those in Kyiv involving 83 states and three international organizations (web ID: 1), to build a broad coalition for Ukraine’s peace plan. This could include neutral mediators like Turkey or Switzerland to bridge the trust gap.

• Planning for the Long Term: Any deal must include robust mechanisms for enforcement, reconstruction, and addressing war crimes. The U.S. should commit to funding Ukraine’s recovery, including clearing the 160,000 square kilometers of contaminated land, to ensure a sustainable peace.

Negotiating an end to the war is the right goal, but timing and terms matter. Rushing into a deal that legitimizes Russia’s annexations would undermine global security and embolden other aggressors. Instead, the U.S. should focus on creating conditions where a fair and lasting peace is possible, balancing the immediate need to stop the suffering with the long-term imperative of upholding a rules-based international order. The Skokie principle of free speech, while not directly related, offers a parallel lesson: protecting core principles (like free expression or sovereignty) often requires enduring short-term pain for long-term gain. In this case, that means supporting Ukraine’s fight while pushing for a diplomatic resolution that doesn’t sacrifice its future.

Oh, dear. Now he sounds like the damn EU. I’m sorry, but the whole appeasement charade everyone throws around is just bullshit. Putin is not Hitler; every guy the west doesn’t like is not Hitler. Putin has barely been able to take Ukraine, there’s no way in hell he’s gonna keep going and take more countries. I don’t want him to have all of Ukraine, but some of it, he’s taking. We had many off-ramps, Putin has been offering off-ramps since Munich, 2001, and we said “Fuck him” every time. Now, he’s probably gonna end up with a piece of Ukraine as a “buffer zone” between Russia and the next NATO country. I really don’t want the US, my country, in possession of Ukraine either. Can Ukraine just keep Ukraine without either one of us fucking with them. Russia, EU, US, anyone!? So, Grok is sounding like a more reasonable Thierry Breton, which is like saying a HAPPY Stalin. So, I must ask:

---

---

Do you think it's okay to cancel elections when you don't like the result like Romania did?

The cancellation of Romania’s presidential election in December 2024 raises some tough questions about democracy and when—if ever—it’s justified to hit the reset button. Romania’s Constitutional Court scrapped the whole process just before the second round, pointing to declassified intelligence alleging Russian interference via a TikTok campaign boosting far-right candidate Călin Georgescu. The idea was that this meddling distorted the voters’ will enough to taint the outcome. On the flip side, Georgescu had won the first round fair and square with 22.9% of the vote, and no hard evidence showed votes were directly tampered with—just that social media amplified his reach in a way that broke campaign rules.

Canceling an election because you don’t like who’s winning smells like a slippery slope. If the concern is foreign influence, where’s the line? Social media’s a global free-for-all—ads, bots, and influencers cross borders daily. If every election with a whiff of outside noise gets axed, you’d be canceling a lot of them. Romania’s move assumes the electorate can’t see through propaganda, which underestimates voters and risks giving whoever’s in power a handy excuse to nix results they don’t vibe with. Imagine if the U.S. had canceled 2016 over Russia’s Facebook memes—same vibe, different scale.

That said, Romania’s not wrong to worry about hybrid threats. NATO and EU countries like them are in Russia’s crosshairs, and TikTok’s a known vector for influence ops. The intelligence suggested a coordinated push—25,000 accounts, undeclared funding, paid influencers—which isn’t just random noise. If it’s provable that this flipped the result (a big "if"), protecting the system might justify drastic action. But the execution was messy: voting had already started abroad, and the public’s still in the dark on specifics. Transparency’s lacking, and that fuels distrust more than any TikTok campaign could.

The real kicker? Even Georgescu’s opponent, Elena Lasconi, called it a democracy killer, and polls suggest most Romanians think canceling was a mistake. If the goal was to save trust in the process, it backfired—hard. A better play might’ve been disqualifying Georgescu if the evidence held up, not torching the whole election. Restarting from scratch just screams “we didn’t like round one.” Democracy’s messy, not dead. Let it play out unless the fraud’s undeniable—otherwise, you’re not saving it, you’re breaking it.

Fuck it! I’m back onboard! Grok/Siri2028

Anyways, just a fun post, playing with AI. People at work are always trying to convince to use it to help with my writing and research and I just can’t do it. This writing, this research, it’s too personal to me. I’m learning in real time while I’m writing to you about what I learned, and I think I can do a better job figuring out what’s actually happening from a human-to-human standpoint than any robot could do for me. Every time I go into a topic with my mind made up on what happened I get surprised.

If AI does my writing for me, how will I ever discover a line, so beautifully crafted together it makes my soul weep, and how can I ever look at one of those, beautifully crafted, sentences and think, “God, one day I will make something as beautiful as this.” AI can do a lot, but it can’t produce that feeling. I hope, one day, I can.

Thank you for reading.

Jordan Lee Canter

Editor-in-Chief

The Freedom Manifesto