Written by Ethan Caldwell.

During a recent appearance at the World Economic Forum’s Sustainable Impact Meeting, former Secretary of State John Kerry shared his frustration with America’s freedom of speech. According to Kerry, the First Amendment is a roadblock to controlling what he calls “disinformation.” Addressing concerns about “climate misinformation,” Kerry lamented the government’s inability to censor speech more freely.

“The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing,” Kerry said, blaming the diversity of information online for making governance more difficult. He pointed out that the unlimited access to varying opinions hinders the efforts of those in power to shape a unified narrative. In Kerry’s view, it was easier to maintain control when the flow of information was restricted to a few trusted sources. His remarks revealed a desire to return to an era when the media could be easily manipulated to serve those at the top.

Kerry’s complaint wasn’t limited to social media platforms. He took aim at the very foundation of American democracy—the First Amendment—describing it as a “major block” in efforts to combat what he perceives as harmful speech. Without directly advocating for its removal, Kerry made it clear that in his ideal world, there would be fewer barriers to silencing dissenting voices.

Kerry’s Distaste for Free Speech and Accountability

Kerry’s frustration stems from a fundamental shift in how people access and consume information. In the past, Kerry explained, there were “referees” who determined what was fact and what was fiction. Today, however, individuals can self-select their news sources, leading to what Kerry sees as an erosion of trust in traditional gatekeepers. His remarks implied that citizens who gather information from diverse or non-mainstream sources are a problem for those trying to establish societal “consensus.”

By highlighting this issue, Kerry effectively argued for a more controlled flow of information. He voiced concerns that individuals who access news from a variety of outlets are more difficult to govern. His implication was clear: freedom of speech makes it harder for the government—and global institutions like the World Economic Forum—to push through their agendas without public scrutiny. The “problem,” as Kerry sees it, is that people now have the freedom to question and challenge the narratives imposed by the elite.

Perhaps most telling was Kerry’s mention of the First Amendment as a barrier. Without the constitutional protection of free speech, he suggested, it would be easier to “hammer out of existence” sources of so-called disinformation. This view, if taken to its logical conclusion, would empower governments to determine what constitutes acceptable speech—a dangerous prospect for those who value civil liberties.

Big Tech’s Role in the Battle Over Information

Kerry’s comments come amid growing concern over the influence of Big Tech in moderating online content. Controversies surrounding the censorship of topics like the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and President Joe Biden’s cognitive health have highlighted the tension between free speech and government control. Notably, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook faced pressure from the Biden administration to moderate content related to these issues.

While Kerry’s stance aligns with many in the political elite who believe that unregulated speech threatens their ability to govern, it ignores the benefits of a free marketplace of ideas. Suppressing information or labeling it as “disinformation” undermines the public’s ability to make informed decisions. History has shown time and again that government-controlled speech often leads to abuses of power and suppression of dissenting opinions.

John Kerry, who has spent decades in public office, seems to have forgotten that in a true democracy, the people—not the government—are the ultimate arbiters of truth. His remarks reveal a troubling mindset that prioritizes control over the very freedoms that make America unique.

Our Take

Kerry’s desire to weaken the protections offered by the First Amendment is alarming. His comments suggest that he and others in power would rather stifle free speech than engage in open debate. This is not just about misinformation; it’s about controlling what people are allowed to think and say.

If Kerry and his allies had their way, only state-approved narratives would be allowed to thrive. This would destroy the foundation of democratic society, where differing opinions are meant to be heard, even if they are uncomfortable or unpopular. When elites like Kerry see freedom of speech as an obstacle, it’s clear that they are more interested in maintaining power than in fostering a free and open society.