A Misguided Debate on Free Speech

Marco Rubio’s interview with Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation” CBS on February 16, 2025.

“Face the Nation” provided yet another arena for the clash of ideas, where Secretary of State Marco Rubio, amidst his travels through Europe and the Middle East, found himself at the center of a contentious debate with the show’s host, Margaret Brennan.

The interview took place against the backdrop of Rubio’s recent visit to Jerusalem, but the conversation pivoted to a more heated topic. Brennan, with her characteristic incisiveness, began to question Rubio about Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference.

Brennan stated, referencing Vance’s meeting with a far-right party leader in Germany.

“Well, he was standing in a country where Free Speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that, that the censorship was specifically about the right.”

Rubio, not one to shy away from defending core principles, retorted with,

“Well, I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they- they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany, they were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that’s not an accurate reflection of history.”

But Brennan’s assertion that free speech could be ‘weaponized’ in such a manner was not only historically inaccurate but also fundamentally misunderstood the essence of free speech. Free speech, as Rubio pointed out, is not about granting freedom to propagate hate or enact violence; it’s about the right to express opinions, even controversial ones, in a society that values democracy and open debate.

Rubio continued, emphasizing the importance of free expression,

“Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion? We are after all democracies. The Munich security conference is largely a conference of democracies in which one of the things that we cherish and value is the ability to speak really and provide your opinions. So I think if anyone’s angry about his word they don’t have to agree with him but to be angry about it I think actually makes his point.”

Brennan’s argument seemed to conflate the misuse of speech by authoritarian regimes for state propaganda with the concept of free speech in democratic societies. Rubio further clarified,

“I thought it was actually a pretty historic speech whether you agree with him or not. I think the valid points he’s making to Europe is we are concerned that the True Values that we share, the values that bind us together with Europe, are things like free speech and democracy… these are the values that we shared in common and in that cold war we fought against things like censorship and oppression.”

The crux of the matter is that free speech isn’t about endorsing or protecting hate speech; it’s about ensuring that no government or entity can silence dissenting voices or control the narrative. Brennan’s perspective, while perhaps well-intentioned in highlighting the dangers of extreme ideologies, missed the point that the antidote to bad speech isn’t censorship but more speech—countering misinformation with truth, hate with tolerance, and ignorance with education.

As Rubio concluded on “Face the Nation,”

“I also think it’s wrong again… the point of his speech was basically that there is an erosion in free speech and intolerance for opposing points of view within Europe, and that’s of concern because that is eroding… that’s an erosion of the actual values that bind us together in this transatlantic Union that everybody talks about.”

In the end, this exchange on “Face the Nation” served as a reminder of the delicate balance democracies must strike in protecting free speech while promoting a society where all voices can be heard, debated, and, if necessary, challenged—not silenced.

Historical Context and Facts:

The claim that “free speech caused World War II” is an oversimplification and misrepresentation of the complex causes that led to the war. Here’s a breakdown to debunk this assertion:

1. Historical Context:

Rise of Totalitarianism: The 1930s saw the rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany (Nazis under Hitler), Italy (Fascists under Mussolini), and Japan (militarists). These regimes suppressed free speech, using propaganda and censorship to control narratives and eliminate dissent. The very essence of Hitler’s control was the suppression of any form of free expression, with the Nazis outlawing all opposition parties by 1933, controlling all media, and using propaganda to maintain power.

2. Causation of WWII:

Treaty of Versailles: The harsh terms imposed on Germany after WWI led to economic instability and resentment, setting the stage for political upheaval.
Economic Depression: The Great Depression of the 1930s exacerbated economic conditions, leading to social unrest and increased support for extremist parties promising change.
Aggressive Expansionism: Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 directly precipitated WWII, driven by Hitler’s expansionist ideology and military strategy, not by free speech.
Appeasement and Diplomacy Failures: The policy of appeasement by Western powers, notably the Munich Agreement, allowed Hitler to annex parts of Czechoslovakia without war, emboldening further aggression.
Alliances and Pacts: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union allowed for the partition of Poland and gave Hitler a free hand in the West.

3. Misuse of Free Speech:

While free speech might have allowed for the spread of Nazi ideology in the early stages, the Nazi regime itself quickly abolished free speech in Germany once in power. The restriction of free speech was a tool used by the Nazis to consolidate power, not a cause of the war. This is evident in the “Enabling Act” of 1933, which effectively ended democracy in Germany by giving Hitler dictatorial powers.

4. Propaganda vs. Free Speech:

The Nazi regime used propaganda to manipulate public opinion, which is distinctly different from free speech. Propaganda under totalitarian regimes is about control and disinformation, not the open exchange of ideas that characterizes true free speech. Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda was dedicated to this task.

5. International Dynamics:

The war was also about global power dynamics, colonial ambitions, and the failure of the League of Nations to maintain peace. Free speech in democratic countries like the UK, France, or the US was not a significant factor in these dynamics but rather was curtailed where fascist regimes took hold.

6. Post-War Reflections:

After WWII, the importance of free speech was recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), highlighting its value in preventing the kind of oppression that led to the war, rather than causing it.

In conclusion, while free speech might have allowed for some initial dissemination of extremist views in the Weimar Republic, it was the suppression of free speech and democratic principles under totalitarian regimes, combined with international political failures and economic conditions, that directly contributed to the outbreak of WWII. Free speech, as a democratic value, aims to promote open debate and prevent the kind of authoritarian control that characterized the Axis powers. Therefore, claiming that free speech caused WWII is both historically inaccurate and misleading. Rubio’s defense of free speech in his interview with Brennan was not only a rebuttal but was also backed by historical facts that clearly demonstrate the opposite of Brennan’s assertion.