Unfiltered with Jessica

The Constitution Isn’t Dangerous—Attacking It Is
After hearing Joe Rogan in a YouTube short break down The New York Times’ absurd article, “The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?”—I had to read it myself. Honestly, it felt like a fever dream. The NYT isn’t just questioning the Constitution—they’re framing it as a threat. This isn’t satire; this is real. It’s part of a growing trend in elite circles, where the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are seen as inconveniences rather than protections. The media is selling fear, and they need a villain to make the sale—whether that villain is Donald Trump, the First Amendment, or even free speech itself.

It’s obvious what’s happening here. Freedom of speech isn’t the problem—the problem is that freedom makes control difficult. As Rogan pointed out, “If you don’t have someone that is an imminent threat on the horizon, it’s very difficult to justify all the [censorship].” The Constitution blocks anyone—government, media, or otherwise—from silencing voices they don’t like. Without a bogeyman like Trump to rally against, how do you convince people to hand over their freedoms?

Think about it—what if the 2024 presidential race was between Kamala Harris and someone like Tim Scott or Asa Hutchinson? No Trump. No villain. How would they sell the idea that the First Amendment needs to be curtailed because it’s too dangerous? They need a crisis to justify censorship. No crisis, no control.

This isn’t just an American problem. Brazil banned Twitter (now X), making it illegal to access the platform—even through a VPN, with violators facing $8,000-a-day fines. We’re seeing a global war on speech. Governments are silencing dissent and calling it “safety.” Whether it’s misinformation, disinformation, or whatever buzzword they come up with next, the pattern is clear—free speech is becoming the enemy.

What’s happening in Brazil is a preview of what authoritarianism looks like. And make no mistake—when elites here suggest that the Constitution is a threat, they are laying the groundwork for similar crackdowns. The NYT article isn’t just questioning the past—it’s preparing the public for a future where speech isn’t free.

This attack on the Constitution isn’t happening in a vacuum. We’re seeing a coordinated move away from national sovereignty toward global governance, where organizations like the WEF and NATO gain influence over policies that affect your everyday life. These institutions aren’t accountable to voters. They don’t care about your freedom—they care about control. It’s not a coincidence that the erosion of free speech aligns with broader geopolitical crises and even health crises. Censorship is no longer about protecting people—it’s about power consolidation.

The Constitution stands in the way of that agenda. That’s why it’s being framed as a relic—something sacred but also “dangerous.” The truth is, it’s only dangerous to those who want unchecked authority. Free citizens are unpredictable. They question, resist, and disrupt narratives. That’s what the First Amendment guarantees, and that’s why it’s under attack.

The article implies that the Constitution’s principles need to “evolve” with the times, but let’s be clear—progress without principles isn’t progress. It’s chaos. Without the guardrails of the Constitution, we risk sliding into a world where truth is whatever the loudest voices say it is. Today’s disinformation is tomorrow’s inconvenient truth. If we let go of the First Amendment because it makes people uncomfortable, what’s next? Will the right to protest go too? Will religious freedom be sacrificed next in the name of unity or safety?

Once we start down that road, there’s no coming back. When governments decide which speech is acceptable and which isn’t, freedom becomes an illusion. What makes the Constitution sacred is that it doesn’t change based on what’s fashionable—it stays constant, even when it’s inconvenient. That’s not dangerous. That’s essential.

Freedom Is Uncomfortable—and That’s the Point

The NYT article misses the mark entirely. Freedom isn’t supposed to be easy or comfortable—it’s supposed to be challenging. The best ideas rise from debates that are messy, controversial, and even offensive. If we start censoring speech because it’s uncomfortable, we lose the very thing that keeps us free. The Founders understood this, and that’s why the First Amendment exists—to protect the voices nobody wants to hear.

Yes, misinformation exists. But the solution isn’t censorship—it’s more speech. Suppressing dissent doesn’t eliminate falsehoods; it just hides them until they fester and grow stronger. The way forward isn’t to tear down the Constitution but to lean into it. That’s how we stay free.

This NYT article is more than just a misguided opinion—it’s a dangerous narrative that undermines the foundations of liberty. The Constitution isn’t a threat to politics—it’s the only thing standing between us and authoritarianism. And the people trying to convince you otherwise are the ones who fear freedom the most.

The fact that mainstream media can casually suggest that one of the greatest documents ever written is a danger shows how far we’ve drifted from our principles. But the solution isn’t to dismantle those principles—it’s to defend them, loudly and unapologetically.

Because when the dust settles, it won’t be the censors or authoritarians who are remembered—it will be those who refused to let freedom die quietly.