Culture > Free Speech

The First Amendment gives speech enormous, but not unlimited, latitude, and that applies to federal politicians, too.

Ted Noel | April 30, 2026

Another gunman has come close to shooting the President. This particular criminal traveled from California to D.C. by train, so his bags received only minimal scrutiny. His stopover in Chicago saw him violate Illinois gun laws. He stayed for a day in the hotel where the White House Correspondents’ Dinner was scheduled, a dinner President Trump intended to attend. Again, he violated gun laws, this time D.C.’s. The hotel did not inspect his gun cases, and the venue had rather porous security. It was a target-rich environment for a malicious offender with no regard for the law.

Fortunately, no one was seriously injured, but it’s not difficult to see the shooter’s reasoning. His manifesto referred to Trump as a “pedophile, rapist, and traitor.” Had he achieved his stated goals, he would have killed multiple Trump administration officials and possibly even the President.

The gunman was no low-IQ foot soldier. His bachelor’s degree was in mechanical engineering, with a Master’s in computer science. Both require a considerable level of intellectual prowess and rational thinking. Those were on display in his work tutoring for high-level college entrance exams. So, what went wrong?

All three of Trump’s attempted assassins shared similar views. They regarded conservatives, exemplified by Donald Trump, as evil and worthy of summary execution. Their right to carry out that execution resided in the shooter’s own assessment of his superior intellect. His judgment was therefore better than that of the society and structures that allowed the intended victim to continue living. That “superiority” conferred the moral authority to proceed in a manner contrary to legal and societal norms.

We don’t have to look far to see this process in action in many places. The massive fraud in federal programs is merely a........

© American Thinker