Free speech is a hallmark of American culture and constitutionalism, and alternative media such as podcasts, operate under these privileges.
But are some of them crossing the line, and working against national security during a time when the U.S. is in an effective war against internal political coalitions which opened the Southern border to a mass illegal invasion, combined with foreign states that are directly opposed to U.S. and Western stability, such as Iran, as well as regimes in Latin America like Venezuela that serve as a concentrated staging area against U.S. interests? And of course, there is China, which often seems to represent a pragmatic trading partner, but is in fact, conducting an unprecedented build-up of full-spectrum war capability.
Some podcasters such as former federal judge Andrew Napolitano, trades on his former judicial credentials, but his constant theme with interviewees consists of endless speculative criticism of President Trump, and the entire apparatus of U.S. military operations. He does this while linking it to negative messages of broad U.S. decline.
His podcast sponsor is a commercial firm that markets gold coins, so apparently creating uncertainty is a narrative that he seems to exploit in what should be to him, a conflict of interest.
Moreover, when otherwise respectable and distinguished former U.S. military and intelligence officers join a popular podcast with an Iranian "professor" broadcasting from Brazil, and share experienced insights into U.S. government organization and methods, is that a wise use of free expression?
Why is University of Chicago political science professor and frequent podcast guest John Mearsheimer making funded trips to China, telling the Chinese that they are the rising superpower of the world, surrounded by fawning Chinese college students, and "receiving a welcome befitting a pop star" while using the occasion to agitate against U.S.-Israel relations? He is joined by Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs who in his earlier career, officially advised Russia to use "shock therapy" to upend its economy, but which only upended Russian society, and opened the door to corruption.
These professors, former government consultants, and federal employees, have formed a loose network of "advisors" and media opportunists, who seem to consider themselves de facto representatives of a more enlightened foreign policy, but which is directly counter to official U.S. positions, undermining global confidence, and also stoking anti-American and anti-Israel sentiment.
Free speech is an important part of our society, but some media podcasters may be crossing the line, and creating an instance of what Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes called the most vital prohibition to unbridled speech: the verbal creation of a "clear and present danger."
Constructive criticism is one thing; marketing doubt, creating fear and inciting prejudice during a broad national defense footing, is another.