Part 3: Why Free Speech is Worth Fighting For — Even When It Hurts
By Ryan “Dickie” Thompson

---

Introduction

We’ve talked about Steven Crowder, Charlie Kirk, and the rise of political violence in Part 1. We’ve talked about my own activism—protests, pirate radio, YouTube, and civil discourse—in Part 2.

Now, let’s get to the root of it all: free speech.

Free speech isn’t just a constitutional amendment. It’s not just a legal technicality. It’s the foundation of a peaceful society.

And it’s under attack.

Not just from mobs with bricks and Molotovs, but from governments, corporations, and even ordinary people who’ve been convinced that silencing their opponents is “justice.”

This installment is about why free speech matters even when it offends, even when it stings, even when it makes you uncomfortable. Because once you lose free speech, you lose everything else.

---

Why Free Speech Matters

Let’s start with a simple question: why do we even need free speech?

The answer is because truth doesn’t emerge without friction. You don’t find truth in echo chambers. You find it in conflict—when two ideas clash, and one survives the test.

Censorship kills that process. When you censor an idea, you’re not proving it wrong—you’re just hiding it. And hidden ideas don’t go away. They fester. They turn into rage. And eventually, they explode in violence.

That’s why political violence is on the rise. Because instead of debating ideas, we’re silencing them.

---

Offensive Speech Is the Price of Freedom

Here’s the hard truth: free speech isn’t about protecting polite conversation. It’s about protecting speech you hate.

The First Amendment doesn’t exist so you can say “I like puppies.” It exists so you can say things that offend people, that challenge power, that make the comfortable squirm.

When Charlie Kirk gave speeches about conservative values, he offended people. When Steven Crowder set up his Change My Mind table, he offended people. When I went to drug court or tax day protests with a mic, I offended people.

Good. That’s how you know speech is working.

But here’s the flip side: I’ve also been offended. I’ve listened to people defend taxation, defend war, defend surveillance. I didn’t like it. But I let them speak, because that’s the deal. If I want the right to challenge them, they get the right to challenge me.

The moment you say, “I believe in free speech, but…” you don’t believe in free speech at all.

---

Censorship Creates Violence

Here’s the paradox: people think censorship prevents violence. In reality, it causes it.

Take the war on drugs. For decades, we censored honest discussions about addiction. We shut down anyone who suggested decriminalization or medical treatment. The result? Black markets, cartel wars, militarized policing, and mass incarceration. Violence everywhere.

Or take 2020. The media censored dissenting voices about COVID policy, lockdowns, and vaccines. What happened? Trust collapsed. Protests exploded. Some turned violent.

When you silence people, they don’t disappear. They harden. And eventually, some of them decide words don’t work anymore, so they pick up rocks or guns.

That’s where we are today. Censorship fuels the violence it claims to stop.

---

The Rhetoric from the Top

Part of the problem is the rhetoric coming from political leaders.

Joe Biden called half the country “semi-fascists.” Kamala Harris compared election skeptics to Confederates. Elizabeth Warren said pro-lifers want to strip women of their humanity.

When leaders frame their opponents as Nazis, fascists, or existential threats, what do you think their followers hear? They hear: “These people don’t deserve a platform. They don’t deserve dialogue. They don’t deserve to live.”

And so we get assassinations like Charlie Kirk’s. We get riots like Portland. We get targeted harassment campaigns against conservatives on campus.

It’s not because speech is dangerous. It’s because censorship and demonization have replaced dialogue.

---

My Experience With Free Speech Battles

I’ve lived this personally.

When I was on pirate radio, I knew the FCC could shut me down at any moment. But I did it anyway, because I’d rather risk fines than silence myself.

When I went to protests with my mic, I got yelled at, shoved, and threatened. But I kept asking questions, because the conversation mattered more than my comfort.

On YouTube, I’ve had videos demonetized, flagged, or shadowbanned. But I keep uploading—@xcannabiscom, @utahpirateradio, @slu2com—because these platforms, flawed as they are, are still avenues for dialogue.

Every time someone tries to shut me up, I double down. Because if they succeed, the alternative isn’t peace—it’s violence.

---

The Hypocrisy of “Hate Speech” Laws

One of the most dangerous trends in America and Europe is the rise of so-called “hate speech” laws.

On the surface, they sound nice. Nobody likes hate, right? But the problem is who gets to define it.

In practice, “hate speech” laws are just censorship with lipstick. They’re always applied unevenly. A conservative quoting the Bible can be charged. A progressive calling conservatives Nazis gets a free pass.

We’ve seen it in Canada. We’ve seen it in the UK. We’ve even seen it in parts of the US, with universities enforcing speech codes that ban “offensive” ideas.

But here’s the reality: the cure for bad speech isn’t censorship. It’s better speech.

If someone says something truly hateful, the best response is to expose it, debate it, and defeat it in the open. Shutting it down just makes martyrs out of fools.

---

Civil Discourse as the Alternative

The reason I keep circling back to civil discourse is because it’s the only real alternative to violence.

If I can sit across from someone who thinks taxation is noble, and I can calmly compare it to handing your wallet to the town drunk and hoping he buys groceries instead of whiskey, then we’ve had a dialogue. They may not agree, but we’ve exchanged ideas.

If instead I call them a fascist and they call me a bigot, the conversation ends. And when conversations end, fights begin.

That’s why I keep going out in public. That’s why I keep interviewing people. Because every conversation is a chance to defuse a bomb.

---

Why We Must Defend All Speech

The temptation is always to make exceptions. “Of course I believe in free speech, but not for that group. Not for Nazis. Not for racists. Not for extremists.”

But here’s the problem: once you make exceptions, free speech no longer exists. It becomes conditional. It becomes permission granted by the state. And the state never stops moving the goalposts.

Today it’s Nazis. Tomorrow it’s you.

That’s why I defend all speech—even speech I despise. Because the principle is bigger than the content.

If Charlie Kirk doesn’t get free speech, neither do I. If Steven Crowder doesn’t get free speech, neither do you.

---

The Way Forward

So what do we do?

1. Reject censorship in all forms. No more hiding behind “hate speech” or “misinformation.” Those are just excuses to silence dissent.
2. Recommit to civil discourse. Go out. Talk to people. Listen, even when you hate what they say. Debate, don’t destroy.
3. Defend lawful self-defense. Talking doesn’t mean being defenseless. Dialogue is the goal, but security is the shield.
4. Hold leaders accountable for rhetoric. Stop electing people who demonize half the country. Demand that politicians talk like leaders, not agitators.
5. Build alternative platforms. Pirate radio, independent sites, Rumble, Substack—whatever it takes to keep the conversation alive.

---

Conclusion

Free speech is not just a right. It’s the thin line between civilization and chaos.

When speech dies, violence takes its place. We’ve already seen it with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. We’ve seen it with Crowder behind bulletproof glass. We’ve seen it in the riots, the firebombings, the silenced voices.

But it doesn’t have to end that way.

We can choose dialogue over violence. We can choose civil discourse over censorship. We can defend speech even when it hurts, because the alternative is far worse.

This concludes my three-part series on Civil Discourse vs. Political Violence.

• Part 1: Steven Crowder, Charlie Kirk, and the Rise of Political Violence
• Part 2: Civil Discourse in the Streets – Protests, Pirate Radio, and Public Debate
• Part 3: Why Free Speech is Worth Fighting For — Even When It Hurts

If you take nothing else from this, remember this: silencing speech doesn’t end conflict. It guarantees it.

Civil discourse is the best answer. Always.

Part 2: Civil Discourse in the Streets – Protests, Pirate Radio, and Public Debate
By Ryan “Dickie” Thompson

---

Introduction

If Part 1 was about Steven Crowder and Charlie Kirk, Part 2 is about me.

Not because my story is more important, but because it proves the same point: civil discourse is dangerous, but necessary.

Before I ever wrote a word on this site, before podcasts were popular, before YouTube turned into a battleground for speech, I was already out there with a mic. I was on the streets, on pirate radio, and eventually on YouTube, talking with people who didn’t always see things my way.

I’ve gone out on tax day protests, stood outside drug courts, and hosted radio call-ins with people who ranged from libertarian purists to die-hard statists. I’ve interviewed activists, politicians, and everyday people with stories to tell.

And I’ve done all of it with one principle in mind: civil dialogue is better than violence.

That doesn’t mean it’s easy. Sometimes it’s hostile. Sometimes you leave more frustrated than when you started. But it’s still better than rocks, Molotov cocktails, or bullets.

In this installment, I’ll share how those experiences shaped me, how they connect to the current climate of political violence, and why I keep pushing for dialogue even when it’s unpopular.

---

Protests and the Streets

Let’s start with the protests.

If you want to understand America’s pulse, don’t watch cable news. Don’t scroll Twitter. Go to the courthouse on tax day. Walk through a drug court lobby. Stand outside city hall during a public protest.

That’s what I did.

I brought my camera, my mic, and sometimes just a notebook. And I asked people why they were there. Some were angry about taxes. Some were furious about government overreach. Others showed up to defend government programs.

I didn’t go to preach. I went to ask. And I learned something: people are more willing to talk than you think.

I once asked a man at a tax protest if he thought taxation was theft. He said no—it was “the price we pay for civilization.” That’s the cliché line. But when I pushed him gently—“what happens if I refuse to pay?”—he paused. He admitted that the government would eventually take his property or throw him in jail. That moment of honesty cracked open a conversation he’d probably never had before.

It didn’t mean he changed his mind right there. But it planted a seed. And more importantly, it proved something: civil conversation forces people to think.

Now compare that to what we see today: when leftist mobs burn down buildings, loot stores, or assault political opponents, nobody learns anything. Everyone just digs in deeper. The violence justifies the other side’s worst fears.

That’s why I keep showing up. Because dialogue works where force fails.

---

Drug Court and Hard Conversations

Drug court was another arena where I learned the value of civil discourse.

Here were people whose lives had been torn apart by addiction and by the justice system. Some of them saw the court as salvation. Others saw it as just another cage.

I would sit and talk with people—sometimes before hearings, sometimes after. And what struck me most was how differently people viewed the same experience.

One man told me that drug court saved his life, because it forced him into rehab. Another told me it destroyed his life, because it robbed him of his freedom while doing nothing to cure his addiction.

Both were right, in their own ways. And that’s the kind of complexity you never hear in political talking points.

The war on drugs is one of the clearest examples of how government violence replaces dialogue. Instead of sitting down and asking why people use drugs, we send in SWAT teams. Instead of debating medical approaches, we fill prisons.

If we had more civil discourse about addiction, we wouldn’t have needed drug court in the first place.

---

Pirate Radio: Free Speech Without Permission

Before podcasts were a thing, I was on pirate radio.

That wasn’t about money or fame. It was about bypassing gatekeepers. It was about free speech without asking permission from the FCC, advertisers, or corporate suits.

On pirate radio, the conversations were raw. People called in with unfiltered opinions. Sometimes I agreed. Sometimes I strongly disagreed. But the point wasn’t to agree. The point was to talk.

And those conversations mattered. When someone called in to defend big government, I didn’t mute them. I challenged them. I asked questions. I gave them space to speak.

Compare that to what we see today: tech companies censoring speech, governments pressuring platforms, mobs calling for deplatforming. Pirate radio proved that dialogue can survive without gatekeepers—and that’s why I carried the same spirit into YouTube.

---

YouTube: Protest, Debate, and Open Forums

My YouTube channels—@xcannabiscom, @utahpirateradio, and @slu2com—became my way to keep that ethos alive.

Search “protest” or “radio show” on my channel, and you’ll find countless examples of me putting the mic in front of people who disagreed with me. Not dunking on them. Not clipping them for clickbait. Just real conversations.

That’s the same spirit Crowder tapped into with Change My Mind. And it’s the same spirit Charlie Kirk embodied before his assassination.

We don’t have to agree. But we do have to talk.

---

Civil Discourse vs. Political Violence

Here’s the contrast I want people to understand.

When I go to a protest and talk to someone about taxes, nobody gets hurt. When I sit down in a drug court lobby and interview someone about addiction, nobody dies. When I host a call-in radio show, nobody ends up in the hospital.

But when extremists decide that talking is no longer enough, the result is bloodshed.

Charlie Kirk was murdered for talking. Steven Crowder had to armor up for talking. I’ve been threatened for talking.

So the question is simple: do we want a society where disagreements are solved with dialogue, or with violence?

History shows us what happens when dialogue collapses. The French Revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution. Mao’s Cultural Revolution. All fueled by the belief that opponents didn’t deserve conversation—only elimination.

That’s where America is heading if we don’t recommit to civil discourse.

---

Why I Keep Going

Some people ask me why I bother. Why risk it? Why keep putting myself out there in hostile environments?

My answer is simple: because it works.

I’ve seen minds change. Not always instantly. Not always dramatically. But enough to know it matters.

I’ve had people write me months later, saying our conversation made them rethink an issue. I’ve had former opponents become allies. I’ve even had people who hated my guts admit, grudgingly, that they respected my willingness to talk.

That’s enough for me. Because every mind changed through dialogue is one less body lost to violence.

---

Conclusion

Part 1 of this series showed what happens when civil discourse is attacked: Steven Crowder hiding behind bulletproof glass, Charlie Kirk assassinated for speaking his mind.

Part 2 shows the alternative: civil discourse in action. In the streets. In drug courts. On pirate radio. On YouTube. It’s messy, it’s uncomfortable, but it works.

I’ve lived it. And I’ll keep living it.

Because the choice is simple: civil dialogue, or civil war.

---

Coming Next in the Series

• Part 3: Why Free Speech is Worth Fighting For—Even When It Hurts
  A deep dive into why free speech is under attack, why censorship fuels violence, and why defending speech—even offensive speech—is the only way to keep a free society alive.

For over 20 years, my brother and I have argued about racism, religion, and politics. In this video, I share parts of that conversation and explain why the label “Nazi” has become the lazy weapon of choice in today’s culture.

We dive into:

Growing up punk rock and anti-racist in Utah

The truth about skinhead culture and my 1999 anti-racist biography (archived here
)

Christianity vs. Gnosticism, and how Rome corrupted the Bible

Why atheists often “preach” harder than Christians

Family conflict, victimhood, and the misuse of racism accusations

Political defamation campaigns: Trump, Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk

Ryan Long’s comedy sketch on outrage culture

Tim Pool & Steven Crowder on Charlie Kirk and political violence

This isn’t just about me and my brother. It’s about free speech, defamation, and how honest discussion is being destroyed by weaponized labels.

👉 Watch the full conversation and decide for yourself.

For more than two decades, my brother and I have circled the same arguments about racism and religion. The script rarely changes. We’ll be talking about music, our childhood in Utah, or addiction recovery, and before long it shifts into accusations:

“You’re too religious.”
“You’re pushing your beliefs on me.”
“You were a skinhead when you were a kid.”

Now it’s extended even further. His wife’s family? Racists. The people he doesn’t like? Nazis. It’s the same tired line that we hear on cable news and social media every single day: everyone I don’t agree with is a Nazi.

The irony is that this exact script has played out not just in my family, but across culture. You can watch late-night comedy or browse Twitter and see the same accusation: racist, Nazi, fascist — all because someone disagreed.

---

My Anti-Racist Past and the Punk Rock Years

When my brother brings up my youth, he throws around “skinhead” like it’s a conviction. But he conveniently leaves out the rest of the story.

When I was 15, I got a tattoo across my foot: SPEAR — Skins and Punks Everywhere Against Racism. I made a clear public stand against racism in a scene where shaved heads often got lumped in with neo-Nazis.

I didn’t hide it. I even wrote my story into a biography back in 1999 — it’s still online in the Internet Archive. I denounced racism back then, and I still do today.

My first girlfriend was Navajo back then. My closest friends were Polynesian. My favorite bands were anti-racist ska groups like the Mighty Mighty Bosstones. The first concert I ever saw at age 12 was ska — not hate rock, not white power music.

I’ve lived in the Philippines for a long while now. My son is Filipino. To this day, my family is mixed and multi-ethnic. But somehow, decades later, I’m still defending myself from lazy labels.

---

Christianity, Religion, and My Brother

Religion is the other landmine between us.

I haven’t been a churchgoer in decades. I have no pastor, no pulpit, no pew. Yet if I mention that I quit drugs at 19 after an encounter with the Holy Spirit, suddenly I’m “too religious.” Suddenly I’m “preaching.”

Meanwhile, my brother — who calls himself an atheist — takes his kid to Mormon church. My brother has been ordained in that system. So who’s more religious?

What I actually believe is simple: the Romans corrupted Christianity. They edited the Bible, built a church to save their empire, and turned faith into politics. But we’ve since uncovered older manuscripts — the Nag Hammadi library and Gnostic gospels — that predate Roman canon. They show a faith closer to Judaism and focused on righteous living here and now, not on eternal damnation.

That’s not church religion. That’s history. That’s philosophy. That’s my position.

If you want to hear how I tried to explain this to my brother, I put the conversation online: Talking with my brother about Christianity and racism.

---

The Broader Culture: “Nazi” As a Political Weapon

This isn’t just a family problem. It’s become a cultural one.

Ryan Long made a comedy sketch about the firing of Jimmy Kimmel that nails the absurdity of our outrage culture: Ryan Long Comedy on Facebook. It’s all the same template — someone offends you, so they must be racist, sexist, Nazi, fascist, or whatever label fits the moment.

Meanwhile, real political violence is minimized or ignored. Tim Pool and Steven Crowder recently discussed the Charlie Kirk assassination attempt and the spike in death threats against conservatives. You can watch that discussion here: Timcast News video.

That’s not fringe internet gossip. That’s mainstream politics in America right now. Death threats against conservatives aren’t even headline news anymore, while “mean words” on Twitter get turned into full-blown moral panics.

---

Defamation, Victimhood, and Free Speech

What frustrates me most isn’t disagreement. It’s the cheapness of the labels.

Accusing someone of being a racist or Nazi without evidence is defamation. It’s a way to win an argument without ever addressing the argument. It’s politics by character assassination.

I’ve seen the same tactic used against Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, Jordan Peterson — the list goes on. And I’ve seen it used in my own family.

But I refuse to let false labels define me. I’ve been open about my past, my mistakes, and my beliefs. I’ve written them, archived them, and stood by them. I’ve fought for free speech and honest discussion for more than 20 years on radio and podcasting.

If discussion is replaced with defamation, then free speech is dead. And if family conversation can’t exist without name-calling, then family suffers too.

---

Conclusion

The truth is simple: I’m not a racist, I’m not a Nazi, and I’m not out here preaching religion. I’m someone who believes in conversation, history, philosophy, and freedom.

If my brother or anyone else disagrees, that’s fine. But disagreement isn’t hate. Criticism isn’t fascism. And having faith in something greater doesn’t make me a zealot.

Maybe one day, we’ll be able to talk about addiction, music, and growing up in Utah without dragging racism and religion into it. But until then, I’ll keep defending myself from false labels — because the truth matters more than the narrative.

---

Sources

• My 1999 biography, archived online: https://web.archive.org/web/20091022110847/http://mystory.behindzioncurtain.com/
• Conversation with my brother: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5whMiteZBE
• Ryan Long Comedy about Jimmy Kimmel: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1343414677140448
• Tim Pool & Steven Crowder on Charlie Kirk assassination attempt: https://www.facebook.com/timcastnews/videos/2846652425724763

Part 1: Steven Crowder, Charlie Kirk, and the Rise of Political Violence
By Ryan “Dickie” Thompson

---

Introduction

When Steven Crowder walked back onto a college campus in 2025 for his first Change My Mind in years, it was more than a comeback. It was a statement.

Charlie Kirk, his friend and mentor, had been assassinated in cold blood. Not in a car accident. Not in some random tragedy. Murdered for being a conservative.

So Crowder returned to the table, but not like before. This time he was wrapped in Kevlar, backed by an army of private security, and surrounded by bulletproof glass. His sign read: “The Left is Violent. Change My Mind.”

That image—one man trying to have a conversation while encased in armor—is the perfect snapshot of where America is today.

And it hits me personally.

For years, I’ve gone out in public with nothing more than a microphone. On tax day, at drug court, at protests. Hosting radio shows, running pirate stations, putting myself in front of people who disagreed with me. I’ve always believed that civil discourse—not violence—is the way forward.

But what happens when one side of the debate starts using bullets instead of words? That’s the question we need to face.

This is Part 1 of my series on Civil Discourse vs. Political Violence. Today I’ll break down Crowder’s return, Kirk’s assassination, the double standards in how we talk about political violence, and why this matters for anyone who still believes in free speech.

---

Crowder’s Dangerous Return

Back in 2017, Change My Mind was revolutionary. A table. A sign. A man willing to listen. It sparked memes, debates, and even a few real conversions.

But the years since have been brutal. Security threats. Cancel culture. Physical attacks. It got so bad Crowder pulled back.

Until now.

And when he came back, he had to treat an open dialogue like a war zone. Bulletproof glass. Secret location drops. Millions spent on security.

Ask yourself: what does that say about America?

Have you ever seen Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Kamala Harris shield themselves behind bulletproof walls just to speak on a campus? No. And they never will.

That difference isn’t about personality. It’s about who is actually under threat in today’s America. And the answer is obvious: it’s not the left.

---

What Counts as Political Violence?

Crowder started his discussion with an important question: what exactly is political violence?

The answer is simple but crucial: it’s violence committed for a political end.

• If you get drunk and hit someone in a bar fight, that’s crime.
• If you assault someone because of their political views, that’s political violence.

This distinction matters because the media constantly manipulates it.

• When a lunatic with no political motive happens to have once voted Republican, the media counts it as “right-wing violence.”
• When Antifa shoots a Trump supporter at point-blank range, it gets left out of the data.

Look at the numbers carefully and you’ll see the game being played.

---

Charlie Kirk: Murdered for His Beliefs

Charlie Kirk was not a violent man. He didn’t call for revolution. He didn’t rally mobs. He built Turning Point USA to encourage young conservatives to get active in the battle of ideas.

For that, he was hunted down and killed.

The assassin admitted it. He engraved “anti-fascist” slogans on his bullets. He said he killed Kirk because of his politics and wanted to terrify others into silence.

That’s not random. That’s not “mental illness.” That’s terrorism.

And yet, what was the reaction? Vigils for Kirk were vandalized. Conservatives mourning him were assaulted. Online, leftist activists celebrated.

Imagine for a moment if this had been reversed—if a left-leaning leader had been assassinated by a conservative. The media and the political class would have shut the nation down for weeks.

But because Charlie Kirk was conservative? Silence. Shrugs. Or worse—cheers.

---

The Numbers Tell the Story

Here’s the uncomfortable truth the mainstream won’t report: leftists are more likely to justify political violence.

After Kirk’s assassination, polling found:

• 62% of liberals said political violence was “somewhat to completely acceptable.”
• 77% of conservatives said political violence was “not acceptable at all.”

This same pattern shows up again and again:

• After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
• After BLM riots left billions in damage.
• After the firebombing of Tesla dealerships.

The left shrugs. The right condemns.

And yet the studies and think tanks that get cited—like the Prosecution Project—omit left-wing examples while overcounting right-wing ones.

They exclude:

• Aaron Danielson murdered by Antifa in Portland.
• 37 dead in the Floyd riots.
• The Waukesha massacre.
• The assassination of Charlie Kirk.

But they’ll include any act of violence by someone who once voted Republican, regardless of motive.

It’s a rigged game. And people are dying because of it.

---

Why Civil Discourse Still Matters

This is where I get personal.

I’ve gone out to the streets myself. On tax day, I’ve set up outside the courthouse. At drug court, I’ve asked tough questions. I’ve stood at protests with my recorder running. And I’ve opened up the phone lines on pirate radio, YouTube, and livestreams for anyone who wanted to call in.

I’ve had heated debates with people who disagreed with me. I’ve been yelled at. I’ve been threatened. But I’ve always believed that talking is better than fighting.

Civil discourse is messy. It’s uncomfortable. Sometimes it gets ugly. But it’s the only way out of the spiral we’re in.

That’s why Charlie Kirk’s murder hit me so hard. He represented that spirit—solving problems through conversation. And his life was stolen because of it.

The temptation in times like this is to give up. To say talking doesn’t work anymore. To arm up and prepare for conflict.

But I reject that.

The answer isn’t silence or surrender. It’s more dialogue. Harder dialogue. Riskier dialogue. Because if we stop talking, the other side wins.

---

Where We Go From Here

Steven Crowder’s return shows us what’s at stake. We’re in a country where one side of the debate literally has to armor up just to speak. That’s not freedom. That’s fear.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination wasn’t just about him. It was a warning shot to every conservative: “shut up or else.”

But here’s the truth they don’t want us to admit: if we stop talking, they win.

That’s why I’ll keep going out. I’ll keep hosting conversations. I’ll keep uploading shows at:

• YouTube: @xcannabiscom
• Pirate Radio: @utahpirateradio
• Community channels: @slu2com

Civil discourse is the best answer we have. It always will be.

---

Conclusion

This is Part 1 of a series. And it’s just the beginning.

Next, I’ll take you behind the microphone and into the streets with Part 2: “Civil Discourse in the Streets – Protests, Pirate Radio, and Public Debate.”

After that, I’ll close the series with Part 3: “Why Free Speech is Worth Fighting For—Even When It Hurts.”

Because here’s the bottom line: dialogue is dangerous, but silence is deadly.

10 Relevant Links for Further Reading & Viewing

1. Steven Crowder’s Change My Mind (YouTube Archive)
   https://www.youtube.com/@StevenCrowder
2. Charlie Kirk’s Official Turning Point USA
   https://www.tpusa.com
3. Ryan “Dickie” Thompson – Protest & Radio Show Archives (@xcannabiscom)
   https://www.youtube.com/@xcannabiscom/search?query=protest
4. Ryan “Dickie” Thompson – Radio Show Episodes (@xcannabiscom)
   https://www.youtube.com/@xcannabiscom/search?query=radio%20show
5. Utah Pirate Radio – Community Broadcasts (@utahpirateradio)
   https://www.youtube.com/@utahpirateradio
6. SLU2 Community Channel (@slu2com)
   https://www.youtube.com/@slu2com
7. YouGov Polling on Political Violence
   https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/43113-political-violence-poll
8. Reuters: Survey on Acceptance of Political Violence in America
   https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-political-violence-survey-2022-09-01/
9. Prosecution Project (TPP) Database of Political Violence
   https://theprosecutionproject.org
10. Ludwig von Mises Institute – On Free Speech & Civil Society
    https://mises.org