Welcome to the newest front in the speech wars in America. We have only recently emerged from an era of madness wherein people were cancelled for everything they said. Now we live in a time when citizens are scrutinized for everything they don’t say.

This week, journalist Sloan Rachmuth noted on her X account that Tucker Carlson’s brother, Buckley, shares his sibling’s negative views of American support for Israel as well as his sympathetic views toward podcaster Nick Fuentes,  who is a fan of Stalin and Hitler but not of Jews, blacks, or the second lady, Usha Vance, whom he racially slurred.

Ms. Rachmuth then reasoned that we should question the views of another of Tucker Carlson’s relatives — his son, also named Buckley. He serves as deputy press secretary in Vice President Vance’s office and has said nothing publicly about Israel or Mr. Fuentes but is apparently implicated by his silence and his surname. 

This is akin to the left’s mantra that “silence is violence” and suggests guilt by association, even if the little hairs on the back of our necks do tingle at the mention of the name “Carlson.”  

Defending her interest in Mr. Buckley, Ms. Rachmuth explained on her X account that, “in America, we ask questions about the vice president’s closest aides who are taxpayer funded.” Fair enough — but this wasn’t a neutral inquiry. Rather, Ms. Rachmuth began with the insinuation that Buckley Carlson might very well be a “vile bigot.”

“America deserves to know how deep the Carlson family’s ethnic and religious hatred runs,” Ms. Rachmuth wrote on X. She sounded a lot like Lord Voldemort in the 2011 film version of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: “And now is the time to declare yourself. Come forward and join us… or die.”  

Maybe Buckley Carlson is the kind of guy who just wants to do his job and avoid public discourse about Nick Fuentes and his Nazi ways. Maybe he is nothing like his father, or maybe he is exactly like him and supports feudalism. Ironically, I reached out to Buckley Carlson on X to give him a chance to comment, even while I am defending his right not to respond to the accusations people are making.

We don’t know — but for the modern-day speech crime of not declaring himself an anti-groyper and for not denouncing his father’s views, Buckley Carson is presumed guilty. This is compelled speech masquerading as a call for accountability, and it is as worrisome as censorship was during the Biden administration.

Silence is no longer golden in America. A psychologist, Jordan Peterson, warned in 2018 in a Wall Street Journal op-ed under the headline “Against Compelled Speech”: “If silence is not allowed, what is anyone allowed?”

The push for public denunciations of socially unacceptable views is partly the symptom of an age in which everyone has a public platform in his pocket and is expected to use it. The Latin maxim qui tacet consentire videtur, meaning “he who is silent is taken to agree,” seems logical when it is so simple to speak out, but that’s a fallacy. We shouldn’t confuse opportunity for obligation or orientation — it erodes freedom and invites authoritarianism.

Ultimately, this isn’t really about Buckley Carlson. He, and the rest of us, live in concentric circles around the real target and simply suffer the consequences. This is a story about Mr. Vance and the vision for America he will bring to the 2028 Presidential election. Elements on both the left and the right have interests in opposing him. 

Nothing says “disqualifying” like someone who won’t denounce a Hitler groupie like Mr. Fuentes. The vice president has denounced Mr. Fuentes — twice. He hasn’t denounced his friend Tucker Carlson, though, for failing to denounce Mr. Fuentes. Mr. Vance’s silence about Tucker Carlson’s silence is his perceived sin.

When it comes to elected officials, there is a legitimate debate to be had here. Should our leaders be expected to denounce dangerous ideologies that degrade the country’s social fabric: The Woke Left, Marxism, the Far Right, and Islamism for instance? Would it be better were  they to publicly disavow influencers who promote these views or who platform others who do?

We should define expectations clearly before punishing public servants for failing to meet them. Otherwise, we risk a culture of endless litmus tests, where silence becomes a crime and free speech devolves into forced speech. Let’s leave Buckley Carlson alone — for now — and at least until he actually says or does something that invites attention.