Kentucky Senator Rand Paul today named the whistleblower whose revelations sparked the House impeachment hearing. Paul is, in theory, a libertarian, who believes in the protection of free speech. But in naming the whistleblower, he showed how little his free speech principles are worth — and how the GOP has morphed into a party bent on crushing speech, dissent, and liberty.

The Constitution protects free speech from government interference in part because the founders believed that criticism of those in power was necessary to prevent abuse. Government employees who come forward with information about crimes or abuses are alerting the public, and checking corruption. Even if a whistleblower's information turns out to be incorrect after investigation, it's important to protect the ability of people to speak up and come forward. And you do that by ensuring anonymity and freedom from retaliation.

But instead Rand Paul, a Senator and government actor, chose to reveal the whistleblower's name today on Twitter and in a press conference, after Chief Justice Roberts refused to read out his question because it contained the name in question. The whistleblower has already received death threats; he will now receive many more. Any other potential whistleblowers in the Trump administration and intelligence services are now on notice that if they come forward, Republican members of our government will not protect them. This will have a chilling effect on how our democracy works. Whether or not he realizes the consequences of his actions, Paul has contributed to an atmosphere of fear and oppression. Those who might otherwise have spoken out — about anything at all — will now wonder whether they should instead shut up for the sake of themselves and their families.

Republicans have insisted for some time now that they inhabit the party of free speech; indeed, right-wingers across the world have styled themselves as “free speech advocates” fighting the “leftie language police” and “political correctness gone mad”. Conservative commentators, and many in the center, have lamented campus protest of talks by right-wing figures like Milo Yiannopolous and Charles Murray. They argue that the left is intolerant and unwilling to hear opposing viewpoints, and this could have a harmful effect on education and the future of open discourse.

But student protestors on campus are not in positions of substantial power and authority. In contrast, the right has brazenly and with little pushback cultivated an ethos of intimidation intended to muzzle any critic on the left, or anyone who dares to push against a reactionary agenda. Yiannopoulos himself first rose to prominence as a leader of Gamergate, a floating right-wing harassment campaign loosely connected to video games, which under his guidance quickly spread to other targets. As just one example, in 2016, Yiannopoulos wrote an essay attacking Leslie Jones for her participation in the female-led reboot of Ghostbusters. Her social media accounts quickly filled with horrific racist and sexist abuse. Yiannopoulos and his fans regularly singled out targets large and small in this way; in doing so, they sent the message to leftists, women, and black people that their words and cultural products were being policed, and that they could face vicious, psychologically damaging abuse if they stepped out of line.

Some might dismiss Yiannopolous and his type as clowns or an irrelevant bullies. But the same tactics have been used by the President of the United States. When Trump retweeted a lie that Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota had celebrated after the 9/11 attacks, Omar was sent death threats by Twitter trolls. And just this week, the president tweeted about House impeachment manager Adam Schiff, saying he had “not yet paid the price” for his role in the hearings.