Tuesday, October 27, 2026
Free speech is canceled in Olympia, Washington.
Brian Heywood, founder of Let’s Go Washington, was scheduled to attend a Thurston County Mainstream Republican (TCMR) monthly meeting as guest speaker. What should have been an opportunity for citizens to hear a presentation, ask questions and become better informed, instead drew intense online opposition.
Once activists learned of the event, social media campaigns encouraged boycotts, protests and public pressure against the restaurant, at which the meeting was to be held, simply for hosting our meeting.
When safety concerns for staff and customers became too insurmountable to overcome, Mercato Ristorante canceled our long-standing reservation.
On Oct. 21, the TCMR planned its monthly meeting at Mercato Ristorante in Olympia, where it has held board meetings and programs for more than five year. Mercato’s staff and management consistently treated us with professionalism, and we valued the food, service, and atmosphere. We always paid fairly, including automatic gratuity and often extra tips.
I have served on the TCMR board for four years and as president for two. We have hosted speakers and elected officials from across the political spectrum — Republicans, Democrats and Independents — at Mercato, to learn about issues affecting our community and state.
Our agreement with Mercato does not include the approval or endorsement of our programs. We purchased meals and used their space; Mercato provided service and hospitality.
Concerned about the escalating situation, I spoke directly with Mercato’s manager. He said he canceled our reservation because he felt responsible for protecting employees and customers.
When I asked whether anyone had made direct threats, he said no. Even so, the volume of calls, online comments, and discussion of possible protests raised legitimate safety concerns. He feared the situation could become unpredictable, disrupt normal business, and place employees at risk. Under those circumstances, he concluded that cancellation was the safest option.
This experience brought to mind the “heckler’s veto”: organized opposition suppresses speech or events through pressure and disruption rather than debate. The term describes a situation in which anticipated hostility effectively determines who may speak or gather.
Whatever one thinks of the speaker or initiatives, the result here was clear: a longstanding community organization lost its meeting space because a local business feared the consequences of hosting a lawful event.
Opposition intensified less than 24 hours before the publicly advertised meeting. According to the manager, staff received numerous calls expressing outrage and warnings of protests and disruption.
Many employees knew little about the speaker or program. Management reviewed online discussions, heard employee concerns, and considered the effects on customers and operations before canceling the reservation.
Mercato should not be criticized for its decision. Faced with uncertainty and concerns about customer and employee safety, it responded as many businesses would. The deeper problem is the atmosphere that made cancellation seem necessary.
Critics may argue — and I agree — that boycotts and protests are essential First Amendment rights. Yet, those rights should be exercised carefully, and responsibly, especially when pressure falls on local businesses that are not parties to the political dispute. When one side targets a gathering and the other retaliates against businesses, employers, workers and customers bear the cost.
Healthy communities depend on the free exchange of ideas. Public meetings, educational forums and civic organizations should be places where people can listen, question, disagree and learn without demanding agreement. People who oppose a speaker or viewpoint have every right to express that disagreement, organize and make their case publicly. But challenging ideas is different from creating conditions that discourage discussion altogether or make neutral venues unwilling to host.
Although I could not hear Heywood’s presentation, I have listened to arguments from multiple perspectives and conducted my own research on the initiatives. The intensity of the opposition has reinforced my belief that voters should examine the language, evidence and likely effects for themselves rather than rely on slogans, pressure campaigns or social media outrage. Informed citizens should be trusted to hear competing claims and reach their own conclusions.
People concerned about efforts to silence opposing views through intimidation or organized disruption should engage in the democratic process. Learn about the issues, participate in public debate, speak respectfully with neighbors and vote according to your convictions. Regardless of where we stand politically, a free society depends on our willingness to hear one another and answer disagreement with more discussion, not less.
After reviewing these measures, I will vote YES on I-001 to restore the Parental Bill of Rights, YES on I-638 to protect girls sports, and YES on I-645 to repeal the income tax on everyone.
Corey Gauny returned to Olympia in 2010 after retiring from the U.S. Air Force. Corey is involved in the community through public service organizations and his church, and he chairs the Thurston County Republican Party. His opinions are his own.
Got something to say about a topic of interest to Thurston County residents? Send it to us and we’ll most likely publish it. Click here to email to us.
9 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Tanker1982
Disgraceful
4 hours ago Report this
wellnow77
Wow- that's quite a plug in the last paragraph. (Don't try to fool yourself - you were voting YES on all three from the get-go!) I am still undecided on two of the measures, but feel those folks making over $83,000 a month, or one million a year SHOULD pay income tax on the amount above that. So it's a NO on I-645 for me. Very confusing how yes means no and no means yes....
3 hours ago Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
"When safety concerns for staff and customers became too insurmountable to overcome, Mercato Ristorante canceled our long-standing reservation." I've heard various accounts of what happened and I think that people should not be quick to assume there were actually threats that created safety concerns. According to Reddit, for example, the owners didn't cancel because of threats. They canceled because they realized they were about to host someone whose views they didn't agree with. If I were the staff person at the restaurant tasked with having to tell the group that they could not hold their meeting, it might be hard for me to admit to them that the restaurant owners are uncomfortable with who they are having as a speaker. It might be easier to say that staff are uncomfortable because staff have been getting phone calls from friends and acquaintances complaining. And the recipient of that message could easily conflate that with threats of violence. The chances of misunderstandings are great in cases like these when a business owner is trying not to offend either side, and when political polarization results in people not often interacting with those on the other side in day-to-day life. I know and like people from both sides of this incident. I can see how easily misunderstandings could arise. It is human nature in such cases where the issues draw strong emotions.
Here is a podcast that explores the psychological tendency to assume we see reality objectively, while people who disagree must be uninformed, biased, or unreasonable. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2015/11/09/yanss-062-why-you-often-believe-people-who-see-the-world-differently-are-wrong/
3 hours ago Report this
Acadian04
The "income tax on everyone?" Yeah, some folks get upset when they're lied to so blatantly. I agree our discussions should be civil, and a neutral venue should not bear the brunt of anyone's anger. Just stick to the truth, please.
2 hours ago Report this
KatAshe
First, I consider myself a moderate, left leaning democrat.
What else can one expect, when this behavior has been going on at universities across America for decades.? Persons raised to believe it is their right to never have their beliefs challenged.
How sad for adults to have no intellectual curiosity. How sad whether political or religious, to be afraid to have ones beliefs challenged.
2 hours ago Report this
MargaretDorothy
Thank you for this thoughtful piece Corey. It is a sad day when intimidation rules the day.
55 minutes ago Report this
MargaretDorothy
Vote, Vote, Vote! Yes to all 3!
55 minutes ago Report this
GrandyMarty
I'd actually say that free speech worked to shut down a violent extremist who is attacking our children and promoting a billionaire's leverage over human rights.
Go free speech! This one was a BIG "W!"
Report this
hptrillium
There is income tax only on income over one million dollars a year. This is very fair. Why would anyone need more than a million dollars a year? When people are houseless and hungry it is disgraceful to have so much money and not be required to use some of it for the public good.
I am voting NO on all 3 initiatives!
Report this