Republicans Seen As The Bigger Threat To Free Speech

The chart above is from the Yahoo / YouGov Poll -- done between September 25th and 29th of a nationwide sample of 1,676 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

Voters Are Unhappy With Trump Over Misuse Of DOJ And Free Speech

 

The charts above reflect the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between September 26th and 29th of a nationwide sample of 1,518 registered voters, with a margin of error of 3.1 points.

Trump Wants To Control Who Can Speak At The U.N.

The words above, from Colombian President Gustavo Petri, will probably shock many Americans. But they shouldn't. He has a point.

Donald Trump appeared at the United Nations last week, and among other things, he remarked about the organizations inability to solve world problems. I believe the UN does a lot of good in the world, but it does have some problems.

I wonder if Trump realizes that he is one of those problems. Last week, the UN debated the possibility of a two-state solution to solve the problems between Israelis and Palestinians. But not all parties were able to appear and speak at the UN. Trump refused to allow representatives of Hamas to enter the U.S. and appear at the UN. Whatever one might think of Hamas (and they deserve the criticism they receive), shouldn't all sides be heard if a solution is to be found?

Then, after President Petro joined a demonstration supporting Palestinians, Trump revoked his visa and forced him to leave this country. Petro did not commit or support violence. He just peacefully demonstrated with others. Shouldn't that be his right (since our Constitution affords the same rights to everyone in this country - even visitors)?

We are currently having a problem with the Trump administration trying to suppress free speech in the United States. But we need to also support free speech at the United Nations. How can solutions be found when only some are allowed to speak? If the United Nations is to work, everyone must be included.

But Donald Trump thinks he should have the right to restrict who can enter this country to speak at the United Nations. He should not have that right! 

As long as Trump tries to control who can appear before the UN, President Petro has a point. Maybe the UN should be moved to a country that will respect everyone's ability to address it - even those with unpopular views.

Voters Are Growing More Pessimistic About Protection Of Free Speech

The chart above reflects the results of the Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between September 18th and 21st of a nationwide sample of 1,276 registered voters, with a 3.3 point margin of error.
 

Why Is Kimmel Back? - A Massive Public Backlash!

Robert Reich tells us the real reason Jimmy Kimmel is back on the air:

ABC says “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” will return to the airwaves next Tuesday — less than a week after Trump henchman Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission, said on a podcast that Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people” and that the FCC would have “do this the easy way or the hard way” — suggesting that either ABC and its parent company, Walt Disney, remove Kimmel, or the FCC would revoke ABC’s broadcast license. 

Why Walt Disney Company’s turnaround? It limply explained today:

“Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country. It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive.”

But now, apparently, all is well. 

“We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.”

How lovely. How reasonable. How, well, kumbaya. All it took were some “thoughtful conversations with Jimmy” and everything returned to normalcy.

 

Don’t believe it. In the days since ABC’s decision, the blowback against Disney has been hurricane level.

At least five Hollywood unions, collectively representing more than 400,000 workers, have publicly condemned the company.

The screenwriters’ union decried what they called “corporate cowardice” and organized a protest last week outside the main gate at Disney headquarters in Burbank, California.

Celebrities Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep called out “government threats to our freedom of speech.” 

Kimmel was supported by his late-night peers, including Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, and John Oliver, as well as former late-night hosts David Letterman, Conan O’Brien, and Jay Leno — all of whom blasted the decision. 

Damon Lindelof, a creator of ABC’s “Lost,” said that if Kimmel’s program did not return from suspension, he couldn’t “in good conscience work for the company that imposed it.” 

Michael Eisner, a former Disney CEO, issued a rare rebuke.

Even right-wing Republican Senator Ted Cruz expressed concern, likening Carr’s comments to a mob boss and calling his threats to potentially retaliate against media companies “dangerous as hell.”

“We should not be in this business,” Cruz said. “We should denounce it.”

By this morning, Carr himself was busy minimizing his role — denying that he had threatened to pull the licenses of ABC stations (it “did not happen in any way, shape or form”) — and claiming Disney had made a “business decision” in response to feedback from viewers and affiliates. 

“Jimmy Kimmel is in the situation that he’s in because of his ratings, not because of anything that’s happened at the federal government level,” Carr said.

But the most intense pressure came from us — from Disney viewers and customers — who immediately began to cancel subscriptions to Disney+ and Hulu and threaten a broader consumer boycott. 

Some stars such as Tatiana Maslany (star of Marvel’s Disney+ series “She-Hulk: Attorney at Law”) and Rosie O’Donnell urged people to cancel their subscriptions. 

But the consumer boycott seems to have begun almost immediately. 

According to Strength in Numbers, searches for “cancel Disney+” were higher than boycott movements from when Disney went “woke” in 2020-2022. According to search interest, the Disney boycott quickly became four times as large as any boycott over the last five years. 

Shortly after Kimmel’s suspension was announced, Disney stock dipped about 3.5 percent and continued to trade lower in subsequent days. 

That loss in market value has amounted to about $4 billion. 

Investors knew consumers were upset. There’s never one single reason for the ups and downs in the value of a particular firm’s shares of stock, but the correlation here has been almost exact. 

The bottom line: We have extraordinary power. We’re the vast majority. Like every other big corporation, Disney relies on us.

Even if we can’t count on our elected politicians to protect our First Amendment rights, we can rely on ourselves. When our outrage translates into withholding our consumer dollars, a big corporation like Disney is forced to listen — and respond. 

Remember this.

Trump's War On Free Speech Likely Killed His Hope For A Nobel Prize

 

From The Borowitz Report

Trump's War On Comedy Could Be His Undoing

 This post is by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich:

The one thing Trump can’t take is a joke, especially one at his expense. 

Yesterday — one day after ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s show off the air “indefinitely,” after pressure from the chairman of Trump’s Federal Communications Commission — Trump said federal regulators should revoke broadcast licenses over late-night hosts who speak negatively about him.

 

“They’re giving me all this bad press, and they’re getting a license,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. “I would think maybe their license should be taken away.”

It was bad enough in the early 1950s when the U.S. government criminalized certain speech during Joe McCarthy’s communist witch hunts. Those witch hunts were directed at alleged members of the Communist Party who supposedly posed a threat to America (although the vast majority of them were loyal Americans).

 

Late-night comedians pose no conceivable threat to America. They make people laugh. 

But they do pose a potential threat to Trump.

 

CBS’s cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s Late Show was announced just days after Colbert slammed CBS’s parent company, Paramount, for giving Trump $16 million to settle Trump’s defamation suit — which Colbert called a "big, fat bribe” to get the FCC to allow Paramount to merge with and be acquired by Skydance Media. 

Colbert was correct, of course.

 

Trump’s response to Colbert’s cancellation? “I absolutely love that Colbert' got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next.”

Kimmel was next, and it’s probably not coincidental that ABC has also been a target of Trump’s defamation ire, finally settling with him for the same amount, $16 million.

 

Trump’s response to Jimmy Kimmel’s cancellation this week? "Great news for America.” Trump then added, “[t]hat leaves Jimmy [Fallon] and Seth [Meyers], two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC."

What does Trump have against late-night comedians? 

For as long as anyone can remember, they’ve been a source of jokes about those in power. In the wake of Kimmel’s firing, David Letterman, the longtime late-night host, said he’d routinely beat up on president after president over the years, and “not once were we squeezed by anyone from any governmental agency. Everyone sort of understood [it was] in the name of humor.” 

But Trump hates to be the object of humor. Some deep part of his reptilian brain understands that humor can be a more powerful antidote to tyranny than any other form of criticism. 

Laughter doesn’t just entertain, it subverts. Humor undermines tyrannical power that relies on projecting an image of inevitability and invincibility, by making a tyrant appear weak and vulnerable. Check one against Trump.

Laughter also undermines fear, which is used by tyrants to maintain control. When the public laughs at a leader, his oppressive control weakens. Check two against Trump. 

Finally, humor can remind people they’re not alone. When a joke is widely shared, it reveals that opposition is widespread, which can encourage and validate resistance.

 

Check three against Trump. 

At some level, Trump understands this. 

It’s also true that Trump’s fragile ego can’t stand to be ridiculed. 

Anyone who watched the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner got a glimpse of how much Trump hates being mocked. President Obama and Seth Meyers spent nearly five minutes roasting Trump over his promotion of the "birther" conspiracy theory. The audience roared. But Trump appeared to seethe. Some of his biographers have speculated that this event was a key factor in his decision to run for president in 2016.

 

Finally, Trump seems constitutionally unable to recognize humor. 

Unlike John F. Kennedy, whose wit encouraged us to laugh with him, or Ronald Reagan, whose funny asides endeared him to many who disagreed with his politics, Trump is humorless. 

He doesn’t laugh. He rarely smiles. He occasionally tells a humorous story at the expense of someone or some group he dislikes but he is incapable of self-deprecating humor. 

We don’t laugh with Trump. We only laugh at him.

 

In 2018, during his speech at the United Nations, his claim that “in less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country” drew loud guffaws from world leaders. (Taken aback, Trump responded, “Didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s okay.”)

For all these reasons, Trump’s war on late-night comedians may be his undoing.

 

It’s one thing to declare war on crime or undocumented workers or even liberals. But everyone loves to laugh. 

As Letterman said, “the institution of the President of the United States ought to be bigger than a guy doing a talk show, you know You can’t go around firing somebody because you’re fearful [that they’ll get a laugh]. That’s just not how this works.”

Trump Strikes Another Blow Against Free Speech In The U.S.

The statement above was made by Jimmy Kimmel on his ABC late night show. It can be debated whether it was funny or not. But Donald Trump and the MAGA right displayed just how thin-skinned they are when they heard it.

They were outraged. How dare a comedian say anything about their white Christian nationalist and patriarchy-loving martyr! While they have been whining about free speech for years now, they made it clear that the free speech was only intended for right-wingers. They don't want anyone to have the right to disagree with them (or say anything that offends them).

And the Trump administration acted to curb that speech:

I doubt that FCC Chair Carr could actually pull ABC's license, but the threat itself was a violation of the Constitution's Free Speech clause. The government cannot act to limit speech, no matter how offensive or hateful they think it is.

But that wasn't the only thing. ABC's parent company (Nexstar) has a pending merger with Tegna. And they need approval from Trump's FCC to finalize the merger. Nexstar decided that the merger was more important than defending free speech so they caved (putting Jimmy Kimmel's show on an indefinite suspension) - giving Trump one more victory in censoring the media.

It's a repeat of what happened when CBS said Stephan Colbert's show would end at the end of his contract next year. CBS's parent company also needed government approval for a merger, and rather than defend Colbert's free speech rights, they caved to the Trump administration.

Both of these corporate moves were very damaging to the ideas of free speech and a free press - both of which are necessary for the survival of any democracy.

They also point out a problem with the super-rich buying up media outlets. These people are not concerned with providing the people the truthful news they need. They are only concerned with their bottom line -- making obscene amounts of money.

Donald Trump is always seeking more power. He wants to rule as an authoritarian (like his buddy Putin). The only things that can stop that are free speech and a free press. But he is being successful in, bit-by-bit, muting the press and critical speech. Greedy people and corporations are letting him do it, and Congress is doing nothing.

This makes the 2026 midterm elections more important than ever. Trump has more than three years left in his term, and without a Congress willing to rein him in, he could finally become the tyrant he wants to be.

Trump Thinks Free Speech Is For The Right - Others Must Be Punished For It

 

Right-wingers have been whining about censorship since Trump began his lies in his first campaign. They didn't like him being called out on his untruths. They claimed he was covered by the free speech provision of the Constitution's First Amendment. They were right. The hateful and untrue things Trump said were protected speech.

But it seems that their belief in free speech is limited only to those they agree with - those expounding right-wing ideas. 

Since Charlie Kirk's death, they have been trying to make him a martyr. And they are very upset that many on the left (and in the center) have been pointing out that Kirk was not really a good person. He supported racist, homophobic, and misogynistics views - and even said that the deaths of innocent citizens was OK to protect the right to own a gun. 

Trump, AG Bondi, and many others on the right now want to punish those who disparage the memory of Kirk (even though much of it is just using Kirk's own words). They call it hate speech. AG Bondi said anyone using hate speech (saying bad things about Kirk) would be "gone after" by the law.

"Hate speech" and offensive speech are protected by the Constitution. That's been decided by the Supreme Court. Even real hate groups (like the KKK) get to say whatever they want as long as they don't specifically instruct someone to commit a crime. And you don't get to ban or censor speech just because it offends you.

I am personally offended by many things right-wingers (including Trump and his cabinet) routinely say. But as wrong as their statements might be, and as offensive as I find it, I know it is protected speech. 

Free speech is essential to the survival of a democracy like ours. If you ban or censor speech that you don't like, you put a knife in the heart of democracy. You don't have to like the speech of others, and you have the right to vigorously oppose it - but you don't have the right to censor or punish it.

Censoring or punishing speech (no matter how offensive) is a giant step toward an authoritarian state. But sadly, it seems that is what the MAGA right wants.

The Right To Assembly And To Free Speech Applies To Everyone In The U.S.

 

The trump administration has arrested a legal immigrant student for taking part in a demonstration against the Israeli action in Gaza. They want to revoke his right to be in this country and deport him.

They have also arrested a female doctoral student for writing a pro-Hamas editorial for her student newspaper. They want to revoke her right to stay in this country and deport her.

The Trump administration would like you to think that because these were not citizens, they don't have the same rights as citizens do under the Constitution. That is simply not true.

Anyone inside the borders of the United States have the rights guaranteed in the Constitution - including the right to assemble for a redress of grievances, free speech, and due process. Even Justice Scalia, a hero of the conservative right, agreed with this.

The Trump administration said these two had supported Hamas, and their actions were antisemitic. That may or may not be true. It doesn't matter, because the Constitution protects even offensive speech. It protects racist, homophobic, and misogynistic speech - and it protects anti semitic speech.

Any citizen or organization can respond to offensive hate speech, and even take legal action against it. BUT THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT! The government cannot act against a person for exercising speech or assembly rights - even if it is offensive. 

Trump has claimed he wants to protect free speech, but in reality, the only speech he wants to protect is the speech that he agrees with. As president, he cannot take any action to curtail free speech or assembly, no matter how offensive he finds it to be.

The Constitution is very clear on that!

Banning TikTok Doesn't Protect Our Security - It Damages Our Free Speech

Our government passed a law that bans TikTok in this country (unless it sells to a U.S. person or company). And last week, the Supreme Court upheld that law - agreeing with Congress that it was a security threat (and that threat was great enough to restrict free speech).

I disagree. I fail to see the security threat. While it is true that the free speech right of all Americans is not absolute - you cannot use speech to put lives in danger (like yelling fire in a theater or telling someone to kill someone or exposing a military secret) - the rules against it are rightfully very limited.

Just how does allowing TikTok to exist compromise our national security?

Its opponents point out that it gathers the personal information of citizens. I'm sure it does. But so do many other social media sites (and they eagerly sell that information to companies and other organizations).  That doesn't compromise our national security, but it can be irritating to individuals who don't want their information shared. To them, I say don't share your information of any internet site.

Its opponents say many people get their "news" from TikTok, and they could be getting news slanted toward China's interests. That may be true also. But many people get their news from other sites that are suspect, both on the right and left (and those sites contain a lot of slanted news and outright misinformation). It would be nice if every site only printed the truth, but that is not the world we live in.

The truth is that free speech must include speech we don't like - even speech that may offend us. We can use our own speech to oppose what we see as offensive or untrue, but it's a mistake to try and ban it. When a government bans one type of speech, it makes it easier to ban another - and banning speech is the tool dictators use to control the population.

The two most important rights we have as Americans are the right to vote and the right to free speech - and those rights depend on each other. We cannot restrict either and maintain our democracy.

The government ban of TikTok was a step in the wrong direction for our democracy. I hope it can soon be overturned.

Colleges Should Protect Free Speech And Academic Freedom

Colleges and universities should be bastions of free speech and academic freedom. Unfortunately, too many administrators are attacking them. They fear the right-wingers in Congress (who believe higher education should be nothing more than propaganda for their own beliefs). 

Here is Robert Reich's take on the situation (which I wholeheartedly agree with):

The most important thing I teach my students is to seek out people who disagree with them. 

That’s because the essence of learning is testing one’s ideas, assumptions, and values. And what better place to test ideas, assumptions, and values than at a university?

Apparently, Columbia University’s president, Nemat Shafik, does not share my view. Last week she prostrated herself before House Republicans, promising that she would discipline professors and students for protesting the ongoing slaughter in Gaza in which some 34,000 people have died, most of them women and children. 

The following day she summoned the New York City Police Department to arrest more than 100 students who were engaging in a peaceful protest against it. 

Can we be clear about a few things? Protesting this slaughter is not expressing antisemitism. It is not engaging in hate speech. It is not endangering Jewish students. It is doing what should be done on a college campus — taking a stand against a perceived wrong, at least provoking discussion and debate.

 

Education is all about provocation. Without being provoked — stirred, unsettled, goaded — even young minds can remain stuck in old tracks. 

Israel’s war on Hamas is horrifying. The atrocities committed by both sides illustrate the capacities of human beings for inhumanity and show the vile consequences of hate. For these reasons, it presents an opportunity for students to reexamine their preconceptions and learn from one another. 

If Columbia, Yale, or any other university now roiled by student protests were doing what it should be doing, it would be a hotbed of discussion and debate about the war. Disagreement would be welcome; demonstrations, accepted; argument, invited; differences, examined and probed.

 

The mission of a university is to coach students how to learn, not tell them what to think. It is to invite debate, not suppress it. Truth is a process and method — more verb than noun. 

I love it when my students take issue with something that I or another student has said, starting with “I disagree!” and then explaining why. Disagreeing is not being disagreeable. Disagreement engenders thought and discussion. It challenges students to reconsider their positions and probe more deeply.

Which is why universities should encourage it. Why they should protect unpopular views. Why they should invite and welcome speakers with views that rile many students. To be riled up is to be attentive, open to new ideas. 

And why peaceful demonstrations should be encouraged, not shut down. It is never appropriate to call in armed police to arrest peaceful student demonstrators.

Finally, it’s why universities should go out of their way to tolerate expression that may make some people uncomfortable. To tar all offensive speech “hate speech” and ban it removes a central pillar of education. Of course it’s offensive. It is designed to offend.

 

There is a limit, of course. Expression that targets specific students, “doxes” them, or otherwise aims to hurt them as individuals doesn’t invite learning. It is a form of intimidation. It should not be allowed.

 

I’m old enough, and have been a professor long enough, to have seen campuses explode in rage — at bigots like George Wallace when he ran for president, at the horrors of the Vietnam War, at university investments in South Africa, and at efforts to prevent free speech. 

Some of these protests were loud. Some caused inconvenience. Some protesters took over university buildings. But most were not violent. Nor did they seek to harm or intimidate individual students.

 

Whenever university presidents have brought in the police, and students have been arrested and suspended, all learning has stopped. 

Which brings me to the central role of university faculties in protecting free expression on campus.

 

This role is especially critical now, when the jobs of university presidents and trustees have degenerated mainly into fundraising — often from wealthy alumni who have their own myopic views about what sorts of speech should be allowed and what should be barred. 

The faculty of Columbia University has every right — and, in my view a duty — to protect peaceful free expression at Columbia with a vote of no confidence in Shafik’s leadership, and seek to end her presidency. 

The Columbia faculty along with those of Yale, NYU, and other campuses now engulfed in protests against what is occurring in Gaza should do everything in their power to use the resulting provocations, inconveniences, and discomforts as occasions for learning rather than repression.