Dedicated thread for our First Amendment crisis

DrVenture

This has been discussed in various threads. But, I do not believe it is isolated to ABC or Jimmy Kimmel, nor do I believe that it is over. On the contrary, I believe it is only beginning. So let's chronicle it.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/sep/21/rand-paul-ky-republican-pans-fcc-chairs-comments-jimmy-kimmel/

It turns out that Rand Paul and I agree on Brendan Carr's inexcusable messaging. And Ted Cruz, who I despise had this to say: the Texas Republican, said the episode is “right out of ‘Goodfellas,’” alluding the classic organized crime movie.

Now it is getting real. These guys are distancing themselves from the FCC, and the directives it has been given from the Trump administration. I can only conclude, they believe that supporting a direct assault on the First Amendment might kill their careers, even in deep red states.

I foresee an expedited First Amendment showdown at the SCOTUS, that will not end well for Trump or Carr. The only question that remains is who files the charges. I expect that all the New outlets targeted so far with Trump lawsuits will join the cause.

Add your thoughts and related events.

DrVenture

https://www.newsweek.com/disney-plus-subscribers-quit-jimmy-kimmel-axe-2132535

"User Jody Vance wrote that the website crashed when she tried to cancel her subscription. "Weird. @DisneyPlus keeps crashing when I try to cancel my subscription," she said. "Wonder if it's a bit busy?"

The anger isn't just contained online. Protesters gathered outside the Disney studio in Burbank, California, on Thursday in the wake of ABC's decision to take the show off air. Demonstrators told CNN that they had already canceled their Disney+ subscriptions in protest against the move."

DrVenture

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/19/trump-no-longer-free-speech-00574219

The thin-skinned buffoon has declared war of criticism of him.

"President Donald Trump on Friday reiterated his claim that critical television coverage of him is “illegal” and pushed back on criticisms that his administration was taking actions that chill free speech. “When 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it’s no longer free speech,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office".

Who could ever have imagined a billionaire POTUS whining that "it is illegal" for people to talk negatively about him? The best part, to me, is that no matter what else happens to go Trump's way, he will always be tortured that he is not universally loved. LOL A wealthy life wasted.

Old_Joe

It's the first time in my life that I've found myself in agreement with Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz, of all people. Cruz called Carr’s threats “right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, ‘nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.’”

He explained: “I think it is unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying, ‘We’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.’”

Thanks for starting this thread- the situation really does need constant monitoring.

DrVenture

Yes, everyone, please keep adding whatever items or comments that you have.

@Old_Joe I know, right? I generally have no use for either of them. To be fair, they are both educated enough to know how badly a policy like this could backfire on their own kind.

larryB

If there were not dozens of outrages being perpetrated by the regime , the attack on the First Amendment would be the story of the century. But so much shit is going down so fast that it’s impossible to focus on anything for very long. Who among us doesn’t wake up and check for the newest assault on our country and everything it stands for? Just another shitty day in paradise.

Old_Joe

In Assault on Free Speech, Trump Targets Speech He Hates

Following are excerpts from a current report in The New York Times. This should be a free link, and these excerpts are just a small sample of the NYTimes report, which is is quite lengthy.

As President Trump threatens a wide-ranging crackdown on mainstream media institutions and political opponents, his aides and allies have cast the administration’s moves as critical to stanching misinformation and hate speech that could lead to political violence.

But Mr. Trump himself has repeatedly made clear in recent days that he has a different goal. For him, it’s not about hate speech, but about speech that he hates — namely, speech that is critical of him and his administration.

He demanded that multiple late-night comics who mocked him be taken off air. He threatened to shutter television broadcasters that he deemed unfair to him. He sued The New York Times for allegedly damaging his reputation. And that was just last week.

Mr. Trump can be strikingly transparent about what is driving him. He talks regularly about how journalists, commentators and political actors should not be “allowed” to be so harsh toward him: “They’ll take a great story and they’ll make it bad,” he told reporters in the Oval Office, referring to network newscasts. “See, I think that’s really illegal.”

Even before his latest lawsuit against The Times, he sued ABC, CBS and The Wall Street Journal. He slashed federal funding for PBS and NPR. He moved to dismantle government broadcasters like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Martí, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

He threw The Associated Press out of the White House press pool because it refused to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”, and seized control of the press pool altogether, determining which news organizations would be permitted into the Oval Office or on Air Force One.

His Pentagon has similarly sought to curtail beat reporters covering defense issues by removing certain outlets from their work space and limiting access to the building. The Pentagon went further, announcing that journalists must agree not to seek unauthorized information or risk losing their credentials to cover the military.

When former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on television last month that Mr. Trump “doesn’t care” about maintaining separation between his office and criminal investigations, the president proved the point by threatening a criminal investigation of Mr. Christie.

Mr. Trump told reporters on Air Force One that his administration should curtail broadcasters that air coverage that is excessively negative toward him. “I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” he said.

His undisguised motives leave even some on the political right stunned.

DrVenture

It is simply a medical wonder that skin that thin can contain all that mass.

Old_Joe

It is simply a medical wonder that skin that thin can contain all that mess.

Old_Joe

Free link to a current commentary from The Atlantic:

It would be awful to live in interesting times, but, fortunately, we don’t.

What a beautiful fall day it is. A beautiful day for saying nothing! That chill you feel in the air isn’t Pam Bondi saying she’s going to go after free speech, then clumsily backtracking. It’s not Jimmy Kimmel’s show being suspended indefinitely after FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatened ABC. It’s just autumn: The perfect time to discuss approved subjects.

Let’s not get political. Let’s avoid hate speech. (That’s when Jonathan Karl asks the president questions. You might almost mistake it for journalism, but, remember, he has hate in his heart.) Let’s avoid antifa. (That’s when the president has a bad feeling about you. Or maybe you even did an act of terror, like protesting the president while he ate dinner, hurling words at his head, harming him.)

Let’s just stand here, silently. Isn’t it nice here? So quiet. Just stand here and savor the freedom. And, of course, the bravery. And, of course, the corporate mergers. You can tell the country is free because everywhere you look, there is less and less evidence that slavery ever happened.

Save your voice until it grows rusty from disuse. Think of all the free time you’ll get back once you no longer have to spend an hour every night watching comedians criticize the regime. You will be amazed at how many other things there are to talk about. The nice smell of the leaves, pumpkin-spice season come ’round again, the smell of the top of your baby’s head. Travis and Taylor are getting married—to each other, even!

It’s not a chilling effect. It would only be chilling if you had something horrid to say, and you don’t, do you? Certainly nothing critical of the regime, and absolutely no paraphrasing, not of anyone, not at this time! So it’s not chilling. You can say whatever you would like. You can say, “Kill ’em,” about mentally ill homeless people, and keep your job with a simple apology. Just make certain, first, that you are one of those whose speech is never considered a threat. You’ll know.

Silence will certainly save us. Authoritarianism is like measles: Ignore it and it will go away. I have this guidance straight from Secretary Kennedy.

If we are quiet enough, they are sure to forget we are here. They’re not just looking for pretexts at this point, to do what they were always going to do. Don’t say the word pretext so loud. There has never been a pretext even once. We certainly don’t know what you mean. Just be quiet. Don’t say We have to speak up now, because there will always be an excuse when the troops descend on the city or the strike hits the boat or the vans roll up and start shoving people inside. I’m sorry I said excuse. I’m sorry I said pretext. I should have said reason. I should have said nothing.

Let’s all just sit here motionless for the next four years and hope things work out! Then the merger can go through; then the shareholders can breathe a sigh of relief. Surely someone else will say something before it’s too late. It’s a beautiful fall day. Look at the fall.

Crash

Brilliant, from The Atlantic.

DrVenture

Yes, a couple of very informative pieces. Required reading!

JD_co

+1 Very insightful clips, OJ.

Observant1

Old_Joe,

Thanks for the link to the excellent NYT article by Peter Baker.

"As President Trump threatens a wide-ranging crackdown on mainstream media institutions
and political opponents, his aides and allies have cast the administration’s moves as critical
to stanching misinformation and hate speech that could lead to political violence."

If administration officials were really concerned about hate speech (they're not)
they would take action against far-right groups who spew this garbage.
But this would alienate a segment of their base...

"But Mr. Trump himself has repeatedly made clear in recent days that he has a different goal.
For him, it’s not about hate speech, but about speech that he hates —
namely, speech that is critical of him and his administration."

Most U.S. presidents dislike some of the press coverage they receive.
Trump, the “short-fingered vulgarian,” has incredibly thin skin.

Prior presidents (Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR) have persecuted the press
but they acted during times of war and national security crises.
Trump is the first to do so when there isn't an actual national emergency.
It wouldn't surprise me if Trump signed an executive order to declare yet
another national emergency to justify his actions that violate the First Amendment!

AndyJ

From the SC decision in NRA v. Vullo (May 30, 2024):

Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.

https://adflegal.org/article/unanimous-supreme-court-states-cant-coerce-financial-institutions-violate-free-speech/

Old_Joe

Well, at least that  is reassuring.

DrVenture

@AndyJ

Good find. And no doubt there is plenty of other relevant SCOTUS case law, that precedes this particular court.

WhI I am hoping that someone files a lawsuit against this administrations First Amendment violations. It could be ABC, Disney, Kimmel or someone else with legal standing. SCOTUS will have no choice but to put an end to it.

It is possible that Brendan Carr could be held accountable for punitive damages.

"A violation of First Amendment rights can result in punitive damages, though not directly against government entities. To recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must show a government official acted with malice or reckless indifference, but the defendant must be an individual, not the government entity itself. "