Tag: 1st amendment

Should Elected Officials Censor Americans? Trump’s Administration Says Yes.

Last week, a gunman in Utah shot and killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk. It was a brutal and tragic event, regardless of one’s politics. And yet the fallout of Kirk’s murder has revealed a disturbing hostility toward free speech on the political right.

Republicans have long cast themselves as defenders of free speech against cancel culture and the censorial impulses of the political left. And there was merit to the argument—Reason has covered many cases of overreach.

But over the last week, MAGA Republicans have scoured social media for government employees posting about Kirk’s murder, contacting employers in an attempt to get them fired. “Kirk’s online defenders have snitch-tagged the employers of government workers over social media posts saying they don’t care about the assassination, that they didn’t like Kirk even as they condemn his assassination, and even criticizing Kirk prior to his assassination,” Reason‘s Christian Britschgi wrote this week. Even for nongovernmental employees, social media detectives apparently compiled a database with tens of thousands of people who criticized Kirk, including their names and employers.

Of course, that’s just people online. It’s not like those with government power are advocating such a thing, right?

“I would think maybe their [broadcast] license should be taken away,” President Donald Trump told reporters this week on Air Force One, about TV networks. “All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”

“When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. And hell, call their employer,” Vice President J.D. Vance said while guest-hosting Kirk’s podcast this week. “We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility.”

Vance’s argument bears a striking resemblance to the comments made just a few years ago by his ideological enemies. When certain public and not-so-public figures received backlash for offensive statements, some commentators noted that this was not cancel culture, it was “consequence culture”—people merely experiencing the consequences of their actions.

It’s no surprise that Trump has no principles on free speech—from the beginning of his first term, he called the press the “enemy of the American people.” But Vance’s position marks a notable pivot from just a few months ago.

“Just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite,” Vance said in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February. “Under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer them in the public square, agree or disagree.”

Now, Vance seems less keen on defending someone’s right to offer views that he personally disagrees with. Unfortunately, he’s not alone.

Keep reading

Trump proposes revoking licenses of critical American TV networks

US President Donald Trump has floated the idea of “maybe” revoking the broadcast licenses of American television networks that provide negative coverage of him.

The suggestion came a day after ABC indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, following what it called “offensive and insensitive” comments made by the comedian about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Kimmel claimed on his program that Trump and his supporters were trying to “score political points” over Kirk’s killing and compared the president’s reaction to his death to “how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.”

Trump, who was returning from the UK aboard Air Force One on Thursday, told journalists that TV networks “give me only bad publicity or press.”

“I mean, they are getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” he said.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris’s Attack on Trump Adminstration’s Response to Jimmy Kimmel Blows Up in Her Face When X Users Discover a Tyrannical Old Post of Hers

Kamala Harris decided to inject herself into the political fight regarding Jimmy Kimmel’s comments about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and it backfired spectacularly.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the left-wing Kimmel told his late-night audience on Monday that a MAGA REPUBLICAN murdered Kirk and accused the right of trying to score political points off of it.

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel claimed.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr appeared on The Benny Show on Wednesday and told host Benny Johnson that he may take action against ABC and Kimmel.

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead,” Carr said.

“They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest,” he added. “There are calls for Kimmel to be fired. I think you could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this.”

Following Carr’s comments, Nexstar announced that all 32 of its ABC broadcast affiliates would preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” indefinitely, blasting Kimmel’s sick comments about Kirk’s murder as “offensive and insensitive.”

Harris slammed the Trump Administration on Thursday for its response to Kimmel’s firing and its supposed bullying of media organizations in general.

How rich, coming from someone who was part of a regime that regularly intimidated media organizations for expressing politically incorrect viewpoints.

“What we are witnessing is an outright abuse of power,” Harris wrote. “This administration is attacking critics and using fear as a weapon to silence anyone who would speak out.”

“Media corporations — from television networks to newspapers — are capitulating to these threats,” she added. “We cannot dare to be silent or complacent in the face of this frontal assault on free speech.”

Keep reading

Hillary Clinton on Kimmel, Kirk: ‘Very Clear Example of Using the Power of the State to Suppress Speech’

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday weighed in on the fallout surrounding Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, addressing both the late-night host’s removal and the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk during an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.

When asked if Kimmel’s suspension amounted to state censorship, Clinton replied: “Well, I think this is a very clear example of using the power of the state to suppress speech. It is a direct government action to try to intimidate employers, organizations, corporations, much of which we’ve already seen, to remove an opponent, even though it’s a comic.”

Clinton continued:

Look, I had no idea when I was in public life and listening to the jokes that were made about me and the attacks that were, you know, coming from people like Jimmy Kimmel and others that I could have called up the head of the FCC and said, take them off the air. I don’t like what they’re saying. I mean, of course, this was a particularly sensitive time because of the terrible crime that was committed, the murder of Mr. Kirk.

But you know, you defend free speech in terrible times, and you defend free speech that is used against holding people in power accountable through satire, humor, barbed attacks, you defend it even when it is offensive, and they have unfortunately taken the view that we believe in free speech, as long as we’re making the speech and your speech agrees with us, otherwise, we’re against free speech.

Clinton later amplified the remarks on X, posting: “In America, we defend free speech in terrible times. We defend free speech even when it’s offensive. We defend free speech.” She restricted comments on that post as well as one she made one week after Kirk’s assassination congratulating American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten on her book Why Fascists Fear Teachers.

Weingarten’s excerpts, published in Rolling Stone days after Kirk’s assassination, accused conservatives of being “fascists” and “Nazis,” likened book bans to Nazi Germany in 1933, and warned that Trump and Elon Musk were acting as “shadow governing partners.” The release drew attention because Robinson, the 22-year-old suspect charged with Kirk’s murder, inscribed “Hey fascist! Catch!” on bullet casings, according to authorities.

Teachers across several states were investigated or fired after posting celebratory or hostile messages about Kirk’s assassination, with examples including posts such as “America became greater” and “1 Nazi down.” A new website, charliesmurderers.com, reported receiving thousands of submissions documenting celebrations of Kirk’s death. 

Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) said such rhetoric reflects a dangerous climate created by years of partisan demonization. “And now, Charlie Kirk has been murdered,” Hunt told Breitbart News. “This is not rhetoric. These are lived realities.” He asserted that Democrats and their allies “have vilified, censored, and targeted conservatives at every turn for over a decade,” adding that political violence against conservatives is now “normalized by silence, excuse-making, or even tacit encouragement from the left.”

Clinton herself previously described Republicans as her “enemies” during a 2015 Democrat debate. Asked which adversary she was most proud of making in her political career, Clinton responded, “Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians; probably the Republicans.”

The dispute surrounding Kimmel began after he mocked Trump’s mourning of Kirk’s assassination, joking it was “like how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,” and suggested Robinson may have been part of the “MAGA gang.” Authorities later identified Robinson as the suspect, describing him as left-leaning and in a relationship with a male who identifies as female and who “hates conservatives and Christians.” Utah Governor Spencer Cox confirmed those details, and investigators stated Robinson admitted responsibility in a message to the partner.

Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr cautioned ABC and Disney that broadcasters risk their licenses if they mislead the public, saying Nexstar Media Group did “the right thing” by suspending Kimmel. Sinclair Broadcasting also halted broadcasts of Jimmy Kimmel Live and announced a special tribute to Kirk would air in its place. ABC affiliates cited the need to uphold community values and maintain constructive dialogue. Carr noted that networks could “do this the easy way or the hard way,” signaling further review of their obligations under federal law.

Keep reading

The “Charlie Kirk Act”, Free Speech, Propaganda, And A Censorship Nightmare

As of the date of this writing, September 17th, 2025, it is Constitution Day. Despite this, in 2025 America, the Constitution is being eroded more than ever before. Just read any of constitutional attorney and founder of The Rutherford Institute, John W. Whitehead’s essays on the matter.

The infringements are endless, with masked agents running amok, disappearing people off the streets, extrajudicial executions at sea, military deployed domestically as law enforcement, unconstitutional wars waged, illegal mass surveillance on every American, warrantless search and seizure, debt-based Fiat currency, and so much more.

This isn’t happening in a vacuum. The only way for Americans to sit by and allow their freedoms to die at such a magnitude is to keep them perpetually distracted and apathetic. This is why 5th-generation warfare comes in so handy for the ruling class. Keep the entire population besieged from all sides at all times, economically, biologically, informationally, neurologically, so utterly saturated, so deep in the trenches, they don’t even realize they’re in a war.

When the average tax cattle are so exhausted from capitalist exploitation just to meet the bear standards for survival, so psychologically fatigued from the constant influx of doom porn, and the various other ways that the rat race is designed to keep us exhausted and unfulfilled while being simultaneously bombarded with socially engineered algorithms feeding into echo chambers it’s easy to keep the masses focused on manufactured outrage and fake culture wars, or shallow celebrity gossiping and rigged sports-ball entertainment. Blissfully unaware or uncaring of how their rights are being stripped away every day

The most fundamental of these freedoms is guaranteed to us in the 1st amendment — freedom of speech, freedom of expression, among others. That simple principle is the litmus test of a free society: Can you speak your mind freely without reprisal from the state? For believers in America’s founding ideals, the answer should be a resounding yes. And yet politicians and citizens alike oftentimes seem all too keen on allowing their principles to be pulled by puppet strings, ethically ambiguous and logically inconsistent.

Last week’s heinous murder of controversial conservative pundit Charlie Kirk has brought these issues to the forefront of our current discourse. Kirk based his entire brand on exercising the First Amendment, engaging in public debates with individuals whose ideological position opposed his own until he was ultimately gunned down last week.

Already, there are numerous discrepancies in the official story of the assassination, and much in line with the old adage of not letting a good crisis go to waste, the usual suspects have wasted no time in exploiting his death to ramp up the divide and conquer rhetoric. On the heels of attempting to make him a martyr, many on the right who previously grandstanded for free speech are now openly demanding the erasure of the rights that Charlie himself embodied.

But let’s not mince words here and call a spade a spade; none of this being said is to put him on a pedestal. Charlie Kirk was a professional liar, a propagandist of the highest degree who promulgated blatantly false, oftentimes bigoted, authoritarian rhetoric. He built a career off of perpetuating the fake left versus right dichotomy, exploiting the base he cultivated by inflaming the fears, anger, hatred, sadness, and anxieties of conservatives. While this was probably not Kirk’s intention, as he himself was likely just as much a victim of government propaganda that ultimately fomented his views, it was most definitely the result. Yet despite all of this, anyone who claims to actually support free speech should still support his right to express his ideas, no matter how much one may disagree with them.

Keep reading

State Department finally shuts down ‘framework’ behind ‘censorship nerve center’ Rubio shuttered

The State Department confirmed it formally removed the “framework” underlying both the Global Engagement Center, deemed the government’s “censorship nerve center” by a first-term Trump administration official and defunded by Congress after the 2024 election, and GEC’s surreptitious successor Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub, which Secretary Marco Rubio shut down in April.

Acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Darren Beattie told The Daily Wire there were “loose ends” to tie up, including GEC’s agreements with other countries to “facilitate and provide a framework for cooperation on mutual objectives, including principally combating so-called ‘disinformation,’” which sometimes turned out to be domestic and often consisted of disfavored narratives.

Beattie said GEC used an “indirect approach to censorship whereby they would fund third-party organizations that would engage in activity from facilitating the demonetization of conservative sites to generally castigating certain narrative perspectives on COVID, on immigration, on foreign policy, as simply malign as a matter of foreign influence when in fact these were entirely legitimate points of view that often came from Americans.”

His office is conducting a “meticulous transparency review” whose “very first tranche” will come out this fall, reflecting “the extensive review of hundreds of thousands of emails that will more specifically and systematically document exactly the kinds of nefarious activities that the GEC was involved in[,] in this unfortunate chapter of America’s history.”

Beattie wouldn’t say if that would be released through a vehicle like the Twitter Files, just that its approach would be “entirely appropriate and very satisfying as well.”

Keep reading

AG Pam Bondi Clarifies Her Stance on First Amendment Following Backlash — Says Her Office Won’t Prosecute “Hate Speech”

Attorney General Pam Bondi is scrambling to clarify her comments after a firestorm erupted over her suggestion that the Department of Justice would target so-called “hate speech.”

The controversy follows an outrageous incident at an Office Depot in Michigan, where three teenage boys were denied service after pre-paying for posters meant for a Charlie Kirk memorial vigil.

The smug employees—one identifying as a supervisor, another as a “manager”—flatly refused to print the order, dismissing the vigil posters as “propaganda.”

Office Depot corporate quickly issued an apology, announced an internal review, and confirmed the employee had been terminated.

But rather than directly addressing the broader climate of hate fueling these incidents, Bondi used her Fox interview to focus on discrimination claims against Office Depot:

“Employers, you have an obligation to get rid of people. You need to look at people who are saying horrible things, and they shouldn’t be working with you. Businesses cannot discriminate. If you want to go in and print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that. I have Harmeet Dhillon right now in our civil rights unit looking at that immediately. That Office Depot had done that—we’re looking at it.”

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh wasted no time unloading on Bondi for what he called a “gratuitous and pointless” use of DOJ resources:

“Get rid of her. Today. This is insane. Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone. We won that fight. Now Pam Bondi wants to roll it all back for no reason. This stuff is being handled successfully through free speech and free markets. We need the AG focused on bringing down the left wing terror cells, not prosecuting Office Depot for God’s sake.”

Keep reading

Dearborn’s Muslim mayor tells Christian he’s ‘not welcome’ in debate on honoring pro-terror Arab leader

At a Dearborn City Council meeting last week, Mayor Abdullah H. Hammoud told local resident Edward “Ted” Barham, a Christian, that he was “not welcome” in the city after Barham raised concerns about new street signs honoring Arab American News publisher Osama Siblani.

FOX 2 Detroit reported that the signs honoring Siblani were placed at intersections on Warren Avenue by Wayne County, not the City of Dearborn. But the mayor escalated the debate, telling Barham, “Although you live here, you are not welcome here.”

Barham introduced himself as “Ted Barham, Dearborn resident,” and objected to two intersections being renamed after Siblani.

He said, “He’s a promoter of Hezbollah and Hamas” before quoting past remarks from Siblani, including, “He talks about how the blood of the martyrs irrigates the land of Palestine … whether we are in Michigan and whether we are in Yemen. Believe me, everyone should fight within his means. They will fight with stones, others will fight with guns, others fight with planes, drones, and rockets.” 

Keep reading

Pam Bondi Says Government Will “Go After” Hate Speech, Drawing First Amendment Criticism

US Attorney General Pam Bondi has stirred controversy with recent comments seeming to suggest that certain forms of speech could fall outside First Amendment protections, a stance that is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution.

During an appearance on The Katie Miller Podcast following last week’s assassination of conservative activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, Bondi stated, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society…” She added, “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Her remarks immediately drew sharp responses from across the political spectrum, with many warning that her approach opens the door to dangerous government overreach.

Bondi later attempted to narrow the scope of her original statements in a post on X, writing, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”

She continued, “For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE), a civil liberties group focused on free speech, fired back, stating, “There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.”

The Supreme Court has long protected even offensive or unpopular speech, with the Court’s view being that the “proudest boast” of America’s free speech legacy is “freedom for the thought that we hate.”

Conservatives who typically align with Bondi’s broader political positions also voiced concern.

Keep reading

Burning the Flag or Torching the Constitution: Only One Destroys Freedom

“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”Ray Bradbury

Cancel culture—political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance—has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance.

Nothing illustrates this more clearly than President Trump’s latest executive order calling for criminal charges for anyone who burns the American flag—a symbolic act long upheld by the Supreme Court as protected political expression.

This push is not about patriotism—it is political theater.

For an administration under fire—from the Epstein cover-up to tanking approval ratings and mounting constitutional crises—flag burning serves as symbolic outrage staged as political cover, a culture-war diversion to distract from more serious abuses of power.

Consider the timing: on the very same day Trump announced penalties for flag burning, he also signed an executive order establishing “specialized” National Guard units to patrol American cities under the guise of addressing crime.

This is the real bait-and-switch: cloak military policing in patriotic theater and hope no one notices the deeper constitutional violations taking root.

In other words, Trump’s flag fight is a decoy.

Yet in today’s climate, where mobs on the left and censors on the right compete to silence speech they dislike, even this form of protest is under fire.

In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Texas v. Johnson that burning the flag of the United States in protest is an act of protected free speech under the First Amendment.

Keep reading