Great article and explanation. I may not have all the legal answers, but I do know this — free speech matters because truth matters. And as a Christian living with illness, I’ve learned that God’s Word is where ultimate freedom comes from, even when the world feels loud and broken. Let’s keep praying that our leaders — on every side — would seek wisdom and humility instead of retaliation.
Seeing Pam Bondi shill for “hate speech” was so disappointing. Glad she backed off after being almost unanimously condemned for that garbage but more proof she’s not the one for the job.
My confusion is that if the concern is factual accuracy of anything broadcast about politics, then will this open the door to assess other networks and their commitment to accurately portraying current events? I would have thought the Fox News lawsuit would set precedent here that these are "entertainment" programs, and not to be taken seriously.
Thank you for another great article!!! Lord, where did Bondi get her degree from? What an embarrassment. Want to keep the Supreme Court busy? Then become top executive prosecutor without realizing there are such things as con law precedent cases. I will have an ulcer by the time she is gone. Here here for free speech. I did feel the FCC thing was off base because for the FCC to take action someone has to complain....which does not mean the head of the FCC it means some regular person! So thank you for explaining that further that there were no regular people complaining that we know of, just some junkie running the FCC.
Thank-you for a thought provoking article. I have watched, over the last twenty years or so, the definition of "hate speech" be changed to support the political opinions of the party in power. I was not familiar with Mr. Kirk until his assassination and as with the murder of anyone, I find it distressing. Just the rambling thoughts of an old hermit. (May his children find some sort of peace. The loss of a parent is a horrible event, ask our Gold Star Families. Hope I haven't upset anyone. Peace be with you.)
With respect to the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech in the U.S., it's important to distinguish between the government and private parties. According to the 1st Amendment, the government does not have the right to censor free speech, whether through legal means, "jawboning," or otherwise. This broad right to free speech even allows hate speech in the public sphere (e.g., the famous Skokie, Illinois KKK march case) as long as it's not connected to an imminent threat of violence (a fine line of interpretation to be sure). On the other hand, private entities, such as Facebook, are allowed to have "rules of the road," such as preventing hate speech and disinformation on their platforms. Such rules are not considered to be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately many social media networks are no longer imposing rules on hate speech or disinformation which can result in violent activity and a confused and misinformed public. A much-needed change to Section 230 (within the Telecom Act and Communications Decency Act of 1996) would help alleviate this situation.
Thank you for this clear explanation!There are two public high school teachers here in Iowa who are under paid suspension for posts about Charlie Kirk.One is in Tama county(the county next to me) and the Times-Republican coverage of the school board meeting was chilling.
Great article and explanation. I may not have all the legal answers, but I do know this — free speech matters because truth matters. And as a Christian living with illness, I’ve learned that God’s Word is where ultimate freedom comes from, even when the world feels loud and broken. Let’s keep praying that our leaders — on every side — would seek wisdom and humility instead of retaliation.
Seeing Pam Bondi shill for “hate speech” was so disappointing. Glad she backed off after being almost unanimously condemned for that garbage but more proof she’s not the one for the job.
My confusion is that if the concern is factual accuracy of anything broadcast about politics, then will this open the door to assess other networks and their commitment to accurately portraying current events? I would have thought the Fox News lawsuit would set precedent here that these are "entertainment" programs, and not to be taken seriously.
I disagree with Charlie. Hate speech DOES exist. Look no further than the WH.
To help fight back, i plan on beating up any and EVERY Disney mascot i see in Times Square. Disney and ABC can’t keep getting away with this
Hey Mickey and Goofy: this one’s for Jimmy Kimmel 👊👊👊
Thank you for another great article!!! Lord, where did Bondi get her degree from? What an embarrassment. Want to keep the Supreme Court busy? Then become top executive prosecutor without realizing there are such things as con law precedent cases. I will have an ulcer by the time she is gone. Here here for free speech. I did feel the FCC thing was off base because for the FCC to take action someone has to complain....which does not mean the head of the FCC it means some regular person! So thank you for explaining that further that there were no regular people complaining that we know of, just some junkie running the FCC.
Thank-you for a thought provoking article. I have watched, over the last twenty years or so, the definition of "hate speech" be changed to support the political opinions of the party in power. I was not familiar with Mr. Kirk until his assassination and as with the murder of anyone, I find it distressing. Just the rambling thoughts of an old hermit. (May his children find some sort of peace. The loss of a parent is a horrible event, ask our Gold Star Families. Hope I haven't upset anyone. Peace be with you.)
With respect to the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech in the U.S., it's important to distinguish between the government and private parties. According to the 1st Amendment, the government does not have the right to censor free speech, whether through legal means, "jawboning," or otherwise. This broad right to free speech even allows hate speech in the public sphere (e.g., the famous Skokie, Illinois KKK march case) as long as it's not connected to an imminent threat of violence (a fine line of interpretation to be sure). On the other hand, private entities, such as Facebook, are allowed to have "rules of the road," such as preventing hate speech and disinformation on their platforms. Such rules are not considered to be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately many social media networks are no longer imposing rules on hate speech or disinformation which can result in violent activity and a confused and misinformed public. A much-needed change to Section 230 (within the Telecom Act and Communications Decency Act of 1996) would help alleviate this situation.
Never watched Kimmel's show but glad he's gone. He can sue if he doesn't like it. The process is the punishment. Bring it Jimmy!
Thank you for this clear explanation!There are two public high school teachers here in Iowa who are under paid suspension for posts about Charlie Kirk.One is in Tama county(the county next to me) and the Times-Republican coverage of the school board meeting was chilling.