... even that which we abhor. From the Post via The Hill this morning:

Opinion
Matt Bai

Why does defending awful speech matter? Now you know.
Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension shows how one person’s dissent is another person’s “hate speech.”

September 18, 2025



A lot of us across the political spectrum, I would guess, woke up Thursday morning in a country we didn’t quite recognize, as if reality had shifted literally overnight. At the start of the week, the attorney general of the United States proclaimed that certain “hate speech” — meaning things she found offensive — would no longer be protected by the First Amendment. Then, two days later, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission bullied Disney into suspending comedian Jimmy Kimmel and pulling him off the air, which the president hailed as “great news for America.”

I wonder how many conservative thinkers, some of whom clearly feel uneasy about this turn of events, will find the spine to denounce it. Former vice president Mike Pence was spotted Wednesday visiting the National Archives, where the entire Constitution is on display for the first time; maybe he, too, had the eerie sense that it was sitting in a casket, lying in state.

To my horrified friends on the left, though, I feel compelled to ask a different question. Now do you understand why all speech is worth defending?

Like some conservative writers and a handful of hardy liberals, I’ve written repeatedly over the past several years about the threat to free expression from the left. Since 2020, we’ve seen White journalists and academics punished just for repeating words that qualified as “hate speech”; the issuance of inoffensive language manuals by groups such as the American Medical Association and the Sierra Club; and the removal of books from library shelves and bookstores because they trafficked in uncomfortable stereotypes, or because the authors were said to be bad people.

Most often, whenever I’ve lent my voice to the chorus of others criticizing this madness, I’ve heard from my overeducated friends some version of the same lawyerly response: The First Amendment, they told me, applies to government intervention — not to the private decisions of universities or book publishers. If the people who run news organizations or who own the rights to “Green Eggs and Ham” want to do the right thing and spare us all from hurtful language and images (and spare themselves from employee walkouts and online mobs), why shouldn’t they be encouraged to exercise that freedom of choice? Wasn’t that just the market speaking?

No one was forcing W.W. Norton to un-publish a biography of Philip Roth just because someone publicly accused the author of sexual assault (and because the subject of the book was known in literary circles as a misogynist). No, the publisher, having been made aware of these allegations, was simply acting in good conscience. What did any of that have to do with repression?

Separately, I’ve often encountered another argument that’s particularly popular among the young and the academic: that free speech as a concept has been fetishized by the powerful, who use it mostly as a tool to oppress those with less resonant voices in society. Why was my right to say whatever popped into my head, they asked me, more sacred than someone else’s right to feel safe and included?

Well, to paraphrase one of my favorite lines from “Hamilton”: If you don’t know, now you know. Protecting speech from outside forces that would quash it — even when the speech is stupid and heinous, and even when the censorship is lawful — matters because the quashing never ends there.

One person’s dissent is another person’s “hate speech.” And once you start prescribing limits on language and ideology, then anyone with power is free to do the same — including, inevitably, ignorant people who find themselves in control of government.

Ironically, this was the view espoused by Vice President JD Vance when he lectured the Germans earlier this year about the folly of banning far-right groups — neo-Nazis, essentially — from their political process. But now that Vance’s friend has been savagely killed (as opposed to, say, millions of Jews), I guess he no longer views “hate speech” as legitimate discourse. I guess the Germans should tolerate offensive views, but here in America, we’re going to demand they be silenced and prosecute speakers if necessary.


What we need in this country is a rebirth of actual liberalism. I don’t mean that in the sense of the political label that Democrats have been running away from since the late 1980s. I mean it in the sense of the liberal consensus, as it was called, that both Republicans and Democrats of sound mind embraced for most of the 20th century. I mean it in the sense that the ACLU meant it, back in its glory days, when it fought to allow Nazis to march through the streets of Skokie, Illinois.

That kind of liberalism, at its core, is about fiercely defending our constitutional freedoms and a free exchange of ideas — no matter their merit or whom they might offend. There’s been very little of that liberalism among the intolerant left these past few years. And now we have its opposite in the Trumpian world, where the genre of “hate speech” created by the academic left is being used as a pretext for statist censorship.

If we choose not to protect some expression, then we really can’t protect any of it.

In the private sector you can speak all you want, but it can have consequeces if someone does't like it. You can be fired from a job, doxed or in a place like this get your ass banned.

OK, dundee.

When the govt. such as the head of the FCC extorts or blackmails a private company to take action to silence critic of Trump, that's against what the 1st is about. Just like a quid pro quo in the flip scenario would be illegal too.

It's literally unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure, for example, if some rep of the US govt in particular told Saeed to ban someone because they deemed criticism of Trump or admin on this forum wrong somehow, well, in his own way he would set them straight. Foremost, the US govt is forbidden, by law, from doing anything like that.

And when the 0biden govt told facebook and twitter etc to ban those who spoke out opposing issues with covid???? Eh?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
OK, dundee.

When the govt. such as the head of the FCC extorts or blackmails a private company to take action to silence critic of Trump, that's against what the 1st is about. Just like a quid pro quo in the flip scenario would be illegal too.

It's literally unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure, for example, if some rep of the US govt in particular told Saeed to ban someone because they deemed criticism of Trump or admin on this forum wrong somehow, well, in his own way he would set them straight. Foremost, the US govt is forbidden, by law, from doing anything like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
OK, dundee.

When the govt. such as the head of the FCC extorts or blackmails a private company to take action to silence critic of Trump, that's against what the 1st is about. Just like a quid pro quo in the flip scenario would be illegal too.

It's literally unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure, for example, if some rep of the US govt in particular told Saeed to ban someone because they deemed criticism of Trump or admin on this forum wrong somehow, well, in his own way he would set them straight. Foremost, the US govt is forbidden, by law, from doing anything like that.

Agreed, but didn't Saeed put out a list of things that had nothing to do with trump that could get you banned here? Of course since we have the PM here, somone could ask for your dismissal without you ever knowing. Pretty sure Saeed would not comply.

As someone on the right, I have seen the left playing these games for some time.

Lois Lerner and all that, with zero accountability.

I’ve seen the progressive bias in media for decades.

I would think that those on the right, having been victims of the very abuses that Trump is doing now should be the most vocal about this bad behavior.

Unfortunately it seems they are more interested in gaining perceived vengeance than trying to get good governance.


As to the FCC guy, it is absolutely wrong to tie allowance of business items to political behavior.

It should not happen, and while Trump and his thin skin don’t surprise me, it doesn’t make me any happier that it occurs.

I would say to my fellow travelers on the right, given the current situation, what would Charlie Kirk do or want?

If you want to have a prayer on school grounds, you have to put up with the opposite side putting up a satanist prayer.

You should be willing to quietly and respectfully let a Muslim imam say a blessing.

You should let a secular humanist say his piece.

Tolerance is not a one way street.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
OK, dundee.

When the govt. such as the head of the FCC extorts or blackmails a private company to take action to silence critic of Trump, that's against what the 1st is about. Just like a quid pro quo in the flip scenario would be illegal too.

It's literally unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure, for example, if some rep of the US govt in particular told Saeed to ban someone because they deemed criticism of Trump or admin on this forum wrong somehow, well, in his own way he would set them straight. Foremost, the US govt is forbidden, by law, from doing anything like that.

Agreed, but didn't Saeed put out a list of things that had nothing to do with trump that could get you banned here? Of course since we have the PM here, somone could ask for your dismissal without you ever knowing. Pretty sure Saeed would not comply.

I see that you missed the point.

Saeed unliterally allowing or not allowing participation herein for what ever reason has practically nothing related to the restrictions on the govt to curtail free speech, per the 1st.

If the govt suggested ("we can do this the easy way or the hard way") Saeed do something regarding what participants are allow to say criticizing Trump, for specific example, then that is within the scope of the 1st, because the coercion itself is a violation of the 1st.

Whether Saeed does or doesn't comply in this hypothetical isn't the point, nor a violation of the 1st. It's the govt who is in violation by means of the coersion.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
And when the 0biden govt told facebook and twitter etc to ban those who spoke out opposing issues with covid???? Eh?

I'm sure I can find several ways to argue that is a false equivalence.

The words (1)"told" and (2)"ban" and (3)"spoke out opposing issues with covid" has different implications than (1)"pressured" and (2)"remove content" and (3)"misinformation".

And what the Biden admin did was public health and safety concerns.

What Trump is doing is about criticizing him.

Did Biden govt told facebook and twitter etc to ban those who spoke out opposing issues with covid?

AI Overview

Evidence has shown that officials in the Biden administration repeatedly pressured social media platforms, including Facebook (now Meta) and X (formerly Twitter), to remove content that they considered to be COVID-19 misinformation . These actions became the subject of a major lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court in 2024.

Government communications with social media companies

Pressure to remove content:
In August 2024, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that senior officials from the Biden administration "repeatedly pressured" Facebook to censor certain COVID-19 content during 2021, including humor, satire, and criticism of vaccine policies.

Targeted accounts:
During a press conference in 2021, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed the administration was "flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation," and noted that some accounts that frequently shared misinformation had been banned.

Intense communication:
Internal emails made public in a lawsuit revealed a high volume of communication between federal agencies and social media companies regarding content moderation. The Biden administration's Digital Director, Rob Flaherty, corresponded with executives at companies like Meta and Twitter to push for stricter enforcement against COVID-19 misinformation.

The Murthy v. Missouri Supreme Court case
Lawsuit details: In 2022, the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, sued the Biden administration. They argued that the government had coerced social media platforms into censoring posts about COVID-19 and the 2020 election, violating Americans' free speech rights under the First Amendment.

Lower court ruling: A federal judge and a court of appeals sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the administration had likely crossed the line from persuasion to coercion by making threats of legal or regulatory action.

Supreme Court decision:
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, reversed the lower court's ruling. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not address the merits of the First Amendment claims but instead ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence that their specific censored posts were a direct result of government pressure, rather than the platforms' own moderation policies.

Ongoing debate

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the issue remains controversial.

Government's view: The Biden administration has maintained that it was urging social media companies to take responsible action against harmful misinformation that was threatening public health during the pandemic.

Critics' concerns: Opponents, including dissenting Supreme Court justices, continue to argue that the administration's actions were a "covert scheme of censorship" that used powerful pressure to silence dissenting opinions. Mark Zuckerberg's recent public statements also reinforce the view that the government's pressure was "wrong," and he has vowed to resist similar requests in the future.

I am very much annoyed by the petty biases shown by guys like Jimmy Kimmel. I am just as annoyed by the bias shown by people like Candace Owen. All of them are half right, half of the time but they can't see, let alone acknowledge, another point of view. Nonetheless, I think any of them should be allowed to say what they want.
That extreme bias is divisive and harmful to our society is obvious. It erodes the empathy we might otherwise feel and, in extreme cases, may result in murder.
Jimmy Kimmel should keep his job. If ratings suffer because of his vitriolic monologues, he should get cancelled. I would imagine, since a great number of his viewers share his point of view, he will coast along with the same viewership forever.
I can't fault any late night hosts for ridiculing Trump. He makes it too easy. They may find though, if they are somewhat more balanced in their delivery, it might help their careers. Bill

"Balance" is subjective, isn't it Bill?

Bias is everywhere. Pick your poison. It's free but not without cost.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
OK, dundee.

When the govt. such as the head of the FCC extorts or blackmails a private company to take action to silence critic of Trump, that's against what the 1st is about. Just like a quid pro quo in the flip scenario would be illegal too.

It's literally unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure, for example, if some rep of the US govt in particular told Saeed to ban someone because they deemed criticism of Trump or admin on this forum wrong somehow, well, in his own way he would set them straight. Foremost, the US govt is forbidden, by law, from doing anything like that.

Agreed, but didn't Saeed put out a list of things that had nothing to do with trump that could get you banned here? Of course since we have the PM here, somone could ask for your dismissal without you ever knowing. Pretty sure Saeed would not comply.

I see that you missed the point.

Saeed unliterally allowing or not allowing participation herein for what ever reason has practically nothing related to the restrictions on the govt to curtail free speech, per the 1st.

If the govt suggested ("we can do this the easy way or the hard way") Saeed do something regarding what participants are allow to say criticizing Trump, for specific example, then that is within the scope of the 1st, because the coercion itself is a violation of the 1st.

Whether Saeed does or doesn't comply in this hypothetical isn't the point, nor a violation of the 1st. It's the govt who is in violation by means of the coersion.

If Saeed was an American citizen on American soil I expect that the government could put pressure on Saeed in a way you might never know about.

This place tho is run by the golden rule. Saeed [or more likely the site's owner] has the gold and he makes the rules.

I agree.

But the pressure to silence Kimmel was in plain sight in the public knowledge, not only from what the head of FCC said, but what Trump said too.

https://www.google.com/search?...usghfsHbi6KI&csuir=1

Did Ted Cruz use the analogy of a mob walking into a bar and saying this is a nice place, it would be terrible if something bad happened to it?

AI answer:

Yes, on September 19, 2025, Senator Ted Cruz used that analogy, comparing the actions of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair Brendan Carr to a mafioso.

Context of Cruz's remarks

Target of the analogy: During an episode of his podcast, Cruz was criticizing comments made by Carr, who had threatened ABC's license over remarks made by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

The analogy: Cruz specifically referenced the well-known mob movie Goodfellas when he said Carr's warning was "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'".

The broader issue: Cruz argued that it was "dangerous as hell" for the government to threaten media outlets over content it dislikes, setting a bad precedent for freedom of speech.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
OK, dundee.

When the govt. such as the head of the FCC extorts or blackmails a private company to take action to silence critic of Trump, that's against what the 1st is about. Just like a quid pro quo in the flip scenario would be illegal too.

It's literally unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure, for example, if some rep of the US govt in particular told Saeed to ban someone because they deemed criticism of Trump or admin on this forum wrong somehow, well, in his own way he would set them straight. Foremost, the US govt is forbidden, by law, from doing anything like that.

Agreed, but didn't Saeed put out a list of things that had nothing to do with trump that could get you banned here? Of course since we have the PM here, somone could ask for your dismissal without you ever knowing. Pretty sure Saeed would not comply.

This is a PRIVATE site.

The GOVERNMENT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
OK, dundee.

When the govt. such as the head of the FCC extorts or blackmails a private company to take action to silence critic of Trump, that's against what the 1st is about. Just like a quid pro quo in the flip scenario would be illegal too.

It's literally unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure, for example, if some rep of the US govt in particular told Saeed to ban someone because they deemed criticism of Trump or admin on this forum wrong somehow, well, in his own way he would set them straight. Foremost, the US govt is forbidden, by law, from doing anything like that.

Agreed, but didn't Saeed put out a list of things that had nothing to do with trump that could get you banned here? Of course since we have the PM here, somone could ask for your dismissal without you ever knowing. Pretty sure Saeed would not comply.

This is a PRIVATE site.

The GOVERNMENT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE!

and we can say a lot but you are tolerating a lot of free speech that cannot be used anymore in usa ...

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
OK, dundee.

When the govt. such as the head of the FCC extorts or blackmails a private company to take action to silence critic of Trump, that's against what the 1st is about. Just like a quid pro quo in the flip scenario would be illegal too.

It's literally unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure, for example, if some rep of the US govt in particular told Saeed to ban someone because they deemed criticism of Trump or admin on this forum wrong somehow, well, in his own way he would set them straight. Foremost, the US govt is forbidden, by law, from doing anything like that.

Agreed, but didn't Saeed put out a list of things that had nothing to do with trump that could get you banned here? Of course since we have the PM here, somone could ask for your dismissal without you ever knowing. Pretty sure Saeed would not comply.

Where can this list be found?

Fast forward to about the 3:20 mark. The Dutch do not care what trump thinks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqNlZwBHZwM

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
OK, dundee.

When the govt. such as the head of the FCC extorts or blackmails a private company to take action to silence critic of Trump, that's against what the 1st is about. Just like a quid pro quo in the flip scenario would be illegal too.

It's literally unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure, for example, if some rep of the US govt in particular told Saeed to ban someone because they deemed criticism of Trump or admin on this forum wrong somehow, well, in his own way he would set them straight. Foremost, the US govt is forbidden, by law, from doing anything like that.

Agreed, but didn't Saeed put out a list of things that had nothing to do with trump that could get you banned here? Of course since we have the PM here, somone could ask for your dismissal without you ever knowing. Pretty sure Saeed would not comply.

Where can this list be found?

He posted it here with 3 words. We be woke. Remember that?

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
Fast forward to about the 3:20 mark. The Dutch do not care what trump thinks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqNlZwBHZwM

trump doesn't think, he says.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

This is a PRIVATE site.

The GOVERNMENT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE!

and we can say a lot but you are tolerating a lot of free speech that cannot be used anymore in usa ...

Saeed is very tolerant. He doesn't just tolerate free speech. He enjoys it and encourages it. And he participates.