No offense, but if you have short attention span, or ADD or ADHD, go find another article to read.
I will warn you this is not an article to evoke emotion, rant nor rave about this injustice or that slight because someone said this or that. Rather it will be a factual dissection of a constitutional amendment that many do not properly understand due to the bull-hockey being scattered through social media or other means such as the fake news and, yes, even Congress.
The place to start is most usually at the beginning, so as written in the United States Constitution is as written:
Reference https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
“First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Many Americans have become confused about what this First Amendment, part of the first Ten Amendments called the Bill of Rights means, and doesn’t mean!
That’s because since Charlie Kirk was murdered by an assassin, many people have said many things. Some of the things said have been cruel, insensitive and downright reprehensible with unfortunate consequences for those who said them.
So let’s break down this constitutional component. The exact verbiage says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” We will get to the other parts later or in another post.
1) Congress has made no new law abridging (curtailing, suppressing, stifling) the freedom of speech. There are some common sense applications (not laws) that have been applied over the years such as the old reference, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Even though that makes common sense, common sense seems to be strangely uncommon these days. I am sure the libraries of law offices across the nation are full of case law exceptions like threatening violence, etc, etc… or even taking what might be perceived as threatening action. One such case from 1991, RAV v. St. Paul, in which teenagers were found not guilty of hate speech for burning a cross in the yard of an African American family. I plan to keep this simple and relative to things happening right now in front of us.
2) According to the amendment, only Congress can make laws regarding free speech, free press and the other rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment changed that by making the Constitution applicable to the states. Some states and local governments have created laws that fall in the category of “hate speech.” Hate speech laws, are a newish way of addressing that issue of yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Supporters say hate speech laws exist to keep hostile or discriminatory speech from escalating into violence. Opponents reject the idea of hate speech, arguing that offensive speech should be countered with more speech – not violence and not laws. That said, hate speech is protected under the First Amendment unless it will incite immediate violence (that principle was first established in a case from the 1930s, Near v. Minnesota, that dealt with revealing government secrets).
3) Consequently, certain types of speech can lead to prosecution, but not because of the words used rather what the words insinuate or motivate. Incitement to violence, credible threats to harm another person or commit a harmful act, and defamation of character where untrue statements can harm someone’s reputation.
4) For today’s practical discussion consider there is a point where what we say impacts us and others without fitting the categories listed in Point #2. It is still protected, and no law has been made to abridge what you say.
Here is where the capitalist system we live in comes into play.
Because Jimmy Kimmel is the latest to fall, let’s explore his case. We could explore other casesif necessary, but once you understand the process, you will be able to understand the others by using the same process which is follow the money.
Jimmy Kimmel Live debuted in 2003 after a Super Bowl game when viewership was high leading in. He was successful.
Successful shows from Jimmy Kimmel Live to Seinfeld to NFL games are televised to sell commercials. Shows like Gunsmoke attract commercials from AARP, Ozempic and other ads that appeal to the geriatric age group. The more people who watch any show, the higher price advertising spots can command.
I could explain more, but we all understand target marketing based on our watching comment.
Donald Trump received over 77 million votes in 2024. When anyone makes a comment which offends 77 million Americans because they can (First Amendment), the number of the people who decide not to watch drops, thus market share drops. As viewership declines, so does theprice they can ask or expect for advertising spots. This lower price causes producers not to be able to sell the show to networks, who sell into markets.
The Walt Disney Company owns a majority of ABC, but like the other networks, individual stations are owned by individual or corporate owners. Nextstar, a media conglomerate, owns 28 ABC affiliates, and it decided what Jimmy Kimmel said in a monologue at a critical time in our national political discourse did not align with their opinions and values. (That is code for makes our viewership decline) So, Nexstar decided to “preempt” Jimmy Kimmel Live on its stations for the foreseeable future, and ABC also suspended him and pulled his show indefinitely.
Kimmel’s negative sarcasm had long since driven me and many others from his viewership, so Nexstar’s actions may have been long in the making. Just the old “straw that broke the camel’s back” in action.
Now, Jimmy Kimmel had the First Amendment right to say what he said. Professors and others fired for the same thing had the right to say horrible things about the same event. They have broken no law by speaking their debased thoughts about an innocent man being murdered in front of thousands, including being children. Those people will not be arrested, jailed nor brought to trial.
They do, however, suffer the consequences of their speech while exercising their First Amendment rights.
So, all of this protestation and screams calling Kimmel and others as victims of exercising their First Amendment rights are from people who don’t understand the concept or do but choose to fool the masses. You have the right to speak your mind, but you also have the responsibility to suffer the consequences.
5) To test the “Free speech may have consequences” concept, go out and insult a big bruiser of a guy and persist until you elicit a response. There will probably be consequences as he may or may not pound your face in. He will probably face assault charges, but infringing your FirstAmendment rights will not a charge he faces.
Would you expect a McDonalds franchise owner to continue to employ a person who declares his hatred for McDonalds to every customer before asking, “Would you like fries with that”? I do as Limbaugh did by illustrating the absurd with the absurd here.
Please remember these facts before you scream someone’s First Amendment rights have been infringed upon. Rights come with responsibilities. Period, end of question. By the way, the same logic applies to transgender or crossdressing and a bunch of radical ideas that I can only hope have run their course with the replacement of liberal leadership. In the recent past, a term “cancel culture” emerged that would ruin someone truly exercising their freedom of speech.
In summation, it really is common sense, folks, although common sense is less common these days. Those who truly understand both the First Amendment and capitalism get it. I suspect some of the loudest objectors understand it as well but use the opportunity to stir up those ignorant to the law.
