Top Stories Daily Listen Now
RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "first amendment"

Panicking Trump proves he sees a real threat

The pattern is clear: Corporate billionaires who either own or are purchasing U.S. media are censoring content to support Donald Trump. Trump’s blatantly illegal carrot is the conditioning of federal contracts, mergers, licensing, tax and regulatory relief on partisan fealty. His stick? Threatening the FCC licenses of networks that criticize him.

In January, singling out left-leaning shows like Saturday Night Live, The View, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, Trump’s FCC Chairman Brendan Carr resurrected a long dormant “equal time” policy to issue new regulatory guidance requiring these shows to give “equal time” to political candidates in an election period. The rule was originally adopted in 1934, but the shows Carr is now targeting had been subject to a “news” exemption since 1959.

Despite declaring that the new regulations apply to shows “motivated by partisan purposes,” Carr is not applying them to Fox News, a blended news and entertainment network that runs 24/7 Trump propaganda. Nor is he applying them to uber-partisan right-wing talk radio, which the FCC also regulates. Instead, Carr is focusing on what he calls “left-leaning” entertainment programming.

Selective application of federal communication rules based on partisan leanings obviously violates the First Amendment. While networks could sue the FCC on First Amendment and misuse of administrative authority grounds, whether the Roberts court would rule in time for it to matter is another question.

FCC targets Talarico

On Monday, after either the FCC or corporate-owned CBS threatened legal repercussions if Stephen Colbert aired an interview with James Talarico, a Texas Democrat running for U.S. Senate, the taped interview was removed from the show. Whether CBS was directed to pull the interview or bent the knee in advance has been the subject of debate, but it’s clear the Trump administration grew concerned about Talarico in particular after he appeared on The View in early February.

Talarico, a Texas state representative, is a deeply religious Democratic lawmaker making waves with MAGA’s religious hypocrisy. He looks like a southern Baptist preacher but he sounds like a true man of faith. Taking on Trump’s far-right base, Talarico rails about the shameful gulf between the teachings of Christ and the suffering Trump is inflicting throughout the country and around the world.

A Presbyterian seminarian, Talarico has gained national attention for using his theological background to criticize Chrisian nationalism, condemning it as a “betrayal of Jesus of Nazareth,” that “worships power in the name of Christ.”

Talarico: It’s time to start flipping tables

Talarico relies on the teachings of Christ to challenge corporate interests.

He identifies the right vs. left political divide in the U.S. as deliberately orchestrated, while the true divide is top wealth vs. bottom, saying, “Billionaires want us looking left and right at each other instead of looking up at them while they pick our pockets.” The Trump oligarchy divides us “so we don’t notice they’re defunding our schools, gutting our healthcare, and cutting taxes for themselves and their rich friends. It’s the oldest strategy in the world: divide and conquer.”

He also argues that the separation of church and state protects religion by maintaining the church’s ability to speak truth to power. His opposition to a Ten Commandments bill went viral: “Maybe they should try following the Ten Commandments before mandating them.” He calls school vouchers, which move education dollars from public to corporate-owned schools, “schemes,” scams, and “welfare for the rich.”

Trump’s FCC mocks Equal Time

The equal opportunity section (315) of the Communications Act of 1934 was a good idea. It was adopted to further First Amendment freedoms by requiring all broadcast licensees to give equal coverage to all legally qualified candidates for political office.

It tracked with the Fairness Doctrine, which required, when a political opinion was aired, that both sides be presented. The Fairness doctrine was repealed under Ronald Reagan in 1987, and our country has grown more divided ever since.

The irony in watching Carr resurrect “fairness” is that Republicans have long opposed fairness in the media; the Heritage Foundation railed against the Fairness Doctrine in 1993, arguing that requiring both sides of a political argument violated free speech. Watching Carr now apply “equal time” to left-leaning talk shows while exempting right wing views makes a mockery of fairness principles that drove the law in the first place.

Giving Talarico the last word

During an interview, Joe Rogan told Talarico he should run for president. That spells escalating attempts to censor him from Trump’s FCC, so he gets the last word.

During Colbert’s interview with Talarico, which aired on YouTube, Talarico noted that the right is now “trying to control what we watch, what we say, and what we read. This is the most dangerous kind of cancel culture, the kind that comes from the top. A threat to one of our First Amendment rights is a threat to all of our First Amendment rights."

On his campaign website, Talarico writes about a barefoot rabbi who issued two overriding commandments: love God, and love your neighbor, “because there is no love of God without love of neighbor.”

“Every single person bears the image of the sacred; every single person is holy — not just the neighbors who look like me or pray like me or vote like me. 2,000 years ago, when the powerful few rigged the system, that barefoot rabbi walked into the seat of power and flipped over the tables of injustice. To those who love our country, to those who love our neighbors: It’s time to start flipping tables.”

  • Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

Trump's most lethal sidekick is hunting enemies. She can start with me

The New York Times reports that the Department of Homeland Security has sent Google (owner of YouTube), Meta (Facebook and Instagram), and other media corporations subpoenas for the names on accounts that criticize ICE enforcement. The department wants to identify Americans who oppose what it’s doing.

I’ll save them time.

***

Hello? Kristi Noem?

Robert Reich here. I hear you’re trying to find the names of people who are making negative comments on social media about ICE enforcement.

Look no further. I’ve done it frequently. I’m still doing it. This note to you, which I’m posting on Substack, is another example.

If you want more details, just type “Robert Reich” into an internet browser, followed by YouTube or Facebook or Instagram or X or TikTok or Reddit. Or Substack. Then type in your name, or ICE, or the Department of Homeland Security. That will give you plenty of evidence.

If you read what I’ve said, you’ll find it’s very critical. I’ve done some videos that are very critical of you and ICE, too.

Let me not mince words: I really truly believe you’re doing a sh---y job.

I’ve said and will continue to say that many of the things you and ICE are doing are unconstitutional.

For example: Pulling people out of their homes in the middle of the night without search warrants. Arresting people without giving them due process of law to defend themselves. Putting innocent people into detention camps. Not giving them adequate food or medical care. Not letting their families know where they are. Sending them out of the country to brutal prisons in other lands. Even jailing children. Arresting journalists reporting on protests against you. And murdering two innocent Americans and not allowing a full criminal investigation of those murders.

All this is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States, Madam Secretary. The federal courts keep telling you this, but you and your department keep defying the courts. This is unconstitutional, too.

You’re even violating the Constitution by sending administrative subpoenas to Google, Meta, and all the rest, seeking accounts like mine that criticize what you’re doing.

I have a right under the First Amendment to criticize you without fear of the consequences.

It’s my government, Madam Secretary. You see the possessive pronoun I’m using? My government. It’s your government because you’re a citizen of the United States, not because you’re a government official.

You and your boss are supposed to be working for me and every other American. You swore an oath. The people of the United States hired the two of you to do your jobs, which doesn’t including spying on us or jailing us or trying to intimidate us or murdering us.

I was once a Cabinet officer like you are, Madam Secretary. I had a big office like you do. I had a big staff, like you do. Taxpayers paid for all of it, as they do for everything you’re up to — except when Congress stops the funding, as they have now, because you’re doing so many despicable things.

When I was in the Cabinet, Madam Secretary, I was acutely aware of my responsibilities to the Constitution of the United States. I told myself every day that I had sworn an oath to uphold it. I worked very hard every day to fulfill that responsibility.

I’m not boasting or bragging. I merely did my duty.

I visited communities where my department’s inspectors were attempting to keep people safe, to make sure they were doing what they were supposed to be doing.

I did what federal judges told me to do.

I invited criticism of me and my department. That was an important way to get feedback on what we were doing, to learn if we were making mistakes, to improve the way we served the public. Feedback is very useful in a democracy. You might even say it’s essential to democracy.

What the hell are you doing, Madam Secretary?

Robert Reich

  • Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

This glorious freedom is poisoning Trump

Following the murder of Renee Nicole Good, Donald Trump doubled down and sent more ill-trained, masked, and lethally armed occupying forces into Minneapolis. It’s a safe bet that his efforts to ratchet up community outrage and violence will succeed sooner or later, if not in Minneapolis then somewhere else controlled by Democrats.

While it’s clear that Trump is doing everything he can to bolster and hasten his invocation of the Insurrection Act, for online gamblers betting on predictable and stupid Trump moves, it’s just a question of when it will happen.

Astute betters might predict that Trump’s declaration under the Insurrection Act is still five or six months away, closer to November, the better to cancel the midterms. But Jeffrey Epstein could return to dominate headlines any day, and Trump will indulge his compulsion to out-noise him. Also, judging from his non-stop blunders in other areas (looking at you Greenland, tariffs, and the flop in Davos), Trump will likely stumble into another strategic error by invoking the act early, while there’s still time for SCOTUS to smack it down on First Amendment grounds.

In the meantime, Trump officials are sharpening attacks against peaceful protesters, treating the First Amendment like inconvenient fiction.

Targeting Don Lemon, hiding federal policy

When former CNN news anchor Don Lemon filmed a marathon seven-hour protest at a Minneapolis church last week, Harmeet Dhillon, Trump’s Assistant Attorney General, publicly threatened him: “You (Lemon) are on notice! A house of worship is not a public forum for your protest! It is a space protected from exactly such acts by federal criminal and civil laws! Nor does the First Amendment protect your pseudo journalism of disrupting a prayer service.”

Never mind that Lemon did not select the location, organize, or even participate in the protest — it’s apparently now illegal for journalists to breathe the same air as the protesters.

On cue, other Trump officials piled on, declaring the protest an “act of hatred against Christians.” Karoline Leavitt, her signature cross blazing, announced, “President Trump will not tolerate the intimidation and harassment of Christians in their sacred places of worship. The Department of Justice has just launched a full investigation into the despicable (Don Lemon) incident that took place earlier today at a church in Minnesota.”

Leavitt’s cross must be burning a charred replica on her throat. She forgot to mention that Trump reversed the policy that prohibited ICE from attacking people at places of worship in January 2025, after that policy had been in effect for 13 years.

Since then, Trump’s green shirts have arrested, brutalized, and tackled people in churches all across America. Although most ICE attacks go unnoticed by the media, ICE attacks on or near church grounds to date include a raid on Iglesia Fuente de Vida church in the Atlanta suburbs; a raid on United Methodist church property in Charlotte; raids at Our Lady of Lourdes in San Bernadino; throughout Puerto Rico during Sunday services; on numerous church grounds throughout California (Inland Empire, Downey Memorial Christian Church, Montclair, Highland and St. Adelaide); and in Washington, D.C., where the Evangelical Lutheran Church joined the Quakers in a suit to block ICE raids in places of worship.

On a better day, the hypocrisy would be laughable. Not only is ICE attacking people in their “sacred place of worship” under Trump’s own official policy, but the location isn’t what makes it un-Christian. Dragging people out of their beds with flash-bang grenades, tackling senior citizens to the pavement, and pulling handicapped people out of their cars are only Christian acts in Lucifer’s bible.

Full out assault against the First Amendment

The DOJ’s response to Don Lemon was a warning shot to all journalists: Reporting ICE brutality will cost you.

Dhillon said: “Everyone in the protest community needs to know that the fullest force of the federal government is going to come down and prevent this from happening and put people away for a long, long time.”

Perhaps Dhillon skipped Constitutional Law, or doesn’t understand the difference between interrupting church services, which may not be protected by the First Amendment, and protesting outside a church, which is. Ratified and in effect since 1791, the First Amendment is older and wiser than MAGA (low bar), and will still be standing long after Trump is horizontal and feeding worms. Putting protestors and journalists “away for a long, long time,” is straight out of Putin’s playbook, and is not going to happen here without the Civil War Trump so desperately craves.

Multiple cases pitting freedom of speech against Trump’s “executive authority” ICE brutality are pending in the lower courts, and ICE is going to lose bigly. A recent smackdown from a Reagan-appointed judge is instructive while we wait.

'Failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution'

Last week, during a hearing over student speech on college campuses, US district judge William Young called Trump an “authoritarian,” and accused the administration of “an unconstitutional conspiracy” against the First Amendment. On Jan. 22, he issued a ruling that Trump officials had, under the law, “objectively chilled protected speech.”

Young found that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem “have failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.”

“The big problem in this case is that the Cabinet secretaries, and ostensibly, the president of the United States, are not honoring the First Amendment,” Young said.

Describing the case as one of “the most important” of his career, Young asked: “How did this happen? How could our own government, the highest officials in our government, seek to so infringe on the rights of people lawfully here in the United States? It’s fairly clear that this president believes, as an authoritarian, that when he speaks, everyone, everyone in Article II is going to toe the line absolutely.”

Here’s to American judges never toeing the line for a fascist, to journalists never pulling their punches, and to the glorious and everlasting freedom to call Trump what he is: an idiot.

  • Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

'Chilling effect': College Charlie Kirk dropped out of faces demands to silence critics

Charlie Kirk never graduated college. He also wrote a book called The College Scam: How America's Universities are Bankrupting and Brainwashing Away the Future of America's Youth.

Nonetheless, after the right-wing activist was killed last month, shot dead aged 31, administrators at the Illinois community college where he enrolled for five semesters fielded calls to both honor Kirk and discipline an employee who criticized his views, records obtained by Raw Story show.

Kirk attended Harper College in Palatine, Illinois, a northwest Chicago suburb, from 2013 to 2014, before dropping out to co-found Turning Point USA, a national student group.

On Sept. 10, Kirk was killed while speaking at a Turning Point event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

Right-wing activist and commentator Charlie Kirk Right-wing activist and commentator Charlie Kirk Right-wing activist and commentator Charlie Kirk appears at a Utah Valley University speaking event in Orem, Utah, before he was fatally shot on Sept. 10. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune via REUTERS)

In the aftermath, as conservative activists incited a wave of firings of Kirk critics, Harper’s Board of Trustees received an email from “A very concerned Father,” threatening legal action if the school didn’t consider removing an instructor who posted criticism of Kirk.

Another emailer expressed concerns about a nursing student’s posts. The message landed in the inboxes of the school’s president, provost and vice president of diversity, equity and inclusion, records obtained through an Illinois Freedom of Information Act request show.

Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, said such emails could hamper free expression.

People, he said, “may be worried about expressing their views on all sorts of topics … especially if it's a successful attempt to get someone fired or expelled or disciplined.”

Records from Harper also show an alumnus encouraging the school to establish a tribute or memorial to Kirk.

Other emails showed a professor attempting to recruit students to reactivate the school’s Turning Point chapter prior to Kirk’s death, as well as a request by a visitor to the Provost’s Office to “recruit 25 female students” for “a Charlie Kirk type of event,” which the school deflected.

“Harper students want to know that campus is a place where they can safely learn, engage with others and express themselves,” Bryan Wawzenek, a college spokesperson, told Raw Story.

“Our college remains committed to being a place where every individual is treated with dignity and where safety, belonging and civil discourse are paramount.

“In these difficult times, Harper will continue to center our mission and remain focused on fostering care, understanding and opportunity for all.”

‘Certainly not incitement’

On Sept. 15, Harper’s trustees received an email threatening legal action if the college did not investigate and “consider removing” Isaiah Carrington, a Leveraging Equity in Academia through Diversity (LEAD) Faculty Fellow and speech instructor.

A month later, Harper confirmed Carrington was still an employee but declined to comment further.

Carrington declined to comment.

In the email, a “very concerned Father” alleged Carrington posted “derogatory comments and harmful rhetoric that appear to justify violence, such as the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and persistently label[ed] individuals or groups who disagree with his views as Nazis, hate groups, or supporters of hate.”

The emailer’s name was redacted. Screenshots of Carrington’s posts were not included in the public records response.

Jeff Julian, Harper’s chief of staff and vice president of external affairs, suggested the chair of the board, Bill Kelley, reply to the email, saying the message would be forwarded to “college administration for awareness and consideration.”

A Raw Story review of Carrington’s public Facebook posts made clear he did not support Kirk’s murder but called into question Kirk’s past public comments, particularly about children watching public executions, and his history of racist remarks.

In one Sept. 11 post, Carrington shared a link to a Wired article about Kirk’s plans to discredit the Civil Rights Act.

“This is who Charlie Kirk is. I absolutely do not agree with a man being shot to death but I will not allow people to rewrite history,” Carrington wrote.

“Charlie Kirk actively fought against common sense gun laws, and literally said that passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake. If you are mourning the loss of him, then you have to acknowledge that you are also supporting his views. There is no such thing as separating the personal from the political.”

The “concerned father” alleged Carrington’s comments passed the test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, ruling that inflammatory speech intending to incite illegal action can be restricted.

Volokh disagreed.

“Nothing in [the posts] is constitutionally unprotected,” he said.

“There are some exceptions to First Amendment protection, but none of them are in play here. This is certainly not incitement.”

‘Wrong message’

Another community member emailed Harper about posts criticizing Kirk, this time from a nursing student.

Derek Leiter, dean of Harper's Health Careers Division, encouraged professors to neither respond nor reach out to the student.

“The posts included multiple derogatory remarks, including labeling people who expressed grief over his passing as ‘stupid,’ along with other content that could be interpreted as promoting hate or intolerance,” the emailer wrote.

“As someone who may or may not share the same political beliefs, I found the posts troubling — especially considering that [redacted] provide compassionate, unbiased care to people of all backgrounds and belief systems.”

The emailer claimed the student’s posts “could reflect poorly on the [nursing] program.”

Volokh said it was “not a student's duty” to represent their program in social media posts.

“There can be no obligation, given the First Amendment, for students to refrain from constitutionally protected speech because it’s not inclusive enough,” he said.

While community members have First Amendment rights to report posts, pushes for people to be fired or disciplined for criticizing Kirk are “sad,” said Zach Greenberg, faculty legal defense and student association counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

“It absolutely has a chilling effect, and it sends the wrong message on college campuses, which are supposed to be areas where free speech is zenith, where you're the most free to discuss these issues,” Greenberg said.

‘Culturally diverse’

Harper’s President, Avis Proctor, emailed colleagues the day after Kirk’s death, acknowledging the anniversary of Sept. 11 terror attacks and “pain and uncertainty … from reports of increased immigration enforcement in the Chicago area, to the tragic shooting in Utah that claimed the life of Harper alumnus Charlie Kirk.”

“My heart is heavy for his wife and two young children. While perspectives may differ, violence must never be the response to disagreement,” Proctor wrote.

“As an institution of higher education, we strive to foster civil discourse and uphold the dignity of every person. We are strongest when we engage one another with humanity. I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence and remain steadfast in our commitment to a safe, inclusive and compassionate society.”

Proctor’s message, titled “Lifting Up Our Shared Humanity Amid Immigration Challenges and Political Violence,” prompted emails of appreciation from staff.

Ilknür Ozgür, a new faculty member in Communication Arts Department, responded to Proctor’s email about ways the department could “uplift the stories” of students who historically “haven't been very socially active,” she told Raw Story.

Ozgür said raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have directly affected her students, one giving a recent speech about her uncle becoming “a viral sensation in the worst way possible” when he was wrongfully detained.

ICE took a student into custody at a nearby school, Elgin Community College, in September, making Ozgür “really proud” of her students for still coming to campus.

“It is such a powerful time to be able to hold a safe space for students to learn how to use their voice to create change,” she said.

Wawzenek said Harper students had “express[ed] concern regarding the manner in which immigration enforcement is currently being implemented in the Chicagoland area.”

“These circumstances are causing anxiety for members of the Harper community,” he added. “As such, Harper seeks to support our community with a variety of resources while communicating clearly about guidance for immigration enforcement at the college.”

Ozgür, who also runs a nonprofit, Artstillery, said she would mount a production of “Dirty Turk AKA. Dirty Immigrant” at Harper in March. The piece is based on her family's story of immigrating to Chicago and weaves in narratives from other refugee and migrant families, she said.

Ilkn\u00fcr Ozg\u00fcr Ilknür Ozgür, Harper College faculty (provided photo)

As the Trump administration has pulled billions of dollars from universities, some small colleges have kept quiet, Raw Story reported. Ozgür commended Harper for embracing diversity when diversity, equity and inclusion programs are under attack.

Calling Harper “such a rich, culturally diverse campus,” Ozgür said: “With so many college campuses losing their funding based on what they're teaching and what they're doing, I'm so proud of Harper for … not being scared.”

‘A memorial or tribute’

Harper records also show Kirk’s death prompted calls to honor him and inspired interest in events similar to debates he took to campuses across the country.

“Regardless of political views, Charlie was a nationally recognized figure whose impact reached far beyond our campus,” read an email to administrators sent on the evening of Sept. 10.

“As a Harper alumnus, he represented the diversity of thought and the real-world engagement that our institution encourages. In light of his passing, I strongly believe that Harper College should consider establishing a memorial or tribute in his honor.

“Such a gesture would not only acknowledge his connection to our college but also show that Harper respects and remembers its alumni, particularly those who have had a significant impact on public life.”

Wawzenek said: “Harper does not have any plans for a memorial or tribute at this time.”

The school’s Turning Point USA chapter has been reactivated after meeting the required threshold of seven students, Wawzenek said.

Melanie Duchaj, student engagement coordinator, said Steve Gomez, a psychology professor, had been recruiting students to the group prior to Kirk’s death, according to a Sept. 12 email.

Gomez did not respond to a request for comment.

As for the man who visited the Provost's Office to request the school’s help with recruiting female students for a “Charlie Kirk type of event,” Provost Ruth Williams said a staff member “expertly” referred the person to the school’s “Free Speech tables and that if he wanted a room to hold an event he would have to rent it.”

“She also stated we would not recruit students for him,” Williams wrote.

Greenberg said it was important for colleges to remain neutral.

“Although many people may be offended by … Charlie Kirk commentary, it remains fully protected by the First Amendment,” Greenberg said.

“In order to have a more tolerant open society, we should be accepting of a wide array of political viewpoints, including commentary about public figures like Charlie Kirk.”

UNC reinstates prof who had been suspended amid Charlie Kirk furor

UNC Chapel is immediately reinstating a professor suspended in response to a dubious link to celebrations of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

The university said in an email Friday morning that following a “threat assessment,” the university found there was no basis to conclude that Dwayne Dixon, a teaching associate professor in the Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, “poses a threat to university students, staff and faculty or has engaged in conduct that violates university policy.”

Dixon had received notification on Monday from Interim Provost James W. Dean Jr. that he was being placed on indefinite administrative leave with pay due to “recent reports and expressions of concerns regarding your alleged advocacy of politically motivated violence.”

The interim provost had also forbidden Dixon from communicating with current or former students and colleagues without prior approval from the university.

Dixon’s suspension followed a Fox News report over the previous weekend about his past association with John Brown Gun Clubs and the Silver Valley chapter of Redneck Revolt, both armed left-wing groups, in connection with flyers posted at Georgetown University that appeared to celebrate Kirk’s death. On the same day as publication of the Fox News report, Andrew Kolvet, spokesperson for Turning Point USA, the group founded by Kirk, demanded Dixon’s firing.

The flyers included the text, “Hey, fascist! Catch!” The same words were allegedly engraved in the unfired casing of one of the bullets used by Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old Utahn accused of killing Kirk. The Georgetown University flyer goes on to say: “The only political group that celebrates when Nazis die. Join the John Brown Club.”

The decision comes a day after the ACLU of North Carolina sent a letter to the university demanding Dixon’s reinstatement. The free speech organization issued an ultimatum that the university reinstate Dixon by 5 p.m. on Friday or face legal action.

“The university’s decision to place Professor Dixon on administrative leave merely because of his association with certain groups is a textbook violation of the First Amendment,” Staff Attorney Ivy Johnson wrote.

“There is nothing to suggest Professor Dixon was in any way involved with, or even aware of, the flyers distributed on Georgetown’s campus,” the letter said. “Indeed, Professor Dixon has not been affiliated with the John Brown Gun Club or Redneck Revolt since 2018.”

How a purple gender unicorn summoned the ghost of Joe McCarthy

By Laura Gail Miller, Ed.D. Candidate in Educational Organizational Learning and Leadership, Seattle University.

Texas A&M University announced the resignation of its president, Mark A. Welsh III, on Sept. 18, 2025, following a controversial decision earlier in the month to fire a professor over a classroom exchange with a student about gender identity.

The university — a public school in College Station, Texas — fired Melissa McCoul, a children’s literature professor, on Sept. 9. McCoul’s dismissal happened after a student secretly filmed video as the professor taught a class and discussed a children’s book that includes the image of a purple “gender unicorn,” a cartoon image that is sometimes used to teach about gender identity.

The student questioned whether it was “legal” to be teaching about gender identity, given President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order — which is not legally binding — that said there are only two genders, male and female.

The video went viral, triggering backlash from Republican lawmakers who called for McCoul to be fired and praised the fact that the school also demoted the College of Arts and Science’s dean and revoked administrative duties from a department head.

Texas A&M officials have said McCoul was fired because her course content was not consistent with the published course description. McCoul is appealing her firing and is considering legal action against the school.

Academic freedom advocates have condemned McCoul’s firing and say it raises questions about whether professors should be fired for addressing politically charged topics.

As a history educator researching curriculum design, civics education and generational dynamics, I study how classroom discussions often mirror larger cultural and political conflicts.

The Texas A&M case is far from unprecedented. The Cold War offers an example of another politically contentious time in American history when people questioned if and how politics should influence what gets taught in the classroom — and tried to restrict what teachers say.

Educators under suspicion

During the Cold War — a period of geopolitical tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union that came after World War II and lasted until 1991 — fears of communist infiltration spread widely across American society, including the country’s schools.

One particularly contentious period was in the late 1940s and 1950s, during what is often referred to as the McCarthy era. The era is named after Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy, a Republican who led the charge on accusing government employees and others — often without evidence — of being communists.

Beginning in the late 1940s, local school boards, state legislatures and Congress launched investigations into teachers and professors across the country accused of harboring communist sympathies. This often led to the teachers being blacklisted and fired.

More than 20 states passed loyalty oath laws requiring public employees, including educators, to swear that they were not members of the Communist Party or affiliated groups.

In California, for example, the 1950 Levering Act mandated a loyalty oath for all state employees, including professors at public universities. Some employees refused to sign the oath, and 31 University of California professors were fired.

And in New York, the Feinberg Law, approved in 1949, authorized school districts to fire teachers who were members of “subversive organizations.” More than 250 educators were fired or forced to resign under the Feinberg Law and related anti-subversion policies between 1948 and 1953.

These laws had a chilling impact on academic life and learning.

Faculty, including those who were not under investigation, and students alike avoided discussing controversial topics, such as labor organizing and civil rights, in the classroom.

This pervasive climate of censorship also made it challenging for educators to fully engage students in critical, meaningful learning.

Supreme Court steps in

By the mid-1950s, questions about the constitutionality of these laws — and the extent of professors’ academic freedom and First Amendment right to freedom of speech — reached the Supreme Court.

In one such case, 1957’s Sweezy v. New Hampshire, Louis C. Weyman, the New Hampshire attorney general, questioned Paul Sweezy, a Marxist economist, about the content of a university lecture he delivered at the University of New Hampshire.

Weyman wanted to determine whether Sweezy had advocated for Marxism or said that socialism was inevitable in the country. Sweezy refused to answer Weyman’s questions, citing his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court ruled in Sweezy’s favor, emphasizing the importance of academic freedom and the constitutional limits on state interference in university teaching.

The Supreme Court considered another case, Keyishian v. Board of Regents, in 1967. With the Cold War still ongoing, this case challenged New York’s Feinberg Law, which required educators to disavow membership in communist organizations.

In striking down the law, the court declared that academic freedom is “a special concern of the First Amendment.” The ruling emphasized that vague or broad restrictions on what teachers can say or believe create an unconstitutional, “chilling effect” on the classroom.

While these cases did not remove all political pressures on what teachers could discuss in class, they set significant constitutional limits on state efforts to regulate classroom speech, particularly at public institutions.

Recurring tensions

There are several important differences between the McCarthy era and current times.

For starters, conservative concern centered primarily on the spread of communism during the McCarthy era. Today, debates often involve conservative critiques of how topics such as gender identity, race and other cultural issues — sometimes grouped under the term “woke” — are addressed in schools and society.

Second, in the 1950s and 60s, external pressures on academic freedom often came in the form of legal mandates.

Today, the political landscape in academia is more complex and fast-paced, with pressures emanating from both the public and federal government.

Viral outrage, administrative investigations and threats to cut state or federal funding to schools can all contribute to an intensifying climate of fear of retribution that constrains educators’ ability to teach freely.

Despite these differences, the underlying dynamic between the two time periods is similar — in both cases, political polarization intensifies public scrutiny of educators.

Like loyalty oaths in the 1950s, today’s political controversies create a climate in which many teachers feel pressure to avoid contentious topics altogether. Even when no laws are passed, the possibility of complaints, investigations or firings can shape classroom choices.

Just as Sweezy and Keyishian defined the boundaries of state power in the 1950s and 60s, potential legal challenges like the appeal from the fired Texas A&M professor may eventually lead to court rulings that clarify how people’s First Amendment protections apply in today’s disputes over curriculum and teaching.

Whether these foundational protections will endure under the Supreme Court’s current and future makeup remains an open question.

Here's the real lesson of the Jimmy Kimmel saga — and it's not good for Trump's lackeys

Jimmy Kimmel was back on Tuesday night and he did not apologize. He said he wasn't trying to make a joke at the expense of a dead demagogue (not his words) but that he understood if his monologue last week about the killing of Charlie Kirk was taken by some to be "ill-timed or unclear or maybe both." Otherwise, however, he had strong words for the companies that continue to black-out his show, Nexstar and Sinclair.

"That's not American," he said. "That's un-American."

What lessons can we draw from his remarks and this entire episode?

First, that the president may seem strong, perhaps invincible, but isn’t. Like all tyrants, Donald Trump needs collaborators and opportunists who are driven by greed and ambition more than belief in the one true (maga) faith. While Trump is doing what he can to shield himself from democratic accountability (gerrymandering, for instance, and attempting to prosecute enemies), many of those collaborators and opportunists can’t. They are exposed to the heat of public opinion.

Trump used the Federal Communications Commission under Chairman Brendan Carr to bully Disney, which owns ABC — cancel the funny guy or lose your broadcast license. ABC obeyed, sparking public outrage leading to Disney losing about $6.4 billion in market value by Monday morning. By Monday afternoon, it said Kimmel was back.

Trump intimidates anyone who allows himself to be intimidated. Disney didn’t have to suspend Kimmel. It could have fought back in court, and almost certainly succeeded, against attempts by the FCC to revoke its license. It didn’t stand firm on First Amendment grounds, because it didn’t have the incentive to (though it could expect to be bullied again.) But the boycott, which triggered its losses, was all the reason it needed to restore its love of free speech.

We are seeing a similar dynamic happening throughout the regime, in which greedy, ambitious collaborators who believed Trump’s power would shield them now seem to be reassessing their position. With an eye on polls showing an increasingly unpopular president, which fuels the potential for a Democratic takeover of the House this time next year, US Attorney General Pam Bondi appears to be rethinking how far she is willing to go to break the law in Trump’s name. Thanks to the Supreme Court, he’s immune to prosecution. She, however, is not.

I think the second lesson we can draw from Jimmy Kimmel’s return is that his suspension had nothing to do with Kirk or remarks made by Kimmel about him. The demagogue’s murder was exploited cynically — by the regime and by collaborators — in order to achieve a desired outcome. None actually cared about the truth of their words, only whether those words accomplished their goals.

The regime wanted to punish dissent, so it accused Kimmel of “the sickest conduct possible” to create conditions for doing so. Brendan Carr said Kimmel “appeared to be making an intentional effort to mislead the public that Kirk’s assassin was a right-wing Trump supporter,” the AP said. Kimmel didn’t say suspect Tyler Robinson was MAGA. He said MAGA was doing everything it could to prove he wasn’t MAGA.

ABC wanted to get the regime off its back, so it caved, pointing to the grumbling of affiliate owners as reason (see below). Now that it has rediscovered its spine, however, the regime must decide whether to back off, exposing its weakness, or move forward with more threats, thus forcing ABC executives to defend their original position, perhaps this time in court, which was that nothing Kimmel said was over the line, and anyway, have you heard about this thing called free speech?

Nexstar and Sinclair, owners of a quarter of the country’s ABC stations, want something too — and are exploiting a dead demagogue to get it.

Sinclair, which is owned by an obscenely rich family, wants uniform rightwing propaganda. (It has aired programming that claims that Kirk was a prophet.) Nexstar wants Carr to sign off on a merger with another TV company, Tegna. Both Nexstar and Sinclair have said they still won’t broadcast Kimmel because of the terrible things he said about Kirk, which were not terrible things, and they know it. They are only saying they were, because they are collaborators who believe they can please Trump by strawbossing a comedian who makes fun of him.

And Kirk is just one example of exploitation. The regime, and anyone who thinks they can benefit from it, do not believe anything they say. They say they are fighting misinformation while spewing vast amounts of misinformation. They say they are combatting political violence while inspiring political violence. They say they are defending free speech and liberty while policing speech and punishing dissent.

Last week, the president suggested that unfavorable news coverage about him is “really illegal.” He told the White House press corps that “they’ll take a great story and they’ll make it bad. See, I think that’s really illegal.” He added: “Personally, you can’t have a free airwave if you’re getting free airwaves from the United States government.”

But on Jan. 20, 2025, Inauguration Day, Trump said: “After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America”

He didn’t mean a word, but his collaborators work very hard to hide that fact, and as long as they do, Trump lies keep their hold on us.

Make them feel the heat of public anger, however — make collaborators understand that their benefactor can protect them for only so long — then their behavior changes, and with that, Trump’s power wanes.

Perhaps that’s the most important takeaway from Kimmel’s comeback: that the people still have power, that the enemies of democracy aim to convince the people otherwise, and that tinfoil dictators like Trump are only as strong as the greed and ambition of those around them.

We won the battle over Jimmy Kimmel. Here's how to win the PR war with Trump

When ABC/Disney indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel, it seemed unlikely they’d reverse their decision within a week. Trump and his allies aimed to suppress not only Kimmel’s voice, but to intimidate anyone opposing them. Instead, the suspension backfired, energized the Trump opposition, and offers lessons on how to push back on the administration’s other attacks on democracy.

Let’s recount the history. After the killing of Charlie Kirk, Kimmel posted, “Can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human.” He also sent his family’s “love to the Kirks and to all the children, parents and innocents who fall victim to senseless gun violence.”

But the attacks on Kimmel didn’t mention that, focusing instead on his statement that “the MAGA gang [is] 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.”

Suspect Tyler Robinson’s parents were indeed strong Trump supporters, so he did come out of a MAGA background, even if he likely left that culture. Maybe Kimmel could have been clearer. But Kimmel’s point about the Trump team trying to score political points has only been proven more true.

Trump had already warned in July that Kimmel should be fired, after Stephen Colbert of CBS. After Kimmel’s statements following the assassination, Trump FCC head Brendan Carr threatened to fine and revoke the licenses of stations carrying Kimmel’s show, stopping just short of leaving a dead horse on the bed. Nexstar and Sinclair then jumped in saying they wouldn’t air Kimmel’s episodes, and Sinclair demanded Kimmel personally donate to Turning Point USA, Kirk’s group, and to his family. ABC/Disney caved. Vladimir Putin and his oligarchs would have be proud.

Except that Americans responded with appropriate outrage. The cancellation site of the Disney+ streaming service reportedly crashed. Late-night talk hosts and Disney stars spoke out. People demonstrated in front of Disney HQ, led by the Writer’s Guild and supported by the other film industry unions, and at ABC headquarters in NY. More than 400 actors and other entertainers, including some of the biggest names in Hollywood, signed an ACLU letter.

Grassroots reactions accelerated as progressive organizations engaged. Common Cause launched a Turn Off Disney campaign. FreePress.Net started a call-in campaign. Indivisible offered a menu of approaches, MoveOn circulated a petition. Hashtags trended: #BoycottDisney, #CancelDisneyABC, #CancelDisneyPlus, #CancelHulu,#BoycottSinclair, #IstandWithJimmyKimmel.

The pushback even crossed party lines, with Kimmel getting support from conservative-leaning comedians. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) focused on Carr’s threats of suspending licenses, saying it was “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.”

So what are the lessons for continuing to push back against Trump and all he represents? How can we make it more difficult for Trump and his allies to silence Kimmel later, or others who’d challenge them?

  • When consumer-facing companies like Disney support Trump’s agenda, they make themselves vulnerable. The boycott campaign targeted theme parks, cruises, movies, and channels like Disney+, ESPN, and Hulu. While the political right runs boycotts as well (and has threatened Disney), the company’s craven submission to Trump gave a chance to levy pressure and remind people that if they can target Kimmel, they can target anyone. We can use boycotts in other contexts as well — like the oil companies that helped pay for Trump’s election in return for his doing his best to smash renewable energy. We just need to pick effective targets where it’s straightforward to highlight their dubious actions.
  • The response built a broad coalition of fellow-citizens who were outraged, whether or not they were Kimmel fans. If we’re going to stop Trump’s attacks on democracy, it means working with people we don’t necessarily agree with. The courageous Russian dissident Alexei Navalny talked about why, when there was more space for dissent, he supported the right of Russian nationalists to protest Putin, and even helped them organize, although he found some of their views repugnant. We need to make our coalitions as broad as possible.
  • Disney caved, but Nexstar and Sinclair jumped in to lead the charge following Carr’s FCC threats. And have so far refused to put Kimmel back on. So continued pressure on them makes sense, particularly as Sinclair played a longtime role demanding that their stations air their right-wing segments and talking points. Nexstar hasn’t historically been as aggressive, but is asking Trump’s FCC to relax market concentration rules to let them merge with Tegna. Even if we can’t block the merger their actions around Kimmel lets us highlight the danger of allowing a handful of oligarchs to dominate what people see and hear. Continuing to targeting Nexstar, and Sinclair’s local stations is a way to give people a way to continue involvement, with local public protests echoing the Tesla Takedown campaigns in giving people ways to act within their own communities.
  • Culture matters, as the Trump supporters know well. Just because a high-profile entertainer comments on an issue or supports a candidate, it doesn’t automatically mean the positions of their fans will change or their candidate will win. But speaking out with passion and heart, as people did around Kimmel, can move others to act.
  • Boycotts can pressure station advertisers. Local groups can announce targets. People can find advertisers by watching local broadcasts. The Kimmel suspension even inspired a crowdsourced map where people can take pictures of TV ads and upload them with links to which advertiser and which station. Supportive congressional representatives can investigate the conversations FCC head Carr did and didn’t have related to Kimmel.

Because Kimmel was such a visible public figure, the efforts defending him were able to ride a wave of major news coverage and massive spontaneous public reactions, including by people who weren’t political junkies. But if we’re to build on this momentum, it’s going to take coalitions that act together, persist, and coordinate, instead of over-relying on spontaneous reactions or self-organizing maps. Local Seattle groups, for instance got excellent coverage for organizing a protest at their Sinclair affiliate KOMO. But when individuals launched a boycottdisneyabc.com site and listed a separate protest the next day at the same station, along with other ABC/Nextstar affiliates, literally zero people attended. Successful pushback takes both organization and individual action.

Kimmel wasn’t the only media figure targeted for questioning Kirk’s values or how the administration was using the murder to attack political enemies. MSNBC fired Matthew Dowd and the Washington Post fired columnist Karen Attiah, but they had far less presence than Kimmel, and responses so far have been limited. So lots more work remains to be done, particularly since Trump made clear at Kirk’s funeral that he’s coming after more organizations and people.

By reversing Kimmel’s suspension, however, those of us who acted got a taste of our own power. The Kirk shooting was a tragedy on multiple levels. It escalated American political violence. It gave Trump and his allies a martyr, whose death energized them with an even further sense of righteousness. It sowed a fear that if you spoke or wrote the wrong words and didn’t toe the line, you’d be a target next. But because the administration so immediately jumped to weaponize the murder against their enemies by targeting Kimmel, and because so many individuals and organizations successfully pushed back, the restoration of his slot gave the majority of Americans who oppose Trump a sense of possibility and agency — which we can carry forward. They showed that a would-be dictator can try and shut down people who disagree with him, but when enough of us act and stand together those efforts will fail.

This Dem just gave voice to the resistance

As you know, Jimmy Kimmel was suspended — before being reinstated this week — due to two factors.

One is a federal government, specifically the FCC, that is turning into the Thought Police.

The second is the cowards and quislings at Disney and ABC, who are under the illusion that they can forfeit just a little of their freedom and the Thought Police won’t eventually confiscate it all.

After Kimmel was suspended, there was an outpouring of support by artists and journalists, politicians and free-speech advocates, as well as other late-night hosts. CBS News reported that, “Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Fallon opened their late-night shows using a mix of humor, song and expressions of solidarity” with Kimmel.

Colbert’s commentary was notable. He reran the segment of Kimmel’s remarks that FCC Chairman Brendan Carr called “the sickest conduct possible.”

That segment: “The MAGA Gang [is] 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. In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”

“Given the FCC’s response, I was expecting something more provocative,” Stephen Colbert said. “That’s like hearing that Playboy has a racy new centerfold and finding out it’s just … Jimmy Kimmel.”He went further.

Colbert said it sounds like the FCC told ABC to punish Jimmy Kimmel or else.

“It feels to me shutting down this type of speech would represent a serious threat to our freedoms,” he said. “And you know who else thinks that? Brendan Carr in 2020 when he tweeted: ‘From internet memes to late-night comedians … political satire … helps hold those in power accountable. Shutting down this type of political speech — especially at the urging of those targeted or threatened by its message — would represent a serious threat to our freedoms.’”

- YouTube youtu.be

That’s good, and I think we should remain hopeful, but I think we should also be realistic. The regime has moved from being coy about its plan to punish dissent to being open about it. The New York Times reported that the president said “broadcasters risk losing licenses when hosts criticize him.” His followers are bragging. Benny Johnson, the prominent propagandist, said: “We did it for you, Charlie. And we’re just getting started.” With Kimmel, even after the reinstatement, a chill has set in.

I would now expect TV people to be looking over their shoulders, not only at the people who cut their paychecks, but to the snitches eager to rat them out. We can expect that chill to seep into their work. And that chill will likely be chilliest among people Trump already dislikes.

It’s as MSNBC’s Anthony Fisher said yesterday afternoon: “What is happening now is actual, successful, speech-chilling censorship.”

And we have seen it before.

Fisher refers to the “MAGA thought police,” a spin on the secret police force, modeled after Soviet Russia’s, featured in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. (It punishes “thoughtcrimes.”) Zack Beauchamp wrote a big piece about the “the third red scare,” a reference to the first one, in the 1920s, and the second one, in the 1950s, in which the country seemed to erupt in paranoia about Communists hiding behind every tree. This time, though, instead of the red being that of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, it’s that of the Republican Party of the United States.

And finally Jeet Heer said: “This is the biggest attack on free speech since the McCarthy era but it also has significantly less popular consensus behind it than the second Red Scare. It's being done on behalf of a minority faction led by the most unpopular president in modern history. Organizing against this can win.”

Good organizing needs good messaging. That’s why, in addition to saying what’s happening now is like what happened in the first and second Red Scares, we should dust off the old 20th-century liberal rhetoric and update it for a new kind of totalitarian regime. And I think, without really being aware of it, Ro Khanna did just that.

“This administration has initiated the largest assault on the first amendment and free speech in modern history,” the congressman said last week. “They’re making comedy illegal. Brendan Carr pressured ABC to cancel Jimmy Kimmel and Disney [which owns ABC] canceled Jimmy Kimmel, this canceling from an administration that lectured us about culture.

“That’s why today I’m introducing a motion to subpoena Brendan Carr to bring him in front of this committee to stop the intimidation of private businesses and to stand up for the First Amendment.

“Now it’s not just Brendan Carr. Attorney General Pam Bondi is prosecuting hate speech, even though hate speech is constitutionally protected and even though we’ve had so many lectures from my friends on the other side of the aisle not to prosecute hate speech.

“And then what about our vice president, the champion of free speech, as he told us during the campaign. The vice president is telling Americans to snitch on fellow Americans with offensive posts and to call their employer so they can be fired. And the vice president is threatening to prosecute political organizations that he disagrees with.

“We are Article 1 of the Constitution, not foot lackeys … It is time that we stand up for our constitutional role to defend the freedoms of Americans? People are tired of us giving our power to Donald Trump at JD Vance. We have an obligation to our constitution, not to Donald Trump at JD Vance, as they ride roughshod over the First Amendment.”

This assault isn't about Charlie Kirk

Telling the truth about a propagandist and liar has been deemed a radical act worthy of punishment. I use the case of novelist Stephen King to illustrate.

King had said Charlie Kirk, who was murdered this month, “advocated for stoning gays to death.” King was speaking the spirit of the truth, if not the precise letter of it, but was nevertheless hounded and harassed into apologizing by right-wingers who not only want to police speech but compel it. You shall honor the saintly demagogue or pay a price.

Unsurprisingly, the dragnet is widening. Last week, late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel was “suspended indefinitely.” (That probably means his show is canceled.) According to the AP, it’s because comments he “made about Charlie Kirk’s killing led a group of ABC-affiliated stations to say it would not air the show and provoked some ominous comments from a top federal regulator.”

What comments?

Before I tell you what Jimmy Kimmel said, it’s important to tell you what other people are saying he said. Why? Because it’s like a sinister game of telephone, and the farther we get from the facts of what he said, the more chances there are for the totalitarians among us to replace reality with lies, making us all liars (not to mention insane).

First, a voice from the right, Piers Morgan: “Jimmy Kimmel lied about Charlie Kirk’s assassin being MAGA. This caused understandable outrage all over America, prompted TV station owners to say they wouldn’t air him, and he’s now been suspended by his employers. Why is he being heralded as some kind of free speech martyr?”

Second, a voice from the left, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: The ABC affiliates said they would refuse “to air Kimmel’s show, they say, because the comments the late night host made on Monday night relating to the motives of the man who shot and killed Charlie Kirk wrongly suggest[ed] the killer was part of the MAGA movement. He was not.”

Morgan is wrong. Kimmel didn’t lie. Hayes is wrong, too. Jimmy Kimmel did not suggest “the killer was part of the MAGA movement.”

Here’s what he said, per the AP:

“The MAGA Gang [is] 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. In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”

Also: “Many in MAGA land are working very hard to capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk.”

See anything wrong here? I don’t.

Indeed, neither did “multiple executives” at ABC, who, according to Rolling Stone, “felt that Kimmel had not actually said anything over the line.” What they did feel, however, was fear of an unfavorable interpretation of Kimmel’s words. Rolling Stone reported that two sources said “the threat of Trump administration retaliation loomed.”

What retaliation? Hayes reported on it, as did the AP. Just before the Kimmel news broke, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, issued an open threat to ABC, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company: get rid of Jimmy Kimmel or else.

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,” Brendan Carr told maga propagandist Benny Johnson. “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.”

And with that, it’s clear this is no longer about a dead demagogue. It’s about exploiting the memory of a dead demagogue to advance the totalitarian project: to not only police speech but compel it. I expect Kimmel to follow Stephen King’s lead and apologize in time for doing something he did not do, affirming the lie and undermining the truth.

I think the union representing Kimmel’s musicians is right.

“This is not complicated,” said Tino Gagliardi, the president of the American Federation of Musicians. “Trump’s FCC identified speech it did not like and threatened ABC with extreme reprisals. This is state censorship. It’s now happening in the United States of America, not some far-off country. … This act by the Trump Administration represents a direct attack on free speech and artistic expression. These are fundamental rights that we must protect in a free society.”

But I think it’s wrong too. This is complicated.

What’s happening is not just a consequence of government thugs attacking free speech and artistic expression. It’s also the consequences of three decades of corporate consolidation and the near-total lack of antitrust law enforcement. A handful of companies now own media outlets tens of millions use. In the case of the ABC affiliates, two firms — Nexstar and Sinclair — own nearly all of them.

This results in not only an artificially narrow range of information and views, but also a vulnerability on the part of media owners faced with a belligerent government such as the current one. They can stand on free press and free speech grounds and risk the wrath of a criminal FCC, or they can play along. ABC could have chosen to interpret Kimmel’s words in his favor — he didn’t say what critics said he said. Instead, it chose to interpret his words in maga’s favor. It sacrificed Kimmel in the misbegotten hope that doing so will appease them.

It won’t.

I don’t mean ABC won’t get something for failing to take its own side in a fight. (I have no idea what it might gain.) I mean surrendering in advance won’t end well, as we have seen in countries like Hungary and Turkey, where “autocratic carrots and sticks,” as Brian Stelter put it, have led to their respective governments having near-total control of the media. No one in Hungary mocks Viktor Orbán. No one in Turkey jokes about Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. And that’s what Donald Trump wants.

Jimmy Kimmel isn’t just a comedian. To the president and MAGA faithful, he represents “the left,” which is to say, anyone who has enough independence of mind to laugh. Indeed, that might be the biggest obstacle to their hostile takeover attempt. If you have the courage to laugh at the reality of the human condition, you don’t need a strongman like Donald Trump to save you from the truth about it.

But courage, like the enforcement of antitrust law, is lacking. It’s one thing for the state to bully private enterprise. It’s another for private enterprise to roll over, because it believes rolling over is its interest.

I’ll end by quoting Dan Le Batard.

“Once you’re a coward who is extorted, the bully’s gonna keep extorting” you, the sportswriter and podcaster said. “When [ABC] gave Trump $16 million on something that [ABC News anchor George] Stephanopoulos said, they opened the doors now to all of media feeling like it needs to capitulate to a threat — and now you get dangerously close to state-run media.”

He added: “I’ve never seen, in my lifetime, America in the position it’s presently in where the media is running this kind of scared from power, as if we’re not a place where one of the chief principles is free speech.”