The Line Between Standards and Control: Why Speech Must Stay Free
Written by Luke, from the Middle | đ°ď¸ 4 min read
In my Monday piece, I warned about a potential over-correction from conservatives in the wake of Charlie Kirkâs assassination. Sadly, signs of that are already surfacing.
Two examples this week raised red flags, not because they came from one side or the other, but because they each chip away at a core American principle: the First Amendment. The same amendment Charlie believed in, fiercely and unapologetically.
âOnce âantisemitismâ becomes valid grounds to censor or even imprison somebody, there will be frantic efforts to label all kinds of speech as antisemitic â the same way the left labeled all kinds of statements as âracistâ to justify silencing their opposition.â
- Charlie Kirk
1. The Attorney General and the Idea of âHate Speechâ
Pam Bondi, the newly confirmed Attorney General of the United States, made headlines earlier this year when she claimed on Fox News that the Epstein âclient listâ was âsitting on my desk right now to review.â That statement ignited a frenzy. But just months later, the DOJ and FBI issued a memo saying there was no evidence of such a list or any blackmail scheme.
Now look, I donât care whether the list exists. At this point, it probably doesnât. If it did, someone wouldâve leaked it. What matters is this: using the weight of public office to feed political speculation is reckless. It disrespects the victims and undermines trust in institutions that already feel fragile.
But what came next was worse.
In a recent podcast, Bondi said the DOJ would begin investigating and prosecuting what she called âhate speechâ in response to the rhetoric surrounding Charlieâs death.
Let me be crystal clear: there is no such thing as âhate speechâ under U.S. law. There is speech, protected or not. And the Attorney General of the United States should know that.
For years, conservatives have rightly criticized the left for silencing dissent; Hunter Bidenâs laptop, the COVID lab leak theory, and the censorship efforts at the heart of Murthy v. Missouri. But now that the roles are reversed, some on the right are reaching for the same tools. The same censorship logic. The same appetite for control.
Thatâs not justice. Itâs political revenge dressed up as principle.
Has either side ever really believed in free speech? Or have they just used it as a shield when convenient and a sword when in power?
This is exactly the kind of behavior that all sides should oppose.
2. Jimmy Kimmel and the FCCâs Overreach
The second moment that caught my attention came from the media sphere.
Jimmy Kimmel made a deeply inappropriate and patently false statement following Charlieâs assassination. Nexstar, the largest owner of local TV stations in the country, announced it would preempt his show. Sinclair followed suit. Thatâs their right. Media companies can make those calls. Thatâs part of the system and it is capitalism working.
But then the FCC weighed in.
Chairman Brendan Carr threatened potential regulatory action against ABC/Disney and their affiliates. That wasnât oversight, it was a warning shot.
Yes, broadcast networks are held to a different standard than cable. Yes, they operate on public spectrum. But when a government official starts hinting at punishment for what amounts to editorial commentary, it moves from standards enforcement into political intimidation.
Because if a government can punish speech it doesnât like today, what stops it from punishing truth tomorrow?
That might sound hypothetical⌠until it isnât. Just ask James Bennet, the former editorial page editor of The New York Times. He was forced out in 2020; not for writing something controversial, but for publishing an op-ed by a sitting U.S. Senator. The piece, written by Tom Cotton, argued for using military force to restore order during riots. You can disagree with it, condemn it, debate it. But Bennet was ousted simply for running it.
That wasnât a fringe blog. That was the New York Times, the supposed cathedral of free speech and open dialogue. If even they fold under pressure for airing dissenting views, what happens when the full weight of government gets involved?
Thatâs the slippery slope. Today itâs a late-night comedian. Yesterday it was a newspaper editor. Tomorrow it could be anyone who dares to challenge the approved narrative.
The Bigger Point
Charlie Kirk was a controversial figure. He knew that. But he was never afraid of the argument. He wanted the fight of ideas, not the silencing of them.
Those trying to leverage his death to censor speech; whether through a federal agency, a DOJ crackdown, or a culture of retribution are betraying the very values he stood for.
The First Amendment is first for a reason. Itâs not there to protect polite conversation. Itâs there to protect the ugly, the offensive, the uncomfortable. Because once a country starts deciding which ideas are too dangerous to hear, itâs only a matter of time before it decides your ideas are next.
Some will argue that limits are necessary when speech becomes dangerous. I understand the instinct; but once speech is redefined by power rather than principle, the danger grows much faster. The cure becomes the disease.
Iâm not writing this because I want to. Iâm writing it because someone has to say it.
If this resonates with you, donât stay silent. Speak up; for Charlie, and for the Constitution.
You donât win arguments by silencing the other side. You win by having a better one.
And now, the rest of the story.
As historian Paul Matzko has chronicled https://thedispatch.com/article/a-new-fairness-doctrine-is-an-old/, the FCC under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used the Fairness Doctrine to target right-wing radio hosts in the 1960s. Under the advice of United Auto Workers President Walter Reuther, the Kennedy administration created a front organization to file Fairness Doctrine complaints with the FCC against anti-Kennedy broadcasters. Networks either changed their programming to comply with the FCCâs demands or pulled conservative shows off the air.
The Democratic National Committee fleshed out this strategy during the Johnson administration, with political operatives paid to covertly coordinate FCC complaints against right-wing broadcasters across the country. One station sued, and in the 1969 case Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fairness Doctrine was constitutional. Unknown to the justices was that the initial complainant to the FCC that led to that case was paid by the DNC. âThe Supreme Court had been hoodwinked by the most successful government censorship campaign of the last half century,â Matzko wrote.
And Stephen Colbert was canceled as of next year, despite being the # 1 late night show in America, after CBS caved to the governmentâs insinuation that the merger theyâre trying to seal would be blocked if Colbert werenât fired. It has become imperative that We the People stand up for our freedoms. Itâs not too lateâbut itâs getting there.