Subtitle (282)
0:01There's something we need to talk about
0:03and I wouldn't be talking about this
0:05except I absolutely have the right to
0:10>> Free speech. Freedom of speech.
0:12>> In fact, in the US, we all have that
0:15right, including public figures.
0:17>> With the MAGA gang desperately trying to
0:19characterize this kid who murdered
0:22Charlie Kirk as anything other than one
0:23of them and doing everything they can to
0:26score political points from it.
0:28Following the brief suspension of Jimmy
0:29Kimmel Live after his comments on
0:31Charlie Kurt's death, some people across
0:33the political spectrum did something
0:34they don't usually do. Came to a rare
0:37agreement that the suspension of Kimmel
0:39show was excessive. The FCC's actions
0:41were out of line and this could all set
0:43a dangerous precedent for the right to
0:45free speech. Confused about that? You're
0:49>> You know, we've basically had 70 years
0:52of free speech in the United States. And
0:55before that, you know, even though the
0:56first amendment was there in the
0:58constitution, it didn't really do very
1:00>> Questions about what falls under free
1:01speech are kind of like meteor showers.
1:03They make an appearance at least once a
1:05year, probably more. But in 2025, it
1:08does feel a bit different.
1:10>> Free speech is clearly in a very fragile
1:11space right now. And you know, part of
1:13that is just because of who is running
1:18>> So, does this mean free speech is still
1:20up for debate in the US? To answer this
1:22question, let's take a look at pivotal
1:24political moments that have shaped this
1:25seemingly inalienable right and where
1:29our politics might be taking us next.
1:32>> I would simply like to say that I think
1:34this has been one of the great days of
1:40>> The civil rights movement was a defining
1:42era for free speech in America. Although
1:44free speech had been codified in the US
1:45Bill of Rights in 1791, it remained a
1:48nepulous idea for over a century. It
1:51wasn't until the 20th century that we
1:53began to see expanding protections for
1:55political speech, leading to broadening
1:57opportunities for public debate and
1:59social change. It's been in the
2:01Constitution almost since the beginning,
2:03but it really didn't actually do
2:05anything until like the 1950s or the
2:09>> This is Ian Milheiser, a lawyer and
2:11senior correspondent at Box who focuses
2:13on the Supreme Court and Constitution.
2:16>> Like why did it happen then? You know to
2:18a certain extent my answer is it was the
2:2060s man. This was the era of the civil
2:22rights movement. It was the era of the
2:24free love movement. It was the era of
2:26all kinds of things that all pointed in
2:29the same direction that we are a nation
2:31that believes in freedom and the
2:33government shouldn't be punishing people
2:35because we don't like you know the
2:37things they say some of the choices they
2:40>> This era of free love and justice was
2:42the backdrop to one of the first big
2:43Supreme Court cases that shaped modern
2:45free speech. New York Times v. Sullivan.
2:48>> New York Times v. Sullivan is the font
2:51of press freedom in the United States.
2:54This was a case where the New York Times
2:57published an ad that tried to raise
2:59money for Martin Luther King's legal
3:02>> Because of this ad, a Montgomery public
3:04official sued the newspaper, claiming
3:06that it falsely criticized southern
3:08officials for their treatment of civil
3:10rights protesters. But it was really a
3:12case of the Jim Crow government of
3:14Alabama trying to suppress the civil
3:17rights movement and prevent it from
3:18spreading its message and prevent it
3:20from raising funds. And the Supreme
3:22Court said, "No, we are going to have
3:24freedom of the press in this country.
3:25That means that the New York Times
3:27decides to publish something, even if
3:28it's a paid ad that um supports a pro-
3:31civil rights viewpoint. The government
3:34of Alabama does not get to tell them
3:35no." Led by Chief Justice Earl Warren
3:38from 1953 to 1969. Warren's court is
3:42known for expanding civil rights, civil
3:44liberties, and criminal defendants
3:45rights. The US Supreme Court's broad
3:47interpretation of free speech is part of
3:49what makes this right so unique in
3:51America. Here's Vox's senior politics
3:53correspondent Zach Bechum with more. The
3:56key thing about the US is the First
3:59way, way, way more intense and more
4:04powerful than most free speech
4:06protections of other countries.
4:08>> For example, in Germany, there are laws
4:11against Holocaust denial. In the US, not
4:15>> In the US, Holocaust denial is perfectly
4:18legal. It is widely deplored, but it is
4:21a permissible thing to say under
4:23American law. While this protection
4:25extends to hate speech, Supreme Court
4:27cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio
4:29established limits on speech that could
4:32>> This was a case about a Ku Klux Clansmen
4:35who said that there may need to be the
4:36word he used was revengeance against the
4:39president and other highranking
4:40government officials if you know they
4:42start keep pushing against white
4:44supremacy. And that is the worst type of
4:46political speech imaginable. But what
4:50the Supreme Court said was that even
4:52that awful hateful speech is protected
4:55by the first amendment because we cannot
4:58have the government deciding what sort
5:00of things people are allowed to say in
5:02the political arena. In the US, our idea
5:04of free speech is constantly teetering.
5:07>> Several businesses and organizations
5:09took action against employees for their
5:12public comments about Kirk's
5:14>> I'm a very strong person for free
5:16speech. We will absolutely target you,
5:20go after you if you are targeting anyone
5:24with hate speech, anything. And that's
5:27>> The central metaphor that has
5:28underllied, at least the Supreme Court's
5:30approach to free speech for a very long
5:32time is called the marketplace of ideas.
5:35You can have all kinds of ideas
5:36presented to you. Government doesn't get
5:38to decide what appears in the
5:39marketplace and then you get to choose
5:41which ideas you you agree with, which
5:43ideas you want to spread yourself, which
5:46ideas you want to ignore and you have a
5:49right to receive the ideas that that you
5:53know other people want want to provide
5:54to you. The gray areas come in when that
5:57speech starts to constitute something
5:59other than speech. The obvious example
6:01is a threat. If you say you're going to
6:04hurt somebody, well, that's not just a
6:06speech act. You're promising harm.
6:09You're promising to do any illegal act.
6:11The question, though, is what are those
6:13gray areas in between? A kind of speech
6:15that's so socially harmful that it
6:18should be treated more like a threat
6:20than protected political opinions.
6:22>> One of those gray areas occurred not
6:24that long ago on January 6, 2021.
6:30Following some explosive tweets from
6:32Trump, his account was at the time
6:34permanently suspended from Twitter. The
6:36reason behind the suspension, the risk
6:38of further incitement of violence.
6:41>> You have these social media platforms
6:44that are not part of the government, not
6:47democratically accountable to anybody,
6:48but they're tasked with doing or
6:51enforcing rules that might be better
6:54adjudicated by the state. Questions like
6:57when does speech cross the line into
6:58incitement? I'm not sure private actors
7:01are competent to have the power to
7:04enforce those rules so effectively.
7:06>> If they want to kick Donald Trump off
7:08Twitter, they absolutely have a
7:09constitutional right to do that. On the
7:11other hand, just because something is
7:12legal doesn't make it a good idea. Not
7:15only did it not work, but now he's back
7:17and he is resentful and he is seeking
7:20revenge. And he's seeking revenge by
7:23targeting other people's speech, by
7:25trying to kick comedians off of TV. This
7:27morning, Jimmy Kimmel off the air. The
7:30host seen leaving his studio last night
7:32after ABC announced it suspending his
7:34long-running late night show
7:37>> Following Kimmel's remarks about Kirk's
7:39assassination, FCC Chair Brendan Carr
7:41appeared on a conservative podcast
7:43describing Kimmel's comments as sick.
7:46>> I mean, look, we can do this the easy
7:47way or the hard way. these companies can
7:50find ways to change conduct and take
7:52action, frankly, uh, on Kimmel, or, you
7:56know, there's going to be additional
7:57work for the FCC ahead.
7:59>> Hours later, ABC suspended the late
8:01night show indefinitely. Celebrities, US
8:04senators, and political commentators
8:05from both sides of the aisle spoke up to
8:07criticize Kimmel's suspension. If the
8:09government gets in the business of
8:11saying we're going to ban you from the
8:14airwaves if you don't say what we like,
8:16that will end up bad for conservatives.
8:19>> It's really important to understand that
8:21the Jimmy Kimmel news is about politics.
8:25>> That's the feds telling you that they
8:27want to pass speech laws which will
8:29basically just give them the full power
8:31to go after you for wrong think.
8:34>> But you have the right to be wrong or to
8:36have any opinion you want. That's what
8:38the First Amendment is all about.
8:39>> Well, you know what my community values
8:41are, Buster? Freedom of speech.
8:43>> Our freedom to speak is what they admire
8:45most about this country. And that's
8:47something I'm embarrassed to say I took
8:49for granted until they pulled my friend
8:50Steven off the air and tried to coersse
8:53the affiliates who run our show in the
8:56cities that you live in to take my show
8:58off the air. That's not legal. That's
9:00not American. That is unamerican and is
9:066 days after the show was suspended,
9:07Jimmy Kimmel Live was back on the air.
9:10But these events that challenge the gray
9:11areas of free speech in the US will keep
9:13popping up as we grapple with more media
9:16and expansive internet and new political
9:19>> Free speech is certainly very precarious
9:21right now because we have a federal
9:23government that isn't entirely committed
9:27>> Today, the US Supreme Court stands at a
9:296 to3 Republicanappointed majority and
9:31half of the majority were appointed by
9:33President Trump. How free speech takes
9:36shape in the US largely depends on the
9:37decisions of these justices.
9:39>> The only way to make a society as
9:42diverse as the United States um work is
9:46to say that there has to be a certain
9:47amount of government neutrality about
9:49those cultural disagreements. The
9:51government doesn't get to say that
9:52people who believe this are right and
9:53people who believe that that that are
9:55wrong. And that is what the first
