> We have the first amendment and are still free to a degree you are not and will never be.

I'm not so sure about that. "It's no longer free speech [when someone criticizes the president]." [1]

This seems like it's remarkably in line with "they thought they were free" because here you are, thinking you're free. But in fact, your speech is not free because all three branches failed to protect you from this and have now signaled that this will go on.

What does it mean to have the first amendment if it's chilled like this and the only checks available are toothless? If SCOTUS were to review this and find that POTUS were wrong (itself a stretch), what remedy would they have? They would defer to the legislature who has already shown us that even in the face of an attempt to violently overthrow the legislature itself are not willing to use its power to check this demagogue.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/19/trump-no-longer-fre...

▲

ethical_source 13 hours ago | parent [-]

You have to take Trump "seriously but not literally". The government threatened to revoke a broadcast license, a right to use a limited resource for the public good. Broadcast licenses come with rules to ensure the limited resource is used for public benefit: for example, you're not allowed to broadcast profanity over the air despite profanity in general being protected speech. Nobody is denying anyone's ability to communicate over privately owned channels. What Trump meant is that a network that uses limited spectrum to broadcast nonstop partisan lies isn't operating in the public interest and doesn't deserve the license.

Consider the contrast with the 2016-2024 state and corporate effort to suppress inconvenient truths as "misinformation". Remember when they used naked, hard power to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story? That's what real censorship looks like.

In America, you can express any viewpoint on social media and be treated fairly. That wasn't the case just a few years ago.

In most of Europe, and in the UK, you can't express certain ideas. The state will literally come to your house and arrest you if you have the wrong opinions on government policy. The US does not do that.

▲

BDPW 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>In most of Europe, and in the UK, you can't express certain ideas.

This is total BS. In many European countries (the ones I know personally) this is not at all the case.

	▲	jjgreen 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Try holding a piece of paper on which is written "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action" in London.

▲

wyldfire 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because HN says I should take you seriously, I will take you seriously. I think you are uninformed. Of course, we're all aware of the limitations of over-the-air broadcasts and why there are limitations there.

> Nobody is denying anyone's ability to communicate over privately owned channels.

There's several dimensions to this that I think you are lumping in to the simplest possible explanation, because you're uninformed.

* Trump himself said "When 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it’s no longer free speech." [1]. This signals his abandonment of his oath of office, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The first amendment doesn't apply anymore when the president decides he will use the power of the presidency to retaliate against and prevent speech he does not like.

* Nexstar Media Group is attempting to acquire Tegna Inc, this merger is pending FCC approval. Look no further than the Paramount/Skydance merger - an ombudsman being installed to review content.

These actions chill free speech [2].

> You have to take Trump "seriously but not literally".

Trump means what he says. He repeatedly backs up his words with actions that reinforce them. You have to take Trump literally, if you fail to do so, you do it at your own peril.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/19/trump-no-longer-fre...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

▲

ethical_source 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> Trump himself said "When 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it’s no longer free speech

Pulling this quote out of context fits in a general pattern of demonization of Trump that goes all the way back to the "fine people" Charlottesville hoax.

What Trump meant about free speech is that once 97% of a broadcast consists of partisan attacks, the broadcaster can no longer hide beyond the fig leaf of individual commentators exercising their individual rights to free speech. A broadcast that consists of 97% demonization of a people on one side of an issue that splits the country 50-50 isn't serving the interest of the public.

Absolutely nobody is preventing anyone from being 99.9% hostile on his own infrastructure, but we're under no obligation to let this broadcaster continue using public airwaves just because it labels its propaganda as "free speech". There is no free speech right to the electromagnetic spectrum.

When Trump says "free speech" in that quote, he's using it to refer to this fig leaf of propaganda as "free speech". That's just how the man talks. Anyone who's listened to him knows what he meant.

It's precisely this form of misrepresentation that's made Americans mistrust the media and establishment more than at any time in history.

▲

wyldfire 10 hours ago | parent [-]

That is not at all the right context. You have fabricated a context that suits some legitimate intent. The president wasn't talking at all about limited spectrum and I can't believe you keep going back there.

> A broadcast that consists of 97% demonization of a people on one side of an issue that splits the country 50-50 isn't serving the interest of the public.

It's almost as if you are calling for the return of the fairness doctrine (sometimes incorrectly referred to as "equal time rule")?

In any case: criticism of the current government is absolutely the intent and purpose of the First Amendment. Demonization is not what happened. Just go ahead and watch/read what Kimmel actually said. It's not trying to demonize, it's a critique of the party in power misrepresenting the truth.

> Anyone who's listened to him knows what he meant.

I am finding it harder and harder to take you seriously. Anyone who's listened to Trump knows that he is thin skinned and abuses his power to retaliate against those who critique him. Anyone who's listened to Trump knows that he can't spell the word "spectrum" much less think about how the government should help judiciously guide civil discourse without infringing on free speech.

	▲	tolerance 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It's not trying to demonize, it's a critique of the party in power misrepresenting the truth. The truth, which was what in this case? (Bearing in mind what information about the shooter was available at the time of Kimmel’s statement). And who/what arbitrates between whether it’s demonization or criticism in this matter?

▲

Hikikomori 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Fake news? Or like Hitler called it, lugenpresse.

I was going to write more but your post is so incredibly stupid I can't believe you believe this.