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?