This is the chilling effect of Trump (the President) suing networks who report the truth about him, and recent rhetoric by members of Congress and the DoJ about using the force of government to silence a tractors. Self-centering before fascist wanna-tator comes after you doesn’t make it not a first amendment issue.
Freedom of the press is literally the first amendment. Television is protected by the first amendment. He was suspended because right wing lunatics didn’t like his free speech. In what world does this NOT have anything to do with the first amendment? Why am I even replying to you? You obviously have no idea what free speech means.
The owner of the company can still suspend an on air personality and it’s not infringing on free speech because it’s not the government forcing that person off the air but rather the network they work for. Also free speech is specifically a congressional issue, the first amendment saying that congress can make no law stifling speech. It actually says nothing about legislative or judicial branches stopping speech. So it would specifically be that congress wrote a bill to kick him off the air. Otherwise it’s all fair game.
Sure, if you ignore the fact that CBS settled with Trump for $16 million because he didn’t like their free speech, and now they have new Trumpian leadership. You’re absolutely right they have the legal right do do what they want with their business. but the alternative is being attacked by the government again, so is that your real argument?
This has nothing to do with the first amendment.
This is the chilling effect of Trump (the President) suing networks who report the truth about him, and recent rhetoric by members of Congress and the DoJ about using the force of government to silence a tractors. Self-centering before fascist wanna-tator comes after you doesn’t make it not a first amendment issue.
Freedom of the press is literally the first amendment. Television is protected by the first amendment. He was suspended because right wing lunatics didn’t like his free speech. In what world does this NOT have anything to do with the first amendment? Why am I even replying to you? You obviously have no idea what free speech means.
You. I like you.
With limitations on broadcast TV, due to the scarcity of broadcast frequencies.
The owner of the company can still suspend an on air personality and it’s not infringing on free speech because it’s not the government forcing that person off the air but rather the network they work for. Also free speech is specifically a congressional issue, the first amendment saying that congress can make no law stifling speech. It actually says nothing about legislative or judicial branches stopping speech. So it would specifically be that congress wrote a bill to kick him off the air. Otherwise it’s all fair game.
Sure, if you ignore the fact that CBS settled with Trump for $16 million because he didn’t like their free speech, and now they have new Trumpian leadership. You’re absolutely right they have the legal right do do what they want with their business. but the alternative is being attacked by the government again, so is that your real argument?
By the letter of the law, yes. But decades of Supreme Court case law disagree with you.
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship
You never even heard of Tinker?
It’s the government forcing the network forcing the person off air.
“Congress shall make no law…”
The press is protected from the government.
It doesn’t have a thing to do with protecting employees of the press form the press
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/16/politics/video/trump-threatens-to-go-after-abc-news-reporter-digvid-vrtc
GUESS WHICH FUCKING NETWORK HOSTED KIMMEL
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-monologue-1236373708/