Name: The messy truth about free speech
Uploaded: 2025-11-17T17:41:55.000Z
Duration: 10 min 9 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Adverbs of degree

There's something we need to talk about and I wouldn't be talking about this except I absolutely have the right to free speech.

Free speech, Free speech, free speech, free speech, freedom of speech.

Adverbs of manner

In fact, in the US we all have that right, including public figures with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to to score political points from it.

Following the brief suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live after his comments on Charlie Kurt's death, some people across the political spectrum did something they don't usually do.

Came to a rare agreement that the suspension of Kimmel show was excessive, the FCC's actions were out of line.

And this could all set a dangerous precedent for the right to free speech.

We've basically had 70 years of free speech in the United States.

And before that, you know, even though the first amendment was there constitution, it didn't really do very much.

Questions about what falls under free speech are kind of like meteor showers.

They make an appearance at least once a year, probably more.

But in 2025, it does feel a bit different.

Free speech is clearly in a very fragile space right now.

And you know, part of that is just because of who is running the government.

So does this mean free speech is still up for debate in the US to answer this question, let's take a look at pivotal political moments that have shaped this seemingly inalienable right and where our politics might be taking us next.

I would simply like to say that I think this has been one of the great days of America.

The civil rights movement was a defining era for free speech in America.

Although free speech had been codified in the U.S.

bill of Rights in 1791, it remained a nebulous idea for over a century.

It wasn't until the 20th century that we began to see expanding protections for political speech leading to broadening opportunities for public debate and social change.

It's been in the Constitution almost since the beginning, but

it really didn't actually do anything until like the 1950s or the 1960s.

This is Ian Millhiser, a lawyer and senior correspondent at Box who focuses on the Supreme Court and Constitution.

You know, to a certain extent, my answer is it was the 60s, man.

This was the era of the civil rights movement.

It was the era of the free love movement.

It was the era of all, all kinds of things that all pointed in the same direction, that we are a nation that believes in freedom.

And the government shouldn't be punishing people because we don't like, you know, the things they say, some of the choices they make.

This era of free love and justice was the backdrop to one of the first big Supreme Court cases that shaped modern free speech.

New York Times v. Sullivan is the font of press freedom in the United States.

This was a case where the New York Times published an ad that tried to raise money for Martin Luther King's legal defense fund.

Because of this ad, a Montgomery public official sued the newspaper claiming that it falsely criticized Southern officials for their treatment of civil rights protesters.

But it was really a case of the Jim Crow government of Alabama trying to suppress the civil rights movement and prevent it from spreading its message and prevent it from raising funds.

And the Supreme Court said, no, we are going to have freedom of the press in this country.

That means that the New York Times decides to publish something even if it's a paid ad that supports a pro civil rights viewpoint.

The government of Alabama does not get to tell them no.

Led by Chief Justice Earl Warren From 1953 to 1969, Warren's court is known for expanding civil rights, civil liberties and criminal defendants rights.

supreme Court's broad interpretation of free speech is part of what makes this right so unique in America.

Here's Vox's senior politics correspondent, Zack Beacham with more.

The key thing about the US Is the First Amendment is way, way, way more intense and more powerful than most free speech protections of other countries.

For example, in Germany there are laws against Holocaust denial.

In the US Holocaust denial is perfectly legal.

It is widely deplored, but it is a permissible thing to say under American law.

While this protection extends to hate speech, Supreme Court cases like Brandenburg v.

Ohio established limits on speech that could lead to violence.

This was a case about a Ku Klux Klansman who said that there may need to be.

The word he used was revengeance against the President and other high ranking government officials if they start keep pushing against white supremacy.

And that is the worst type of political speech imaginable.

But what the Supreme Court said was that even that awful hateful speech is protected by the First Amendment because we cannot have the government deciding what sort of things people are allowed to say in the political arena.

In the US Our idea of free speech is constantly teetering.

Several businesses and organizations took action against employees for their public comments about Kirk's assassination.

I'm a very strong person for free speech.

We will absolutely target you go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything, and

The central metaphor that is underlied, at least the Supreme Court's approach to free speech for a very long time is called the marketplace of ideas.

You can have all kinds of ideas presented to you.

The government doesn't get to decide what appears in the marketplace.

And then you get to choose which ideas you, you agree with, which ideas you want to spread yourself, which ideas you want to ignore.

And you have a right to receive the ideas that you know other people want to provide to you.

The gray areas come in when that speech starts to constitute something other than speech.

If you say you're going to hurt somebody, well, that's not just a speech act.

You're promising harm, you're promising to do an illegal act.

The question though is what are those gray areas in between?

A kind of speech that's so socially harmful that it should be treated more like a threat than protected political opinions.

One of those gray areas occurred not that long ago, on January 6, 2021, following some explosive tweets from Trump.

His account was at the time permanently suspended from Twitter.

The risk of further incitement of violence.

You have these social media platforms that are not part of the government, not democratically accountable to anybody, but

they're tasked with doing or enforcing rules that might be better adjudicated by the state.

Questions like when does speech cross the line into incitement?

I'm not sure private actors are competent to have the power to enforce those rules so effectively.

If they want to kick Donald Trump off Twitter, they absolutely have a constitutional right to do that.

On the other hand, just because something is legal doesn't make it a good idea.

now he's back and he is resentful and he is seeking revenge.

And he's seeking revenge by targeting other people's speech, by trying to kick comedians off of tv.

The host seen leaving his studio last night after ABC announced it suspending his long running late night show indefinitely.

Following Kimmel's remarks about Kirk's assassination, FCC chair Brendan Carr appeared on a conservative podcast describing Kimmel's comments as sick.

I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way.

These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.

Hours later, ABC suspended the late night show indefinitely.

Celebrities US Senators and political commentators from both sides of the aisle spoke up to criticize Kimmel's suspension.

If the government gets in the business of saying, we're going to ban you from the airwaves if you don't say what we like, that will end up bad for conservatives.

It's really important to understand that the Jimmy Kimmel news is about politics.

That's the feds telling you that they want to pass speech laws which will basically just give them the full power to go after you for wrong.

Think would you right to be wrong or to have any opinion you want?

That's what the First Amendment is all about.

Well, you know what my community values are, buster?

Freedom of speech, our freedom to speak is what they admire most about this country.

And that's something I'm embarrassed to say.

I took for granted until they pulled my friend Stephen off the air and tried to coerce the affiliates who run our show in the cities that you live in to take my show off the air.

Subtitles ListPlay Video

The messy truth about free speech

absolutely

majority

debate

basically