Sorah Emory, Campus Carrier reporter
Recent events in the United States, such as the short suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show in September and teachers being fired after making comments on Charlie Kirk’s death, have highlighted changing interpretations and applications of the First Amendment of the Constitution, particularly regarding freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one of the core principles of the Constitution. Current affairs are making people question in what ways the First Amendment rights are being upheld today.
The most notable event that highlights this question would be the recent suspension of the popular live television show “Jimmy Kimmel! Live!” by American Broadcasting Company (ABC) after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) threatened to take federal action if ABC did not suspend Kimmel. From Sept. 17 – 22, the show was suspended after criticism of Kimmel’s comments on the death of conservative commentator Kirk.
The FCC, which regulates international communication via radio, cable and television, has limited authority over broadcasters’ actions. However, persuading media companies to punish speech is a direct infringement of the First Amendment.
The Kimmel incident push the bounds of government oversight, specifically pertaining to the actions taken by the FCC against Kimmel. The issue here is if the commission overstepped its authority and if that represents changing interpretations of the First Amendment today.
“Historically, we’ve been able to freely express our opinions,” Assistant Professor of Political Science Sam Call said. “A lot of people now have to be careful with the things they say, especially if they’re public facing, because that could mean they face direct or indirect repercussions from the government based on that.”
After other comedy show hosts denounced Kimmel’s suspension as censorship, concerns were raised about how the First Amendment is being defined by the Trump Administration. The way freedom of speech is interpreted by the federal government may influence policies and practices in workplaces, educational institutions and other organizations.
Call said that Berry hasn’t yet been affected by the climate surrounding speech.
“Berry has reaffirmed constantly its adherence to academic freedom,” Call said.
Though there are no direct effects on Berry, teachers in several states, such as Iowa, South Carolina and Indiana, have been fired for stating their opinions about Charlie Kirk.
The internet has become a major battleground for free speech. Social media has been affected with how it pertains to citizen’s freedom of speech. The Trump administration has targeted activists on social media in the past.
“Social media and the internet in general have created a new circumstance, a new context for speech that is complicating things,” Associate Professor of Political Science Michael Bailey said. “Through the internet, people are able to say whatever they want and find believers who can embrace them and have their own private silo niche to be able to develop their own opinions.”
Americans can freely express opinions, and this ability has changed with the development of the internet and social media. The shifting interpretation of the First Amendment by authorities might limit this freedom and may have a direct effect on many U.S. citizens who use the internet to express
their opinions.
The idea that freedom of speech could potentially be limited or restricted by the government additionally brings up the nuances of what kinds of speech are protected under the
First Amendment.
“What is understood as the kind of speech protected under that has been dramatically expanded,” Bailey said. “Compared to most other democracies, there is robust protection of speech [in the United States].”
The interpretation of the First Amendment and freedom of speech varies among presidents and political parties. Interpretations of the First Amendment by government officials consistently influence how Americans exercise this right and recent events have raised doubts about the extent to which this right is being upheld or restricted.