Free speech is easy to defend when we agree with the speaker. The real test comes when someone says something we find offensive, foolish or downright wrong.
That is why conservatives should pay close attention to the controversy surrounding Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr and ABC. This is not fundamentally about Jimmy Kimmel, liberal media bias or whether Americans enjoy late-night television. It is about something much more important: Should the federal government use its regulatory power to pressure broadcasters because government officials dislike what is being said on the air?
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, certainly no liberal, understood the danger immediately.
After Carr warned that broadcasters could face consequences following Kimmel’s controversial comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Cruz objected strongly. He compared Carr’s “easy way or hard way” language to something out of a mob movie.
Cruz’s larger point was common sense: Conservatives may enjoy seeing a liberal television personality put under pressure today, but what happens when political power changes hands?
Imagine a Democratic FCC chairman telling a conservative television network: Change your programming, discipline your host or your broadcast licenses may receive some special attention.
Conservatives would rightly be outraged.
The Constitution does not change depending upon which political party controls Washington.
Government retaliation against speech is dangerous whether the target is MS NOW, Fox News, ABC, a conservative radio host or a liberal comedian.
Government should not be deciding which political opinions are acceptable. It should not be rewarding friendly broadcasters and intimidating hostile ones. And it certainly should not be using licenses, investigations or regulatory reviews as political weapons.
ABC has now gone to court, arguing that the FCC’s actions were motivated, at least in significant part, by hostility toward viewpoints expressed in its programming. That allegation will have to be tested in court. But the broader constitutional principle should not require a judge to explain it to us.
Government retaliation against speech is dangerous whether the target is MS NOW, Fox News, ABC, a conservative radio host or a liberal comedian.
We have seen versions of this movie before.
For decades, conservatives complained with considerable justification about government policies that could pressure broadcasters over their programming. The old Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial public issues. Whatever its original intentions, conservatives came to understand that government supervision of “fairness” could easily become government supervision of political speech.
There is also the history of Rupert Murdoch. In the 1980s, Congress passed legislation that specifically interfered with temporary FCC waivers affecting Murdoch’s newspaper and television holdings in New York and Boston. A federal appeals court ultimately found that Congress had improperly singled him out.
The lesson should have lasted longer than one generation.
The Supreme Court expressed the principle beautifully all the way back in 1886. A law can look perfectly fair on paper yet become unconstitutional when government officials enforce it with what the Court famously called “an evil eye and an unequal hand.”
Put that into everyday language: Government cannot use neutral-looking rules to punish people it doesn’t like.
That principle applies equally to Republicans and Democrats.
There is an even simpler answer for conservatives who believe ABC, Disney or other major media organizations are hopelessly liberal.
Compete.
That is what free-market capitalism is supposed to mean.
Build better television networks. Create stronger digital platforms. Invest in newspapers. Finance filmmakers and documentary producers. Develop new streaming services. Support talented conservative journalists, comedians and commentators. And if wealthy conservatives believe an existing media company can be run better, they are perfectly free to buy shares, organize investors and attempt to acquire control through lawful market transactions.
Elon Musk bought Twitter and transformed it into X. Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post. Wealthy Americans routinely invest in media organizations because they understand the enormous influence that comes with controlling platforms and distributing ideas.
That is capitalism.
Using government regulatory power to frighten media companies is something very different.
I have spent much of my professional life in broadcasting and media. I know firsthand that broadcasters operate in a regulated environment. The public airwaves are not identical to a printing press or someone’s personal social-media account. The FCC has legitimate responsibilities involving spectrum, licensing, ownership and technical standards.
But those legitimate responsibilities make restraint even more important.
When the same government agency that regulates your license begins criticizing your political programming, every broadcaster understands the enormous imbalance of power.
That is precisely why conservatives should be especially careful.
We spent decades warning that government bureaucracies could be weaponized against people because of their politics. We cannot suddenly decide that weaponization is acceptable when our side controls the weapon.
Jimmy Kimmel can be criticized. Viewers can turn him off. Advertisers can walk away. ABC executives can fire him. Competitors can defeat him in the marketplace.
Those are all consequences of freedom.
But government intimidation is not the answer.
The First Amendment was not written to protect popular speech. Popular speech rarely needs protection. It exists precisely because unpopular, irritating and offensive speech will inevitably tempt those in power to silence it.
Today the target may be a liberal comedian.
Tomorrow it could be a conservative broadcaster.
If we believe in free speech, we must defend the principle even when we dislike the person exercising it.
And if conservatives believe liberal media organizations have too much influence, the answer is wonderfully American:
Compete with them. Outperform them. Or buy them.
Just don’t ask the government to silence them.
