By any fair measure, it’s been a rough week for the First Amendment. Donald Trump, for example, said “evening shows” are “not allowed” to criticize him, and networks that give him “only bad publicity” risk losing their broadcast licenses.
Alas, we can keep going. A federal agency helped push a comedian off the air. The attorney general vowed to go after speech she considered “hate speech.” The deputy attorney general talked about a possible federal investigation into people who heckled Trump at a restaurant. Responding to a conservative reporter who said that anti-war protesters near the White House “still have their First Amendment right,” the president replied, “Yeah, well, I’m not so sure.”
With the government’s encouragement, employers have punished, suspended or fired countless Americans who talked about Kirk’s death in ways the right didn’t like. Immigrants were told that government officials would monitor their speech and, if they expressed views about Kirk’s death in ways federal agencies found objectionable, that their visas could be revoked.
If that weren’t quite enough, Politico reported, “The Pentagon’s crackdown on employees accused of mocking Charlie Kirk’s death has startled troops, who fear an increasing stranglehold on what they’re allowed to say.”
But there’s no reason to assume we’ve reached the bottom.
Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany argued on Thursday night to colleague Jesse Watters, “For all the concern about the ‘the First Amendment, the First Amendment’ — they’re apoplectic, Jesse — what about all the amendments that Charlie Kirk lost? Because Charlie Kirk has no amendments right now. None.”
I’m not altogether sure what that meant. For that matter, I’d be curious how Fox News responded if, after other deadly shootings, someone argued, “For all the concern about the ‘the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment,’ what about all the amendments that the victims lost? Because the victims have no amendments right now. None.”
But I think what McEnany was getting at is the idea that there was a tragic violent crime, which she suggested necessarily makes constitutional legal protections less important.
Those on-air comments followed an interview in which Fox News’ Martha MacCallum reminded Donald Trump that Kirk rejected the very idea of “hate speech.” The president replied, “He might not be saying that now.” Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, others on the right are thinking along similar lines. Semafor reported: In fact, some Republicans who consider themselves defenders of unfettered speech are getting more comfortable with limiting it. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., told Semafor that ‘an FCC license, it’s not a right. It really is a privilege.’ “Under normal times, in normal circumstances, I tend to think that the First Amendment should always be sort of the ultimate right,” the Wyoming Republican said. “And that there should be almost no checks and balances on it. I don’t feel that way anymore.” The far-right senator added, “I feel like something’s changed culturally. And I think that there needs to be some cognizance that things have changed. We just can’t let people call each other those kinds of insane things and then be surprised when politicians get shot and the death threats they are receiving and then trying to get extra money for security.” It’s possible that all of this is a short-term, immediate effect of a deadly tragedy, and that cooler heads will prevail in time. But it’s also possible that we’re watching a major political party, which is becoming increasingly comfortable with an authoritarian vision, fundamentally reassess its view of the First Amendment.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
