When I heard that “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” was being pulled from the air over a monologue about the late Charlie Kirk, I assumed he had said something obnoxious, a joke made in poor taste. But as I scoured the internet for the damning quip, I was confused about what part of the speech was so “sick,” to quote the Federal Communications Commission chairman.
Kimmel’s comments were mild, critiquing MAGA’s weaponization of Kirk’s death, not of his character. But under Trump’s second administration, any dissent of the President is too far.
Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, said that she “will absolutely target” people who use “hate speech.” Which as Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at Northwestern University explained, opens “the door for taking action against anyone who engages in speech that the president… doesn’t like.”
When asked what Bondi meant by an ABC correspondent, Trump answered that “she’ll probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly,” demonstrating an arbitrary interpretation of hate speech.
Hate speech is defined as an expression that “vilifies individuals or groups on the basis of such characteristics as race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation.” A criticism of a person’s actions or character does not constitute hate speech. But Trump seeks to include what he sees as the most vulnerable class in America, himself.
This month, he attempted to sue The New York Times and Penguin Random House for $15 billion over the publication of articles that Trump argues were defamatory. The judge overseeing the case threw out the suit, an 85 page document which only contained five pages of a formal allegation, saying that Trump tried to use the case as a means “to rage against an adversary.”
It is far from the first penalty Trump has tried to enact for the infraction of opposition. In August, his administration moved to fine Joshua Schroeder, a Californian lawyer, fighting a client’s deportation. Despite Schroeder’s loss in court, the President is still seeking to punish him for what he deems as a “frivolous” case against the government.
In July, he revoked funding for NPR, calling them “biased.” In February, he banned the Associative Press from the White House’s press pool because they did not refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. Currently, he is trying to sue The Wall Street Journal for reporting that he allegedly sent Jeffery Epstein a birthday letter.
As usual, Trump is using this political momentum to increase his personal wealth. This month, YouTube reached a settlement over a 2021 lawsuit where he claimed he had been censored following the insurrection. YouTube agreed to pay $24.5 million, with $22 million being dedicated toward the construction of a new ballroom.
Free speech experts have said that YouTube could have easily won the case, if taken to court, because First Amendment protections only apply to government censorship, not private companies. Tech platforms are held to a different standard, with the ability to moderate their content as they see fit. Many accounts that were previously banned for spreading misinformation and hate speech, a YouTube guideline, have been reinstated following the settlement.
Legal scholars have speculated that this settlement is influence peddling, using the lawsuit as a front to privately pay Trump and curry favor. As he limits the right to free press over his personal definition of hate speech, he has made millions from violating hate speech guidelines.
Although some of these decisions were eventually reversed, the intention is not to win every battle. These attacks are meant to scare journalists and make them think twice about what they write. Behind each word could be thousands of legal fees.
