| In the 233 years, nine months and four days since the First Amendment was ratified, Americans have been perfectly consistent about one thing: We misunderstand it. Seriously — nothing quite unites this country like our inability to grasp what James Madison was going on about all those years ago. For the umpteenth time in his career, Noah Feldman spells it out for us: “This principle of free speech, which traces back to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and the famous ‘clear and present danger’ test, is designed to protect political beliefs, however wrong or dangerous they may be, by separating the expression of ideas from an individual’s choice to take unlawful action.” All ideas — written, spoken or even sung — are totally fair game in this country. Only if your words carry a clear and present danger — that is, they incite someone to commit a violent crime — will you get in trouble with the authorities. “The reason for this distinction is simple, even if it is not always obvious: If the government can suppress ideas it doesn’t like, we can’t have a democratic system in which we freely debate ideas,” Noah says. Which brings us to the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination and Jimmy Kimmel’s opening monologue: We hit some new lows over the weekend 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 score political points from it.
Tell me, reader. Could any part of that quote incite imminent violence? “Wherever you stand on the accuracy of Kimmel’s comments, he was well within his rights to make them,” writes Jason Bailey. And yet, his late-night talk show has been pulled indefinitely from ABC’s schedule. Why? Turns out, it has nothing to do with violent speech and everything to do with the Trump administration’s unrelenting quest to own the libs and protect the “public interest,” a term it’s weaponizing. “The head of the FCC threatened individual broadcasters and the ABC network with fines and revocations if Kimmel continued to air,” Jason writes. “Within hours — in what could only be described as a spineless and cowardly move — the network and those broadcasters took the bait and silenced him.” This is playing out less than 90 days after Stephen Colbert’s cancellation by CBS. Jason calls the uptick in efforts to silence critical voices “breathtakingly corrupt,” and Trump shows no signs of stopping. Early Thursday, the president told reporters that late-night TV hosts were “not allowed to” criticize him and suggested that stations’ licenses should be revoked if they did. We’re used to hearing that kind of rhetoric from Hungary’s Viktor Orbán or Russia’s Vladimir Putin. But from the president of the United States? Bonus Free Speech Reading: One of the big existential questions at the center of America’s media turmoil is this: Who is there to trust anymore? If institutions like ABC and CBS are bending their knee to the president, why watch the news? Trump’s long-awaited TikTok deal presents a similar quandary, says Dave Lee. If reports are to be believed, the TikTok spinoff — uncreatively called “TikTok America” — will be mostly owned by Silver Lake and Andreessen Horowitz. ByteDance gets to keep what it wanted all along — the algorithm — and a 20% slice of the pie. “There’s a question mark over how users will react when their favorite online hangout is suddenly under new management. According to the Wall Street Journal, the US government will designate one member of TikTok’s board. It won’t take much for accusations of meddling to spread — they already do. Trump isn’t as popular on the app as he thinks he is. He’ll be even less so if there’s a perception he’s now pulling the strings.” Even if users aren’t turned off by US involvement, one wonders how the app itself will change. “Degradation of the service seems unavoidable,” writes Dave: “How will videos on TikTok America appear to the outside world and vice versa? Will US tourists be able to use TikTok while on their European vacations? What value will TikTok Global have if users in, say, the UK can’t comment and subscribe to the latest posts from America’s viral stars? How will data on all of these users remain siloed as promised?” Think about all the TikTok trends we’ve seen take flight from all over the world. Something as simple as a jacket potato rose to international stardom because of the app’s widespread reach. The cultural loss from a lack of those types of exchanges won’t be obvious at first, but it will set in eventually. “For decades, we’ve looked over with disdain at what was dubbed the Great Firewall of China, a repressive tool to keep domestic users in and the wider world out. In a period of increased isolationism, history might view this TikTok deal as the first big red brick to be placed in the Border Firewall of America,” Dave warns. | 
