Kimmel’s suspension is "jawboning" by Trump administration, says free speech scholar скачать в хорошем качестве

Kimmel’s suspension is "jawboning" by Trump administration, says free speech scholar

(19 Sep 2025) RESTRICTION SUMMARY: ++VIDEO STARTS AND ENDS ON A SOUNDBITE++ ++BLACK FRAMES SEPERATE SOUNDBITES++ ASSOCIATED PRESS Washington - 19 September 2025 1. SOUNDBITE (English) Jennifer Huddleston, Free Speech Scholar, Cato Institute: "We've seen a lot of conversation recently around free speech in general. One of the most notable actions was when we saw the Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, on a podcast referencing, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. And talking a lot about comments the comedian Jimmy Kimmel had made on a late-night show. Shortly thereafter, what we saw was that ABC canceled that show. There's a lot of questions about was this a market forces reaction or was this government jawboning? And I think many free speech scholars, myself included, are greatly concerned about what this may represent in terms of government jawboning, the power of government officials to engage in a form of censorship, not necessarily by directly requiring a program be removed, but by indirectly indicating that a program is disfavored. Indicating that they may look at things like a broadcast station's licensing or other deals that a parent company may be involved in, and what the consequences of that are for free speech, free press, and for all of us in a society." ++BLACK FRAMES++ 2. SOUNDBITE (English) Jennifer Huddleston, Free Speech Scholar, Cato Institute: "In addition to the FCC comments, we saw Attorney General Bondi, saying that she would prosecute hate speech, something that doesn't exist in the U.S. as a category of speech and something that would actually go very against what Charlie Kirk had been saying. He was -- he has several comments talking about why he considers hate speech law so problematic, how they could be abused and things like that. So it is -- There is a sense of irony that when we're seeing responses to what is a great tragedy, a tragedy of political violence, during a -- during someone exercising their rights to free speech and free expression that at times we're seeing the government call to rein in those very rights of free speech and free expression." ++BLACK FRAMES++ 3. SOUNDBITE (English) Jennifer Huddleston, Free Speech Scholar, Cato Institute: ++BLACK FRAMES++ 4. SOUNDBITE (English) Jennifer Huddleston, Free Speech Scholar, Cato Institute: "Oftentimes, what we see being really difficult is that there are so many factors that go into these editorial decisions that proving that causal link to really challenge this under the First Amendment can be difficult in court. That goes to why we saw a loss in the Murthy v Missouri case, where the plaintiffs were determined not to have standing because they couldn't prove the causal link between their content being taken down and the fact that the government had pressured social media platforms to engage in certain behavior. We've also seen this come up in other contexts, though, where the court has ruled in favor of the private entity. The most notable being a recent case involving the NRA and access to various services where the courts did say 'No,' that they had a right to access the service free of government pressure to deny them in the NRA v. Vullo case. So we've seen a lot of questions of kind of where is that line drawn. And I think what has happened in this case is for many Americans, this has appeared to be very transparent. While we know this sort of political pressure, the sort of government pressure often goes on, it appears to be very clear to them the kind of we see these comments and then we see this action. That for many people appears to cross that line." Find out more about AP Archive: http://www.aparchive.com/HowWeWork Twitter:   / ap_archive   Facebook:   / aparchives   ​​ Instagram:   / apnews   You can license this story through AP Archive: http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/you...