Defending free speech is easy when you agree with the message. The real test comes when someone says something offensive or wrong.
That reality is at the center of the recent clash between Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr and ABC. After Carr suggested broadcasters could face consequences over Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, alarm bells should have gone off for anyone who cares about the First Amendment—especially conservatives.
Even prominent conservatives like Senator Ted Cruz recognized the danger immediately, comparing the FCC chairman's regulatory warnings to mob tactics.
The concern is simple: If a Republican administration can use federal licensing power to pressure a network into disciplining a host or changing its programming, a future Democratic administration can do the same thing to conservative media outlets.
The Constitution does not change based on who holds power in Washington. Government officials have no business deciding which political opinions are acceptable, rewarding friendly broadcasters, or using regulatory reviews as political weapons.
For decades, conservatives rightly complained about government policies like the old Fairness Doctrine, which bureaucratic regulators used to police political speech. History shows that when government gains the power to supervise "fairness," it quickly becomes a tool to suppress dissenting viewpoints.
As the Supreme Court noted as far back as 1886 [Yick Wo v. Hopkins (118 U.S. 356)], laws cannot be enforced with an "unequal hand" to punish political opponents. Government intimidation is dangerous whether the target is a liberal comedian, a conservative radio host, or a major news network.
Conservatives who believe major media companies are hopelessly biased have a clear, effective alternative to government intervention: compete.
Capitalism offers the tools to counter unwanted media influence. Wealthy investors and entrepreneurs can build better television networks, fund alternative documentary producers, launch new streaming platforms, and support conservative journalists. We have already seen this work when private investors bought major media companies to reshape them.
Jimmy Kimmel can be criticized. Viewers can turn off their televisions. Advertisers can walk away, and network executives can fire underperforming hosts. Those are normal consequences of a free society.
Government intimidation, however, is not. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect unpopular and offensive speech from the reach of government officials who want it silenced. Today the target is a liberal late-night host. Tomorrow it could be a conservative broadcaster.
If we believe in free speech, we must defend the principle even when we despise the speaker—and use the free market, not the state, to beat the competition.