The right to free speech in America stands as one of the nation’s most cherished, essential and uncontested freedoms. Enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it has long been seen as the bedrock of democracy. It protects not only popular or agreeable opinions but also controversial, offensive, or even false ones.
The debate over free speech and press freedom has intensified in the United States as the Trump administration faces criticism for steps that advocates say chill fact-based independent reporting.
The Federal Communications Commission is under fire from media-watchdog groups who accuse the agency of using its licensing authority over broadcasters to push for more favorable coverage of the White House.
Broadcasters worry that the explicit threats to their licenses could pressure editorial decisions, undermining the independence of local news outlets.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr threatened to “take action” against ABC if it did not address comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s joke about Charlie Kirk’s assassin. Afterwards Kimmel’s late night talk show was suspended.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the U.S. State Department is revoking or denying visas for foreign nationals who publicly celebrate or make light of Charlie Kirk’s death. He has asserted that people “cheering his death” are unwelcome in the country.
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau has asked consular officials to monitor social media posts to identify those “praising, rationalizing, or making light of” the killing.
Similarly, Governor Greg Abbott publicly condemned and called for disciplinary consequences for students or educators who made mocking, celebratory, or insensitive remarks about the assassination. He urged Texas State University to expel a student who mimicked Kirk’s death in a video at a vigil. He called for investigations, and possible loss of licensure, for teachers who made statements such as describing the killing of Kirk as “karma” or making disparaging social media comments.
Adding to the controversy, Attorney General Pam Bondi has publicly floated the possibility of prosecuting “hate speech.” While she frames the proposal as a way to curb incitement and protect vulnerable communities, critics warn that the definition of hate speech is subjective and open to political interpretation. In this context, civil-liberties advocates say the focus seems aimed primarily at silencing left-leaning activists and dissenting voices.
Experts have warned that punishing students, teachers, or private individuals for speech violates constitutional protections, even if it’s offensive or in poor taste.
Supporters of the administration argue that neither the FCC nor the Justice Department seeks to limit legitimate reporting or opinion, only to ensure accuracy and prevent dangerous rhetoric. Opponents counter that government actors are edging into viewpoint discrimination, threatening the First Amendment’s core promise that political speech remains protected.
Perhaps most striking is that President Trump is demanding networks, which he considers persistently biased, or that provide “bad publicity,” should face regulatory scrutiny or possibly have their broadcast licenses revoked.
Charlie Kirk, the recently assassinated founder of Turning Point USA, positioned himself as a vocal defender of free expression. He frequently asserted that even speech considered “ugly,” “gross,” or offensive should remain protected under the First Amendment. Kirk pushed back against increasing calls for speech regulation, arguing limits on speech risk silencing dissent and undermining democratic debate.
From the nation’s founding, courts and serious thinkers have emphasized that government cannot act as the arbiter of truth. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that even harmful or misleading speech is generally protected, unless it crosses into narrow exceptions such as incitement to violence, defamation, or direct threats.
Guest:
Zach Greenberg is Faculty Legal Defense/Student Association Counsel at FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression). It is a nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and advancing the fundamental rights of free speech and thought for all Americans, with a historical focus on college campuses but an expanded mission to encompass all aspects of American life. It provides legal and non-legal advocacy, challenges restrictive policies, promotes awareness, and engages in legislative reform to protect free speech, religious liberty, due process, and other civil liberties.
"The Source" is a live call-in program airing Mondays through Thursdays from 12-1 p.m. Leave a message before the program at (210) 615-8982. During the live show, call 833-877-8255, email thesource@tpr.org.
This interview will be recorded live Monday, September 22, 2025.
