Censorship

This piece is the offspring of CBS cancelling Steven Colbert and ABC suspending Jimmy Kimmel.

What is free speech, anyhow?  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”  To make a point of it, the Constitution only forbids Congress (or the federal government) (the 14th Amendment added state governments to who was forbidden) from abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.  But freedom of speech only protects a speaker from government prosecution, it does NOT protect him from being fired by a private corporation, for any – or no – reason at all.

CBS was within its rights to fire Steven Colbert and ABC was within its rights to suspend Jimmy Kimmel.  And the talent has no legal recourse (absent breach of contract).  Only the government can censor, but according to the Constitution they are forbidden to do so.  Private corporations are NOT bound by the terms of the Constitution.  End of subject as far as censorship is concerned.  So, Colbert suing CBS or Kimmel suing ABC is pissing in the wind.

On the other hand, a free press (i.e., the publishers/owners) has always protected its practitioners – typically journalists, in this case comedic political commentators – from (illegal but real) government attempts to censor.  The difference in these cases is that the networks’ parent companies want mergers, the permission for which was in the hands of the FCC, the head of which is Brendan Carr, who has made it abundantly clear that he is a Trump lackey and that he will not approve such mergers unless the networks kiss Donald’s a$$, uhh, ring (by firing their ferociously anti-Trump talent).

The networks have a good legal case against the FCC, against the president of the United States, for attempting to censor them (that pesky 1st Amendment again).  But would the FCC be likely, thereafter, to approve the mergers the networks’ parent companies crave?  The networks might win in court, they surely would win in the court of public opinion, but it might cost them their mergers.  Their love of money (“the root of all evil”) keeps them from doing the Right Thing.  And in any case, mergers are nearly always “in restraint of trade,” that is anti-competitive, that is anti-capitalistic, that is illegal under anti-trust rules.

Should they not bend the knee to an insecure, narcissistic, power hungry man-child (who has put the fear of God in their cowardly hearts), there is nothing that the president can legally do to them, other than sue them (and lose, if such nonsense ever came to trial) and give them a hard time.  But a bright high school junior could have the suit dismissed even before the Trump team uttered a word.

In the end, the devolution of a free press is not on the president, it is on the cowardly hearts of men who fear … what, their stock prices taking a hit?  History treats cowards poorly, brave men’s deeds “echo through eternity.”

N.B.  Everything that I have claimed above depends upon “the rule of law,” which has lately, under the Roberts’ Supreme Court, become somewhat moot.   SHAME on all cowards, cowardly CEOs not worth a dime, on cowardly SCOTUS would-be justices.

Addendum: Tuesday, 10/07/2025

I forgot to mention: is banning books in public schools a form of censorship, is banning books constitutional?

Private schools can do what they please, period.  But if you pay for your kid's education at a private school with school vouchers, which is taxpayer money returned to families with school-age children, a good case can be made that these private schools are really public schools, as they are paid for with government funds.

Onward.

As public schools are considered an arm of the government, as they are funded by government - taxpayer - dollars, they may NOT ban books, because it is a form of censorship, and censorship is unconstitutional.

OK, for starters, when is banning books NOT banning books?  Whoever, at a public school, is in charge of choosing books for a subject and a grade is, of course, in charge of selecting books.  That person may have underlying censorious reasons for choosing, or not choosing, one book or another.  But selection is never, in itself, censorship.  Next, just because you, a member of the community, want a book to be part of the school's curriculum is not a guiding principle for whoever is in charge of choosing books.  In addition, NOT allowing Charles Dickens' novel, A Tale of Two Cities, to be part of the Math curriculum is NOT censorship, it is just an inappropriate book for the subject.  Same for a textbook on Biology for 2nd graders, as it is just not appropriate for such young minds.

So, when IS banning books banning books, when is banning books censorship?  If YOU, as a person in charge of selecting books at your school, are asked by a member of the community to NOT buy a book that you intended to select and you take that book off your list, that is NOT censorship!  You may have felt pressure to cave in, but you did so "voluntarily," you were not compelled to do so.  If, OTOH, an arm of the law compels you to remove a book that you have selected, THAT is the beginning of government censorship.  If you cave in, you have no case that you were, illegally, censored.  Only if you refuse to comply, and the government takes action to compel you to comply, is there any censorship.  And a smart teenager could win your case in court.  And if they then fire you for "insubordination," you would have a legal argument to keep your job (unlike an employee of a private corporation).

In a word, banning books is illegal, unconstitutional,  But, as with so many other things, it's complicated.