“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” This is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Written in 1791, the amendment was designed to protect dissenters (or protestors) from government suppression — not to shield public figures from scrutiny or parody.
Jimmy Kimmel’s recent suspension from ABC, after his comments regarding the assassination of conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk, is the latest reminder that free speech in America has less to do with protecting dissent than it does with powerful people protecting their own interests. The First Amendment was written to stop the government from silencing citizens, not to give politicians and their allies immunity from late-night punchlines. Still, as Kimmel’s case indicates, cries of “free speech” often really mean: “only criticize what we say you can.”
First things first: the First Amendment is not a free pass to say whatever you want without social consequences. It limits the government’s ability to limit speech, it does not limit your boss, not Twitter, not Disney and definitely not the audience booing your insensitive jokes at open-mic night. It does not guarantee you a microphone, a Netflix comedy special or applause.
Here is what the amendment does not cover:
Hate speech that crosses into threats or harassment:
Contrary to popular belief, “hate speech” alone is not automatically illegal in the U.S. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that even offensive or disturbing speech is protected under the First Amendment. The line is crossed when words turn into true threats or incitement. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court held that speech can only be punished if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” In other words, you can say something hateful, but the moment you threaten or push others towards violence, the law steps in.
Private companies enforcing their own policies:
The First Amendment does not apply to private employers, platforms or corporations. That is why Twitter can suspend accounts, Disney can discipline actors, and Meta can set community guidelines. In fact, companies themselves have the freedom of speech, as affirmed in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). While this case is controversial, because it allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on independent political ads, the takeaway is important: if a business decides that your speech violates their code of conduct, they are allowed to take action. You may not agree with it, but it is not a violation of the First Amendment.
And here is the kicker:
Backlash is not the same as censorship. Censorship is when the government bans books, pulls shows off the air or shuts down protests. What happened to Kimmel was a decision made by his network, ABC, not the government. And while I do not agree with the suspension and believe that Kimmel should be allowed to keep his platform, he is now reinstated and the fact remains that it was not a violation of the First Amendment. If the government had stepped in to silence him, that would have crossed the line into censorship.
Ironically, the loudest cries for “free speech” usually come from people with the biggest platforms. For example, politicians often invoke “free speech” on social media platforms while dominating public discourse. Meanwhile, the amendment was built to protect dissent, protest and marginalized voices. Free speech works best when we, the people, get to use it, not when a financially and politically powerful few hoard it
Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our democracy. If we cannot critique the world around us, engage in discourse or stand up for ourselves, then are we really free? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from accountability, but it also does not mean corporations should have unchecked power to silence voices they simply find uncomfortable.
Freedom of speech is essential to democracy, but it does not guarantee protection from criticism or accountability, and it should not be used as a shield by corporations or institutions to silence voices they find inconvenient.