On the morning of September 17, 2025, I woke with a start, pounded out a column about America’s bipartisan love affair with censorship, and filed it before the coffee cooled.
Hours later, the Jimmy Kimmel story hit like a cymbal crash: ABC pulled “Jimmy Kimmel Live” indefinitely after the F.C.C. chair blasted his monologue about the politics surrounding Charlie Kirk’s killing and publicly hinted at regulatory “remedies.” Affiliates fell in line.
I stared at my draft and thought: good grief, this is exactly the moment I’m writing about—when powerful people decide speech is too risky to tolerate. This isn’t about whether Kimmel is funny. I’m a 2013 “Colbert Report” person.
Taste isn’t the issue—power is. At all levels of government, from officials of both the Democratic and Republican parties, we are seeing the same anti-speech reflex play out.
Pam Bondi, the conservative U.S. attorney general, and Marqueece Harris-Dawson, the liberal president of the Los Angeles City Council, share a dirty secret: they both want speech that’s easy to manage—and they’re willing to treat the Constitution like a dimmer switch to get there. Different jerseys, same play: manage the message.
Bondi’s move is national. She floated the idea that “hate speech” can be prosecuted and suggested the Justice Department might punish a print shop that declines to produce Charlie Kirk vigil posters. She wobbled the next day—true threats are illegal, she clarified—but the point landed. The goal isn’t law; it’s message discipline. Make people fear the microphone, and the crowd gets quieter.
Harris-Dawson’s maneuver is municipal. The council packaged a profanity ban as “decorum,” expanding the power to eject critics for the wrong words—sometimes right before a vote. Last week a deputy city attorney went further, claiming a speaker can’t “repeat herself,” as if the First Amendment comes with a punch card. Same trick, different jersey: call messy speech dangerous, then write rules to sweep it away.
The law doesn’t bend that way. The First Amendment has no “hate-speech” carve-out. Government can punish true threats and incitement; it can’t criminalize insults. And here in the Ninth Circuit, you remove a speaker only for actual disruption — shouting over others, refusing to yield the mic — not for viewpoint, tone, or repetition. Courts have been blunt for years: disruption means interference with the meeting, not hurt feelings. If even a crude silent gesture has drawn constitutional protection, fragile egos don’t justify a gag.
I’ve done my time at that lectern. City Hall is a raw stage for democracy: scholars with binders, neighbors with gripes, gadflies with grievances sharpened to a point. Some are rude. Some repeat. Most are brief. That’s the deal. A housekeeper on her lunch break gets a minute to confront officials who make more in a month than she does in a year. Democracy promises that minute, not elegance.
Yet the council keeps shrinking it. They dodge hearings by pulling items out of committee, batch votes, and sprint through public comment like a hotel checkout. “Decorum” becomes a magic word that turns dissent into disorder. It isn’t about safety; it’s about controlling the message.
And yes, culture echoes government. ABC’s decision came hours after the F.C.C. chair publicly leaned on broadcasters, praising affiliates that pre-empted Kimmel and urging others to “push back.” That’s not a content debate; that’s a licensing gun on the table. The instinct to “quiet the room” isn’t confined to hearing chambers. Quiet is seductive. It flatters power. It promises calm. But quiet isn’t consent.
Related Articles
Why both California and Texas are wrong — and how to fix it With right leadership, California can solve its insurance crisis We fought to end gerrymandering, so why should Latinos accept it under Prop. 50? Charlie Kirk was the greatest activist our country has seen in a generation The Associated Press shamefully smeared Charlie Kirk after his death There’s a simpler way to keep order that doesn’t trample rights: start on time. Post clear agendas. Let people speak before you vote on the items they came to discuss. Enforce even time limits. If someone truly disrupts — won’t stop, drowns out others — escort them out and move on. But don’t police content. Don’t invent a ban on “repetition” inside a sixty-second slot. Don’t pretend the cure for coarse speech is a swear jar.Bondi and Harris-Dawson both say they’re defending order. Fine — put order on the clock, not the voice. Manage meetings, not messages. The cure for raw speech has always been more speech — louder, sharper, repeated until it sinks in. If officials can’t stomach sixty seconds of discomfort, the public isn’t the problem.
Eric Preven is a Los Angeles–based writer, producer, and SoCal Journalism Award winner.
Hence then, the article about eric preven the bipartisan war on free speech was published today ( ) and is available on The Orange County Register ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Eric Preven: The bipartisan war on free speech )
Also on site :