By Matt Underwood Jimmy Kimmel Has Supreme Court Precedent on His Side, or at Least, He Did
Jimmy Kimmel has Supreme Court precedent on his side, specifically referencing the 1963 case *Bantam Books v. Sullivan*. This pivotal ruling established a clear boundary: governmental entities cannot employ indirect methods to suppress constitutionally protected speech. The core of this precedent rests on the idea that the government cannot coerce or intimidate private parties into censoring others. The key question is whether the government official’s actions could reasonably be understood as a threat of adverse consequences aimed at coercing a private party to punish or suppress someone else’s speech on the government’s behalf. Factors to consider include the official’s regulatory authority, the language and tone of the communications, how they were perceived, and whether they referred to adverse consequences.
However, as of this moment, the current Supreme Court’s adherence to this, and other precedents, seems to be in question. The circumstances surrounding the FCC chairman’s actions, if they involved indirect pressure or coercion against Kimmel or Disney, would likely be scrutinized under *Bantam Books v. Sullivan*. If the FCC chairman attempted to influence Disney’s decisions through veiled threats or implied consequences, that could be seen as a violation of the established precedent. In such a scenario, the correct course would have been for Disney to resist governmental overreach and to let the FCC follow whatever legal recourse they wanted.
But, there is a major asterisk that needs to be considered here. The current Supreme Court, as many people would tell you, appears to be a very different beast. The composition of the Court and the seeming willingness of some justices to overturn or disregard past rulings has led to a climate of uncertainty. The sentiment is that precedent, which should be a cornerstone of legal consistency, has been diminished, or cast aside. This is a dangerous development, as it undermines the predictability and fairness of the legal system. It leads to a situation where individuals and corporations are less able to rely on established legal principles to protect their rights.
While *Bantam Books v. Sullivan* provides a solid legal basis for Kimmel to challenge any governmental attempts to suppress his speech, the actual outcome is far from guaranteed. The Court’s evolving stance on precedent means that a case like this could be unpredictable. Also, the reality is that even with a strong legal argument and supportive precedent, the financial, temporal, and emotional costs of a legal battle can be substantial. The government often has more resources and a stronger will to fight such cases. The court system is clearly not a level playing field at the moment.
The current court, in the eyes of some, seems to operate under a different set of rules. The argument has been made that the Court is essentially acting as an arm of a particular political party, with decisions being driven more by ideology than by legal principles. In this context, legal precedent may be viewed as a mere suggestion, to be followed when convenient and discarded when it contradicts a pre-determined outcome. Many believe the court’s lack of respect for legal precedent, and this specific case, demonstrates a worrying trend towards governmental overreach and the erosion of fundamental rights.
It is important to note that, regardless of the current Supreme Court, the FCC can still be contacted. Submitting a complaint to the FCC, even if the results are questionable, can at least give one a sense of doing something. The FCC may feel discomfort.
Whether this Supreme Court gives a damn about precedent or not, we still need to acknowledge that this particular precedent, *Bantam Books v. Sullivan*, is on Kimmel’s side. If the facts of the situation point to any form of indirect government pressure to censor Kimmel, the precedent is clear: such actions are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has shown itself as not caring about precedent, but the core principle remains a legal point to be made. Kimmel has a very solid case.