By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump has asserted that television networks airing critical commentary of him should have their licenses revoked, suggesting the FCC should take action. These remarks were made on Air Force One, amid the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel Live! following comments the host made about a conservative influencer’s murder. The comments have sparked concerns about freedom of speech and the press, with critics, including former President Obama and legal scholars, condemning the threats. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson has defended the president’s position, while various figures have called for FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s resignation, and Kimmel is yet to comment publicly.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump Says Late Night Shows Aren’t Allowed to Mock Him, and that’s quite the statement, isn’t it? It immediately raises eyebrows because, well, isn’t that the job of late-night comedy? To take shots at the powerful? To skewer the foibles of those in charge? It seems some find his reaction rather amusing, and some outright outrageous. The general sentiment is that this is a clear sign of the “thin-skinned” nature of someone who’s often presented as a paragon of strength.
The idea of a President, any President, trying to dictate what comedians can and cannot say is frankly, laughable to many. It’s seen as antithetical to the very principles of free speech that the United States is built upon. The consensus here is that mocking the President comes with the territory. It’s part of the deal. Previous Presidents, from both sides of the aisle, have endured it, and that’s how it should be. This is a fundamental aspect of a functioning democracy: the right to criticize, the right to satirize, the right to make fun of whoever holds power.
Many people believe that this supposed restriction of speech reveals a degree of hypocrisy. After all, the same people who seemingly rally behind him are also often quite vocal in their criticisms of other politicians, using every opportunity to poke fun. The notion that the other side gets mocked but not the current administration is seen as incredibly inconsistent. If you dish it out, you have to be able to take it, goes the sentiment.
The First Amendment to the Constitution is, of course, the bedrock of this debate. It’s quite clear in its protection of free speech, regardless of content. It’s generally agreed that the government shouldn’t get to decide what can and can’t be said. This isn’t a situation where there’s a call for violence or incitement; it’s simply comedy. This is about political commentary, which is and should be protected speech. Any attempt to stifle that is seen as a direct affront to fundamental rights.
The criticisms don’t stop there. The suggestion that he is somehow too sensitive or “fragile” to handle the jokes is another recurring theme. The word “snowflake” gets tossed around, suggesting a lack of resilience and a failure to live up to the image he cultivated. The observation that he openly mocks others, yet can’t take it himself is a contradiction that does not sit well with many. It’s a case of what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander.
The comparison to other world leaders and historical figures isn’t flattering. One thought, in particular, is that if such a thing were actually to come to fruition, he’d be looked at very poorly by the history books. There is a sense of embarrassment that the leader of the free world would be perceived as so easily ruffled.
The reaction also highlights a level of disappointment with his supporters. Some wonder how they can reconcile their professed values with this perceived overreaction. The lack of consistency is a source of frustration, as many believe that the standards seem to change depending on who is being criticized.
There’s a feeling that the situation could escalate if left unchecked. A call for comedy shows to up their game in the mocking department has been suggested, some saying they would love to see the news programs themselves get in on the act.
There is a sense that this isn’t just about wounded pride. It’s about the erosion of democratic norms and the potential abuse of power. The right to criticize those in authority, even in a humorous way, is a vital check on power. The general consensus is that attempting to shut down that criticism is a dangerous path to tread.