By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The recent indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel due to remarks about Charlie Kirk highlights a concerning trend of stifled free speech, mirroring tactics once employed by the left. This “woke” right, led by figures like Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, is attempting to silence dissent, often using the same justification previously used by social justice activists. Unlike past crackdowns, this effort lacks widespread support and a clear mandate, relying instead on fear and intimidation. Ultimately, this MAGA-driven cultural control is doomed to fail, as it lacks the cultural backing of previous periods of moral panic, and the First Amendment will continue to be challenged but never destroyed.
Read the original article here
Trump Is Going to Lose the War on Free Speech.
The core idea here is that Trump, despite his efforts, is ultimately destined to fail in his attempts to control or suppress free speech. This belief stems from a variety of factors, including the inherent American values of freedom and liberty, the potential for public resistance, and the recognition that his tactics are, at best, a short-term strategy.
A critical point is the understanding of how Trump operates. He’s perceived as someone who uses tactics of pressure and intimidation, like attacking media outlets he dislikes, and attempting to influence businesses into compliance. This goes hand-in-hand with attempts to undermine the independence of regulatory bodies like the FCC. He’s not playing a fair game. It is also crucial to understand that corporations like Disney are playing a dangerous game, motivated by the desire for profit and willing to compromise on free speech to achieve it. This partnership creates a dangerous situation where the lines between free speech and corporate interests become blurred.
The argument continues by emphasizing the importance of public action. Waiting for courts, Congress, or lawsuits to fix things is not good enough. The real power lies with individuals, and the suggestion is to use our voices, our wallets, and our engagement. This includes contacting representatives, boycotting companies that don’t support free speech, and promoting awareness.
The response also points out a deeper trend, one where the right is embracing tactics previously used to criticize the left. It’s a warning about how the very foundations of democracy are being chipped away by the consistent undermining of free speech. There is skepticism regarding the ability of the legal system or even elections to stand in Trump’s way.
The potential erosion of democracy is contrasted with the ingrained values of freedom and liberty that have long been the bedrock of American identity. A key question emerges: how will a population accustomed to freedom react to consistent repression? The answer is not immediately clear, and the outcome of this conflict will have a profound effect on the future.
The critique often focuses on the perceived ability of Trump to avoid consequences. This is evident from the lack of punishment for the former President’s actions in the past. It underscores the idea that the existing systems are not equipped to hold him accountable. This is a critical point, because without accountability, the war on free speech can continue with no real consequences.
There is an understanding that the threat to free speech comes from the powerful, and the suggestion is to fight back with our resources. These resources are things like our contact information, our finances, and our social media presence. The question is, can the American people effectively push back against the erosion of free speech.
There’s a recognition that the situation is complex, and the future is uncertain. The idea is that Trump can’t be stopped. But he will lose in the long run. The argument boils down to the belief that Trump’s tactics of control and censorship are ultimately doomed, and he’s going to lose his battle.